Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 12

:{{la|Maritime Football League}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Maritime Football League}} cache]|AfD)

The article was closed as no consenusus, even though the keeps didn't really give a policy based reason, and clearly didn't fix the sourcing concerns, which were serious. Either Relist or Overturn and Delete Secret ^account 20:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The nominator was explicitly neutral in their opinion, merely noting that it was a contested prod. The delete opiners failed to show convincing evidence that good sources don't exist, they merely pointed out that they weren't currently in the article. A compelling argument that no sources exist would demonstrate actual research and good faith attempts find them. It seems pretty clear from the discussion is that the general consensus was that people didn't care much about the article, and a no consensus close is absolutely reasonable for that discussion. GRBerry 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note my comment " i searched for sources myself, I couldn't find anything, if not I would have never made the AFD in the first place" in the AFD, there isn't any sources, and no reliable sources exist for this article, it should have been at least relisted. Secret 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No consensus was a valid analysis of both the state of the article and the weight of the arguments given during the AFD. No consensus does not preclude against relisting in due time. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Those arguing for keep in the AFD believe that reliable secondary sources can be found for the article. Only Secret provided stong arguments for deletion (which personally I would have had to agree with) and the opinions supporting keeping the article addressed the policy concerns by believing they can be fixed, so closing as no concensus was the ocrrect closure. Have added the primarysources tag to the article and suggest putting on AFD again if no reliable sources have come forward after a reasonable time. Davewild (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Cleo Manago}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Cleo Manago}} cache]|AfD)

Article appears to be written by it's own subject, ("Wikipaeton" appears to be Manago himself) Article is not at all encyclopedic in nature, full of self-egrandizing. He includes an "interview" with himself. Language is ego-centric, not objective. Sources he lists do not actually support information in the article. If not deletion, article needs substantial editing. Wikipedia articles should be written by someone objective and not the articles subject himself.Beatmakerz (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) -->

• Speedy close: wrong venue. Take it to AfD. David Mestel^(Talk) 11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Retarded Animal Babies}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Retarded Animal Babies}} cache]|AfD)

We have extensively edited the article in question and added newly found references. Text is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

Is this sufficient? Eric Barbour (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please add comments to the existing review you already opened yesterday rather than opening a new one, thanks. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Vancouver Furious George}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Vancouver Furious George}} cache]|AfD)

Please restore this page. Someone listed this as a prod, but I failed to notice in time. This article has already survived AFD once. Rawr (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Restore. This was not eligible for proposed deletion. No prejudice against another AFD, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Anything's eligible to be prodded. David Mestel^(Talk) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn: contested prod. David Mestel^(Talk) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• From WP:PROD: "Articles that:

Have previously been proposed for deletion

Have previously been undeleted

Have been discussed on AfD or MfD

are not candidates for {{prod}}." DGG (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and Restore - Contention would by itself not be a reason to 'overturn' a deletion via prod, but simply to restore the article. Nevertheless this one was indeed not eligible for proposed deletion because of the previous AfD which amounts to proof that a deletion would not be uncontroversial. Looking at the AfD, the same also seems to applies to Seattle Sockeye. In any case the deleting admins might have simply corrected themselves, if given the chance. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)