Papa Nero (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I noticed that the article Papa Nero (song), which I had created some time ago, was deleted earlier this year. Unfortunately I have been kept away from Wikipedia for several months, and only noticed the fact now.

Please allow me to beg for the article to be restored; or at least, copied to my personal area. It appears that the reason for deletion was "non-notable". However, I would argue that it is in fact more "notable " than many other articles in Wikipedia:

1. It seems that the song was moderately popular in Italy around 1970. I would bet that more than a million people in the world still remember the song and its name.
2. As far as I know, it is the only song in the Venetian language that has got a significant media exposure (at the Sanremo Festival) and significant record sales, outside the Veneto region.
3. As such, it is an important reference in the Venetian language article, on which I have extensively worked in the past; especially about the modern usage of Venetian (which is almost dying out). In fact, I wrote the Papa Nero article mainly as an acessory of Venetian language.
4. For the same reason, the song is of more-than-usual interest to the few and scattered Venetian language speakers, Venetian emigrants and their descendants all over the world.
5. The article contained linguistic and cultural information (such as the Venetian text with English translation) that is hard to find elsewhere, especially by readers who are not Italian or Venetian speakers.

If the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, I would still like to post it in my private home page here at my University. Unfortunately, it did not occur to me that I should save a copy... Please help. Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 23:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• The article can be restored because it was deleted via the WP:PROD process. However, you may wish to read the music notability guidelines to help improve the article to a point where it won't be nominated for deletion by another process ( AFD. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 23:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relisted, but I concur w/ UsaSatsui above that this doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Protonk ( talk) 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Article has been created and deleted a number of times. However, I believe that sources that are substantively about the concept, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4] are now available and an article on the topic could be written that passes WP:NOT#DICDEF. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Has the draft been created? -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No draft has been created. I didn't want to spend time working on it if it was not going to be approved for re-creation. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

    It usually works the other way around when an article has been deleted so many times that an admin has seen fit to prevent recreation. If you make a serviceable draft in your userspace, then it should be OK to move back. Stifle ( talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Same from me: create a draft and bring that here. Give me a shout if you want the article userfied as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I generally have a fairly low threshold for inclusion, but that said, this looks like an article could be written that isn't a dicdef and meets WP:GNG. But in general, you need to create it and see what happens, just like every other article. I'd be opposed a speedy delete or prod of even a moderately well written article using those sources. Hobit ( talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support Recreation While I have not seen the original article (perhaps it should be userfied just to allow a view at the article as it existed when deleted at AfD) the sources Otto4711 provides are unquestionably about the term and would enable a properly-sourced article to be written that would go above and beyond a mer dictionary definition. A first step of creating an article using these sources in user space would most certainly help. Alansohn ( talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support recreation - The term means a male crush generally characterised as a non-sexual love affair between two males. A lot of Wikipedia reliable sources have used the term in a variety of ways, See for example Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, December 17, 2004 and term orgin. A Wikipedia article on the topic could cover the the development of the term over time to give a clearer picture. Otto4711 seems to know what s/he is doing, so there doesn't seem to be a need for DRV to approve a draft. -- Suntag ☼ 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• OK, I have a basic draft, found User:Otto4711/Bromance. If that's acceptable, if a passing admin could move it to articlespace? Otto4711 ( talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ashley Todd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) The AfD closed as speedy move, (effectively a speedy keep) after only 12 hours. The opinions were pretty much evenly split between delete and keep with only a small minority favouring a move. The AfD should have been left to run the full 5 days. RMHED ( talk) 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist for the full five days. There's plenty of people who think that this is deletable for reasons other than "cover the event, not the person". Stifle ( talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note from closing admin A large number of people had already weighed in on the discussion in only 12 hours. The keeps mainly focused on the fact that the event was clearly notable. However, the only item that could even potentially make this a biography on the subject relates to her mental condition--but at this point it's highly speculative, and therefore does not belong in a biography of a living person. So in sum--the event is clearly notable, but there is no way this will ever be a BLP that meets our standards. Hence, the proper course was a speedy move to an article covering the event per BLP1E. Blueboy 96 23:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist This was an AfD of possible significance, with a complicated discussion, and needs to have it. there's appropriately a rule against redirecting during a AfD discussion. DGG ( talk) 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Please post a link to the rule against redirecting during a AfD discussion. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Neutral Meh. The incident was notable, the person wasn't. all of the sourcing out there only allowed us to write an article about Todd with respect to this nonsense she pulled. Very little existed that would allow for a biographical sketch. It seems to me that a sensible move would be to recognize this and see that a move/rename/rewrite would eliminate most of the concerns at the AfD. Maybe the AfD shouldn't have been closed, but there wasn't anything improper about the move/rename of the article. As far as the relisting goes...sure. Relist it. But be prepared for this to not matter at all after the 4th of november. I mean like NO coverage. Less than Joe the Plumber (and he won't get any). Notability isn't temporary, but in less then two weeks we will just end up merging her article into the 2008 campaign omnibus article anyways. Keep that in mind. Protonk ( talk) 05:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support deletion - The redirect is fine; the key content is still there, and no longer pretends to be a biography. This doesn't seem contentious.
• Ick right outcome, bad process (fish wack). speedy Relist the AfD though the same outcome is highly likely. No way the closure was in process, and IAR probably shouldn't stretch this far. Hobit ( talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist While I agree with Protonk's pragmatism, I still maintain that this rename is just a sneaky way around WP:BLP1E. People lie to the police every day, and young Ms. Todd doesn't deserve to be immortalized for it in our pages just because this lie begot a brief media circus. The lie wasn't even about another actual person, so this is entirely still a WP:BLP, just one foreshortened to cover only the biggest mistake of the subject's life! If the AfD had been allowed to go for the full five days, by then people would have seen this manufactured "notability" disappearing in our collective rearview mirrors and the outcome would have been quite different. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- The closing admin made a solid decision in this case. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Well, there was no keeping it as a pseudo-biography at its previous title and Protonk is probably right about where it will end up, given the still significant BLP issues. I vote to relist after the election when we all have a little more perspective about this. Employers won't be searching Wikipedia for background information that isn't already widely available in that time period.-- chaser - t 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn any G4 effects on the Ashley Todd article. - It is regrettable that the issue of whether an Ashley Todd biography meets Wikipeida policy remains unresloved effectively due to a speedy delete (move plus redirect). There now is no G4 basis to keep someone from recreating the Ashley Todd article. Given the different opinions at the AfD, any speedy delete of the Ashley Todd article, including a G10/BLP speedy delete, was not appropriate. We can't unring the bell, so we need to address the pickle. The Ashley Todd AfD started out adressing a biography and the move of the article to Ashley Todd mugging hoax presents a significantly different approach to the topic. The Ashley Todd AfD could not have resulted in a consensus on the Ashley Todd mugging hoax topic. Feel free to immediately list Ashley Todd mugging hoax at AfD. Also, I think it would be reasonable to notify all the participants in the Ashley Todd AfD about the Ashley Todd mugging hoax AfD. A talk page message such as

  "You participated in the Ashley Todd AfD, which ended early do the article being moved to Ashley Todd mugging hoax. The article Ashley Todd mugging hoax now is at AfD."

  would seem reasonable so long as it was placed on all the talk pages of the editors who posted at Ashley Todd AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist to AfD. These premature closures are not only unnecessary, they are bad for the project. Hold a debate and let it run its proper course. If we get to the same answer, fine. WP:IAR has a place but process is important. This was an inappropriate closure. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. We don't need more bureaucracy for this article. The delete !votes mostly invoked WP:BIO1E, which is not a good reason to delete in this case, but rather to change the focus of the article because the event was not covered anywhere else in Wikipedia, even though the event itself was verifiable and sufficiently notable. Relisting would likely result in same decision or "no consensus", which would be an inferior result — all sources about Ashley Todd are still in connection with this event. VG ☎ 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse BLP1E. We've got everything relevant covered in the event article, no good reason to do anything else except process addiction.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist the AFD. There was no good reason for this one to be closed early; there was certainly no clear consensus in the AFD, for a speedy keep, rename or otherwise. It seems to me that the admin thought they could resolve the issues with the article by simply moving it to a different title, but that does not properly address the concerns over long-term notability. Allowing a full five days of discussion is the only way to be sure of reaching a fair conclusion about what, if anything, to do with this article. Terraxos ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: The person is not terribly notable and the event clearly was and is and will be. The way this was dealt with here was done just fine, with a lot of input from other editors. Sure, would have been nice to run the 5 days, but that's not a strict requirement. I wonder if this review request is motivated by political bias, to be honest. -- Kickstart70 T C 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly correct to move the article per WP:BLP1E. Only other viable outcome would be an outright delete which seems unlikely. I have no objection to an editorial relist, particularly after the election. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Perhaps the tide may have turned in another 4 days, but it was clear where this was heading. Todd's independent notability is an interesting subject for debate, but the move addresses the BLP1E issues. I'm sure this will be revisited post-election sooner or later, but the result for now appears within process, even if the process did not run its full course. Alansohn ( talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn and relist Whenever we have a controversial BLP issue we should have a full AfD. This is especially true with BLP1E sort of situations where the line of BLP1E is never quite clear (and for what it is worth I suspect this really is a BLP1E but we need to have that discussion). JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Admin made the right decision though he may have taken the wrong path to get there. KnightLago ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - This was a heated discussion and all of the arguments had been heard. A tough call, to be sure, but definitely not worth overturning.-- HoboJones ( talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse -- The reasons given for the deletion pretty much boiled down to "It violates WP:BLP1E and it's not notable." I think it should be obvious with a little thought that whenever you have an article on a person who's only notable for one notable event and the event doesn't have its own article that deletion is a careless and wasteful way to "solve" the problem, insofar as we can stretch semantics to call it "solving" the problem at all. ("Oh, dear! We've accidentally put out one of the angora sweaters out in the pile of cashmere sweaters!" "Oh, I'll solve that problem! *flamethrower* There, now we've solved the problem of an angora sweater being in the wrong pile! Angora sweater reduced to nothing, therefore nothing in the wrong place!") The remaining justification for deletion, namely the lasting notability of the event -- well, I said at the time and say now that the day after the events occur is not a sensible time to try and use our CRYSTAL balls to determine "oh, no, this will be forgotten by next week." It is next week and Google News gives over 2,600 results for "Ashley Todd". -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) My deepest apologies -- I took a closer look and realized I had left off the quotes, so that it was counting any story with "Ashley" and "Todd" in it. The results are still around 1,200, which I do not think is a very impressive statement of non-notability, certainly not one that justifies re-opening a closed AfD. -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Needs a proper AFD. I'm not really sure this is more than a news story. Unclear it's a topic of encyclopedic importance... or at least that the encyclopedic value outweighs the damage it will do to this person to keep this story alive for the rest of her life. At any rate, AFD can discuss that. -- Rividian ( talk) 16:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the speedy keep/move decision. Few, if any, people who voted on the AfD either way were displeased with the result -- having an article on the incident and not the person. WP:BLP1E concerns about "Cover the event, not the person," were solved with renaming. Should not get bogged down on process and the letter of the law when the end result addressed the AfD concerns. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Author and freelance journalist on China who is the first British-Indian writer to commentate extensively on China- published two books on travel to China and well known with the expat community- reliable resources are available from his publishers and articles which he has written- has has made a contribution to society that not many people have done for China. Please kindly restore his page. Much appreciated in advance. He will be famous within the expatriate and Chinese community once more recognition is gained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpalo ( talk • contribs)

• Endorse. By definition, sources from his own articles and his publishers are not reliable. In addition, speculating that he "will be famous" doesn't establish notability either (see here. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote people. If you can show some sources that discuss this person (independent of him), or his books, that's a different story. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:40, 25 October 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) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at afd. There was a claim of significance. I don't care what order people follow the steps. But this article has now been deleted 3 times, and is so likely to be considered unacceptable, that at afd is the way to settle it. DGG ( talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list (or PROD) per DGG. It's simple enough to see that there aren't major spam concerns there, and the article indicates importance in a number of places. I don't know how the AfD will turn out, but I'm not optimistic about it. I'd also like to note to the nominator that "will be famous" is not notability in the Wikipedian sense. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Per DGG since any valid speedy deletion criteria likely could be overcome easily and the recreations were more likely out of inexperience rather than trying to subvert Wikipedia policy. Also, Navjot Singh is a very common name, see Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Navjot Singh Sidhu, and it is difficult to conclude that this particular Navjot Singh does not meet WP:N without a discussion. Comment to nominator - information from "reliable resources are available from his publishers and articles which he has written" cannot be used in an article on Navjot Singh since that information is not independent of Navjot Singh. A Wikipedia article on Navjot Singh should be based on what other people have written about Navjot Singh. The Wikipedia article should not merely serve to memorialize Navjot Singh's work product or provide a place to host testimonials from assiciates of Navjot Singh. -- Suntag ☼ 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a reasonable A7. The most comprehensive version of the article I could find among the deleted history said that he's an British author who traveled to China and holds a Masters degree. DGG is usually really good about sorting out the invalid CSDs but I can not find any claim of significance in the deleted content, nor do I find any here. Unless someone can show me what I'm missing, this appears to have been reasonable to me. Rossami (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Blue Merle (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Contesting prod; the band charted, among other things. Chubbles ( talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The End Of An Error (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

There was a Prod placed on The End of an Error album article which was challenged so it was taken to an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End Of An Error) on September 6, 2008. User:Ryan Postlethwaite closed the AfD on September 11, 2008 with a "keep". Only three Editors voiced a "keep" opinion, citing links to user submitted news releases/press releases and one editor stating "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth." I feel there was not enough involvement in the discussion and it should be reopened in order to receive input that will be based on Wikipedia guidlines. While the cited sources may be fine in order to "verify" if an album was coming out they do not meet the guidelines for allowing an album to have it's own article. WP:NALBUMS states that All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG for definitions. The cited sources are links to user submitted information on the albums release date and track listing only and do not establish this album as notable nor are they significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 04:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my own closure. The consensus was fairly clear. Concerns about lack of notability are moot given that there are reliable sources available [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. So, this is a an album by a notable band, that is covered in numerous reliable sources giving it basic notability - not sure why this is at drv if I'm being honest..... Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: To answer the the last question first. It is at DRV because there was not any response from you directly on the issue. I have no issues in opening a second AfD, I just thought it would easier to reopen this one because of the short amount of time involved between the closure and when I found the article. As far as the citations go - the ones that I mention above, and now the ones you give, are not "significant coverage" enough to prove notability for allowing the album to have it's own article. Many of the citations that were given in the first AfD were based on "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." about the release of the album. The links you have provided now are a mixture however still nothing that goes beyond a short review or mention of the album's release. Even though the first Afd states the reason as "No reliable published third party sources for future album, fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums" the discussion was more about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not about the notability of the actual release per WP:NALBUMS. The key statement from the What Wikipedia is not policy is that merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is verified that this release exists but it has not been verified that the release is notable enough for it's own article. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Relisting is only appropriate when there are at most two or three comments, and there was no other possibly correct closure. Stifle ( talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Er...we're reviewing a keep result, Stifle.  :) -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I'm in the habit of typing that wrongly (-; Stifle ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This one is pretty clear-cut. Overwhelming keep majority, several sources brought out, easily the right call. Seems to me the nom just wants a second AFD. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I was not the AfD nom. I came across this album and was going to PROD it however I found it PROD and AfD a few weeks ago. If there is a specific question beyond that I have laid out above please ask. Thanks. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reopen AfD: the fact that the majority (3 of 5) of commenters to the AfD want to keep it and ignore wp:v and wp:rs (specific question about the article's sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AbsolutePunk.net, melodic.net, Alternative Press, starpulse.com?) is beside the point. If the majority of AfD commenters want to ignore wp:blp or the GFDL that is also beside the point. Closure should be based on the policies created to make this an encyclopedia, not to turn WP into a blog or Usenet. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-26 t10:06z

• Endorse Closure. While I fully admit that the article has been somewhat poorly sourced, the sources do indeed exist, as shown by Ryan Postlethwaite. Likewise, WP:MUSIC states that "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The band itself is notable, so assuming that the article itself is at least somewhat well-sourced, it should be within reason that the article be kept. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 10:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There are currently no Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines that state that a musical release by a well known, or "notable", artist to be provided automatic "Notability" status and exclude an article about the release from having to follow guidelines. I mentioned it above but bears repeating - there were two issues brought up in the AfD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:NALBUMS. The cited sources were used to verify the album existed but did nothing to establish notability. There are a few key words in the WP:NALBUMS quote from Rwiggum - the main ones being "may have". Those words lead directly back to what I brought up at the top.
  WP:NALBUMS directly addresses how to deal with Wikipedia is not a crystal ball issue with albums: Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article. This was the only guideline issue resolved by the Afd, but it was not "discussed only in the artist's article" - it was discussed at an AfD, which is, at its core, the reason this AfD should be reopened. The key issue that was overlooked, and should have been the *only* issue being discussed at the AfD, was: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• But this ISN'T a future release. It was released October 14th, so some of what you are saying it moot. Likewise, there ARE sources. It doesn't have a ton of them, but they do exist, as has been show in the article, the AFD, and here. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This discussion is about an AfD that was closed based on a topic that should not have been discussed in an AfD, and that was done before the album was released. That fact is not a moot point here as it relates to why, and how, the AfD was closed. All other issues have been brought up in detail already but I welcome any editor to view the articles citations and then discuss here how they establish notability for this album (not the band - not other albums - this album).
  

1. Houston Calls Release Date "user submitted news" consisting of one sentence
2. Houston Calls Track Listing "user submitted news" consisting of track listing
3. HOUSTON CALLS POST NEW SONG "user submitted news" consisting of a release of a song to the bands myspace page, the name of the album, tentative release date and that it is a follow up album.
4. End of an Error release date and track listing.
5. "Houston Calls at the end of an error" "user submitted news" consisting of brief bio on album, release date, track listing.

A bit of a timeline may be of use here: The article was created on August 6, 2008. The first three citations were added on September 5, 2008 after the PROD was removed. September 6, 2008 it was taken to AfD. On September 11 the AfD was closed with no new citations being added. Not only that but the only "External links" were to the official website, the official myspace page and the official Sonic Bids page. Because it bears repeating yet again, the notability issue was brushed aside. On October 19, 2008 the next citation was added with the comment: "While the official track listing omits "Dork Thinks He's Gonna Drown", it is actually a hidden track that plays approx. 20 minutes after the end of "The Oaks on Prince St." Also on October 19 the final citation was added. On October 21, 2008 I looked at the article and was going to PROD it for non notable per WP:NALBUMS however I saw it had already had a PROD that was contested and it had gone through the AfD process. On October 25, 2008 I started this DRV. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Unless the keep arguments were complete crap (which they weren't), there's just about no possibility for an AfD such as that to be closed as delete. No consensus is the best you can hope for, which still results in the article being kept (I personally would have leaned that way myself). Do feel free to nominate the article for AfD again after a suitable time has passed (generally, a month or two is good). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Lifebaka. At AfD1, the likelihood of reliable sources being available carrys weight. Admin's closing "use their best judgment" discretion, all the keep reasoning backed by WP:AGF, and this being AfD1, it would be difficult to say that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or that the close should be overturne and the article delete. If this were AfD2, AfD3, etc., then the actualy lack of reliable sources would be given more weight. Feel free to list at AfD2 in two months, which should be enough time to find sufficient reliable source material for the topic. -- Suntag ☼ 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

J. William Williams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Deleting admin has requested DRV. I propose restoring the artice because the article has been dramatically improved at User:Paulmcdonald/J. William Williams with additional sources and more historically significant information. Primary reason for original deletion was based on deletion of Walter J. West which has since been restored. You can read an essay about the supposed "West" precedent. Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Moved here from WP:DRV. Sorry I didn't get this log up beforehand. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm fine with restoring it. I don't know about any "precedent" for anything. Far as I can tell, articles sourceable to third party publications get to stay. Those that aren't get deleted. Protonk ( talk) 05:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• restore I'm not sure of the quality of sourcing. The NYT article is short, but shows that they though highly of him (notable). The rest aren't as independent as I might like. But that seems fairly good for a football player of that day. I strongly suspect there were articles in local papers of the day, but those are hard to get to... So one (short) NYT piece and all the "less-than-fully-independent" sources meet GNG in my mind. Hobit ( talk) 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration Given Williams' role as a player and a coach in college football at a time when pro football barely received any public attention (see History of American football) and given systemic bias issues with finding sources for individuals in their prime 100 years ago, I have no issue with the quantity and quality of the sources provided in the article establishing notability. Alansohn ( talk) 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply