Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 7 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 10 May 2007 (→[]: ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:17, 10 May 2007 by Radiant! (talk | contribs) (→[]: ok)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< May 6 Deletion review archives: 2007 May May 8 >

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 Misplaced Pages: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]. 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 Misplaced Pages. Unlike you Misplaced Pages masters, I had a hard time finding something to write about that didn't already exist on Misplaced Pages, 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Overturn per DGG. Well, not technically per DGG, but I think he brings up a good point about possibly looking at notability in something like jewelry. The press page of the subject in question's website has a bunch of celebrities wearing the jewelry in reliable sources (various super-notable magazines' editorials). Can a photo editorial be used a reliable source? Well, if we read the letter of the law, no. But if we look into the spirit of both the law and Misplaced Pages, the answer will most likely be "probably" or "yes." In response to the two "keep deleted" voters above me, DRV is both for evaluating if the AfD has been closed correctly and to evaluate notability if new sources are presented. And, in this case, new sources have been presented. Rockstar (/C) 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist for discussion of new evidence. While recognising the stuff in pictures would be WP:OR and would not in any case constitute a reliable source about the subject, it does look as if more sources may be available. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist I'm not a big fan of using AFD to make policy or draw up precdents but there does seem to be a worthwhile discussion to be had here. Spartaz 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse as valid close. However, feel free to recreate the article with reliable sources, applying WP:FORGET. Like JzG, I also fail to see how photographs constitute sources from which an article can be written. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn (if I get another vote) - In response to DGG, I believe that the photographs of celebs wearing his jewelry (that were published in highly notable magazines) definitely establish the importance of his jewelry. Outside of the Good Art HLYWD press page, I have had trouble finding on-line versions of the articles cited, as these magazines seem to rely on print sales for revenue (strange, I know... haha). I could upload PDFs of the articles, but that would be a violation of copyright rules. Shaunco
WireImage has quite a few photosets that include Josh Warner and various celebs wearing his work:
- Photos (Including actual jewelry)
- Photos
- Photos
- Photos
- Photos
- Photos

Abita Brewing Company (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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 Misplaced Pages 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/Category:Microbreweries

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

  • 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)
  • 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)
    • So, it received a speedy tag and was deleted 1 hour later. This article, about one of the larger craft breweries in the United States, had existed hapily on wiki for years. "Swift" deletion, of such a long-established article was entirely inapproporate, as the 1 hour from "tag" to "poof" allowed no discussion of the matter whatsoever, and no opurtunity to fix any problems that may have existed. A couple of spammy words like "pure" and "unique" can be fixed in an instant with a trivial edit. Suggesting that a "major rewrite" is necessary to fix the problem is laughable. Also, now that it has been completely wiped clean, we cannot see the reasoning behind the "speedy" tag being added in the first place. We cannot know WHO added it, or what their motives might have been. As JavaTenor points out below, the noteworthiness of the company can hardly be disputed. Fish Man 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 below? All the spammy stuff gone then, no? Fish Man 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (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 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)
    • "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)
  • Overturn. Absolutely not spammy, not G10 worthy. Those articles are for articles without a prayer for notability. I think in this case, the article should be overturned completely and the nominated for AfD if notability still isn't present within a week or two. Or just nominated right away, I don't care. Rockstar (/C) 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete Notable brewer, particularly big in New Orleans but with a considerable following nationwide. Also, the deleted version didn't read like spam (to me anyway) and did establish notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete Could be nominated for AFD afterward as suggested above, but I'm pretty sure it would survive. JavaTenor 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete And next time, perhaps allow more than an hour to go by before speedying. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no point being sniffy because the foundation had to introduce G11 to deal with the amount of free advertising that our donations are subsidising so I suggest that some of those contributors laying into the deletion chill somewhat. That said, the article is clearly notable but needs a rewrite and a severe pruning of the info box. Undelete and rewrite Spartaz 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks to the moderators for the undeletion! Perhaps this article can be spared this fate again by the addition of a couple of reference citations OTHER THAN THE COMPANY'S WEBSITE!! there are countless examples to choose from. I am too swamped to do it today, but I will do so in a day or two if no-one else has. Infobox is a standard "brewbox" that lists their active and seasonal beers (and is now accurate, something it hadn't been for awhile). What would you trim (now that it's been corrected)? I'm certianly not "sniffy" about G11 itself; G11 is necessary, to be sure. But this was an example of a gross missapplication of G11. Look at the page's history for cryin' out loud! Fish Man 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete A clear abuse of speedy deletion. --Daniel11 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • List at AfD Not clearly advertising, but I'm not sure notability can be established. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list. Unlike Jeff, I am a HUGE fan of G11, which has been extremely helpful in the ongoing fight against those who would take advantage of Misplaced Pages's high pagerank to promote their products and selves (rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia). But! This one looks like a borderline case at most, so it should be sent to AfD rather than speedied. I am far from convinced that this was or is really blatant spam, nor unsalvageable. Plus, all beers are notable ... sorry, I started channeling Homer Simpson for a moment there; ignore that last. :) --Xtifr tälk 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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 and Sony Pictures Entertainmant that there will be a Spider-Man 4. Jcollura 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Allow recreation. Yup, looks legit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Endorse deletion. There is no verifiable information, and IMDB is not a reliable source. --Coredesat 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is another source for your consideration. --Jcollura 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. Also, note that the AfD dates to over a year ago. Given that the next movie has been officially announced, I think we can start now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Anthony.bradbury. - Patricknoddy 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn or recreate. New information has been presented, by reliable sources. Sure, we're not a crystal ball if there are no sources, but in this case, we do have verifiable sources. Rockstar (/C) 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unsalt. I'm not sure what the point would be of recreating the old article, but it at least deserves an AfD now that it's confirmed. -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Recreate...there are ample sources to support a short article. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Wait until something can be written about it conclusively. I remember when viewing a Spiderman 3 article on wikipedia sourced with all this guesswork from journals and articles before it was even lighted. Most of it was speculative. So good to keep it deleted for now --Tellerman
  • Endorse deletion, future existence <> notability. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly, you're not assuming that the next installment in the record-breaking franchise would possibly be non-notable? What kind of parameter are you using? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The one that xe clearly states above, I suspect. Notability is not the same as future existence. Nor is it the same as fame and importance, as you are arguing. (You should be well aware that notability is not the same as fame and importance, by now.) Uncle G 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion but unsalt. We appear to have several sources, enough at least for a stub. I cannot see the older version of the article, but I cannot imagine that it had anything worth undeleting, since sources were surely not available before now, but now that they are, unsalting seems perfectly reasonable. Xtifr tälk 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nobody is suggesting that the article was improperly deleted. Is this the incorrect place to request that an article be unsalted or not? I certainly "endorse the deletion" that took place over a year ago as valid at the time, but this is irrelevant to the request at hand. If non-admins want to recreate this article, what's the proper venue to request that? --JayHenry 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC
    • Agree - Unsalt, but how? I agree, this article should be deleted, but not the topic, and the article (or stub) recreated to reflect factual information (confirmation by studios that movie will be made, scriptwriter has been chosen, etc). So how do we do that? --Jcollura 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Um I can see this article being a magnet for all kinds of cruft and speculation dressed up as original research and I'm positive that recreating it is going to soak up resources keeping it clean when there is still not very much to say about it. Do we have a guideline on articles about future events? If not, we could do with one. WP:FUTURE perhaps? Spartaz 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've unsalted. What to do with it now is an editorial matter, since there doesn't seem to be support that this needs to be locked out anymore. Maybe just a redirect to the future movies section of the series article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The answer to "How do we do it?" is this: User:Uncle G/Spider-Man 4. This is signifcantly different to any deleted versions of this article. For one thing, it cites sources and contains only content verifiable from those sources. (Deleted versions of the article contained all sorts of rubbish from bogus IMDB links to wholly speculative cast lists.) Feel free to rename this out of user space into article space. Uncle G 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - A studio saying "We are going to make a film" does not "confirm" the film, or negate crystal balling. Directors, cast, production start date (something more specific then Fall 2009) are what is necessary to prove that a film will be made. Look at Canceled Superman films. That was 19 years of "we are going to make a movie", and nothing happened until the success of Smallville (for the character) and Batman Begins (for rebooting of franchises). A studio can say one thing, and that one thing can fall apart in an instant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Aricle has been redirected to Spider-Man film series article but the Future of Spider-Man on Film section - still needs more work, so have at it yall! --Jcollura 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I keep reverting your retitling of the section for one reason, but on two counts:Redundancy. "Future of Spider-Man"...are we talking about anyone else on the page? and "Spider-Man on film"...the entire article is about the "film series" so its redundant to repeat the medium. "Future" is simple and covers it all: which is the future of the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Page is now protected as a redirect to Spider-Man films#Future. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

List of current BBC newsreaders (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of current BBC newsreaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

When this article was proposed for deletion several people said it should be kept as it was handy to have a quick reference to the newsreaders who presented the BBC News bulletins, with them all listed together on one page. However, the page BBC National News page already has a quick reference to the main BBC One news presenters, and so that means this page has no actual useful information, so I feel it should be deleted Boy1jhn 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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)

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

What Radiant says makes sense, although I definitely support listification. --Martian.knight 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder though then about the existence of Category:Arab mathematicians. --Martian.knight 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
  • Endorse per Radiant. Ethnicity categories such as this are not allowed. Guy's examples show it all. Bulldog123 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • endorse as per Guy and Radiant. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Endorse per Radiant, but I do note that there is a List of African-American mathematicians, so I would also support Listification. --After Midnight 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endore per Radiant and support listification. - Patricknoddy 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse per above. Category has also had some issues with who exactly qualifies for it. As for listing, we already have List of Jewish American mathematicians. --Tellerman
    • Comment Tellerman may not realise that a high proportion of mathematicians are not American. There is no problem with who qualifies; if a reliable source says that a mathematician is Jewish, he or she belongs in the category.--20.138.246.89 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete - We've already been over the parallel reasons to undelete similar categories. For the most obvious illustration, see Category:Arab mathematicians, although of course the previous discussions on similar categories provide the underlying reasons (one can start, e.g., here). --Daniel11 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Arab" is a nationality, and we do categorize by nationality. The corresponding category would be Category:Israeli mathematicians, which is both reasonable and appropriate and is in no danger of deletion. A better equivalent to this one would be Category:Celtic mathematicians, which we don't have because we don't generally categorize by ethnicity! Xtifr tälk 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What a nonsense Arab is not a nationality- where is this state Arab? Arab is as loose a term as european. I cannot see what harm having Jewish mathematicians does so Undelete. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • If you are correct (and I don't believe you are), then we should correct the mistake by deleting that category, rather than compounding the mistake by undeleting this one. See also, WP:INN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Xtifr tälk 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
          • So cleverclogs you still haven't defined when or where Arab was a nationality? Arabs are just people who speak Arabic language, they are not a homogenous ethnic group and are likely much less related to each other than Jews. Jews are a diaspora that have been denied a state for two thousand years- why should peoples who have a state be able to say- these are our mathematicians, architects, writers but not peoples who have been denied a state by force? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, I was thinking of the Arab Empire, but that appears to be a disambiguation page. So perhaps the Arab mathematician category should be deleted. (Or renamed to Category:Abbasid mathematicians, as in the history of mathematics, the Abbasids are probably second only to the Ancient Greeks in importance.) But anyway, so what? This still isn't relevant to the current debate. Basically, you're engaging in special pleading for this ethnic group. All members have had nationalities! My people, the Celts, are also being denied their own special categories, and being forced into categorization by nationality. I don't see a problem with that. (Nor do I agree that Jews are a homogenous ethnic group; far from it.) In fact, what I see is a violation of our neutral point of view policy in claiming that this ethnic group is so special that it needs/deserves to be treated differently from other ethnic groups. If you really believe that's true, you should take it to WP:RFC, as it's not a matter for deletion review. For review, what we have is that this category was deleted per a guideline that applies to it, which is a reason to endorse the deletion. Arguing that the Jews should be an exception to the guideline is beyond the scope of this review (and I disagree in any case). Xtifr tälk 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I think it is misleading to compare Celts to Jews- Celts is a blanket ethnic term for a group of peoples equivalent to Germanic peoples or Semitic peoples. Celts do have their own states of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany and there are occupation categories for all of those. There are also occupation categories for another stateless people, the Kurds, at Category:Kurdish people. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Celts (or even more specific subgroupings) do not have their "own" countries. Being native to Ireland does not imply being Celtic, nor does being Irish-Gaelic imply Irish nationality. The Jews "have" numerous nations; more even than the Celts, if you want to look at it that way. And if I had an article, I'd be classified as an American, not a Celt, and I'm very happy with that. Note the we do have categories for both Celtic musicians and Jewish musicians because both the Celts and Jews have strong independent musical traditions. That makes sense. But there is no Celtic or Jewish style of mathematics, and so it makes no sense to have categories for Jewish or Celtic mathematicians. We don't categorize mathematicians by ethnicity! I don't know how I can put it any more clearly than that. As I say, if the Arab mathematician category offends you, nominate it for deletion, and I will happily support either removing it or renaming it to Abbasid and limiting its contents. Xtifr tälk 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no more of a French style of mathematics than there is a Jewish style, yet noboy would propose to delete Category:French mathematicians.--Newport 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Daniel11. --Smerus 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete There is abundant evidence that this is a notable intersection.--Simul8 10:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse because Cfd was almost unanimous and because Category:Arab mathematicians is treated as a nationality category. There are no categories for the separate Arab countries. It also contains mostly Medieval Arab mathematicians as part of Islamic mathematics. Not comparable. Sleep On It 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn because the CfD only related to religion whereas this is also an ethnic category.--R613vlu 11:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, the CfD was perfectly clear, and our general guidelines for ethnicity categories are exactly the same as those for religious categories, so the minor detail that this can be considered as either is completely irrelevant. The reasoning at the CfD still applies in full. (And yes, a list would be absolutely fine, especially if it will help slow these attempts at creating inappropriate ethnic categories.) Xtifr tälk 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine - then relist on CfD and make the same arguments.--R613vlu 11:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't have to make the same arguments, because those are the arguments at CfD! The guideline in question is for "religion, ethnicity and sexual preference". It's the same guideline! Saying "oh, it's covered by the second word of the guideline rather than the first so we have to start all over" is sheer nonsense! Xtifr tälk 12:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How about all the other categories of "Jewish XYZers"? Their must be a least 100 of them out there if not more? --Tom 12:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Tom regarding your opposition to all Jewish categories please think about this. Jews did not have their own state until the 1940s after 2000 years of being denied one by the Romans and the Ottomans. The idea that categories related to state and occupation are only related to the geographic area and have nothing to with self identification or a sense of belonging to a people is wrong. If you get what you want in deleting these categories there will seem to have been no Jews who did anything throughout history because they were always citizens (often not even full citizens) of various states. Is that what you want? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I never said I oppose this or any other category. I was just pointing out that there are many categories like this, that all. --Tom 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what you meant then when you said How about about all the other categories of "Jewish XYZers"? Their (sic) must be a least 100 of them out there if not more". When people say "How about XYZ" they are usually asking the reader or listener to have a look at XYZ in order to carry out an action. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Gustav, again, I was just commenting, not asking for action. Actually, the opposite if anything. If this is removed, then by the same reason we would delete all the other related categories? I don't think people want or would support that. Anyways, --Tom 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete It is absurd to argue that the arguments relating to ethnic categories are the same as to religious ones hence if you delete a religious category you must delete an ethnic one too. Make the same arguments and see if people accept them.--Newport 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Radiant clearly assessed the wishes of the community correctly.--Mike Selinker 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Such blanket statements are not accurate, this review as an example. --Martian.knight 00:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In this particular case, he did so.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Radiant! Rockstar (/C) 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete It was well established on the talk page of the deleted category that it is a highly notable intersection; the closing admin should have allowed for this, invoking WP:IAR.--Osidge 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete The original CfD did not cover ethnic categories so this category should not have been deleted. Whether it would be deleted if there had been a CfD and the same arguments had been advanced is a hypothetical question.--Runcorn 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist Per Jeff who is badly drawn - this is the danger of wholesale deletions of categories that are "by X (religion in this case)"; nothing is ever black and white. I'm don't know that this will survive a relisting, but it deserves to be discussed on its own more unique merits.A Musing 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This category was twice considered on its own merits , and on neither occasion was there anything like a consensus to delete. It would be poor procedure to allow it to be deleted as a side-effect of a different debate.--Runcorn 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete per Daniel and Newport. -- Avi 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Polk Audio (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Polk Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is half-deleted (main article deleted, talk page isn't.) Based on Google News having 67 hits within the past month , this indicates that the company is being reported by major news organizations and may have sufficient notability for Misplaced Pages. However, there may be a POV issue with the article, which may be better discussed on the article's talk page or in an AFD. Sigma 7 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - just reviewed these hits - some of these aren't related to the article in question, but in my opinion, the hits that are related are worth further review. --Sigma 7 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedily undeleted - I can't believe this even got deleted. Much more of this and I'm going to start agreeing with Badlydrawnjeff. (Then my head will explode.) One millisecond of a look at Google will tell you that this is a major contender in the audio market. POV issues with articles about large companies are generally not solved by deleting the article. FCYTravis 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete, and don't bother listing at AfD. Majorly notable electronics company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete but: from the talk page "Members of Polk Audio's marketing department regularly edit, update and maintain Polk Audio's Misplaced Pages entry." Even I might have been tempted to delete on seeing that. DGG 05:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Undelete Lexis-nexis returns 57 newspaper articles with "Polk Audio" in the title or lead paragraph. —Ocatecir 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse everything. The deleted article was unsourced spam which didn't actually make much of a claim of notability, the subject is notable and encyclopaedic, the company's own people have been engaging in WP:COI editing. Status quo looks good, article is actively being neutralised. Nothign to see here, move along please... Guy (Help!) 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep current version and keep an eye on it to ensure spam doesn't get added. The company is clearly notable within the audio industry. *** Crotalus *** 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep undeleted at this point. Another horrible speedy, this is what happens when people come up with reactionary ways to handle a spam "problem." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.