Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 25: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 57:

Stub biography on a notable and encyclopedic Australian person who is mentioned in many crime related books and newspaper articles publishing during the 1980's. Comments left when the article was proposed for deletion were ''This article does not establish encyclopedic notability; conviction of rape is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for an encyclopedia article; neither is allegations of murder or drug dealing. There is no evidence given for his single crime being a particular cause célèbre of the time, or having any effect on contemporary law, culture or criminology. There are '''absolutely no sources given''', and an article such as this '''cannot''' be kept without them''. References were added after being requested however the proposed deletion tag wasn't removed and the deletion went ahead. I feel this article was unfairly deleted. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:Articles that are deleted bcause of proposed deletion should not be sent to Deletion Review, rather they should be restored and discussion should be on AFD if necessary. I have restored it.--[[User:Kungfuadam|Kungfu Adam]] ([[User_talk:Kungfuadam|talk]]) 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

~~====[[Zazz]]====~~

~~:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zazz]]~~

It Conforms to [[WP:CORP]] by having multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. But yet it still got deleted. [[User:Feedyourfeet|Feedyourfeet]] 08:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:Could you provide the sources here, or could an admin restore at least the sources from the deleted page to demonstrate the validity of the closure? If the user could provide more sources than the page had at the deletion discussion time it would also be great.[[User:Ansell/Esperanza|Ansell]] 11:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

~~::* [http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/06/551/top-5-best-places-to-find-geek-deals APC Magazine Article]~~

~~::* [http://www.zazz.com.au/Uploads/mx.png MX (scanned article)][[User:Feedyourfeet|Feedyourfeet]] 08:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)~~

*'''Comment:''' I've temporarily restored the history of this article. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 12:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''', looks like a valid AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zazz|here]] where users considered how notable this company is and whether it conforms to [[WP:CORP]]. Some of the delete !voters noted that the sources linked in the article were merely to forum posts. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 12:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD. For reference, the only links in the article that could claim to qualify as "multiple mentions" satisfying [[WP:CORP]] are [http://www.zazz.com.au/Uploads/mx.png] and [http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/06/551/top-5-best-places-to-find-geek-deals]. Per reasons already mentioned in the AfD, I venture to say neither actually satisfy [[WP:CORP]] requirements. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''': It seems like the site is on the verge, and so it's not a slam dunk either way. On a procedural basis, the AfD was closed appropriately. If the site generates other press clippings, or if it gets infamy, perhaps the authors can try again. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': The MX aritcle is not from a press release as incorrectly stated in the AFD. [[User:Feedyourfeet|Feedyourfeet]]

*'''Endorse deletion'''. Near-unanimous AfD, plenty of editors taking part. One source which is not a press release, 5-10 employees, not a novel concept, no evidence of turnover, not publicly traded. Valid per policy and process. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy you know?]] 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''': JzG, It has two sources which are not press releases & "not a novel concept" wtf only two in the world and only one in Australia. [[User:Feedyourfeet|Feedyourfeet]] 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' the "published works" cited are just basic description, whether from a press release or not; participating editors in the afd correctly decided to not accept them as non-trivial. Article itself borders on VSCA. [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' I can't say that the site has either been around long enough, or had enough non-forum based activity to make an article viable. The small mention in a newspaper is not really objective, it reads like an advertisement. The APC mention on its own doesn't convince me that the page will have enough external sourcing not to be original research. It would be susceptible to failing the [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy in its current state. I would not be against a small copycat type message on Woot.com page as Woot appears to be more established and verifiable. Thanks to DeathPhoenix for restoring the page history! [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|Ansell]] 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

~~:*'''Comment''': I would be against something be placed on Woot as they are two different companys. [[User:Feedyourfeet|Feedyourfeet]] 10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)~~

*'''Comment''': I believe Zazz may be notable because of its association with a company that is certainly notable in the Australian software industry. The director of Zazz was listed on the page as Alfred Milgrom. He was one of the co-founders of [[Melbourne House]] a notable Australian software developer (http://www.sumea.com.au/sdevelopersprofile.asp?developer=9). He is currently managing director of Smarty Pants Publishing. (http://www.smartypantsco.com/about/). Smarty Pants Publishing was originally a subsidiary of Melbourne House. Zazz appears to be an offshoot of Smarty Pants Publishing (They share the same registered office. DNS records for zazz.com.au show an email address at smartypantsco.com). Zazz has an indirect association with Melbourne House, and is notable at least in the sense of "Whatever happened to..."

*'''Endorse deletion'''. The discussion about [[WP:CORP]] was played out in the AfD discussion. The close as delete is entirely in line with the consensus, and no new information has been added here to show otherwise. [[User:Kevin1243|Kevin]] 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion''' Incorporate (no pun) information into one or more of the above-mentioned articles. The AfD discussed the issues raised here and this has every appearance of being a valid in-process deletion. The situation hasn't changed so radically as to invalidate the result the AfD reached. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)