Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 27

Happy Corner – absent sources deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted with the reason "no sources and no notability". However, the corresponding article on zhwiki provides sources enough. Liangent (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to examine the article I missed this AfD, which happened quite awhile ago. I think I worked on this article several years ago and was skeptical if it passed WP:N then. But - I believe it did end up with enough RS to drop my objection even if I thought it was stupid. If the deleted version didn't contain sources then maybe move it to WP:INCUBATE and Liangent can move the translated sources over. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible that sources can be found. there were however none in the original article except the following one in Chinese: A feature about Happy Corner in universities from Ubeat Magazine, CUHK. I note the Chinese WP article is still there. [1]. And this is what Google Translate makes of it with some additional references. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original deletion. There were not enough sources and even the subsequent redirect has been deleted at RFD because of that. The one in the Chinese wiki may or may not be reliable but is only one (the others seem to be external links) in any case. Which would hardly support the many international variants mentioned in the deleted article that - one cite that it has been banned somewhere notwithstanding - mostly reads as a how-to humiliate and hurt people. In brief: If you really want to have this here, better start from scratch with a draft based on sources that addresses the original deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Armando Gutierrez – Restore page for the father – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

this is a credible bio of armando gutierrez an important figure in hispanic politics Mrflpolitico (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'permit restoration, at least in user space for examination There seem to be much better references than in the deleted article, and much less spam. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to sort this out: Mrflpolitco had created Armando Gutierrez, Jr. (born September 11, 1981) in South Florida which has been deleted as recreation per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Gutierrez, Jr. and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Gutierrez Jr and that is fine as something like this [2] is not a ref. The nominated article here Armando Gutierrez was a longstanding article about the father (born November 17, 1949 Cuba) and seems to have been mistakenly tagged and deleted as same person. That one we should restore. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore deleted article about father, but then purge it of "references" with misleading labels like "Guiterrez involved in this or that" when the article has a different title and only includes passing mentions of father. The son (or at least, User:Agutierrezjr) seems to have been messing with this and creating an article about himself back in 2005. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and clean up, per OrangeMike.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The only sources that can be found for this individual list him as someone who is planning to run in a congressional election. This clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. This person also had some involvement in the Elian Gonzalez case, but I think that falls under WP:BLP1E. If the nominator can provide some reliable sources which establish notability, that would help the case for restoration of the article. SnottyWong talk 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Plainly not G4 when one of the original deletion debates refers to a "young Republican". I doubt that anyone would describe someone born in 1949 as "young". The argument above should be made at AfD, not here. It is oft said that DRV is not AfD round 2; it ought not be AfD round 1, either. I also note that the original tagger tagged the article as G4 two weeks after an admin has already declined their first G4 tag, something that is rather inappropriate. Tim Song (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.