Law Society (University College Dublin) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion was excessive. References as to notability can be inserted. The article's deletion was too speedy UCDLawsoc ( talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• article was listed two weeks and its never too late to leave a note with references on my talk page for me to look at. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song ( talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. It was actually listed for two and a half weeks or so - not speedy in any sense. Nothing wrong with the close. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources demonstrating notability can be found, of course. BTW, I left the nom a note about the rather inappropriate username. Tim Song ( talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but certainly they might be notable if you can show it in an improved article in userspace. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse; deletions don't come any less speedily, and indefblock the nominator as a promotional username. Full disclosure: I am a student at the university in question. Stifle ( talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Starfall.com ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

this stub was speedy deleted before I had a chance to explain the notability but after I put a hangon tag on it. I've tried posting on the admins talk, but he's obviously having a life. I've explained the notability on the articles talk Talk:Starfall.com thanks for your help! Erich ( talk) 12:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• My kids learned to read at Starfall but notability for wikipedia is actually demonstrated by showing multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. I'm guessing that you won't have any but I can have a looksee for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Only one on google news and thats in passing [1] and 78 in google books [2]. I checked a few dozen of the book references and they seem to be mostly web listings of useful resources. I'm afraid that based on this, Starfall isn't going to meet our inclusion criteria. Sorry. Maybe someone else can be more helpful..... Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • There's some more in the archive search (such as [3] and [4]), but all look like passing mentions to me. The cached version is a straightforward {{ db-web}}. Can someone confirm if there's any substantial differences between the speedied version and the version in google cache? Tim Song ( talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• can I just comment that all this deletion happens with unholy speed. My contributions are sporadic and I like to think of high quality. I'm starting to wonder why i bother. I stuck a hangon tag on this page within a few minutes of the page being taggeg for deletion but it got deleted anyway while I laid out the notability grounds on the talk page but I see from the red link that this has now been deleted as well... arggggggggggggghhhhhhh. Looking at some of the rubbish web-sites that wikipedia does include eg poptropica, it is a crime that starfall is not included. This is a non-commercial web-site people... it has no lobysists and pr people infiltrating wp to get it included. Before i become absolutely convinced that all my contributions are futile can somebody please reinstate the page while it given a bit more consideration?? at least the talk page where i had explained the notability Erich ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Just to make life easier for all of us, I suggest that you go to WP:REFUND and ask that a copy of the article, with the talk page, be userfied to you. Tim Song ( talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • done... if starfall is not notable then I think Category:Children's websites could do with a clean out... but better still lets just leave this amazing FREE website in wp, because it deserves to be included... Erich ( talk) 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I know this is going to sound awful, but there are a number of amazing free (and otherwise) websites that aren't included in wikipedia just because we don't have enough sourcing to write a neutral article on them. We are bound by what print and online media cover. When more coverage of starfall crops up we can have an article for it here. Until then we just may have to wait. I'm sorry. Protonk ( talk) 06:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• The article is presently in userspace as User:Erich gasboy/Starfall.com. The material there does not by the remotest stretch of the imagination justify a Wikipedia article. Not only has it no sources, it has no information that would even hint that it might be notable. I try to rescue articles, but I --and I assume almost any admin-- would also have speedy deleted it, The thing to do if you want it restored, is to try to write an article there, showing that it is notable, and listing what sources might be available. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • sorry its school hols and I've got kids to raise. This is an important notable site. I give up. Let the PR people rule wp. Erich ( talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy. Straightforward {{ db-web}}. Permit recreation if new sources demonstrating notability are presented, but I strongly recommend that the author read WP:WEB and WP:GNG first; the reasons given in the talk page do not amount to much under our guidelines. Tim Song ( talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Tim have you looked at the talk page? Erich ( talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I did. It's an excellent website. Does not mean it's necessarily notable, though. Tim Song ( talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• this site is much more notable than Rincewind, or Fred Colon... and is in the top 1000 US alexa site... the article I posted is stub... there is obviously more to say... listen y'all (how many again of you have children learning to read and have actually visited the site??) do you really think that the commerical Poptropica with minimal educational value deserves its wikipidia treatise because it has a few teeny oriented fan sites? sorry but the under fives tend not to create a lot of fan-websites and the parents of under fives are too busy to bother with this palaver for very long. Sorry I must have been away when the WP policy was changed to delete first. Erich ( talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • mmm since y'all seem so keen on deleting stuff... mind if I make some suggestions ( Erich ( talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)): reply
    1. Transformers Online Game
    2. Creaturebreeder
    • Yup, non-notable, sourced to nothing or blogs or forums hosted by the games. Looks like stuff that should be deleted, so I have nominated. Miami33139 ( talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Updated notability claim

• Ok people do a google on 'learn to read'... surely wikipedia can include the number site even if it doesn't employ a PR team!!! (btw I've concluded that whole sorry episode is a case-study on the influence of commercial forces in wp) Erich ( talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think you need a larger sample then that. have you looked at our notability guidelines? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • sorry? a larger samaple than what?? Yes I have looked at the notability guidelines... I'm afraid they don't explain why the number one learning to read site on the entire net is not notable. especially compared with Rincewind!!! Erich ( talk) 08:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Do you have some sources that say the website is the number one learning to read site? Tim Song ( talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
        • like I said above google 'learn to read'. what's at the top of the list? I'm afraid that's not much but it validates my own searching. If there is a better free site out there it hides itself pretty well... I can't believe I've wasted so much time on this. There is so much crap in wp, yet I have to argue the case for a brief page on this extraordinary site... but no we have to leave room so the teenies can craft pages on minor characters in novels and movies.... wot??? Erich ( talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the speedy deletion but move the userspace draft to the Starfall (website) I have expanded and sourced the userspace draft: User:Erich gasboy/Starfall.com. Without a doubt, Starfall is notable. See this article from CNET Networks, this article from The Washington Times, and this article from USA Today. All three of these articles provide significant coverage about this topic, so WP:N is easily met.

  Note: This article should be moved to Starfall (website) instead of Starfall, since a search for "Starfall" also returns Starfall (album). Cunard ( talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Wow, well done Cunard. Permit recreation. Tim Song ( talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as per DGG. Stifle ( talk) 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, speedy close as User:Erich gasboy is using this DRV as a platform to attack other editors, which is explicitly prohibited. Stifle ( talk) 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Whale Killer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Entirely procedural nomination. This recently created redirect was speedy deleted by User:Frank per criterion R3 (recently created, implausible typo) within minutes of its creation, without being tagged beforehand. I have at least provided an assertion that it is not implausible, and asked Frank to take it to RfD instead, but this has not been productive. I am merely seeking to have a full discussion on the redirect, and have no objection to deletion if that discussion occurs. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I appreciate that Gavia immer first engaged me as the deleting admin of this redirect, as policy strongly suggests. I think, though, that the conversation was rather one-sided. I first asked for citations to support the redirect, and then asked again, along with requesting a link to the policy I was supposed to have misunderstood. If there is in fact a policy around here that supports adding information about which its contributor states "I have no idea whether this is actually correct" and about which no citations from reliable sources are offered, I'd appreciate a pointer to it. I looked for said citations and came up empty; that doesn't say they don't exist, but it does fit "implausible" until citations are provided.  Frank  |   talk  04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• A quick Googlin' doesn't seem to suggest that "whale killer" is something ever used to refer to the orca. "Whale (killer)" is a few times, but never without the parentheses. There appears to be a flash game, quite a few false positives, and that's about it. I'm not sure if a RfD would serve you all that well, Gavia. So, in the interest of getting this over quickly, I suggest you withdraw the nom rather than attempt to force a conclusion that would very likely bring us back to the status quo. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• For a non-native English speaker using the English wikipedia, that's a plausible typo.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• It doesn't seem like a very likely redirect, but as S Marshall suggests above, it might help somebody find their way, and really that's the purpose of a redirect. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• list at RfD it isn't clearly implausible (though I'd lean that way myself). Let the community decide. Hobit ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• I agree it should be put to the community. Ever try to learn a foreign language? I'm always putting modifiers in the wrong place when writing Spanish. I've never heard of someone requiring references to keep a redirect before. Tex ( talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  The request for references was specifically because the reason for the creation of the redirect in the first place was a claim that it was based in folk etymology. Had a citation in a reliable source been provided to support that claim, the discussion would have been over at that point, with the redirect restored. Such citations still haven't been provided. The suggestion that it is plausible because of foreign language usage is from the discussion here on this page only.  Frank  |   talk  16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - I would have declined to delete this and suggested RfD as not obviously implausible. Personally I find it entirely reasonable. Can even be sourced [5] [6], not that this would strictly be necessary to have a redirect or to accept a good faith contention to have its plausibility assessed elsewhere.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 11:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply