Kevjumba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) (21 July 2007 AfD) Kevin Wu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) (3 January 2008 AfD) <-- Deletion review of this one. KevJumba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) (22 July 2008 AfD)

I have found sources for this article, which was deleted for lacking notability. The article currently exists at Kevjumba, but our naming conventions say it should be at Kevin Wu. Kevin Wu was protected after the last deletion because of repeated recreation. There are two relevant AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wu. The first says it can be recreated if sources are found, the second is a normal delete. I don't really want Kevin Wu undeleted, I want it inprotected so I can move Kevjumba over to it. I asked the admin who did it, and he said to come here. [1] Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per most recent AfD in January, which was pretty decisive. It's also generally considered bad form to re-create something under another title which is deleted by consus and protected under the normal title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I wan't the one who recreated it, it was done by a newbie. I saw it was recreated, and decided to check out if his notability had changed. It had, so I added the refs and brought it here. What would have been good form? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• A userspace draft would have been nice. Also, the most significant difference between the current article and the old one is a claimed appareance on a CW show whose article says it was the network's lowest-rated show ever and only 3 episodes ever aired. Not enough to overturn January's AfD, methinks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• The biggest difference is the seven independant sources that came out since the last AfD. His notability isn't based on appearing in the show, it's based on coverage. Like this one. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Also see User:Tlogmer/Kevjumba. -- Suntag ☼ 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Given the sourcing since the last AfD, I'd say that new deletions should head there again. So, my official stance is don't G4 the current article. I've moved it the proper title and left Kevjumba as a redirect. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation - The article now has sources that overcome the 3 January 2008 AfD and there is at least one editor (Peregrine Fisher) interested in a viable article on the topic. The other items are annoying (recreation w/o DRV review, multiple deletions, vandalism history, etc.), but Peregrine Fisher's involvement seems enough to help keep the matter under control for the time being. Another AfD couldn't hurt. -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm not really sure what the goal of this is. The AfD I closed in January was obviously supported by policy and consensus. The most recent AfD was closed properly, too (if a little suddenly). If the subject now merits an article, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the other deletions should be overturned. The article is there now, and already properly titled as far as I can see, and it's not going to be speedied as a re-creation, so what exactly is being discussed? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I originally asked the admin who had deleted Kevin Wu to unprotect it so that I could move Kevjumba to that article name. He told me to come here, so I did. One of the admins above performed the move, so I got what I wanted. i don't know if it should be marked as resolved or what. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Roly Poly (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

It was marked for deletion due to "this is an album for a band that isn't even in WP". Fine, I will add an article for the band if this article can be restored. They are certainly notable, and I've had to fight for this article in the past! They are easily more notable than many bands/albums I've seen here on WP (mostly california indie bands I've never heard of) so please give my article a chance. I can even provide more detailed information on them and their albums, ISBN and such, as I have their album. I really do NOT look forward to another "notability battle" to defend this band. They are notable, they do exist, and they did release one or more albums, and Amazon even sells "Roly Poly". Please consider the restoration of this article. Also, I logged in too late to contest it, so it got auto-erased. I had intentionally stubbed the article so I could find out as much information about this band as possible, since I live in Austin TX which is where they're from.

There is plenty of notability information on the band's previous incarnation, "Schatzi", which was formed in Oklahoma before the members moved to Austin. I believe that there is plenty enough stuff on Google (band history, member bios, etc) to create an article on both Schatzi (an article of the same name did exist at one time, although maybe unrelated-- deleted due to being an advert) and Blunderwheel. Most of what I'm talking about can be found at Mammoth Records' website, at http://mammoth.go.com/schatzi/index.html. Neat, I just also determined that I could add the band and album to the Mammoth Records article, thus giving them more WP-credibility.

Regards, Weasel5i2 ( talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Betterstream (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) Betterstream.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

This is posted on behalf of an OTRS respondent (ticket #2008093010003436), who wishes to appeal the deletion but (for reasons withheld from public view due to the confidential nature of OTRS) cannot. The reason provided as a DRV nomination statement is as follows:

It seems all major video sharing sites are listed here, which is all the more reason BetterStream.com should be. It is a revolutionary new site that hosts higher quality video than the most video sites (youtube) and higher quality audio than most audio sites (including myspace). It also shares revenue and ad space with ALL users from day one. That's some of the notability and nobility"

Also, the deleter, Versageek, said to try back when I have mainstream approval. I wrote, "Dear Versageek, BetterStream doesn't intend on associating itself with the mainstream and intends to be listed on Wikipedia for that very reason, as a company that is defying the mainstream." and disassociating itself with the mainstream.

That's news worthy, and I've personally been covered in many articles by major newspaper and internet blogs. This content on BetterStream has more internet views than Focus Features, an international production firm listed on Wikipedia.

No opinion. Deleting administrator has been notified via other mediums. Regards, Daniel ( talk) 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The concept of what make it notable listed above isn't what wikipedia considers notability the general standard being non-trivial coverage in multiple indepedendant reliable sources. The guides make no mention of revenue sharing, high quality video etc. with good reason. If Betterstream isn't going to let itself get coverage by the mainstream (and if it is notable I don't see how it can avoid it, you can't stop people writing about you) then it's unlikely to meet the guidelines for notability and more importantly wikipedia can't write a verifiable article, if we can't do that we can't have an article. What's more for all this attempt to avoid the mainstream, why are you interested in having an article on wikipedia? "That's news worthy.." - that's a matter of opinion, by wikipedia isn't here to report the news, it's an encyclopedia. As to personal notability without knowing who raises this, I can't look into that, but it doesn't matter for this article, it might be a reason to have an article on the person, but their business ventures don't instantly become notable as a result. As I can't see the article I can't tell if it should have been an A7 (but I note it's deleted as G11 under another guise as well.) -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted unless the nominator or someone else presents independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it's an admittedly new site with no evidence of rs coverage or assertion that it has received any. Valid G11 and also would have been A7, non-notable web content. Just because its "newsworthy" doesn't mean it was discussed in reliable sources. Also, legal threats don't help. Just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean it isn't spam. Endorse and salt if creator does not respect consensus if it forms here. TravellingCari 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion of advertorial with no evidence of meeting our inclusion criteria. Guy ( Help!) 13:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I can't help notice that this has a current Alexa ranking of over 2 million and falling--Compare Youtube (rank 3) and Hulu (rank 590)--so claims that this somehow deserves an article by default because other video sites have them are faulty at best. I'd say that any startup trying to wedge itself into the video-sharing fray at this point is coming late to the table and will have a very tough time making a name for itself among the giants in the field... but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Bottom line: no notability, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Just sorta' thinking here, but this appears to be about Betterstream.com and not Betterstream, based on timing and the mention of the deleting admin from the former in the nomination statement. It's also far less interesting to look at.
  So, down to business. I'm afraid I'm going to have to endorse the deletion as a valid A7/ G11 speedy. I suggest getting some mainstream news coverage before recreating the article, as required by the general notability guideline. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - No information in Google news, Google books, or Google scholar. I couldn't even find a press release and there website contains no links to press coverage. I found Better StreamGenie Live Webcaster, but that is not Betterstream. Without reliable source material, there really isn't anything from which a Wikipedia article could be created. On a related note, I looked for information about founder Ben Ligeri ( Benjamin Ligeri), which resulted in Internet provides plenty of forums to discuss Cho. identifying a Benjamin Ligeri of Rehoboth, Massachusetts posting a video to a MySpace page. -- Suntag ☼ 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the original G11 deletion, could also have been speedy deleted under A7. If there actually are major newspapers which have covered this website then you need to list citations to the articles in question to prove it. Hut 8.5 06:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Hi, i'm trying to get the article titled "Tangle Creations" undeleted. I am wanting to write an article with the History, background, and different uses for the various Tangles. I'm trying not to make it sound like i'm "advertising", as I'm guessing that is why my article has been deleted. Please provide suggestions on how I can edit to keep the article up. Thanks! Tanglecreations ( talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• No comment on the deletions, but judging by your username you might want to have a look at our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow re-creation of a well-sourced article, but do not undelete. Both versions were hopeless, with right-off-the-package sounding phrases like "delighted children of all ages" and "you too will see the endless possibilities that Tangles can serve in you and your child’s life". Tangle is a notable toy, and frankly I'm surprised we didn't already have an article on it, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and content such as the previous versions is unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted and salted until a reasonable userspace draft is presented. Stifle ( talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion of spammy content without prejudice against re-creation by an established editor with no WP:SPA / WP:COI concerns; a userspace draft would help here. Guy ( Help!) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: User:Tanglecreations has been indefinitely blocked by User:Travellingcari for having a promotional username. Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply