Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grimhelm (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 26 October 2006 (→The Last Alliance website). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< October 24 October 26 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

25 October 2006

Ryan Sugden

The background is in my conversation with the closing admin:

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Sugden. The 'votes' were evenly split so this should have been a no concensus unless there was a strong balance of argument in favour of delete. This was not the case - the guy has played for Oldham Athletic in the English Football League and so meets WP:BIO as Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league ... Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.. He meets both parts of this guideline. BlueValour 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BlueValour, this was a difficult call but a clear delete based on the arguments. I always suggest a deletion review for any delete call that I make that is questioned. In my opinion, notability rested on the argument raised that he was a trainee at Oldham (where he started 5 times in 4 years) and that all of his other starts were in semi-professional leagues. This was not refuted in the AfD and was backed by the soccerbase link. The question is whether someone who was a trainee on a professional team makes the WP:BIO cut that you've summarized above. I didn't think so based on the arguments. -- Samir धर्म 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that he started as a trainee but graduated to a full member of the squad as here. Overturn. BlueValour 02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion made five appearances with Oldham, which was in 2nd division, and hence "third flight" flight as Premier League, Div1, Div2. Oldham Athletic has a stadium of 10,000 seats, pretty small, so I question whether a guy who played 5 full games is going to get enough of a contract to be described as "fully professional". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The four tiers - Premier League and three tiers of the Football League are all fully professional. It is inconceivable that someone in the squad of a third tier club would not be a full-time professional. BlueValour 03:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 03:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Votes were split evenly as noted above, which indicates a likely no consensus decision, and the subject passes WP:BIO. The trainee argument is based on the assumption that Sugden was on a trainee contract for the 4 years he was at Oldham. All the Soccerbase reference asserts is that he was a trainee when he joined, but not the length or nature of any future contracts he may have had with the club. In any case Sugden meets WP:BIO since has he played in a fully professional league. Catchpole 11:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note that Samir says that the trainee argument was not refuted in the Afd. This diff shows that it was challenged. Samir's interpretation of the Soccerbase link could lead him to think that Ryan Giggs has played over 400 games as a trainee [1]. Catchpole 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticality Podcast

I am posting to question the deletion of the entry for the community forum for Skepticality, a podcast that was #1 on iTunes for over 4 months back in 2005, and is the Official Podcast of Skeptic Society and Michael Shermer. It was deleted in December 2005 when one of the hosts was in a coma after a massive stroke in his brain. For me it clearly meets the criteria set out and the objections of notability and spamming are clearly invalid. Regarding all the claims of 'not updated' and not-popular' are incorrect. The show has been back now for more than 3 months and now has more hits and traffic than it did back when Skepticality was #1 on iTunes front back for months at a time. Starting in August 2006, the show now has massive exposure on some of the largest and most active science and critical thinking sites and blogs in the entire internet.

The most disturbing part about Skepticality having its Discussion Wiki deleted is that one of the big stated reasons was that the hosts of the show have been inactive. In 2005 one of the main hosts was in a coma for 2 months and came out of it in late November. Now, in October 2006, the once claimed 'dead' show is now back with a bang and is even sponsored by one of the most respected Science journals in the world. I say that all deleted portions to do with Skepticality be restored to glory.

The most disturbing part about Skepticality having its Discussion Wiki deleted is that one of the big stated reasons was that the hosts of the show have been inactive. In 2005 one of the main hosts was in a coma for 2 months and came out of it in late November. Now, in October 2006, the once claimed 'dead' show is now back with a bang and is even sponsored by one of the most respected Science journals in the world. I say that all deleted portions to do with Skepticality be restored to glory.

  • Speedy Close There has never been an article at Skepticality Podcast. The article is now and has always been at Skepticality. The logs show no activity (moves, deletions, undeletions, protections, etc...for that page. If a logged in editor wants to make a redirect at the title including the word podcast, they might as well go ahead and do it. GRBerry 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Alliance website

I am posting to question the deletion of the entry for the Last Alliance website, a site for those followers of Games Workshops Lord of the Rings strategy battle games. It was deleted by GUY on 23rd October. For me it clearly meets the criteria set out and the objections of notability and spamming are clearly invalid. Regarding the issue of notability the site has been featured in a number of issues of an international magazine White Dwarf(which sells 80000 copies a month in the UK alone). Its administrators are consulted by Games Workshop on a regular basis and have been involved in much of the evolution of the games to the extent that they were called upon to represent Lord of the Rings gaming in a special anniversary edition of White Dwarf. The TLA has run worldwide online campaigns which have proved to be far more successful than Games Workshops own .The site currently has more than 9500 members. All of this was evidenced. As to the charge of spamming or self promotion I find this laughable. Whilst Chris and I are members of the site neither of us work for it or administrate it. To hold us responsible of spamming would be to find huge swaths of wikipedia spam. Anyone who has any involvement in a topic could be seen as spamming. If this site's wikki is deemed to be invalid might I question the following wikis on the same topics

These are all far less notable even within the gaming society, have far fewer members - one had just 56 people involved - and provide far less evidence of their worth or impact. They contain factual errors. Now please note I am not asking for the withdrawal of these sites. Merely I suggest if these have been ok then why is not The Last Alliance Website?

I understand that the first draft of the page was poor and did not meet wikipedia's standards for entries. However the final version which was that deleted clearly did meet the requirements. I feel that this entry has been the victim of editors who do not know or understand gaming and have made decisions based upon this lack of knowledge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madusmatus (talk • contribs)

This was for an article on the same theme but was pulled by the author as it was realised it did not fulfill what was required of a wiki entry. Hence this second version which does.--Madusmatus 06:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I ask again why are the other sites ok and this not? TLA has higher traffic more notability, better evidencing of history etc?

  • If you think other sites aren't notable, nominate them for deletion. However, "traffic" is not a reason I would put in favor of your site: the Alexa rating is 1 million, which means there are nearly as many sites more popular than yours as there are Wikipedia articles in total. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is traffic the main consideration as to whether a subject should be allowed on to wiki - where then the obscure and the trivia? Again I do not question the other sites right to be there. I merely suggest that they exist doing what TLA does but less. Therefore I question the rejection of TLA

  • Endorse deletion, valid per process and policy. As to the question "where then the obscure and the tricvia" - the answer to that is somewhere else. Guy 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow theres a claim. Do I really need to list the obscure that is on Wiki? I again challenge the grounds of the deletion. The notability criteria is met by the entry - it shows independant awards, mentions in international publications which cover sections 2 and 3 of the notability criteria. As you were the process of deletion would you say anything other than the proper process was fulfilled? The grounds for rejection on notability are invalid. CSD#A7Notability is proven independant awards, publication in international magazines, site membership. If you want to suggest that traffic is an issue then wiki will be the haunt merely of porn and pop culture. How many other sites have an Alexa rating lower than TLA and yet have a wiki? CSD#G11 I would like this charge clarifying because the final draft of this site did not advertise a website - it described on yes but in an encyclopedic manner. Look at your own rules on this Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion I would ask to have the inappropriate content defined --User:Madusmatus 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_25&oldid=83853159"