LYME_(software_bundle) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

If LAMP has a page then LYME should have one also. Also see the following http://21ccw.blogspot.com/2008/02/lyme-vs-lamp-i.html Dmckeehan ( talk) 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AfD pretty clearly had a consensus to delete. The reference you've provided is a blog, and, as user-generated content, is not a reliable source. And you might want to take a look at this essay about why your first argument is invalid. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn closure and redirect to Solution stack. The edit histories of the two pages show that content was merged on 24 Sep 08, prior to the deletion of the page. The inclusion of the content in the target page does not seem to have raised controversy. Assuming that it remains uncontroversial, the pagehistory needs to be restored and the page turned into a redirect in order to ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL.
  Note: I can not fault Stifle for his/her closure. There was no indication in the deletion discussion that a relevant merger had been made. Rossami (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own deletion but since it's been merged, we'll need a redirect to solution stack as Rossami suggests. Anyone can create that, and I have done so. Stifle ( talk) 23:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Redirect to Solution stack, for the reasons outlined by User:Rossami above. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. Proper process followed, AfD result was clear, no additional evidence presented justifying an overturn. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

well connected band in trip hop scene

Page cancelled for the band felt as "non notable", however the members often played with very notable trip hop musicians like Adrian Utley of Portishead, Massive Attack and Smith & Mighty. Their first records were for Cup of Tea Records, a label which hosts bands like Monk & Canatella, Statik Sound System and Purple Penguin. They are not very known since they disbanded after 1998, but some other bands (like No Age or Wives) even had only demos for minor indie labels of minor scenes when they first got their pages. According to AllMusic: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=CRUSTATION&sql=11:wifixqwhldae~T1 instead Crustation are well connected with the Bristol movement, the trip hop scene. :) They also released commercial videos, like this:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5estZsdX9io

Directed by Gary Evans. Some other minor sources here:

• http://www.discogs.com/release/40573
• http://albumsoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/04/crustation-bloom-1998.html
• http://www.lastfm.it/music/Crustation/Bloom
• http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/crustation/bloom/
• http://www.trip-hop.net/album-190-crustation-bloom-zomba-records.html
• http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crustation-Bloom-Album/3DBD28A912673C0B48256A870006502F

Connacht ( talk) 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted (as deleting admin) - actually, the video is very good indeed. However, I am still not seeing evidence of compliance with WP:Band. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I've redirected this to Crustacean - a misspelling of that is a far more probable search than some band.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to explain how the deletion process was not properly followed, not to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) that are appropriate to an AFD discussion. Stifle ( talk) 23:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, while I would have liked to see more arguments advanced at the AfD, this was pretty much a textbook application of WP:MUSIC, and I believe that all appropriate procedure was followed. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. Process applied properly, consensus was to delete. No evidence deletion / closure process was in anyway irrational. Per Lankiveil it would have been nice to get more comment on the AfD but that's not a reason to overturn. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Taylor Toth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy deleted although the article clearly established he was 2002 U.S. Champions in Juvenile Pairs and the 2003 U.S. Champions in Intermediate pair (with Kylie Gleason). Did not deserve a speedy, maybe an Afd. Restore please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor ( talk • contribs)

• Well, the article on the figure skater got hijacked by someone for their band and the deleting admin didn't seem to have noticed that. Simply contacting them would probably have cleared things up.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 13:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 13:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I am not used to challenge deletions. I was not aware of the band stuff. How do you have access to history of a deleted page ? The nominator failed to see that and is wondering if the article is going to be kept deleted because the due process has not been followed ? do we judge procedure or substance ? My apologies for failing to follow the right process. Hektor ( talk) 14:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, if we had no access to the deleted page history we couldn't restore it, which I will do now for better visibility and since i can't imagine how the deletion was anything else but an error as the article was vandalized by an IP (that had already edited the article in the past) with random band info. Unless other info comes up this can then be closed accordingly later. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks again and my apologies for not following the procedure. Hektor ( talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply