The deletion of this article makes no sense whatsoever. We can never accept this deletion. Michelle Belanger is the most famous vampire in the world and a huge author. She has books, she goes on tv, what else can you ask for? This article deserves to be on wikipedia, only makes wikipedia a better place for all of the VC. Michelle Belanger is the leader of the vampires in United States. She created our community and gave us hope. We can add many references to her great books. Just please bring her article back. Kheperu (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy The AfD is clearly a delete. That said, I'm finding a news article mostly about her [1], news articles that quote her in the Washington Post [2] and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show [3]. The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable. That said, given the problems that apparently plagued the last article and the AfD result, I'd strongly push for a userfied article first that needs to come to DrV before being put in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We? I hope you are referring to the WP community, because the vampire community does not own the article. With that said and given the AFD discussion, along with the chief reason for deletion being because it was used for promotion, at the least allow recreationprovided the article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. I don't know the deleted version, so I don't know what userfication will accomplish. MuZemike01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also endorse deletion as a proper AFD close. In light of the developments going on, I am now squarely against userfication. If someone wants to recreate it, it can be using reliable secondary sources and an encyclopedic tone. MuZemike01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation preferably in userspace first. Fair disclosure: When I first saw the DRV nomination my first thought was "Is she a character in Twilight?" The individual does seem to have reliable sources such as those produced by Hobit above. But given the previous problems with this article and the apparent drama associated with the subject matter it probably makes sense to make a draft in userspace first. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on account that started this DRV - I find it highly odd that the first and only action of this supposedly new account Kheperu (talk·contribs) on Wikipedia is to start this DRV - note that "House Kheperu" is the name of the organization led by Michelle Belanger, and the website www.kheperu.org - so as such I have reported this user account to WP:UAA[5]. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the nominator has been blocked and cannot respond to this query. I would endorse deletion as no faults in the deletion process have been indicated. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (at this time) I am severely concerned with the number of SPAs and sockpuppets involved in arguing for and against the subject. The nominator's first edit, for instance, was to initiate this DRV because "Michelle Belanger must be undeleted." This approach implies a clear conflict of interest on the part of the account holder. I would not oppose the creation of a neutral, properly sourced article created by an indifferent party, but I fear that allowing re-creation at this time will produce either an advertisement for Belanger's work or a platform for sockpuppets to launch libelous allegations against her. The potential for BLP concerns overwhelms any necessity to maintain a borderline-notable article. ˉˉanetode╦╩09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on second thought, I agree with Anetode (talk·contribs), and deleted the userfied page. No objection to another admin doing that - but it's best to let this DRV discussion play out first. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think userying to somewhere and requiring the article come to DrV before hitting mainspace is the way to address all these issues. I worry about creating a drama magnet of a BLP, but I think there is enough notability we really should have an article. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I won't really object if another admin does that - but the prior version of the article wasn't in that great shape. Anetode (talk·contribs) brings up a good point about it being a NPOV hotspot on both sides, as well as possible issues of conflict of interest. If a noninterested party at some point in the future could create a version in their userspace that is properly sourced, and satisfies WP:NOTE, then it could be discussed again at DRV at that point. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The deletion made perfect sense. Per the AFD and based on our policies, the article should have been deleted. If userfied, it should be into the space of a neutral editor who will write an NPOV article, not into that of a SPA. لennavecia13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion--given the AfD I see no reason to reverse that decision. But like Jennavecia and others, I see no problem with an article being started from scratch. The two first links Hobit found are a good start, though I doubt they're sufficient. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted and then recreated with some updates and new information/references. There are mulitple references which were unfairly said to not be reliable 3rd party sources in the initial discussion simply because they were local publications. The notability standards say nothing about local publications not being reliable sources of information. 24 Seven Cities magazine and Portfolio are both reliable 3rd party sources that should be used. Another source, The TCC Times is a college newspaper (which the notability standards do mention but say they should be looked at on a case by case basis) that I also believe should be used. These were all multiple page feature articles on the band. In fact the band was in the cover (as well as having a mulitple page article) of the 24 Seven Cities issue. Live-metal.net was a new reference added that is a reliable 3rd party publication. There is also a new reference added verifying the claim that the band was on 2009's MACRoCk conference.
When the article was re-created it was put up for deletion which I contested. Then it was userfied and I was told that a deletion review was recommended before I move it back. Amvymra (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking this as a request to move User:Amvymra/Moutheater to Moutheater. As such, I evaluated the new draft of the article and am analysing it against the criteria at WP:BAND. The band does not appear to meet any of the twelve criteria there. I note that the article refers to three album releases, but Thrashed Records and Swim Harder Cassettes don't seem to be major labels (based on the fact that their websites are at Myspace). The references are almost all to blogs which don't qualify as reliable sources. As such, deny recreation. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed all blog reviews from the references. I also added a new 3rd party reference (popmatters.com). All of the listed references are reliable 3rd party publications. That is one of the criteria for being included in wikipedia. There are tons of bands listed on wikipedia that aren't on major labels. Being on a major can help you get onto wikipedia but not being on a major by no means excludes a band from wikipedia.Amvymra (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - while several of the sources given for the article qualify as reliable ("Sound" excluded as they state "The content that we pull from the website can be anything–anything that we find meriting space in the print quarterly. So long as it’s relevant, we draw upon your comments and emails as much as our own bloggers’ posts and our writers’ features." and thus do not qualify as reliable), they do not include substantive coverage. Two- and three-paragraph album reviews, a couple of lines in a longer article suggesting the band as a thing-to-do and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing something with the Sound articles. 24 Seven Cities is a giant community conglomerate and on their website they feature all kinds of the things that you mentioned. But they also have printed magazines under the company as well and Sound is one of those magazine. Sound has specific writers and editors and is a printed and published magazine. What you are seeing on the website is the digital version of the printed magazine that was released earlier in the year. Moutheater recieved a 2 page article in an early issue and then a 6 page article as well as the cover in the issue that came out this past winter. The Sound magazine has nothing to do with the blogs and other community based stuff on their website. Amvymra (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amvymra has went ahead and moved the page back into articlespace. I don't do DRV much, but shouldn't there be a consensus here first? Re-delete or re-userfy: Nothing of significance has changed since the AfD; more sources have been added yes, but they are of the same type as the ones deemed non-RS's during the AfD. Closing admin did not mis-interpret consensus. --AbsolutDan(talk)03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse or relist (either is fine) Not really persuaded by the sourcing provided. Livemetal.net seems to have no editorial policy or fact-chcking policy listed so Im not clear that its a RS. (Note that i deleted the version in mainspace as not being allowed per DRV as the nominator claimed). SpartazHumbug!05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought I was being told that the article was no longer allowed to be in the deletion review log due to the "list at AfD" comment. My mistake.Amvymra (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better Days (Webcomic) was deleted before it was finished under the claim that it did not provide all the needed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaceEcam (talk • contribs)
The article was speedily deleted as it did "indicate why its subject is important or significant" (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles). The entire content was "Better Days is a furry webcomic created by Jay Naylor and hosted on his website www.jaynaylor.com. The comic follows the lives of Lucy and Fisk Black, a pair of twin anthomorphic cats, from age 9 to their late 20's. The first comic was posted on April 18, 2003." Before recreating it, I suggest you come up with indication of why this is an important or significant webcomic. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (web), and think about whether this comic has been republished in print media, for instance, or won a well-known and independent award. --Stormie (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy the comic, but endorse deletion as not meeting our guidelines for inclusion. It hasn't been written about outside the fandom, hasn't received awards, etc. Sorry. Tony Fox(arf!)16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one expects articles to be perfect when they're first posted, but they do need to be good enough to avoid being deleted for WP:CSD#A7. - Mgm|(talk)16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
