Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 8#Keep Portland Weird

:{{DRV links|Miko Ramelow}}

page was closed down because of copyright issues that were resolved. I contacted the administrator and he gave me the following code to pass on to you: OTRS ticket number 2011071510007235. The copyright problem came up because I, Miko Ramelow, used the content from my websites (www.mikographie.com) "About me" section, for the Wikipedia article. If you need me to change either of them, let me know. This is just a mistake. I really do exist and can give u several more sources that can confirm this (although this will only be references to my photographs and not to any personal information) Please let me know what I can do to get my Wikipedia article back online and keep it that way. Thank you very much. Talk2move (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: even if the WP:COPYVIO issue is resolved, there simply is no evidence of significant third-party coverage or that WP:BIO is met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• What would the third-party coverage need to include? No other source will state exactly what I have written on my website. Photos with my Copyright will show that I have taken the pictures stated in the article and some sources might have my date and place of birth in them but my curriculum vitae isn't published any where else. So what can I do? Talk2move (talk15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the deleted article shows no sufficient evidence of notability to give it a chance to pass AfD-- 2 minor group exhibitions only & no reviews I could find. However, asserting those exhibitions is an assertion of significance enough to pass the deliberately very weak criteria of speedy A7. The previous speedy as copyvio cut off the AfD that was in progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miko Ramelow. If the speedy had been an error, I'd say we must correct errors to show that they are errors, but this speedy was not an error, So although technically the user is entitled to a resumed AfD, I really urge them to withdraw this request, and not try to do an article until there are further documented accomplishments with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources--normally reviews for bios like this one, and then there would be a chance the article would meet WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Undelete and reopen the AfD. AfD is not just about rights or process. AfD is the right forum to discuss article inclusion criteria for educational purposes. DGG may be right, but non-admins can't see the content. Advise Miko to read WP:N and WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not a DRV matter. The copyvio speedy was clearly correct. The page was not salted. The Copyrights have since been released. The nom is therefore free to recreate the page and subject herself to an AFD which will almost certainly result in deletion, or to follow the sound advice provided here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Keep Portland Weird|xfd_page=|article=}}

The article Keep Portland Weird was deleted after being newly created, the rationale for the deletion was that the importance or significance of the topic wasn't present, which was a bogus rationale because the relevance and significance was added to the article. The article was deleted without any review, or any time for review. Thus, the article was deleted without rationale, and the deletion request provided no time for review. For comparison purposes, refer to the article Keep Austin Weird regarding notability and relevance. The person who deleted the page didn't follow Wikipedia procedures, and the actions are akin to overt censorship. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and send to AfD. The article creator was apparently still working on the article when it was speedily deleted (only about an hour after it was created). Furthermore, there appear to be some possible independent sources that discuss this topic, although I do not know yet whether those sources are enough to justify the article. I would recommend restoring the article and allowing it to have a full discussion at AfD, during which time the article creator and others can try to improve the article which additional sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• ::::It was deleted as both A7 and G11, entirely promotional. At the time of deletion, I think G11 was reasonable, e.g. "The purpose and significance is to encourage consumers to spend their dollars locally in support of small businesses" , and I do not think that by itself is much of a claim of significance. The Austin group is nationally notable (even though too much of the present article is promotional), but that does not mean local copies will be also. The best eventual result might be to add a section "Other Cities" to the austin article, and add a paragraph there with redirects. Still, it makes sense to undelete and see what the ed. can find in the way of references. One really good reference from outside the area would convince me about notability DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Undelete and List at AfD. Similar to my opinion expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Declined_speedies, if an editor in good standing with a reasonable rationale contests a speedy, then the article is no longer speediable. If it is after the event, undeletion and listing at XfD should be done by default. Some speedy criteria (G9, G10, G12, F7, F9) are exceptions, but A7 and G11 are not among them. A7 and G11 failures can often be fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn per SmokeyJoe, despite a really lousy statement by the nom here. More of a WP:REFUND case than a DRV matter, since the newly created article was apparently still being worked on at the time of deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Article temp undeleted and blanked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - Articles shouldn't be speedy deleted while they are still being worked on, unless they are pure vandalism or unambiguous crap. This one was neither. Give people a chance to write articles before they are deleted. This one at least deserves a shot at AfD. I actually live in Portland, and the slogan is quite popular; there should be some sources available. A [http://www.google.com/search?q=Keep+Portland+Weird&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22Keep+Portland+Weird%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=YhBETtnpO7TRiAKQt8CsAg&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f3ab0a1467cbd65d&biw=1280&bih=888 quick Gnews search] reveals quite a bit of coverage. —SW— ^spout 17:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• or blatent advertising, Gnangarra 23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not really. A minute or two of searching revealed [http://www.dailycamera.com/travel/ci_13080500][http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100108/LIFE/1080311/-1/NEWSMAP]http://www.ajc.com/travel/content/travel/otherdestinations/us_stories/2007/05/24/0527portland.html][http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-05-3736150770_x.htm]. Try not to be so dismissive. The original article may have not have had a convincing claim of importance (although I find that assertion to be tenuous), but it should have been obvious that it was not even an hour old and was still being actively worked on (and already had a source, which was not its own website by the way, although admittedly it wasn't a great source). In any case, the moral of the story is to be more careful in the future not to squash very young articles which are obviously still in the process of being created. Had the author been a new user, both the speedy tagging and deletion would have fallen squarely under [[WP:BITE. —SW— ^express 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment as deleting Admin The artice had no claim of importance, and as stated the purpose is to encourage people to spend their dollars locally, the only source was the its website, it ticked all the WP:DUCK boxes for G11. No need for a DRV if the author had dropped a note on my talk page I'd have asked for one source that meets WP:RS significant coverage and reliable to restore it. Additionally the talk page response was an WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement Gnangarra 23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Bahara, India|xfd_page=|article=}}

Improper procedure, no discussion, but speedy criteria not met. Asked the admin twice to revert his deletion: 1)User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2011/July#Bahara.2C_India, 2) User_talk:Peridon#2nd_request_Bahara.2C_India. Brought to ANI. User:Peridon seems to annoy several people, see e.g. User talk:Peridon/Archives/2010/January. Absolut wrong is "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Bahara" - "Bahara" is about one place, while Bahara, India was a WP:SIA. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review

I have restored the article's history to try to clarify this. The actual pages do not makes it very clear. Judging by the admin's reply, part of the confusion for him -- and for me -- may be that the town with the existing article, Bahara in Bihar, india, is not on the list in Bahara, India, which casts a little doubt on both articles. I am a little confused that the deleting admin id not want to restore the article because "lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space",which does not seem at all to apply to the existing situation. He similarly asked "Is there any liklihood of viable articles being written about any of them? " when there is of course the possibility of a viable article being written about any verifiable village. But he also said to just ask any other admin, suggesting three names, or even to recreate the article yourself with an explanation. Given that he said this, which seems to imply he realizes he does not understand the situation, he must have thought initially that he did, which explains why he erroneously deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment; the nominator here has been blocked as a Tobias Conradi sock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I'm completely neutral on whether this should be recreated.

• Endorse deletion, creation by a banned user in violation of ban. If somebody else wants it that bad, it can be recreated by a non-banned user. –MuZemike 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, exactly per MuZemike. A10 or not, it's a G5. T. Canens (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: a WP:SIA for which no set of articles exists to be indexed makes no sense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with DGG that the deleting admin didn't fully understand the situation, and I do think Wikipedia could include a set index with this title, but I also agree with T. Canens and MuZemike that the original creator's ban-evasion gives us an easy way out. I'll go with keep deleted per T. Canens on the understanding that this is no obstacle to a subsequent re-creation by a good faith user.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• There are issues with articles needing improvement, duplication, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The deleted content looks like useful notes for improving content. Encourage userfication for any non-blocked/banned user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per MuZemike. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with SMarshall, and it's my fault for not recognizing the socking from the subject matter, in light of the previous extensive socking over several years. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)