Contents

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 7: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:11, 8 May 2007

7 May 2007

Josh Warner

Josh Warner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know it is too late, as the article has been deleted, but I disagree with ALL of the reasons on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Warner. I really have no relation to Good Art HLYWD or Josh Warner. You can see all of his press mentions at the Good Art HLYWD press page[[1]]. I am a software developer for the 3rd largest software company in the world, and I would be more than happy to have any one of you email me at my work email address. I have been working hard to find references for the article and came back to add some, only to find it gone. My account is not a single-purpose account, the Josh Warner article just happens to be my first go at Wikipedia. Unlike you Wikipedia masters, I had a hard time finding something to write about that didn't already exist on Wikipedia, and since I am a jewelry collector - I figured this would be a good place to start. If anyone had bothered to read the Talk:Josh Warner page before deleting this article, you would have seen that there were about 10 users that were discussing Josh Warner. Shaunco 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. No evidence of procedural impropriety and no evidence that the AFD consensus was incorrect. Nothing has changed to invalidate the result. From the AFD discussion, it was said that the article has no reliable sources, and if so, it should have been deleted. *** Crotalus *** 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, valid AFD, and the claim of 10 users discussing the subject is incorrect as there are only three different users in the talk page's history. --Coredesat 22:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn When I said "delete" at the AfD, I said that the article made claims about the importance of his jewelry that would be notable if sourced. AsI understand it, you are now proposing that the photographs of celebrities wearing the jewelry are sources. An interesting argument, and I think worth discussing. it's clear who the people are, and in many cases the jewelry is shown clearly enough to be distinctive. Do you have sources for where the photographs were published, or are they original ones taken for promotional purposes on the site?DGG 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abita Brewing Company

Abita Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please review for "Advertising"

If this page received a "speedy" tag, it was there for an hour, tops.

I am not the original author of this article (that has been in Wikipedia relitively unchanged for at least 3 years), but I made a minor correction to it (Some "Active beers" listed that were incorrect), went to check on my edit about 1/2 hour later and POOF! the page is gone!

When I edited it 1/2 hour before, there was NO SPEEDY tag.

Also, the style of the article was nearly identical to any that might be found in this category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Microbreweries

Fish Man 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Have I ever mentioned how much I despise G11? Cache is here, doesn't read spammy, look spammy or anything, simply a well-written stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Purely for the record, this article received a {{speedy}} tag on 20.07 on 7 May, and I deleted at 21.07, same day. In accordance with my comment to the poster of this complaint, I make no comment as to the value of my decision. But the factuality is clear in the record.--Anthony.bradbury 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The spammiest part of this article was the infobox. What a monstrosity. But restore the rest of it. —Cryptic 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Disagree with Jeff. "The company brews its beer with the pure water of the artesian wells in Abita Springs.... Abita's root beer [is] unique in that it is sweetened with raw cane syrup, as opposed to sugar or corn syrup." This is spam. Not the author's fault, given that the article is apparently sourced only from the company's website. Best thing to do would be to start over using content from reliable sources independent of the company. So, endorse the deletion but allow recreation with appropriate sources. Pan Dan 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pure" kind of caught my eye, too, but not the cane syrup portion. Besides that, even if those were the problem, G11 requires a "fundamental rewrite" to qualify, which this certainly didn't need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quoted only the most spammy material above. But the entire article reads like a company resumé (because it is sourced to the company website). So it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Pan Dan 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I strongly disagree with you on that point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My edit was to whittle down the "monstrous" infobox to 6 items!! (In other words, I 200% agree with Cryptic!) Most of the "Active beers" in that box are Bull-stuff! I did not touch the article "body" in any way. My edit is not reflected in the cached version for some reason. How about simply eliminating the two sentances Pan Dan cites above? All the spammy stuff gone then, no? Fish Man 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 4

Spider-Man 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Due to the multi-record-shattering opening weekend for Spider-Man 3, it has been announced and confirmed by both Marvel Studios [2] and Sony Pictures Entertainmant [3] that there will be a Spider-Man 4. Jcollura 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Yup, looks legit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And what will this article tell us? What verifiable information is there about the film? Other than Sony saying they currently intend to make it? --pgk 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There is no verifiable information, and IMDB is not a reliable source. --Coredesat 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is another source for your consideration. --Jcollura 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Right now, all that can be reliably said is that Marvel and Sony intend to make additional sequels as a result of Spider-Man 3's box office success. That can and should be included in a paragraph in the Spider-Man 3 article. There's no reason to make an additional article that will be a stub for at least a year or so. Wait to make a new article until there's something substantial to put there. *** Crotalus *** 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, allow recreation when there are substantive reliable sources to make more than a stub. Crotalus' reasoning is correct. Also, press releases and interview-for-promotional-purposes fluff on websites with little or no fact-checking don't rise to the level of attributability needed for a topic to have a standalone article. Barno 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, I agree that not all the sources provided so far are great -- but what about the co-chair of Sony Entertainment Pictures telling Variety (and with regard to Hollywood, this is as reliable as it gets!) that there will definitely be a sequel? Daily Variety story. So we recreate as a fairly short article, and as more verifiable information comes forth (and obviously it will) we add to it. I'm more than willing to help write/watch it. --JayHenry 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surely we allow an article about the film when the film exists. Spiderman 5 and Spiderman 6 are also projected, but should not be articles before they achieve reality.--Anthony.bradbury 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Look at the history of Spiderman 3, it dates to 2004, just after the release of Spiderman 2 and the announcement. I suppose we should allow it as a bare stub, limited to the basic fact of the announcement, given that it's pretty much gauaranteed to grow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Anthony.bradbury. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of current BBC newsreaders (closed)

Category:Jewish mathematicians

Category:Jewish mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The category was deleted and removed from its relevant articles under a decision on Category:Mathematicians by religion. Judaism is not only a religion, but an ethnicity. This category should be considered akin to Category:Arab mathematicians. Eliyak T·C 07:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Undelete. See "Who is a Jew?" --Martian.knight 07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting point. Of course Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. However, the thing is that we categorize mathematicians by nationality as well as century, not by ethnicity. Hence we don't have Category:African-american mathematicians either, for instance. So endorse. >Radiant< 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Radiant. Do we have a Category:Asian mathematicians, Category:Black mathematiciansorCategory:Gentile mathematicians? I see we don't. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Radiant and JzG, this category is not relevant. Thryduulf 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list separately. This is not the forum to discuss how people may prefer to run categories. The argument by the nom is solid, and there's nothing to indicate that the consensus in the relevant CfD would technically apply to this category, which doesn't really fit with the assertion presented. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does fit. The argument as overcategorization by religion and ethnicity. Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity. It actually fits perfectly. Bulldog123 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Radiant. Ethnicity categories such as this are not allowed. Guy's examples show it all. Bulldog123 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse as per Guy and Radiant. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The place to discuss whether or not mathematicians are categorized by religion and ethnicity is not on a DRV page. FCYTravis 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Radiant, but I do note that there is a List of African-American mathematicians, so I would also support Listification. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polk Audio (closed)