Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 13 >

12 March 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Valid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reasons are ... working on it ... will be added later... Sr2008 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fernando Rodés Vilà (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A7 Despite a request for justification for this deletion, I received no response. This person is notable; there was no reason to delete the entry within 30 minutes of writing it. Nuj (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The subject of the deleted article is the CEO of the sixth largest advertising firm in the world, the second largest in France. There are oodles of verifiable sources to support notability easily per WP:N. It is unfortunate that the admin chose to delete an article under construction within its first half hour of existence, apparently without doing any research or communication with the article creator. It is also indeed unfortunate that the admin failed to respond to the very civil and reasonable request for an explanation.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Even without the references found by jerry, the links in the original article for the company were enough to indicate some importance. More likely to have just been a simple error than a misuse of speedy.DGG (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin. Having reviewed my decision my view is that it was borderline and on another day I would probably have declined (as I do with many nominations). It did look like yet another CV style bio but I was too hasty with the delete button. I would also like to apologise for not replying in the first instance; it was an oversight and - as evidenced by the rest of my talk page - entirely out of character. nancy (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I meant endorse the request to overturn; I've not been here before so I am not clear on the lingo. Not doing very well today am I? nancy (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Wikipedians by radio series – Endorse deletion. There is nothing wrong with the deletion per say. I would suggest that this discussion not be taken as precedent, however. There was obviously too little discussion to cite this result as a wholesale endorsement that similar categories should not exist. My suspicion is that nobody cares about these categories in particular... but if they do, no prejudice against re-creation/re-population. One of the problems with category deletion is that they cannot really be "improved" in the same ways as articles can. – IronGargoyle (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Navy Lark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Round the Horne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

Unlike the other subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio (UCfD here), these categories are about specific radio series. I believe that they are comparable to the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in television and Category:Wikipedians interested in a book series, among others. While User:VegaDark's comment in the discussion may be a valid opinion, I don't believe that it represents consensus in this case. In requesting this DRV, my intent is wanting a restoration and a relisting at UCFD for further discussion. - jc37 23:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a reference showing the similarity of radio and television "series", see also: Serial (radio and television). - jc37 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Megalithic geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't know who is the administrator who deleted the page. My page was deleted and I would like the decision to be reconsidered please , for I worked hard to create this page, making it as neutral, succinct but precise, and objective as possible, with all the references. Thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I know who deleted the article, I keep writing here and there that it is David Eppstein, I even talked to him. But someone wrote me that I should contact the admin. So again, who is the admin, please? And could you please reconsider the decision of deleting the article, this is not really a repost, the first one was a stub, this one is a full-fledged article (I worked so hard redoing it) with all the references ans so on, and the 'Alan Butler' article as well, he's a well-known, prolific British writer, he's even a professional writer (he's famous enough to live out of his writing, which I think is rare enough to be granted an article in Wiki). I'm looking forward to hearing from you, could you please read the article again ('Megalithic Geometry') and tell me if it is really so badly done that it should be so unfairly deleted in one click? Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CSD#G4 is for "substantially identical" recreations. A quadrupling of the length of the article, and a sextupling of the reference count clear that hurdle easily enough in this case. David Eppstein's comment on talk that "Re-doing the deletion discussion whenever anyone feels like re-creating the article would be a waste of time for all concerned" is true only to the extent that the article is near enough to being the same that we'd just be re-spinning the same wheel. I do not think the article can be construed as being substantially identical to that previously deleted. The close of the AfD was a tough one, but correct - as the closer indicates a merge might have been possible were the intended target not deleted also (though others were suggested eg pseudoscientific metrology). Since the speedy was to my eyes incorrect, I'm going to undelete it and return the matter to AfD as a substantively different article. User:Little sawyer, you are going to need to make a strong case even for the new article, as this does rather seem to be a 'one man band' kind of theory. Splash - tk 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, many thanks!--Little sawyer (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anti-Pakistani Sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello, This article which was originally titled "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" as per List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms, However in an act of vandalism this "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" was renamed wrongly and maliciously "Pakistanphobia". The article was deleted because of this new title which was never the original title, The article has 28 sources that make reference to the term Anti-Pakistani sentiment. It is truly tragic that an article which was created to highlight righfully the widespread discrimination against Pakistanis in Asia and the western world has become a victim of discrimination. Best Regards S Seagal (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistanphobia. Corvus cornixtalk 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is here and it was voted to be kept Afd for Anti-Pakistani sentiment

S Seagal (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

now that I can see it, it's clear that the article did contain substantial POV content, devoted not to describing anti-Pakistani sentiment but to justifying it. Upon restoration, it will need editing. It's a pity it will have taken all this process to force a NPOV. DGG (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

As I can't quite figure out the system for adding to a deletion request I am putting this here and apologize in advance if I misunderstood the process. I am requesting a deletion or challenging the lack of deletion for the article about Unreleased Material by Britney Spears by providing reasons for it's speedy deletion. As the archive of a previous discussion appeared in the place I thought I was supposed to lay out the reasoning (and there is a warning against editing it), I am putting this here on the hopes it will find the right place or that this is a place it can go.

All that said, the article is longer than the article about the singer, fails to meet criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia according to notability, doesn't explain the importance of the article or why it is notable in the article, is not up to Wikipedia standards of encyclopedic writing, and is a list which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. KeeperOTD (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse refusal to speedy. WP:CSD is for use in limited circumstances where articles clearly meet the intentionally narrowly defined criteria. This article does not. There are other processes by which articles can be handled if failing inclusion standards, and User:Orangemike did the right thing in my opinion by changing a speedy deletion nomination that did not meet the criteria to a WP:PROD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close - Nothing for DRV to do here, this isn't AfD nor a venue for requesting Speedy Deletes. The article has been PRODed. If that fails, AfD is the proper next step. -- Kesh (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Beyond the Red Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason for deletion was stated to be 'A7 (group)' which in this case was used as far as i understand it against wikipedia's rules for speedy deletion as it clearly states that A7 criteria can not be used for this case as the whole page is about a video game (ie. software), 'not articles on their books, albums, software and so on'. Video game in question has been mentioned in both printed as well as in digital media in several occasions so should more references (ie. increased notablity) been wanted those could have easily been added. Asking the administrator who deleted the page to comment or to explain this i got no responses though the admin himself was active several times on his on talk page. Wanderer602 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AFD I personally think the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of being kept via an AFD discussion, however Wanderer is techincally correct. Software itself is specifically exempt from CSD discussions, and should have gone through AFD to be deleted. I fully expect it to be deleted via AFD, but to speedy delete it was against procedure... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Still think it should be listed at AFD, but this looks like a better chance of making it through... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list as Jayron says. It saves time in the end to do it the right way. DGG (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of all "unofficial and free stand-alone total conversions". Fie on the process-wonks, this stands no chance whatsoever and quietly putting it out of its misery was the right thing to do. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list I'm with them, and I would even have to say that from some other articles I have seen, I do not know why this one would have any reason for deletion, and disagree with it being snowballed. What makes an article about a free standalone TC so different from say, the article on Defense of the Ancients, a custom game for Warcraft III? I'd like to carry this discussion further but feel it should wait until it is listed on AFD. Chief1983 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. If there is need to include video games in A7, that should be developed through policy change discussion, not out-of-process deletions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion is only one of the ways of chaging policy, generally accepted practice of "the right thing" is another. (And arguably the ultimate source of the bulk of significant policy). Bureaucratic following the exact "letter of the law" over reasonable judgement tends to stifle development of policy --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be true in some cases, but I do not believe it should be in terms of deletion. Among other objections, barring the unnecessary drama of deletion review, who is to know if policy should be changed if administrators are enacting their judgment unilaterally rather than discussing it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we don't apply special standards for policy development in deletion process (WP:PROD may never have happened otherwise) and the WP:DRV drama, looking down this one the general view is that this doesn't hold up, the only reason given for overturning is the desire to follow the letter of the policy, perhaps if people relaxed on the latter then there wouldn't be such drama? I'm certainly not advocating a free for all, and if an admins deletions are frequently showing poor judgement (i.e. overturned here for other reasons), then clearly they aren't in line with the community view. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that if admins do not discuss problems with policy but rather go their own way, then policy is not evenly applied, which can only cause confusion. In addition, good faith contributors might justifiably feel bitten if their articles are deleted not according to our stated procedures but just because an admin feels like it. I think if people relax on the desire to follow the letter of the policy, then out-of-process deletions are likely to increase. Conversely, if people agreed on the need to follow the letter of the policy, we might devise a policy that we can all agree works efficiently. If you're frequently having to WP:IAR, there's something wrong with the R. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How many articles have you seen for unofficial free fan mods that were created by single purpose accounts and have survived AfD? Why waste everybody's time on an obviously utterly hopeless case? Guy (Help!) 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This one seems to be a pretty good example, given the sourcing being turned up below, of why articles may benefit from the wider review of AfD. It seems it may not be a waste of time or an utterly hopeless case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And how is that any different for software than people/companies etc. the things explicitly covered under CSD:A7? A person bio deleted for no assertance of significance, may with enough eyes and motivation be developed further etc. Even say a simple attack article "x y is a moron" given enough time someone might research and find that x y is in fact important in some way and worthy of an article, should we AFD all those too on the off chance? Copyvios, well they can always be rewritten in your own words right? So no speedy of them either, list at AFD and hope someone will rewrite in the meantime, really we may as well just make it a huge dumping ground for people hoping someone else will come along and write the article to wikipedia standards. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're attempting a meta-discussion about the need to do away with CSD (or, conversely, to make every article fair game for it), you might want to do it at WP:VP. I don't think it's going to get enough readership here to form any kind of consensus. :) In fact...that's kind of my point. If practical experience is showing a problem with policy, that should be addressed and handled globally rather than by handling individual articles out of process. That's how we arrive at effective policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, the point is consensus behind WP:CSD, we delete "unsuitable" content, we don't use AFD as an editing service to try and bring such articles up to scratch. Per WP:BUREAU the intent of CSD is the important part, not the exact letter --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the way that's been cleverly hidden behind the words "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion." :) Anyway, this continues to be meta and has nothing to do with this case. If you want to talk meta, I'll meet you in a more appropriate forum. I'm done talking it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list per DGG and Moon. Joe 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm with Guy here, there ain't no way it's gonna' make it through an AfD like that. (Three cheers for the various incarnations of WP:IAR!) And let's also smack the deleting admin and speedy nominator with some wet trouts while we're at it for the misuse of A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is something I don't get, agreeing that the action was correct and stating the admins did the right thing while simultaneously, even humourously, stating that they shouldn't have done it. The problem is the speedy deletion criteria, not the actions of the admin. –– Lid(Talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete per Guy while I'm at it. –– Lid(Talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment trouts aren't effective. what does discourage people from doing things wrong is when the acts are overturned. That's what we are here for , to review decisions, not hand out demerits. If slapping is needed, AN/I and RfC are the places for it. DGG (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. I'm unfamiliar with this wiki reviewing system so as i gathered some additional info on the subject thought it should be posted here. Game was featured prominently in 5/2007 issue of Pelit (Finnish gaming magazine) with 3 page long review/interview [1] and was featured on annual cover disk of Mikrobitti magazine. Game also won ModDB annual mod of the year contest [2] in 'Indie game of the year' category. It has also been reviewed in for example PC World (magazine)& Macworld [3], devs have been interviewed in Shacknews [4], was featured in The Escapist (magazine) [5] etc. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep The sources indicated by Wanderer (particularly the Escapist, Macworld and Shacknews) means this passes notability. AFD is process wonkery in this case, just reinstate the article and I'll reference the bloody thing myself, end of problem. Someoneanother 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Whatever we think about interpreting speedy deletion criteria to the letter, the deletion has been contested correctly on procedural grounds with the deleting admin, and once that happens (and I don't know how many actually remain unchallenged for better or worse), it is up to them to either undelete and send to AfD or try to convince the author that is a hopeless case. If there is any process wonkery here, it lies in actually forcing this to go through a DRV. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as out-of-process hyperextension of CSD criteria. Software itself is specifically exempt from CSD decisions, and so this should have gone through AFD to be deleted. Consensus has already occurred for the wording of the CSD criteria, and if we think it is process wonkery, we should discuss that as a proposed change to CSD. We have a process to address process wonkery, which must be followed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yamanote Halloween Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Since this page was deleted in 2006 for not having enough verifiable sources it has since gained more sources (such as Boingboing). This is notable enough for a Wikipedia article as it showcases modern culture in Tokyo, weather that be favorable culture or not. Wikipedia being NPOV shouldn't decide that part. Further, there are lots of blogs and videos that name this event but no information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia being a source of knowledge should have something about it. This has been redeleted several times as a "recreation of deleted" material. But doesn't there come a point when someone must realize that it has been recreated several times by different people because it is notable enough people, like me and many others, searched for it here on Wikipedia and couldn't find it? Nesnad (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - The given links are 1) a bare mention of the 'event', essentially just showing that it exists; 2) random video from the event, no commentary or news-worthy content at all; 3) a blog, which is not a reliable source; and 4) another blog. Only #1 comes even close to being a source, and it's barely a paragraph long. There's not enough here to satisfy WP:V. -- Kesh (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been deleted several times by different administrators because it doesn't adrress the problems of the AfD nor demonstrate the sources listed above notability. So keep deleted until a better sourced version is created in user space. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bitweaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4)

Previous deletions undergone some strong misunderstaning and bias. Kozuch (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore First, I'm very annoyed about the process that User:Kozuch is using for restoring this page. It bears reminder that this is WP:NOTAVOTE. So, to Kozuch, a ruler across the wrists. That said, I've read both AfD instances, and it seems they both should have fallen under "no consensus." Further, though, for everything in the discussion and many of my experiences with past AfD articles, this should be restored. Sourceforge shows a high project activity level (though I never figured out QUITE what that measured), and well-known many security sites feel fit to post their vulnerabilities (doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?). Finally, though it seems worthy of an entry, I do offer one last reminder to Kozuch, and many other self-interested authors who have and will come here: Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY. --Auto (talk / contribs) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "both AfD instances"? There are four, all resulting in delete. I'd agree the last one would possibly have been a relist though given the history delete is quite reasonable. That debate had two real delete opiners (the nom and one other), one delete who seems more to be throwing toys out of pram than serious, three keeps, the user who created the article and disappeared a week later, one who has one other edit than AFD comment, and the lister here who stated the reason to keep as "I am a user of bitweaver and want to keep this page". The previous AFD with 3 delete opiners and 1 keep, on strength of argument (failing WP:CORP, WP:V) contrasted against some trivial mentions delete isn't an unreasonable outcome. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for digging up the whole collection of AfD links. I get the gist from all this, though of the following points: The nom for the DRV's arguments have not been sufficient (and yet strongly biased), and that the content of the page has previously read as rather spammy. That said, it appears that the topic itself is notable and can be independently cited. This should be considered separate from a poorly written page for a topic. When reviewing this deletion, I think the metric we really need to glue ourselves to whether this is considered notable. I'll leave this to shake itself out until tomorrow, and then possibly ask for the page to be restored and see if it can't be edited into a decent state. --Auto (talk / contribs) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's rather standard. If an article can be written that substantially addresses the reasons for deletion, then it can be, no WP:DRV required. If someone wants to use an existing deleted article for a basis, then a reasonable admin should be able to userfy it for them to do so (assuming it's not in such a bad state as to be a worthless starting point). Deletion review doesn't need to concern itself if the subject is notable or not, since that is fixible elsewhere. (I'll add a note in the case of articles consistently deleted and thus protected, the normal recommendation is to rewrite in userspace first and then list here to consider, though the latter isn't a formal requirement just sound advice to help with bickering later) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A Bitweaver page proposal is here: User:Kozuch/Bitweaver--Kozuch (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Martin_Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have no connexion with the original article or MW, but was looking on WP for info on the Health Freedom Movement. MW is singled out twice in that article, referred to as "notable", and his historical bibliography heads the "further reading". I believe the original article significantly mis- (or under-)represented MW's professional importance in two fields, as a writer and as a graphic designer. His secondary occupation of graphic designer was given as his primary designator, but even that was underplayed, since there was no mention that his political poster art from the 70s and 80s is held in 2 British national collections, including the V&A. However, it is as a political and cultural writer that he has earned his main reputation, over the last 25 years. However, the article failed to give publication details of MW's books published by mainstream publishers, including Sidgwick & Jackson, Canary Press, and Fontana, leaving the impression that he was purely self-published. A brief search in the national British Library catalogue gave the following 5 books:

1. Poor man Beggar Man Thief: The story of New Horizon Youth Centre. Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1972.

2. State of Siege; Policing the Miners Strike. Canary Press, London. 1985.

3. A Turn of the Screw: The aftermath of the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike. Canary Press (1985)

4. Frightened for my Life; Deaths in British prisons. Geoff Coggan and Martin Walker. Fontana. (1982)

5. With Extreme Prejudice: Police Vigilantism in Manchester. Canary Press, London (1987)

MW's importance as a political writer can be gauged from this extract from an independent review of "With Extreme Prejudice" (1987) that appeared in the wellknown cultural journal The Edinburgh Review:

"Walker’s method in this book (and his other ones) is to combine field research with searching philosophical critique of the tools at his and our disposal. Unlike many writers of the ‘left’, though, his concern is with citizens as human beings, not ciphers, which means his work is not only easy and exciting to read but also full of sudden insights into the way the arm of the state actually thinks…. It would be nice to go on and on quoting extracts from the book. More practically, every reader of ER should buy a copy, read it, then pass it around as many others as possible. It is quite honestly the most coherent and programmatic analysis of what goes on in this country today, why and what to do about it, ever."

The circumstances surrounding MW's move to self-publishing with his best-known book "Dirty Medicine" (1993) are politically noteworthy in themselves, and explained fully in the many interviews that he has given. An independent critical review of DM from the Marxist journal Capital & Class (1996) is available here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_199610/ai_n8751139 Since that book, MW has written mainly on political aspects of the relations between health providers, government and the corporate pharmaceuticals sector.

The deleted article failed to give adequate references, independent reviews, or supporting evidence, so it is easy to see why it was deleted. IMO it is just as easy to see why a short but better article can be written, containing a brief bio, with a factual account of the two main phases of his publications, including a properly referenced bibliography. A short "Critical opinion" section, citing the two examples above, would be helpful to 'place' MW. And of course, some mention of national collections holding his design works from the earliest part of his career would round out the picture. Sam Weller (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • allow recreation on the basis of the aboveDGG (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to allow recreation given evidence of the subject's notability above, though I think that given the topic matter and related on-wiki/real-life spillover disputes, great care will need to be taken to base the article on reliable, independent secondary sources and avoid having it become a WP:COATRACK. I'd encourage anyone interested to wathclist and assist in improving the article if it is recreated. MastCell Talk 18:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation Martin Walker IS notable. A good journalist/researcher (of history and present-status, not a bench scientist)DanaUllmanTalk 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Punkrockdomestics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I feel as though the recent editing of the article wasn't taken into consideration before deletion. PunkRockDomestics is not only one of the leading sites for all things DIY, but a large group of people dedicating their life to the DIY ethic. This article was not posted with the intention to advertise the site, but rather the intention to inform and educate others of the importance of this group in the DIY world. If anything, I would like a copy of the article to further edit and potentially post elsewhere if it is still unwanted here. PunkRockDomestics is becoming very well known and has been large influence upon the DIY community and I feel as if it should be recognized for this. Pers phne (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse self-deletion. Even if there is no intention to advertise, there was nothing in the article or talk page to indicate that the group met any of the notability guidelines for people and groups. Speedy-deletable in any case. If you want the deleted text for personal editing, I can email to you, if you specify your email address in your user preferences. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Punkrockdomestics Deletion. Alright, thats legit. I would really appreciate a copy of the deleted text, my email address should be there. Pers phne (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_12&oldid=1140391381"