Burning Up Tour ( talk| history| links) ( AfD1, DRV discussion, AfD2)

This article was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Up Tour) on the grounds that a previous AfD resulted in deletion. This article was not a simple recreation of the previously deleted article, and it underwent another AfD, where it appeared the outcome would be no consensus—however, an admin speedy deleted it and closed the AfD without even considering the views of the participants in that AfD, citing past consensus. I believe the more recent consensus (or lack thereof) is what should be followed. Everyking ( talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comments. The previous version of the article was a highly promotional article lacking in sources, consisting mostly of a list of appearances. The version I deleted was a highly promotional article lacking in sources, consisting mainly of a list of appearances. Offers to userfy either version to make it not promotional or to properly source it have been roundly rebuffed. The keep votes focused on potential sourcing, but nobody has offered to step up and do that sourcing. When we have a clear consensus not to have an unsourced version, and nobody's willing to bell the cat, what should we do?
  Additionally, the keeps in the AFD were mostly appeals to incredulity. "How can you not think this is notable!" doesn't really answer the question "Where are the reliable sources that have seen fit to comment on this subject?" Everything that I've been able to find only mentions that there was a tour in support of such-and-such album, a fact which is already appropriately covered in Jonas Brothers. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • We already know the sources are available; in the last DRV for this article I pointed out that there were hundreds of sources available on Google News, and I specifically cited two of them. It is not necessary for them to be immediately placed in the article to justify its existence; once it exists, someone will do the work. Everyking ( talk) 06:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Would you like me to undelete one or both versions so you can add those sources to them? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • If you're offering to undelete it in the mainspace, then yes; if you're offering to undelete it in userspace, while then acting as a gatekeeper to unilaterally decide whether the sourced article is acceptable to go in the mainspace, then no. Everyking ( talk) 07:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I don't see how making a point of "You're not the boss of me!" is more important than improving the encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Just wanted to note that if the article were undeleted, only the earliest versions can be restored...which are indeed simply a list of dates. The article was riddled with copyright violations from the day it was created. The creator of the article pasted content from here a half hour after first edit and shortly thereafter added a pretty blatant one, beginning with the words "The Jonas Brothers tickets are headed to the big screen with a Disney Digital 3-D feature film that will include footage from" That "tickets" is the give-away. See here. I'm surprised it wasn't detected. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted for copyright concerns. Only the earliest versions of the article could be restored, and these truly are just a list of dates. Copyright violation was introduced at the first addition of a text section, and those violations continued through the history of the article with only a few minor additions and alterations. Given the PR powerhouse that this band has become, I wouldn't be surprised if sufficient reliable sources probably could be assembled to document widespread, significant coverage, but this article didn't do that, and the copyrighted text makes it improper to serve as a base for a new article. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted (or redirected to the band's page as it currently is) both because of copyright concerns and because I have found nothing to indicate that the concerns raised in the prior Deletion Review discussion have been addressed. Everyking asserted in the prior discussion that sufficient sources had been found to support the article. I reviewed a significant number of those cites and could not reach the same conclusion. No new evidence has been presented here, in the deleted article itself or in the aborted second AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse this appears to be the product of a user who isn't interested in taking the simplest route in avoiding CSD-G4, userification and approval before returning an article to mainspace. I see no good reason why that route wasn't taken. I can't see the deleted versions so I won't comment on how alike or different the recreated article was. All I can say is that we should all strive to solve something at the lowest level possible, invoking process only when required by the situation. Protonk ( talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn for reasons expressed on A Man in Black's talk page. Obviously bad close. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn While it is impossible to be certain given that all evidence has been destroyed, the version deleted here seems to have been improved above and beyond the original version deleted. If there is material in violation of WP:COPYVIO it should be removed, but unless the entire article consists of violating material, there is no justification for deletion. The original DRV was closed with the comment that "Closure endorsed, no prejudice against recreating a new and better article", and it appears that the new article was better. As consensus did not support deletion and as the speedy appears to have been unjustified, the closure would violate process and should be overturned. Alansohn ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Pete Draganic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

I am here (and hopefully doing this correctly) to request the undeletion of a page titled "Pete Draganic". Pete Draganic was a page here in 2006, created by someone else when Pete ran for Governor of the State of Ohio. It was later deleted because (per the discussion) he had not won and was therefore not noteworthy. However, since that time, Pete Draganic has won a city council seat, running against the well-funded godson of Dennis Kucinich, no small feat. He was also elected as a Republican Committeperson and currently serves both offices.

The page was recreated recently and deleted by speedy deletion.

While he may not have been thought to be noteworthy following his gubernatorial race, he did in fact gain a lot of recognition statewide during that time. He had spoken and debated to thousands of Ohioans. He was interviewed and reported on by every major and dozens of minor newspapers, radio stations and television (air and cable) venues throughout the state. He is known by all Republicans in authority all across Ohio. Pete Draganic campaigned through 77 of Ohio's 88 counties alondside of his powerful opponents (then the current State Attorney General, Jim Petro; Auditor of State Betty Montgomery and Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell.)

It would stand to reason that someone with political ambitions such as Pete's plus his most recent successes, That his background would be of interest to many. He is a political figure on the move and in the spotlight regularly.

His burst into politics has earned him some fast credibility as well. He was the ONLY ONE of 180 republican council candidates to receive funding form the Cuyahoga County Republican Party (Cuyahoga is Ohio's most populous County). He is a fixture in republican events and his campaign advice is sought after by others. For the record, the party doesn't give much money to any candidates at all.

I suspect that in short order, you will see his page grow to substantial lengths.

Pete Draganic was included in Gubernatorial polls in 1996. He was included in at least one newspaper poll. He won two blog-based polls. There are thousands of internet references to him. He is currently a winner of two public offices.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. -- 65.43.181.120 ( talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

what will be needed for this is media references from major newspaper in the state talking in a substantial way about him. If you have them, re-create the article in user space and let's see it. DGG ( talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I have updated the user page to provide links to an archive of 25 news reports on Draganic as well as the full list of google archive news references, most of which are pay to view, unfortunately. The original archive of 25 is not a pay to view source. You can view that user page here [1]

One good way to handle pay per view sources from which a interested party collected an archive is to cite the original print publication, add its online link if available , and then add a "convenience link" to the place where you have it visible. Optionally, include the quotation. A few of these sources appear to say nothing more than that he's among the candidates; pick the most substantial. I'll give my opinion that similar sources could be found for many candidates who do not win election if sufficient work were done, and this material appears to fulfill our WP:N general notability criterion. DGG ( talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

It should also be noted that aside from his notability as a candidate for major office, he has gone on to win other lesser offices which, I feel, increases his notability in that he is a person of current interest instead of simply one of historical reference.

• support re-creation in user space if nobody disagrees. DGG ( talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Please help me clarify this. It already exists in user space. It was deleted as an article and I would like to recreate the article.

Hollywood Undead (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

This should be a quickie; the protection of this page was overturned a little while ago at DRV for this article, which is located at Hollywood Undead. (The band was so popular that both the normal name and the (band) name were protected due to repeated recreation.) I'd like to have Hollywood Undead (band) unprotected so it can be redirected to the actual article. Likewise, I'd like to have hollywood undead unprotected and redirected for the same reason. Chubbles ( talk) 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done, not controversial and at the request of established editor. Someone else can archive this, I stuffed it up last time. TravellingCari 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

List of creationist museums‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

This is a somewhat non-standard DRV request; it isn't as much a request to undelete the page, as it is a request for clarification on how to recreate it. The list was deleted with a variety of arguments, but the reasonable ones seemed to be that there were too many red and unsourced links in the list. In the course of the debate, User:Plazak referenced quite a few of them, and after I was personally challenged to make articles for them I made two reasonable, well sourced (if I do say so myself) articles (including one WP:DYK), and three more in the 4 days since the close. In short, I feel fairly sure there is plenty of reason to restore the list, but want to know how to best restore it, while taking the result of the AFD into account:

• Should it be restored completely, like an undelete, leaving the red links as opportunities for expansion?
• Should the red linked entries be unlinked until their article is created, but left in the list?
• Should the red linked entries be deleted altogether until their article is created?
• How about the ones that are cited with reliable sources writing about them, but not enough for individual articles of their own, can they still be part of this overall article on creation museums in general?
• Something else?

I was asking the deleting administator, and he did kindly restore the article, with history, to my userspace - User:GRuban/List of creationist museums - but said that question was too hard for him to answer quickly, and after two days of silence, he protected his talk page, so I somehow think he's not going to answer. So it looks like my best remaining choice is DRV. Advice, please? GRuban ( talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• This DRV will probably be closed early since this isn't TOO much of a matter for deletion review. My advice is to keep it in userspace until some more sources can be found, specifically those that define what a creationist museum is and preferably a source that lists creationist museums in general. Those two sources would eliminate the most valid AfD complaints. contrary to the assertion of a few people in that AfD, red links are fine as long as we could reasonably expect the target subject would be included in this encylopedia sometime in the future. But without a source providing a criterion for inclusion, this list is still indiscriminate and without a source showing that museum X is creationist it still smacks of WP:OR. Does that help? Protonk ( talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  Not really, they all say they're creationist. The word "creation" is in half of the museums' names. If you want, it can be "creation museums", it's not a big difference. It's the term they use for themselves. It's not something they're ashamed of. What they say is controversial, but whether or not they're creationist isn't. Here's a list referred to by USAToday: [2]: [3] -- GRuban ( talk) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  Well, if they all say they are creationist then we can cite each of their "about" pages on this list. All I'm saying is that apparent obviousness of categorization doesn't absolve us of the need to properly delimit categories and to ensure that entries fit the categories themselves. Protonk ( talk) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation Article provides a clearly-defined inclusion criteria and sources are provided. As to the presence of red links, a recent study reported in the WP:Wikipedia Signpost indicates that "This implies that the connection between redlinks and new articles is a collaborative one, and that adding redlinks actually spurs others to create new articles." While a Google News Archive search turns up "Creation Museum", it does so in the context of a specific museum. This search using "creationist museum" turned up 111 articles, providing ample evidence of institutions meeting teh definition. Alansohn ( talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, most are about Creation Museum, which is one. We66er ( talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Wikipedia:Deletion review is for "disputed deletions and disputed decisions." The consensus was to delete and it was deleted. User:GRuban has since been creating articles promoting pseudoscience. See Category:Creationist museums. As it stands the few articles about this is Creation Evidence Museum (a double-wide trailer could be merged with Carl Baugh) and Museum of Earth History (which has two sources) doesn't need a list. If you count Liberty University, that category has 7. Thus, the AFD was closed appropriately and User:GRuban has since created three or four articles on the subject to argue his position to keep the list. We66er ( talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Work in user space to determine if the other museums are notable enough to create articles so they may be blue linked and restore at that point. Welcome to ask at WP:MUSEUMS for help - I don't think I'll have time to help but someon eelse might. TravellingCari 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Permit re-creation Three (or more) museums is enough for a list. It can add information about location, and date of founding, that would not be in the category. Deletion Review is an appropriate way to proceed when there is a new basis. DGG ( talk) 04:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Information on location, date of founding, etc. may be found by clicking on the relevant link in Category:Creationist museums. Articles so categorized pass Wikipedia standards for notability and verifiability, a directory-like list appears to be an attempt to sidestep these requirements. Moreover, entries in the userfied list include institutions that are in various stages of planning, including an external link to their patrons could be seen as blatant solicitation (not to mention WP:CRYSTAL concerns). I fail to see how the convenience of a category is superseded by the liability of such a list. I'm inclined to endorse the AfD result. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 07:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

If the existing articles are not justified because of lack of notability or promotional nature, then nominate them for AfD, and let's get rid of them. while they till exist, they justify a list. DGG ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not arguing that the existing articles fail notability guidelines. There is no way to tell whether other entries and redlinks on the list satisfy these criteria, I suspect that many of them don't. And lists aren't justified, they're either useful or superfluous. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• eh If I were aware of the original discussion, I'd be likely to have called for keeping, but I don't see a compelling reason at this time to overturn. Why doesn't the category work fine? Also, the vast majority of these creation museums don't meet WP:N so redlinking them might not be such a great idea. I do think the idea of putting in userspace for now as suggested by Verdana is not a bad idea at all. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  As others write, the list does allow more useful comparison than the category - it's not easy to use the category to find out which is closest to you, for example, without clicking through all of them, and it will allow adding opening and closing dates, and other relations between them. I created the category (not the list), so I'm not gainsaying the usefulness of the category by any means :-) but there is a place for both. And I suspect most of them do meet WP:N, in fact. These sorts of places tend to be just the sort of thing that newspapers write about, and news programs do feature segments on. I've been able to create five of them so far, in about as many days of work, so evidence shows they'll be useful red links. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The person who wants to overturn this admitted this is about WP:POINT against me. We66er ( talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I wasn't aware there was a rule against improving Wikipedia to illustrate a point :) -- NE2 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I see no admission of an alleged disruption, nor could this be construed as somehow violating WP:POINT. I see in the link provided someone making a effort to fill a hole he feels exists in Wikipedia, and there seems to be no reason not to fill this vacuum at this point. Alansohn ( talk) 01:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for that DefendEachOther, folks. Appreciated. I think if We66er and I can work together, we can make these articles quite good, actually; but it's a lot easier if the articles are there for us to work on them. :-) -- GRuban ( talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • In the link I supplied, GRuban wrote: "And, two, because you challenged me to. I never did a thing in this area until running across that AFD." This behavior " deliberately thwart[s] the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship." This AFD was closed per consensus. Now because GRuban feels "challenged," he wants to keep and expand it. We66er ( talk) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I don't think it makes a difference what the motives are or why you believe that creating viable articles on notable subjects constitutes gaming the system. Look at the article and judge it based on what's there not on what you think are the circumstances of its creation. Alansohn ( talk) 16:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Your strawman arguments don't push this discussion forward. The motives for an AFD review that goes against the purpose of an AFD review are important. Secondly, I am not opposed to "creating viable articles on notable subjects." The list isn't notable and consensus was acheived with that view: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums. So you do admit that the motives behind this AFD review may not be about the article itself? We66er ( talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Who cares what the motives are, if it improves the encyclopedia? -- NE2 18:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
                • Besides the fact that it violates wikipedia guidelines and demonstrates bad faith against another editor's views of improving wikipedia? We66er ( talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
                  • I'll let you have the last word. My last one will be undelete. -- NE2 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
                  • For what it's worth, We66er, I think you are sincere in attempting to improve the Wikipedia. I don't doubt you are trying to make it better, and don't accuse you of disruption. I'd appreciate the same faith in return, of course, but it's not required. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Legends of Motorsport (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

why was this page deleted?

Looking at the deletion history it was deleted as a PROD with the rational that the article was about a non notiable band, having no sources and failing WP:MUSIC. -- 76.66.182.152 ( talk) 05:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• And it can be restored on the request of any user. Do you want it restored? Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply