Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2

2 June 2007

Donald Neilson

Donald Neilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|)

The page was hastily deleted after only being listed for deletion for a few hours the page was far more than just a stub there was no hint of any form of copy violation. Articles such as the lesley whittle article had been merged into the article. The article was not soley and BLP as was claimed in the deltion log. The article should have been debated at length rather than hastily delted. So i say the article should be immedatly restored and the correct debate take place on the merits of deletion rather than two users removing a rather long and important crime related article.--Lucy-marie 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• This was an incredibly negative biography utterly lacking in relevant sources. There was no BLP compliant version to revert to. By all means write an new article using sources.--Doc^g 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach

Tanya Kach was a kidnapping victim and now the article has been deleted in the recent spate of BLP paranoia (see Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move for a response to a particularly stupid application recently). The incredibly tenuous interpretation of WP:NOT-Newspaper is definitely vague enough to not warrant a speedy. I'm absolutely not a fan of how Wikipedia carries News events, favouring subtrivial worthless nothings such as Essjay and Joshua Gardner just because they appeal to the techidiots. I've held this view for a long time, here's an edit I made around 15 months ago berating Wikipedia's current events.

Yet this case is way more notable and covered in the mainstream press, generating more relevant hits in Google News than either Essjay trivia and Joshua Gardner rubbish. Her case involves various reported twists an turns, her name is widely known in the public sphere. Although the best place for an article on this case may not be in the form of a biography, a biography could make a very efficient catalogue of all the information. Wikipedia is for the reader first, it is an encyclopedia first. There is a chance that readers will come looking for encyclopedic information on this case, we can provide that, and this event being notable, we should provide that.

You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the Google cache, you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement. But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input. When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input. Restore the article, move it if you want, list at AFD if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - hahnchen 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Imfurst

Mimi Imfurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was suggested for deletion by others who dont have any knowlege on the professional drag queen industry. The longstanding staples of nightlife- contribute to the cultural diversity of New York City. Is notability relative?

The page is still there. There is no deletion to review. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The article has been recreated and tagged for speedy deletion because it has already gone through AfD. The author of the new version keeps asserting notability with no evidence and is arguing against speedy deletion, thus I suggested he come here. Corvus cornix 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• If assessing this article requires specialist knowledge of the professional drag queen industry, that is an indication that there are insufficient independent sources from which we can draw an article. An article worked up in userspace with sources might elp, but looking at it, I don't think it will help much, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)