Knowledge

:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 19 - Knowledge

Source 📝

204:. He also incorrectly presumed that my nomination "stems from an apparent misunderstanding of the notability guideline precendence" which it does not. None of the keep votes provided actual sources showing significant coverage of Weidenbaum beyond his name being mentioned in various Viz press releases, etc. Request AfD be reopened or closing summary reevaluated as no consensus. -- 525:
a person, and I discussed with the creator that creating this article had been considered months ago. As for what you added...uh huh...a minor note on his Pulse's editorial policy (which has nothing to do with him as a person) and a minor note that he wrote something somewhere about smoking dope. Uh huh...--
276:
There is a difference between no consensus and keep, particularly in how the article is treated after. No consensus leaves it eligible for quick renomination, particularly if no work is done to improve or establish real notability, while keep means it shouldn't be renominated for at least 6 months. I
524:
As usual, you presume to know what I did or did not do, and presume to know anything about the history behind things. I did not find any of those "sources" to be anything more than trivial mentions of him as the spokesperson for the company he works for, rather than significant coverage about him as
954:
I strongly feel that this page should be kept! It was nominated for deletion early on when there wasn't many references etc so the page looked abit blank and users were saying Delete. But after it was cleaned up and made to look professional and had very detailed references, a few users demanded it
1187:
Insufficient detail elsewhere There was a page on Akiha Tohno (from the Melty Blood spinoff of Tsukihime), but now that article is gone. The article now redirects to List of Tsukihime Characters. The page that existed before was of similar quality and detail to the page that currently exists for
577:
does require significant coverage of the subject itself - I think it is questionable that most of these sources are actually covering Weidenbaum. That is, the source is not about him, it's about whatever he is talking / writing / being interviewed about. It also points to press releases, etc., not
451:
issue that doesn't impact the discussion outcome. The spirit and letter of the DRV 'policy' tells us that process review is the most important part of DRV and that changing the outcome should be secondary. For what should be obvious reasons, most of the decisions reviewed here are primarily
958:
From looking at other articles that are nominated for deletion, this page is miles more notable from the others. Some just look boring and have no references whatsoever and yet are still being 'kept'. I strongly recommened this page is looked at again and then un-deleted.
980:- looking at the deleted revisions, I do see some claims of notability, but they're tenuous at best, and there were no irregularities in the AFD that I could see. I'd have closed as delete as well - the subject may be on his way to being notable, but isn't there yet IMO. 1191:
I do not know who deleted the Akiha Tohno page or why. I have been unsuccessful in trying to figure this out. What I do know is that the page existed and now it doesn't. I can't even say how long ago it existed as it has been several months since I last looked it up.
708:
as a 7.2. I did quiet some research after this band on the internet to compile this article, because I knew so little about their background, so I would like to have it back. In case you are not familiar with noise rock, the band is comparable with bands like
776:
It's in point 1 of the link you give. Allmusic.com and Pitchfork Media (3 million visitors monthly) are reliable and relevant neutral sources? I thought they were good enough as a ref to specify if a band is relevant enough or aren't those not good enough?
497:
The closer's statement and reasoning was adequate. While we are reviewing process though, we may note that the nominator started attempting to delete the article within 21 minutes of its creation and failed to follow the helpful process laid out at
250:, in which case we'd have to immediately go to the article and do nothing, in order to implement that really important change. But lets discuss it here for 5 days first, just to really make sure such a drastic change is what we really want. 379:
is not a policy. It is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, I am familiar with the guidelines you listed; I hope that was never in question... keep the discussion about articles/processes and not about editors/admins, please.
554:. No consensus would turn into a keep anyway, so it's dysfunctional to overturn on that basis. If someone raises an issue at a later nomination that it was closed as keep previously, then feel free to point them at this DRV. 755:
and explain which of the criteria is met. I think this article is borderline, in terms of meeting Knowledge's criteria. But, I'm open to undeleting it and giving a chance, if you can provide more independent,
406:
isn't a policy it isn't a valid keep reason? The only note I said about N being policy was in response to YOUR statement saying it was. Apparently you added additional context where there was none.--
578:
demonstrating notability and the majority of these sources appear to be releases he has issued. Having said this he is quoted occasionally and probably tips over into a Keep - but only just.
688:, which was speedy deleted soon afterwards. I know quiet some about the rules on what's relevant and I think this was done a bit too fast. T.A.P. is relevant because it has a neutral bio on 944: 997:. Deletion review is a venue for indicating how the deletion process has been followed. It is not a chance for a second bite at the cherry to explain why the article should be kept. 791:
I have restored the page. Pitchfork Media seems to be acceptable for establishing notability, though you should also see if the band has coverage in other sources, for example, the
321:
How so? Notability has never been a policy. That doesn't stop it from being a core reason for deletion. As an admin closing deletion debates, I'd hope you would be familiar with
192:
No clear keep for this AfD. At best, no consensus, and likely could/should have been relisted. Attempt to discuss with closing admin resulted in him telling me his views of
277:
asked you to consider no-consensus, but you indicated that you felt it was clearly keep because you felt the deletion votes were ignorable (which they were not). --
182: 299:
Also, it is illogical to nominate articles for deletion under the premise that their subjects are not notable, and then to argue that notability is not a policy.
51: 37: 955:
was kept. Ben has his own page on IMDB and was a character on a television programme so I feel, as well as the other users who wanted it kept, it should stay.
908: 903: 452:
concerned with outcome, not process (though an alleged mishandling of the process resulted in the outcome contested). That's my speech. :) </soapbox: -->
1177: 912: 46: 936: 895: 1211: 146: 141: 1039:- AFD closure looks fine and DRV is not AFD round 2. No prejudice against re-creating if and when multiple reliable sources satisfying 538: 485: 469:
probably just a side note, but the article creator himself noted that he wanted it deleted and was surprised the AfD closed as a keep.
419: 358: 290: 217: 150: 246:
close, so there is really nothing to do, is there? If it would somehow generate holiday cheer, I'd gladly reclassify the closing as
42: 174: 133: 1141: 1136: 853: 648: 631: 91: 502:. I have just made a search for sources myself and found no difficulty in adding references from some books. The parable of 1145: 736:. Hope to have given you some accurate refs to measure with. Can you trace these sources and give me your idea about this? 196:
and that he ignored both deletes as he felt that "Opinions that are contrary to policy are ignored" in AfD (nevermind that
21: 1169: 1128: 732:'s article. It's from that particular scene and not very much more unknown than all the others mentioned there or here: 230:
as closing admin. A discussion with me prior to DRV was held, and is appreciated. The requester here seems to want a
899: 503: 1244: 1108: 1063: 874: 821: 669: 599: 112: 17: 1207: 511: 891: 842: 1229: 1093: 1002: 559: 532: 479: 413: 352: 284: 211: 1233: 1097: 1052: 1031: 1006: 989: 971: 863: 806: 786: 771: 745: 658: 588: 563: 542: 515: 489: 461: 423: 397: 362: 316: 294: 267: 221: 101: 967: 586: 1203: 714: 963: 526: 473: 407: 346: 278: 205: 1199: 693: 326: 137: 1014:; inadequate assertion of notability; proper determination was made based on available information. 850: 778: 737: 645: 628: 507: 88: 200:
isn't a policy), despite both deletes clearing noting that they did NOT feel that Weidenbaum meet
985: 782: 752: 741: 371:
as a basis for nominating articles for deletion and to simultaneously tell people who are suing
704:, the band produced 2 albums, 3rd one coming out in feb., their 2nd album is being reviewed on 579: 457: 1132: 1027: 685: 620: 499: 393: 312: 263: 1023: 705: 389: 338: 308: 259: 129: 76: 1173: 940: 443:
I haven't looked at the AfD or the article yet but I would like to note here that I am a
178: 1048: 847: 801: 766: 710: 642: 625: 342: 85: 81: 981: 792: 721: 334: 322: 1221: 1040: 757: 701: 689: 453: 1162: 929: 167: 1225: 1124: 1089: 1084: 998: 857: 652: 635: 574: 555: 403: 376: 372: 368: 330: 201: 197: 193: 95: 1016: 725: 382: 301: 252: 1044: 796: 761: 846:– Deletion endorsed. Deletion review is not a re-argument of the Afd. – 447:
fan of people bringing deletion discussions here to discuss a possible
729: 728:
and other similar bands from NYC for instance the bands mentioned in
718: 1220:
This page wasn't deleted, only redirected. The content's in the
697: 696:, The band recently toured through Europe and also performed at 402:
Can you please point specifically where I said that because
733: 692:(or VH1.com), Dead Oceans is a famous label also hosting 1158: 1154: 1150: 925: 921: 917: 753:
Knowledge:MUSICBIO#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles
470: 325:#7: "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant 163: 159: 155: 1043:can be found that assert the subject's notability. 8: 1107:The following is an archived debate of the 873:The following is an archived debate of the 668:The following is an archived debate of the 111:The following is an archived debate of the 1077: 835: 613: 573:. I think the close is correctly founded. 69: 1195:Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! 734:http://en.wikipedia.org/Noise_rock#2000s 41: 50: 33: 7: 795:or such that covers music in NYC. -- 1247:of the page listed in the heading. 1066:of the page listed in the heading. 824:of the page listed in the heading. 602:of the page listed in the heading. 80:– "Keep" decision endorsed. If it 28: 641:00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC) – 1243:The above is an archive of the 1062:The above is an archive of the 820:The above is an archive of the 598:The above is an archive of the 1: 1234:16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 1098:16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 1053:22:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 1032:06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 1007:22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 990:22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 972:18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 864:06:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 807:23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 787:23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 772:22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 751:Hi Outdepth. Take a look at 746:22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 684:Hello, I created the article 659:00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 589:22:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 564:09:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 543:14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 516:09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 490:06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 462:05:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 424:18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 398:17:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 363:06:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 317:05:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 295:04:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 268:04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 222:04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 102:06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 30: 700:, Pat Noecker was before in 1270: 1088:– No deletion to review – 760:sources about the band. -- 375:as a reason for keep that 1214:) 15:29, 19 December 2008 18:Knowledge:Deletion review 1250:Please do not modify it. 1114:Please do not modify it. 1069:Please do not modify it. 892:Ben Alekzsander Williams 880:Please do not modify it. 843:Ben Alekzsander Williams 827:Please do not modify it. 675:Please do not modify it. 605:Please do not modify it. 118:Please do not modify it. 43:Deletion review archives 367:It is illogical to use 1111:of the article above. 877:of the article above. 672:of the article above. 115:of the article above. 504:the mote and the beam 694:The Dirty Projectors 327:notability guideline 715:Experimental Dental 506:seems applicable. 345:and so forth)".-- 234:close reverted to 1257: 1256: 1216: 1202:comment added by 1076: 1075: 1030: 988: 834: 833: 805: 770: 612: 611: 396: 315: 266: 60: 59: 1261: 1252: 1215: 1196: 1181: 1166: 1148: 1116: 1078: 1071: 1037:Endorse deletion 1022: 1019: 1012:Endorse deletion 995:Endorse deletion 984: 948: 933: 915: 882: 836: 829: 799: 764: 686:These Are Powers 677: 621:These Are Powers 614: 607: 584: 529: 476: 410: 388: 385: 349: 307: 304: 281: 258: 255: 208: 186: 171: 153: 120: 70: 65:19 December 2008 56: 36: 31: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1248: 1245:deletion review 1197: 1167: 1139: 1123: 1112: 1109:deletion review 1067: 1064:deletion review 1017: 934: 906: 890: 878: 875:deletion review 825: 822:deletion review 706:Pitchfork Media 673: 670:deletion review 603: 600:deletion review 580: 552:Endorse closure 527: 474: 408: 383: 347: 302: 279: 253: 206: 172: 144: 130:Marc Weidenbaum 128: 116: 113:deletion review 77:Marc Weidenbaum 68: 61: 54: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 1267: 1265: 1255: 1254: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1204:Julian Tempest 1184: 1119: 1118: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1074: 1073: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1034: 1009: 992: 951: 889: 885: 884: 869: 868: 867: 866: 832: 831: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 711:Neptune (band) 680: 679: 664: 663: 662: 661: 610: 609: 594: 593: 592: 591: 582:Unusual? Quite 567: 566: 548: 547: 546: 545: 519: 518: 508:Colonel Warden 492: 464: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 271: 270: 189: 127: 123: 122: 107: 106: 105: 104: 67: 62: 58: 57: 49: 40: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1266: 1253: 1251: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1193: 1189: 1188:Shiki Tohno. 1185: 1182: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1143: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1115: 1110: 1105: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1072: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1035: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1013: 1010: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 993: 991: 987: 983: 979: 976: 975: 974: 973: 969: 965: 960: 956: 952: 949: 946: 942: 938: 931: 927: 923: 919: 914: 910: 905: 901: 897: 893: 887: 886: 883: 881: 876: 871: 870: 865: 862: 861: 860: 859:the Orphanage 855: 852: 849: 845: 844: 840: 839: 838: 837: 830: 828: 823: 818: 817: 808: 803: 798: 794: 793:Village Voice 790: 789: 788: 784: 780: 775: 774: 773: 768: 763: 759: 754: 750: 749: 748: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722:Health (band) 720: 716: 712: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 682: 681: 678: 676: 671: 666: 665: 660: 657: 656: 655: 654:the Orphanage 650: 647: 644: 640: 639: 638: 637:the Orphanage 633: 630: 627: 624:– Restored.-- 623: 622: 618: 617: 616: 615: 608: 606: 601: 596: 595: 590: 587: 585: 583: 576: 572: 569: 568: 565: 561: 557: 553: 550: 549: 544: 540: 537: 534: 530: 523: 522: 521: 520: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 496: 493: 491: 487: 484: 481: 477: 471: 468: 465: 463: 459: 455: 450: 446: 442: 439: 438: 425: 421: 418: 415: 411: 405: 401: 400: 399: 395: 391: 387: 386: 378: 374: 370: 366: 365: 364: 360: 357: 354: 350: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 323:WP:DEL#REASON 320: 319: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 298: 297: 296: 292: 289: 286: 282: 275: 274: 273: 272: 269: 265: 261: 257: 256: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 226: 225: 224: 223: 219: 216: 213: 209: 203: 199: 195: 190: 187: 184: 180: 176: 169: 165: 161: 157: 152: 148: 143: 139: 135: 131: 125: 124: 121: 119: 114: 109: 108: 103: 100: 99: 98: 97:the Orphanage 93: 90: 87: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 72: 71: 66: 63: 53: 48: 47:2008 December 44: 39: 32: 23: 19: 1249: 1242: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1122: 1113: 1106: 1083: 1068: 1061: 1036: 1015: 1011: 994: 978:Keep deleted 977: 964:CrackersTeam 961: 957: 953: 888: 879: 872: 858: 856: 841: 826: 819: 702:Liars (band) 690:allmusic.com 683: 674: 667: 653: 651: 636: 634: 619: 604: 597: 581: 570: 551: 535: 528:Collectonian 494: 482: 475:Collectonian 466: 448: 444: 440: 416: 409:Collectonian 381: 355: 348:Collectonian 300: 287: 280:Collectonian 251: 248:no consensus 247: 243: 240:No consensus 239: 236:no consensus 235: 231: 227: 214: 207:Collectonian 191: 126: 117: 110: 96: 94: 75: 64: 1198:—Preceding 1125:Akiha_Tohno 1085:Akiha_Tohno 962:Thankyou x 84:broke... – 52:December 20 38:December 18 1024:delusional 726:Pre (band) 390:delusional 309:delusional 260:delusional 848:Aervanath 643:Aervanath 626:Aervanath 500:WP:BEFORE 86:Aervanath 1212:contribs 1200:unsigned 1028:kangaroo 982:Tony Fox 779:Outdepth 758:reliable 738:Outdepth 539:contribs 486:contribs 420:contribs 394:kangaroo 359:contribs 339:WP:MUSIC 313:kangaroo 291:contribs 264:kangaroo 218:contribs 20:‎ | 1222:history 1170:restore 1142:protect 1137:history 937:restore 909:protect 904:history 571:Endorse 495:Endorse 467:Comment 454:Protonk 449:process 441:Comment 343:WP:CORP 228:Comment 175:restore 147:protect 142:history 82:WP:AINT 1226:Stifle 1146:delete 1090:Stifle 999:Stifle 986:(arf!) 913:delete 730:Todd P 719:No Age 556:Stifle 335:WP:BIO 151:delete 1174:cache 1163:views 1155:watch 1151:links 1041:WP:RS 1018:Jerry 941:cache 930:views 922:watch 918:links 851:lives 646:lives 629:lives 384:Jerry 303:Jerry 254:Jerry 242:is a 179:cache 168:views 160:watch 156:links 89:lives 55:: --> 16:< 1230:talk 1208:talk 1159:logs 1133:talk 1129:edit 1094:talk 1049:talk 1045:Wiw8 1003:talk 968:talk 926:logs 900:talk 896:edit 802:talk 797:Aude 783:talk 767:talk 762:Aude 742:talk 698:SXSW 575:WP:N 560:talk 533:talk 512:talk 480:talk 458:talk 414:talk 404:WP:N 377:WP:N 373:WP:N 369:WP:N 353:talk 331:WP:N 285:talk 244:keep 232:keep 212:talk 202:WP:N 198:WP:N 194:WP:N 164:logs 138:talk 134:edit 35:< 1178:AfD 945:AfD 472:-- 445:big 238:. 183:AfD 22:Log 1232:) 1224:. 1210:• 1176:| 1172:| 1161:| 1157:| 1153:| 1149:| 1144:| 1140:| 1135:| 1131:| 1096:) 1051:) 1026:¤ 1005:) 970:) 943:| 939:| 928:| 924:| 920:| 916:| 911:| 907:| 902:| 898:| 854:in 785:) 744:) 724:, 717:, 713:, 649:in 632:in 562:) 541:) 514:) 488:) 460:) 422:) 392:¤ 361:) 341:, 337:, 333:, 311:¤ 293:) 262:¤ 220:) 181:| 177:| 166:| 162:| 158:| 154:| 149:| 145:| 140:| 136:| 92:in 45:: 1228:( 1206:( 1183:) 1180:) 1168:( 1165:) 1127:( 1092:( 1047:( 1001:( 966:( 950:) 947:) 935:( 932:) 894:( 804:) 800:( 781:( 769:) 765:( 740:( 558:( 536:· 531:( 510:( 483:· 478:( 456:( 417:· 412:( 356:· 351:( 329:( 288:· 283:( 215:· 210:( 188:) 185:) 173:( 170:) 132:(

Index

Knowledge:Deletion review
Log
December 18
Deletion review archives
2008 December
December 20
19 December 2008
Marc Weidenbaum
WP:AINT
Aervanath
lives
in
the Orphanage
06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
deletion review
Marc Weidenbaum
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
restore
cache
AfD
WP:N
WP:N

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.