Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April

< March 2011 Deletion review archives May 2011 >

30 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Tense-aspect-mood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please Reopen Nomination for Deletion.

I am an expert in the field of linguistics that this article attempts to deal with. I believe the original deletion discussion was far too short and no effort was made to get input from anyone working in the field. The arguments for keeping the article in the previous deletion nomination were based on things like number of references (not their relevance, just number), technical tone of the article, etc. This article is worded in a manner that purports that TAM is established linguistic protocol whereas it is actually merely a collection of similar yet not even agreed upon theories.Drew.ward (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a snowball keep. What result are you hoping for here? CycloneGU (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. This is indeed a less-than-perfect article, but I see no cause for deletion. The term is well established, with 186 hits for the exact phrase "tense-aspect-mood" in JSTOR (which unlike Google Scholar indexes only well-known peer-reviewed journals). On the other hand, it's not very good; the only reason I'm not sure I agree with the nominator about what the article is saying is that it's so vague that I'm not sure what it's saying. I encourage the nominator to edit it mercilessly, which it needs, but suggest that deletion is neither called for under our policies nor the correct way forward toward improvement. Chick Bowen 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was hardly a snowball as the nomination was only opened for a week and only 7 people commented with much of the bulk of commentary being the original author.
  • You'll definitely find hits for this because systems centered around tense, aspect, and mood have been proposed by various people since the 1960's. The main problem I have with this TAM article is that there is no single "TAM". And, the authors that would writing those 186 articles don't agree on what their own use of the term is. This article reads as if there is a single system called TAM and that it's established as fact and used to analyze languages. But, all three of those are wrong. The way it's written now, it's very nearly original research as wiki normally defines it, it's just that it has the appearance of established linguistics because he's thrown a load of (not necessarily related) sources together. It would be the same as my saying "all cars run on ethanol" and writing an article saying this. I can list thousands of resources talking about cars, running, and ethanol, or even cars running on ethanol, etc. And, if you google cars run and ethanol you'll get millions of hits on google. But, it doesn't make what I've said true.
  • If you guys want me to, I can rewrite this article, but It would end up much much shorter, and would be purely an academic discussion of the main keypoints of proposed TAM systems and maybe a paragraph on each of the 4 or 5 most discussed theories. It would however be very clear that it's a theoretical framework and that it's proposed not accepted. I'd also go through and remove (or at least reword) the referring links the author(s) added all over WP to the article when they originally wrote it because those mentions again, make it seem like it's established. I'm not trying to be a stickler, but as someone who teaches linguistics, I find it sad that we can't rely on wikipedia. Our students default to WP when they want to get a quick summary of something new. Unfortunately, the linguistics and grammar articles on here are so poor in quality (not so much the very advanced theoretical ling ones, but the basic ones like "what is a verb (or whatever)", that when a student quotes WP in class it's joking referred to as "WikiFAIL". This shouldn't be the case. So my criticism of this article standing as is comes not from a disagreement with its content (I know it's wrong, and most authors who have proposed TAM systems have realized they don't work also, but the idea is along the right train of thought, just not complete and thus has academic merit), but with the fact that it tries to establish TAM as a single, accepted deal.
  • I honestly don't know when I'll have the time to give this article the type of rewrite it'll require but I would be glad to play editor if the original author (who seems very interested in the subject) would like to work on it. In the meantime though, the current version either needs to be removed or somehow put into a status that keeps people from mistaking it for information of encyclopedic quality.Drew.ward (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest that you take a look at this AFD log of some recently closed AFDs and take note of the length of time most of them were open and how many participants most of them had. Unless relisted, AFDs are only suppose to run for 7 days and a great many of them have less then 7 participants. The AFD in question here was open for the prescribed length of time, had adequate participation and the result was unanimous. Endorse keep close as it is obvious that this article is not going to be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand then what the value of an AFD is if there is no mechanism for "advertising" it or if there is no effort made to bring subject matter experts into the discussion. There is no discussion whatsoever in that original AFD dealing with whether that article is correct or valid or not. Instead it's just a very brief discussion about sources and such. Saying this was unanimous and won't be deleted makes no sense as it's the same as someone posting one of those public comment notices required for zoning variances up but putting it inside a building, then saying no one was opposed to the change because no one commented. This article was "reviewed" with no mechanism in place to give it a proper review. Thus, it should be reviewed again with effort made to actively get input from people who know about the subject.Drew.ward (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really think that the article needs to be renominated, I suggest waiting a few months and trying it. But this AfD was clear. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was the AFD clear? The only thing that seems clear to me is that it was nominated for deletion and then deemed a keep without a proper discussion nor any sort of due diligence. Consider the arguments:

Keep #1: "The article is well-sourced, with 28 references. The separate articles on tense, aspect, and mood are not by themselves sufficient" Keep #2: "The term is common in the lit" -- the original author Keep #3: " the choice of title seems a bit weird (I would have chosen Tense, aspect and mood) but this definitely is an established linguistic concept" -- it's not established so this is opinion. This commenter then has a discussion showing that even within the context of their comment, there's not enough agreement to support keeping it. Keep #4: " I am all in favour of articles that address issues in a connected way, rather than pretending that (say) tense, aspect, and mood can be managed each in isolation." Keep #5: "TAM certainly is "an established concept in the study of grammar", as the first ten cited references clearly attest." -- again purporting that a list of references is enough for a keep Keep #6: "interconnectedness of these three category domains is a legitimate topic even if each of the three has its own article."

None of these "keeps" deal with the content or the validity of the article. They simply support keeping it because it either provides a list of resources (without actually reading what the resources say because they aren't talking about the same things), support keeping because they like this sort of idea, or support keeping because they don't like the way tense, aspect, and mood are handled separately.

These are not adequate justifications for putting an article in an encyclopedia and especially not one worded as established fact.

Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can contribute to and edit, but when something is added that is disputed, effort needs to be made to seek input from subject matter experts. No such effort has been made here and no such input was involved in the decision to "keep" this article. Drew.ward (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. If you don't like the article as it currently is, please go find a subject matter expert to fix it up the way you see fit. Keep in mind that unsourced contributions, even from a subject matter expert, are still subject to deletion from the article. If we have an article that is well-sourced and notable, chances are you're not going to get it deleted. Also, you are the only one disputing; the consensus is there is no basis for the dispute. We operate by consensus around here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a subject matter expert on this sort of thing. But I also recognize that TAM systems are inherently flawed thus if I rewrite the article it won't look anything at all like it does now. It would simply be a summary of what TAMs propose and would clearly state that they're theory only and not accepted. I can do that if you'd like, but since most of the body and discussion (including examples) given in that article are flat out wrong, I'd have to delete them.

I oppose 'speedy close' because due diligence has not been done.

There was no attempt to gain expert input on this article during the first deletion review and this discussion here has been purely about the validity of that previous review, not about the validity of the article content. 6 people (one of whom is the original author) do not make a consensus when you're talking about an encyclopedia with hundreds of millions of readers and contributors.

If WP is to have any semblance of quality and reliability, a review must seek to verify and qualify content from people who specialize in it. That hasn't been done, had it been done, it certainly would have resulted in deletion. This article should be re-opened for deletion and a proper review given where due diligence is performed including soliciting specialists on time and verb systems in languages. UNtil this is done, there has really been no 'review process' beyond a tacit unpublicized discussion like the one done originally. Drew.ward (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DRV: "The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions", as described here. If you think a relist would be appropriate, go ahead and state your reasons for it here. If however the relist would be merely for an attempt to improve the article, the article is already kept and those discussions belong on the article's talk page. If you truly think a relist could get the article deleted (after all, consensus can change), then by all means after all good-faith attempts to improve the article if you still think it not good enough for Wikipedia, then go ahead and renominate it sometime down the road. With the consensus now, I don't see a relist as being feasible, but on the other hand I don't think a single comment pointed at Wikipedia policy. My advice: try in good faith to improve the article, but a relist IMO will get nowhere. CycloneGU (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend speedy close. Obviously the article is not going to be relisted for deletion, and even if it were it's not going to be deleted. I would suggest that you (Drew.ward) try to improve the article by doing the following: First, because you are proposing major changes, discuss your proposed changes in very specific terms on the talk page; try to get a consensus. Then put the changes in. That way you maximize the chances that your changes will stick. (If you just put in changes that have not been agreed to or shaped by other Wikipedians, they will just revert them.)
In making the case for your proposed changes, be specific. Don't just say something like "I'm an expert and I know this to be garbage" or words to that effect; others who consider themselves experts (and indeed may be just as expert as you) may disagree. Don't just make blanket statements like everything in the article misstates what is in the references -- point out specific statements in the article and show why they are false representations of the alleged source. And don't confuse empirical descriptions how how tense, aspect, and/or mood are jointly handled by various languages, which is the current coverage of the article, with theoretical systems that try to explain the empirical data. (Why not go for one section on empirical data, such as is already there, and another section on theoretical attempts to explain the data?) And when you write proposed passages, remember this rule of thumb: The reader of the article should not be able to figure out the opinion of the person who inserts an edit, based on the content of the edit; if the reader can infer this, the the passage violates WP:NPOV.
In short: (1) Use the article's talk page to achieve consensus. (2) Be specific, both on the talk page and in the article itself. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who closed this discussion as "Keep," I see no validity in Drew.ward's arguments to reopen the discussion. 7 participants saying to keep the article is more than enough to warrant that kind of close, and this is a more WP:IDONTLIKEIT DRV than one related to policy. I would endorse a speedy close of this discussion, but, as the person who closed the original discussion, I do not believe that my view would be legitimate. Logan Talk Contributions 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, noting that there are indeed opportunities for misuse of references that might not be picked up in an AfD... but DRV is not the right place to bring such issues. Instead, unsupported statements or those that conflict with their sourcing should be edited out appropriately and unreliable sources impeached and removed, through the normal editing and dispute resolution processes rather than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep closure (as one of the original keep voters). Evidently valid consensus. I note that the nominator's argument that "no effort was made to get input from anyone working in the field" doesn't quite stand up – while it is true that no systematic effort of that sort seems to have been made, at least two voters (kwami and myself) do in fact have substantial academic expertise in the field. It is true that the article has some scope for improvement, but it's a competent enough start and whatever problems there may be are far below the threshold that would require emergency deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist article for deletion. I was the editor who listed the article for deletion, and I still think it should be. The discussion did not get a large involvement of editors and I think that if it had been the result could have been different. There are several problems with the article. The main one is that the sources for the article do not prove that "tense-aspect-mood" is a widely accepted concept in linguistics. For example, some of the titles only include tense and aspect. This problem could be resolved by renaming the article to "Tense, aspect and mood". Another problem is that the article overlaps substantially with English modal verb, English verbs and English grammar. I agree with what drew.ward has said and think the article could be reformed to discuss proposed theories on this subject. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, we just have to accept that consensus isn't what we agree with, Count. Given how clear the consensus was at the AfD, and how clearly it's shaping up here, a relist without some serious cleanup efforts first isn't likely to go anywhere, especially not soon. If you still must nominate it again, wait a year or two first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I don't understand how you guys keep calling this a review or a consensus. There was never any sort of investigation as to whether the information in this article is valid or not (has anyone here actually read those sources?). And this discussion here has been nothing but a defense of the standard practice without addressing the fact that no linguistic research has been involved in the decision to keep or delete this article. The standing AFD procedure has failed in regard to this article (and I'm guessing it does for many things that require specialty knowledge). If there's to be any semblance of quality and reliability in Wikipedia, reviews must actually attempt to validate an article within the context of the article's subject matter, not simply by the consensus of a few people who just happened to stumble upon it at the right time and who may or may not have the slightest knowledge of the subject.Drew.ward (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drew.ward asks "has anyone here actually read those sources?" Yes, I have read the great majority of them cover to cover. And as for the comment "who may or may not have the slightest knowledge of the subject", I assure you that I have substantial knowledge of the subject. So do some of the other people in this discussion.
Do you understand the Wikipedia rule that even if you don't like a topic (theory, etc.), if it's out there then there can be a Wikipedia article about it? For example, you may think that one political party, religion, physics theory, linguistic theory, etc. is a bunch of nonsense; but if it is out there, there should be a Wikipedia article about it. Are you asserting, contrary to your comments on the talk page, that TAM is not out there? Duoduoduo (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duoduoduo, I'm simply asserting that a review for deletion or not of a linguistics article needs to be centered around linguistics which this one has not. It should be an investigation into the validity of the assertions in the article and not simply a discussion about the way wikipedia works. I have not claimed that the people commenting on this particular article or this followup discussion are or are not subject matter expert, but that no mechanism has been pushed to make sure that subject matter experts are involved in such a review. I too have read most of those sources. I don't agree that that they support the assertions of that article but that's not even what I'm asking about here. I just don't think it's too much to ask that a review of an article dealing with a specific field or specialty should actively seek input and investigation with and by professionals within that field.Drew.ward (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drew, there is no formal review process. Anywhere on Wikipedia. There's absolutely no reason why there should be one here, when the lack works (at least as well as anything else) in basically every other case. I'd suggest dropping that particular line of inquiry, it seems to stem from your ideas of how Wikipedia should work not meshing with how Wikipedia works.
  • Now, the consensus at the AfD was obvious, to basically everyone except you. Simply put, I look at it and ask, "Would any other close be reasonable?" And when I find the answer as "No, no other close would even come close to being reasonable," we have consensus. Ask yourself the same, would it be reasonable to close that AfD in any way other than keep? lifebaka++ 01:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count Truthstein says "I ... think the article could be reformed...." Therefore, it should not be relisted for deletion. Moreover, Drew.ward says on the article's talk page "this article is about a group of related theoretical systems which various people have proposed." Thus there should be a Wikipedia article about it, and it should not be relisted for deletion. Not liking the topic of an article is not a reason to relist for deletion. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to rewrite. The delete arguent is basically an argument that the content should be other than it is. But that is not an argument for deletion, unless it can be shown there is no possible article that could correctly have that subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Alexis Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This my third deletion review on this subject. I had one in September 2010 and November 2010. I hoping that three is charm due to that fact that a lot more references have been added in my userspace (User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields) since the last DRV and that Jclemens (the closing admin for the last DRV) has assisted me greatly in this predicament (User talk:Jclemens/Archive 7#Alexis Fields).

But the main reason for this new DRV is because recently I contacted Ms. Fields herself through Twitter, she gave me permission to re-create the page and I even asked to make her own suggestions in my userspace for her. Other than two minor edits, she said the page was fine. Here are the series of tweets I shared with her: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. My main argument since day 1 is that Ms. Fields meets the first rule of WP:ENTERTAINER, although she has NEVER had regular role in a television series, some of the recurring roles she has played have been notable in episode story lines. The references I was able to compile proves that her career has been profiled at some point, granted not to a large extent compared to more popular actors, but still covered.

I said that the last DRV on this subject would be my last, I have done everything I can to attest that this page be re-listed. If it does not come to pass, again, I officially throw in the towel. QuasyBoy 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm a little confused. Were you seeking her permission to create an article, or simply to use content that is on, say, her official site? Also, that's not a verified account unless I missed something, so I can't assume it's actually her. With that said, I know nothing of the AfD or the prior reviews and think that the legitimacy of the sources will be the main thing, as well as notability. I'll take a look later; a bit preoccupied ATM. As an aside, look at that deletion log...I'm surprised it wasn't salted. CycloneGU (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is salted, which is why I am bringing to the deletion review for the third time. I contacted her on twitter just to see what she thought of my draft, just to vouch for me. Also, That is actually her twitter account, Twitter doesn't verify EVERY celebrity account, unless you contact them to have it verified. She is being followed by other actors that she worked with in her career. Those actor's accounts are verified, by the way. QuasyBoy 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subjects permission and approval is not a significant factor (though their desire not to have an article maybe a factor in some BLP cases) and certainly isn't a reason to permit recreation when the deletions have been based on notability issue. The issue identified in previous DRVs was the lack of decent sources addressing the subject directly and in detail, you say the references have been improved so if that maybe a reason to consider DRV. Looking at the sources added since the last drv I can see the following
    1. filmreference.com - A directory style site - doesn't reach the requirement of addressing the subject in detail
    2. "The complete directory to prime time network and cable TV shows, 1946-present" - as above a directory listing book
    3. Who Was Who on TV, Volume 3 - a one line directory listing
    4. Frame by frame three as previous just lists the subject as the actress, doesn't discuss the subject
    5. Encyclopedia of African American actresses in film and television again no depth of coverage, this is a section about Kim Fields the only mention of Alexis is that she is her sister
    6. Twitter - apart from problems of identity is a primary source
    7. NY Daily News - Sitcoms Pay Homage To Two Tv Classics another passing mention of the role, no discussion of the person.
    Realistically this just seems more of the same, verification of existance and that they've had acting roles, but nothing to rise to the level that anyone is interested enough to write directly and in detail about the subject. To that end I can't see anything has changed since last time around. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, it is biography article. A biography article that was written based on her work as actress. The references are provided to acknowledge that I am not pulling information from thin air. And maybe "improved references" was the wrong words to use, on my part. I meant to say, added more references to wasn't there before, references as redundant as they are, are there acknowledge her existence. Bottom line, the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER also passing notability . QuasyBoy 19:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one doubts she exists and has acted in things, so merely adding on a pile of trivial sources helps in no way at all. Indeed the previous DRVs didn't suggest any problem with belief in existance.
As you say it's a biography, so where is the biographical interest from the world? That was and still is our concept of notability - does the world at large consider this person/thing/whatever notable. If there are no article which address her directly and in detail, then there is no biographical interest in her?
The deletion and the previous reviews cited the problem of being no sources written directly addressing her as their subject, they rejected your notion of WP:ENTERTAINER as being a set of mentions as cast member being enough. Repeating your view on it again doesn't change that. As was discussed last time, WP:ENTERTAINER requires significant roles, since the sources you've given don't even write any detail about these roles leads me to conclude the roles aren't significant - again if the wide world thought they were significant they'd write about them.
The status of WP:ENTERTAINER quite clearly states that they are secondary criteria, they do not remove the requirement to have received non-trivial coverage in mulitple independant reliable sources. At this point I'd suggest that this is added to WP:DEEPER, you haven't addressed the concerns of the AFD or the last two DRVs, listing here just seems to be repeating the same action hoping for a different outcome. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How will adding it to WP:DEEPER accomplish anything. From the discussions I see there only a few articles were re-created from being added there. Also, as for "biographical interest from the world?", in Ms. Fields case, she mostly done guest/supporting roles in her career. Granted, they are not high-profile because they are exactly that guest/supporting roles. An "independent reliable source" is isn't going to solely profile her if her career has only consisted of those roles. You mean to tell me that the notable television work she has done, the number of episodes she has appeared in doesn't full under WP:ENTERTAINER, surely you jest. QuasyBoy 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding it to deeper sends a clear message that merely trying to make incremental updates by adding more trivial sources is likely to get reviews closed quickly. You say An "independent reliable source" is isn't going to solely profile her which is pretty much a statement, that the world isn't going to take note. WP:ENTERTAINER says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" - you say "she mostly done guest/supporting roles" so doesn't meet that. It's also as said a secondary criteria which doesn't remove the need to have coverage in independant reliable sources. It's you who jest, you've said in two different ways she's not notable - no one is going to take note, and the guideline you rely on contradicts your own statements, so Endorse the deletion and add to WP:DEEPER so we don't see this again in three months with a bunch more trivial mentions --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I'm back, went for a long walk. Anyway, you do know that it is possible for an actor to have a "significant role" in television series' without them ever having a regular role in a series. But I don't want to cry WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because there are other actors in Ms. Fields position that have articles on Wikipedia. As as far as the films that she has done, they are independent films (Somebody Help Me and House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute). Television has been her main venue of work and as far I can remember actors that primarily do films get a lot more coverage than actors that primarily do television.

Also it seems to me, that you are the same anonymous user that took part in may last deletion review. I guess you are only interested in editing on Wikipedia only being involved the deletion process only, But I digress. QuasyBoy 00:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That "same anonymous user" has been helping with the Villa Giulia article that came up in an earlier deletion review. He does help with things other than deletions. CycloneGU (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But most of edits are mainly related to articles that were once in the deletion process. QuasyBoy 05:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well my interests are totally irrelevant to the debate and assume just a petty attempt at poisoning the well. To Keep it simple then for your benefit I've gone through the previous reviews and looked to where the issue of lack of decent sourcing has been highlighted
DRV1 - 4 separate editors (none of whom were me) said - (1) "what you are lacking is any sourcing that is actually decent enough to count as a reliable secondary source for a biography.", (2) "Notability is very much about whether someone is known. If someone's life and works aren't known, and properly recorded in depth, by identifiable people who've checked their facts, then that person shouldn't get an encyclopaedia biography purporting to document that life and those works.", (3) "the sources just don't seem to exist.", (4) "it seems that if any genuinely good and useful sources exist, they would have been found by now."
DRV2 another two editors distinct from those on the first debate and again not me - (1) "Sorry, these are name-drops and a sentence or two, and really does not meet the WP:GNG which calls for "significant coverage"", (2) "Tarc is right. Passing mentions won't do. The subject has to be covered directly, at least little bit". So that's 6 editors most admins across 2 reviews telling you the sourcing needs to be more than trivial, yet here you are again just trotting out more trivial coverage and expecting a different result.
You should read all of SmokeyJoe's comment from last time around, where he also tells you that your arguments then about the qualities of her roles impacting the coverage she gets, these are the same arguments you're presenting here - the comment then was "You are conceding that she isn't wikipedia-notable, but that she could've been, if only" --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and list at AfD Sources are weak but overall the subject appears to meet the letter of WP:ENTERTAINER. WP:N is less clear. We do have enough reliable sources to write a brief biography. The proposed article is of high enough quality that I'm not worried about having a bad article. All that said, wider discussion at AfD seems appropriate to judge the notability of the subject. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist I agree with hobbit. I personally do not at this time have an opinion on whether we should have an article but there is enough of a case that we might have one, to have a proper discussion. That's all we need to discuss here. I think in the end this is the sort of notability which is not rule-determined; Mentions are not a choice of trivial or non-trivial, they are of various degrees of triviality , as sources are of various degrees of reliability. At the extremes, it's easy to decide. In the middle, it's an open choice where to draw the line, and for cases like this, almost any decision can be justified by policy. I might have one preference, someone else has another, and in neither case would either of us be right or wrong,but just have different opinions. (This is one of the reason I think the admins only role is to determine consensus of rational arguments, rather than determine how to interpret policy, since any of a very wide range of interpretations for cases like this would be rational. Letting the admin pick which interpretation is valid is inherently a supervote.) t —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) It looks like DGG went *POOF* right in the middle of typing this post --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to send this to AfD on the basis of the draft article. It's not fair to raise expectations when they're sure to be dashed, and it's not fair to set users up to fail. I can't imagine the draft article surviving close inspection at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist This draft is decently written, and the information in it is decently sourced; presumably, many improvements have been made since the AfD was closed in 2007. Hobit rightly notes that the quality of the draft is good enough for mainspace. The question here, therefore, is notability; my gut reaction is that WP:ENTERTAINER may be met, while WP:GNG is not. Even so, as DGG wrote, "there is enough of a case that we might have [an article on Fields] to have a proper discussion." In other words, it's fair that we should allow QuasyBoy to make his case for a broader audience at AfD; after all, he didn't get that chance way back in 2007. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist to get wider input on either improving (or deleting) the article as may be. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1/0 (web comic) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the no-consensus close here. The AFD was initially closed as delete, but changed to no consensus. However, an examination of !vote-by-!vote shows:

  • One "keep" that says "Well, I think the Web Cartoonists Award is notable."
  • One "Delete" that's a WP:JNN.
  • One "keep" that says "sometimes WCCA is notable enough" but gives no proof.
  • A "delete" with a reasonably well-written rationale based in policy.
  • A WP:JUSTAVOTE later amended to include a Waybacked link to a non-notable review and an interview from a notable interviewer — though the interviewer is notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED as we all know.
  • An WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote.
  • A "delete" with another reasonably well-written rationale based in policy.

As I pointed out in the original AFD, there are no fewer than three AFDs that show a strong precedent for the WCCA not being a notable award to confer notability per WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lackadaisy (3rd nomination)). There was also a discussion at the notability criteria for websites that amounted to "WCCA isn't notable".

I see no solid arguments from those who called for a "keep" in this AFD — they basically amounted to personal opinion and WP:ITSNOTABLE. The only "keep" !vote that tried to make an actual argument failed, by showing two unacceptable sources that don't help the article one iota. Given the complete lack of substance to most of the "keep"s, I believe that this should've been closed as delete or at least relisted a second time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Waybacked link is to a review in The Webcomics Examiner. Does it constitute a significant, reliable source? It's editor-in-chief was Joe Zabel, who is pretty conclusively notable. Notability isn't inherited, to be sure, but is an online publication edited by a fairly important figure in the field a valid source even if there's not enough third-party discussion of that publication for it itself to be notable? The second link was to an interview, published in ComixTalk. ComixTalk is the rebranded successor to Comixpedia. There appears to be some editorial oversight, but in general, it hasn't been thought of well as a source. On the other hand, the interviewer, Shaenon K. Garrity, is unquestionably influential in the field. With a unknown or lesser-known interviewer, that would clearly be discounted; with Garrity as interviewer and a slightly more prestigious publisher, that would certainly be the sort of things we'd want to cite. On which side of our standards does this split the difference? I'm inclined to favor the sourcing and endorse the no consensus close, but I wouldn't oppose a relist if others believe more community input on the value of those sources would be preferable. As an aside to TenPoundHammer, sorry about the process wonkery in objecting to the rapid relist ... and then suggesting a relist. I'd take a trout slap, but, really, trout is tasty, and those otters would hate to see a fish wasted like that. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If this were an AfD, I would probably say that WP:WEB was met due to being nominated for the WCCA three times, as pointed out by Hobit. However, because a no consensus procedurally means a keep in an AfD (in most cases), I see no reason to relist to get that result. One delete vote, by the IP, is a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT and there are one or two comments that do quote policy on deleting, and another quoting sources from the Wayback Machine for a keep. Thus, no consensus. CycloneGU (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I'm not keen on the additional criteria and most are clear they are secondary criteria and not a replacement for the primary requirement for non-trivial coverage etc. So in general I'd think these type of things wouldn't be here, however the close wasn't totally unreasonable and is indicative of something on the borderline, which could fall either way depending on time of year and prevailing wind. Getting a stronger consensus elsewhere about the status of those awards re notabilty would followed by a renom (if relevant) would seem a better way to deal with this. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "no consensus." The problem here is that there really isn't a broad consensus on the question of whether receiving the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award (or, in this case, being nominated for it multiple times) confers notability. Yes, the consensus in three previous AfDs was that the award was insufficient as an indicator of notability. But there was no such consensus in this AfD. This discussion and this discussion, like the debate we're currently reviewing, saw multiple experienced editors opining that the award confers notability. The WT:WEB discussion linked to in the nomination was brief and involved very few users, and it does not represent a binding, broad consensus. TenPoundHammer's dismissal of two votes in this AfD as "personal opinions" ignores the fact that reasonable minds can disagree on this subject, and every consensus about the WCCA that has occurred thus far has been local and arbitrary (based on who showed up). I don't see any consensus on the sourcing question either; in fact, there's no real discussion of their worthiness. No one asserting the general notability guideline wasn't met addressed these sources specifically, and even TPH did not explicitly repudiate those sources until he opened this DRV. This is problematic because, per Serpent's Choice above, there is certainly a case to be made for considering these sources significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. All things considered, "no consensus" was clearly the right close here; if Sandstein had not reversed his original close, I expect that I would have favored overturning the deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse What's there to say? "No consensus" should be used in this manner (multiple arguments on both sides, no clear upper hand) far more often than it is. Far too often, nose-counting, with or without vote-discounting, is substituted for a generally obviousness that the community is divided on something. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Apartheid in Bahrain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted after a discussion. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_in_Bahrain

I believe that the page should be put back up in light of ongoing media coverage of apartheid policies being practiced by the indigenous Shia majority of Bahrain by the Sunni monarchy and government. In particular, Since the page was deleted, Ali Akbar Salehi, the Foreign Minister of Iran, has formally expressed his government's concern over the “apartheid-like” discrimination practiced against the the Shiite majority by the government of Bahrain in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.[1] And the press, particularly in Iran, has continued to cover the issue and to call it apartheid, as does the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights and international observers including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. I did click to the AfD after posting the comment and found it closed on April 10, so I wondered if it was just being brought up again very quickly on the heels of the closed AfD. Either way, I am willing to entertain a discussion on it, I have not yet cast an opinion. Also, overturn basically goes along with permit recreation here. CycloneGU (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The expanded version of this article that I wish to create is sourced to the Foreign Minister of Iran, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, Time Magazine, and Human Rights Watch, all of which have published reports and articles about the anti-Shia discrimination in Bahrain calling it "apartheid." When I posted the article with this extensive sourcing, in addition to sourcing form a number of publications and human rights organization in the Muslim world, it was instantly deleted by User:Postdlf, on the grounds that the previous version with far fewer sources had been deleted.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD commenters expressly criticized the very notion of having this topic as a stand-alone article, calling the article POV, WP:POINTy, and WP:SYNTH. Many of them also expressly noted that while some sources may have used the word "apartheid" to characterize Bahraini discrimination, that did not mean that this labeling itself merited its own article. This was also one of several similar "apartheid in FOO" articles created by you that were all deleted recently for the same reasons. So absent a DRV consensus recognizing that something had changed, my speedy deletion of your recreation was quite proper, and your unilateral recreation was not. Particularly when part of the problems cited with an article in an AFD are related to WP:SYNTH issues, simply invoking the number of sources the article relies upon isn't going to cut it. postdlf (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Even accepting for the sake of argument that reliable sources exist for the claim of apartheid in Bahrain that extend beyond the mere use of the term, I see no justification for this to exist as a stand-alone article apart from Human rights in Bahrain. Fundamentally, this would constitute a "criticsm of..." article, which, when not developed organically as spinout articles from an overlarge section established by consensus (and, often, even then), must overcome a considerable presumption of being an improper fork. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and oppose recreation - All this article ever was was a pointy attempt to provide counter-balance to Israel and the apartheid analogy, an article despised by a small cadre of editors. Basically, one massive WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I.Casaubon hit the AfD hat trick a few weeks ago,m having this article deleted along with Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. And Facepalm Facepalm, there's even a Palestinians in Lebanon he's created recently, but if you read the text of the article it might as well be titled "Apartheid in Lebanon". This is the sort of tendentious editing that needs to be squashed, honestly. Why are we here at DRV, to discuss a "new source" of the Iranian foreign minister penning a letter to the UN complaining about someone else's human rights track record? Seriously? Tarc (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should be confined to the existence of apartheid in Bahrain, and the significant sources that discuss the conditions in Bahrain as anti-Shia apartheidI.Casaubon (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and oppose recreation. I'm sure it's possible to find some recent articles that use the words "Bahrain" and "apartheid" in close proximity, but that's not a proper standard for inclusion. There is no general debate about the existence or non-existence of "apartheid in Bahrain," and hence no reason for this article to exist. The deletion took place in accordance with proper procedure. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd endorse the original deletion, of course. The nominator's remarks suggest it may be appropriate to allow a protected redirect from this title to Ethnic, cultural and religious groups of Bahrain#Apartheid. The consensus is, quite correctly, that there should not be a separate article called "Apartheid in Bahrain".—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that everyone here is supporting a general rule: Except for South Africa, all apartheid sections should be rredireced to pages that begin "Human Rights in _____". I am good with such a rule. Even in cases, such as this, where Human Rights Watch, international newspapers including the Guardian and the local Human Rights NGO's and minority press are calling it apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, that is not the case; there is no "one size fits all" rule here, we evaluate each independently and on its own merits. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. In that case I think we should reinstate Apartheid in Bahrain. Reliable NGO's, both HRW and the local Bahrain Centre for Human Rights make a claim that, like the indigenous black population of South Africa, the local indigenous Shia live in a position of legal, economic ans social inferiority imposed by a foreign, colonial regime with an imported Sunni ethno/cultural identity. Like the apartheid-era regime of South Africa, the government of Bahrain recruits foreign settlers of its own ethno/sectarian type (sunni) and gives them citizenship and jobs in the government and security services that it denies to native Shia. Major international newspapers call this apartheid or apartheid-like. Why is this not worthy of an article?I.Casaubon (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apartheid is a word with an incredible amount of historical baggage and very strongly associated emotional response. As with many other terms of similar weight, it gets used from time to time by people making statements to the media, or even by respectable organizations. People may have become inured to claims of discrimination, but even 15 years after the elections that officially ended apartheid in South Africa, use of the word still demands attention. Because it carries such a significant POV, however, Wikipedia has to be cautious in its use, especially in article titling. It is one thing to note, in the context of a human rights discussion, that the Guardian or the New York Times or Human Rights Watch has expressed concerns that a policy or condition might constitute apartheid or be "apartheid-like". It is another thing entirely for an article to be titled as though the existence of apartheid in ... whatever country is the topic at hand at the time ... is a matter of settled, universally-agreed fact. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find Serpent39's argument compelling, which is why it is particularly troubling that although the term "apartheid" is being widely applied to the political situation in Bahrain, Wikipedia appears to allow application of the term only to Israel. This has the distasteful appearance of treating the Jewish state differently than other states. And there is a word for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadeofCalvin (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — ShadeofCalvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That word is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you object to the titling or content of an article, raise the objection at that article's talk page, at WP:RM, or at AFD -- none of which is where you are at the moment. Oh ... and if you do raise such an objection, you probably shouldn't sock to do it; just sayin'. For my part, I think there's a better way to handle that article than its current trainwreck state, too, but my editing time is far, far too limited at current for me to be willing to dive into anything related to I/P. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's apartheid," said Mansoor Jamri, who was forced to resign as editor of the independent Al Wasat newspaper. "They've made a decision that half the population is not wanted, and they want to instill fear in this population and dehumanize them."Los Angeles Times, "After crushed protests, Bahrain is accused of deepened oppression of Shiites" [9]I.Casaubon (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ ill Varner, [1] "Bahrain Tells UN About Hezbollah’s Efforts to Topple Monarchy", April 26, 2011, Bloomberg.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Last-minute rescue – Current nomination now moot. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked for consistent violations of copyright, and his draft has been deleted for the same. Consensus on whether or not the deletion itself was correct is difficult to judge from the below, due to the amount of time spent on copyright issues, so another DRV is suggested if anyone else feels it necessary. – lifebaka++ 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

nominated for deletion as Just-in-time lad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion § Last-minute rescue

There is no certain opinion about article's new name, however different points of view represented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"Last-minute rescue" or "Griffith's last-minute rescue". The point is mainly about restoring the article under its current title.
To administrator, who is in charge: I'd like to ask you to restore it along with its talk page, which has not been moved to my userspace (original talkpage is here: Talk:Just-in-time lad - seems it contains some useful info). Thanks. – George Serdechny 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a reworking of an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad. As such, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review, if at all. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer. The article was originally titled Just-in-time lad, purporting to be a stock character, and was deleted as OR. The creator was dismissive and sarcastic in response to the deletion arguments in the AFD; rude in response to my valid, skeptical questions about why I should userfy it when he asked me to do so ("I did not ask for your opinion"), incredibly claiming that he wanted it undeleted so he could nominate it for FA; and after another admin userfied it the creator seemed to treat it as a foregone conclusion that the article was going to be restored to mainspace, not even mentioning in a Wikiproject discussion he started that it was an article that was just AFD'd. So I think there are a number of problems here, first and foremost is that I see no indication that George Serdechny has acknowledged, or understood, the issues raised in the AFD, if he still insists that it has no OR problems. He had already tried retitling it during the AFD to "last-minute-hero".(see comment here) I see no argument here for undeletion or moving his userpage draft to article space other than the fact that he disagreed with the outcome. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only forgot to mention that my "dismissive and sarcastic respond", was a respond to the following statement: "I don't see any hope that this could eventually be restored as an article". What a valid, skeptical questions!
      And "yes", I'm still insisting that the article has no OR problems. The problem is mostly about the "massive effect" of those who claim it has, without even reading it.
      Like you, for example. You reproach me with "last-minute-hero" but there were no such definitions in the article when you deleted it.
      P.S. It seems your time is not so precious as you previously claimed while responding me with "Don't waste my time". Well, if so, then I have to answer simply:
      Don't waste mine. – George Serdechny 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (see below) - Until the original research is removed, this article isn't worthy of being in the mainspace, let alone being nominated for featured article as this user has clearly indicated he wants to do in two April 22 edits. CycloneGU (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've allready said: Anyone, who can point me out any OR issues in the article, strongly welcomed. So, point it out. Please. – George Serdechny 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have given the article another look since my comment. My main issue is that I can't verify a single one of these sources. It looks like some of the sources are themselves encyclopedias, which does suggest notability. I am wondering whether it might be appropriate to relist and at the same time try to give assistance to remove original research even if it means a haircut reducing the article to a fifth its current size (I have no idea if that would be the case, I'm being hypothetical). I might even be able to head to a library at some point and look up some of these, but don't hold your breath for that. Also, don't be in a hurry to nominate it for FA either, that is still far away. CycloneGU (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well thanks, but note that Nota bene* 15 of 19 referred sources are publicly available at google books and other free-access web-resources. Other 4 available for authorized customers only, but you can easily verify quotations by matching them in the google search line. There are mostly direct quotations. – George Serdechny 17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notwithstanding that DRV is not AFD round 2, the confusion in the lede alone doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly. It claims that it's a "type of cross-cutting...used in cinematography," when cross-cutting is actually an editing technique, and cinematography is the actual process of using a camera and lighting to film shots. It also misidentifies D. W. Griffith as a cinematographer when he was a film director. And if you read the whole article, you see that it's actually trying to describe "last-minute rescue" as a narrative device, not something unique to film (and probably just a typical suspense-increasing tactic, where the climax of any kind occurs at the proverbial "last minute" whether or not it involves a rescue or other action; see also Dramatic structure#Falling action). Particularly given that this started out as an attempt to describe a purported archetype and only shifted once it was pointed out in the AFD that "just-in-time-lad" was made up and not supported by the sources George claimed it was, it's clear that the very concept of the subject is confused in addition to the details.

          So I see no reason to question or overturn the judgment of the AFD participants, and no reason to relist. George certainly shouldn't have come here with the "final edition of the article prior to be[ing] deleted", "still insisting that the article has no OR problems." If he's going to try to use his userspace copy to forum-shop an end run around AFD (as he did with the film Wikiproject) without actually addressing any of the reasons why it was deleted, I think the userfied version should be deleted as well. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Umm, can I ask you: Why didn't you share this wisdom with me, before deleting the article? And still, where's OR?.. – George Serdechny 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • postdif was the closing admin. in the AfD. What this means is that the result is not his opinion, it is merely his reading of the consensus. He read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such. I do not question his actions. CycloneGU (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't, I do. Yes, I agree that "he read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such". But, he did not stated nothing even barely close to "George, I was so tired when summarized AfD, but you can go to DRV. Good luck!", he decided that it will be better to ignore my request to userfy and to start to "bull" each other. – George Serdechny 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you accusing postdif of editing in bad faith? Keep in mind that he is not going to advise one way or the other because that suggests that he has an opinion and would invalidate his close. If you were to inquire about protesting the close as he read it, he would be able to suggest deletion review. But prior to that he is not required to make the suggestion. CycloneGU (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I linked OR in my comments and here again if you need the definition. Unless you mean the article, let's let this appeal play out and see what others think. It might be appealable under the new name, but I'm not an expert in the subject. CycloneGU (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get back to things which "doesn't inspire postdlf with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly":
    1. This type of crosscutting or intercutting came to be known as the "Griffith last-minute rescue" (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica). I've decided that "used in cinema" is not the best possible definition and replaced it with "used in cinematography" (because cinematography is a process, while cinema is not).
    2. I've intended to define D. W. Griffith as a "cinemtographist", but the dictionary, which I use (slovari.yandex.ru - the most used in Russian part of the Web) showed up that there are no such word in English, while "cinematographer" is translated as "кинематографист" (translit. cinemtographist) and film-maker, respectively.
    3. I've named article "just-in-time-lad" and made some other weak definitions, because it's only one year passed since I've started to study English and I've never been to English-speaking country before. You (as well as the others) were able to point it with teplates: [ambiguous], [when defined as?], etc. Deletion is actually the last thing to do with a new-made article. Did somebody used templates, or asked for clarification? – George Serdechny 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who initially tagged the original article for deletion, I want to point out that even if the article in question wasn't plagued by the question of OR, would the subject of the aticle even be noteworthy enough to stand alone as its own article? Most of the minor sections, such as "Deus Ex Machina" or the "In Other Cultures" section already have their own, much more comprehensive articles on Wikipedia. The vast majority of the remainder of the article is solely on D. W. Griffith's work. Even if the OR issues are cleared up, it would make a lot more sense to just integrate any actual relevent and fully sourced material from it into D. W. Griffith, rather than insisting this be its own article.Rorshacma (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We did not and do not discuss merging yet. Besides, I'm planning to expand the article, but only after it will be restored in the main space. – George Serdechny 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not how it works. Expand the article where it is right now and prove it belongs in the namespace as its own article. We're not denying your contributions, as some can be used in other articles; the comment you are replying to is discussing whether this should be its own article. CycloneGU (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a well-written and very original article. As such, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgent request: Instead of discussing my (or anybody's else) personal qualities/contributions/intentions and other miscellaneous things, can we go closer to the point (OR). Thanks. – George Serdechny 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This deletion review is to discuss whether the original close was correct and whether there is enough changes to the article to warrant overturning to keep or even relisting at AfD. Original research is not the only thing to be discussed. With that said, I would urge others from the AfD to bring up their points here. I will take the courtesy of notifying some of the participants as a neutral party. CycloneGU (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD participants are not the "neutral party". There's no wonder that those who vote to delete the article without reading it, will skip any common sense arguments in order to erase even the single mention of this blunder. Of course you should notify them, and entire community as well. – George Serdechny 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, I only had to notify one user; the rest were alerted by postdif to this review. Among my perusals I also noted this edit. Telling an administrator that his record willbe blemished by voicing his opinion on an article against your own opinion is not cool. If you are trying to get people to agree with you, this is not how to do it.
      Also, the entire community has a chance to participate in any AfD. These are the people who participated. Thus, it can be assumed they are most interested in this review. CycloneGU (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't want these people to agree with me. I want more broad discussion. – George Serdechny 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speaking in good faith, it sounds like you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Surely additional people will come in who tend to focus more on deletion reviews (I'm one of them). However, those involved in the AfD are also welcome to provide their comments in a deletion review as well. You cannot control that or tell them you don't want them here; if they want to comment, they will do so. CycloneGU (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've told you, I do not want these people to agree with me, cause I feel no need in such agreement, whether they will make any comments or not. I cannot control them and I never wanted to. – George Serdechny 20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. First and foremost, DRV is not intended to be a second-run AFD; there were no procedural errors during the AFD process and no reason to believe that the closing admin misinterpreted consensus or closed in a way incompatible with it. Generally speaking, that suggests there is no need to overturn here. Procedure aside, there really is nothing to suggest that this moves beyond original research -- specifically, it was a novel synthesis. The article, as it appeared in AFD, was well-referenced, but it was the article, not those references, making the connections. I applaud the efforts to improve the article during AFD, but that fundamental flaw appears inescapable. The article's author extensively cites critical analysis of D. W. Griffith. And, to be fair, there is plenty written about Griffith's "last minute rescues"[10][11][12][13]. That's the sort of thing that should certainly be discussed in Griffith's article, if it's not already (I haven't looked). There's enough coverage of the film concept that it might even earn a passage in climax (narrative) or deus ex machina. Maybe -- maybe -- even an article of its own, although I'm dubious. But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented. The AFD article wasn't about a storytelling technique, it was about a character. It was an article that purported that the characters who perform those last-minute rescues, those climaxes, those deus ex machina constitute an archetype with independent notability. And I cannot source that connection or that claim. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented". That is not true. Here is a version of the article 3 days before it was deleted. Well, two and a half days, if precisely. Is there any comma or any single dot, which makes it different from the version, which we're discussing now? – George Serdechny 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • AFD most certainly did not start with that version, as any admin with the ability to view the deleted content can attest to. The article, as it existed at the time of my AFD participation, referred to a "last-minute hero" in the lede and gave the general impression of discussing a stock character, as might be expected from the use of the stock characters template that continues even now. Now, according to its lede, it is an article about "a type of cross-cutting or inter-cutting used in cinematography." The protean nature of this article's topic does nothing to disguise the problems with original research and novel synthesis. The cited references do not describe any relationship between the cinematography of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Thief of Baghdad, or genre slapstick to the inter-cut style of D. W. Griffith (likely because those movies do not use that technique). The inclusion of a figure from the Qur'an in a article ostensibly (at the moment) about a cinematography technique underscores the reasons why the AFD participants uniformly felt the article fell short of policy expectations. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In both the AfD and the article itself, the article creator made it quite clear that the stock character name ("just in time lad") was an irrelevance and could be changed. There is therefore no room to suggest that a revised character name makes any difference to the AfD opinion which was clearly and unabiguously expressed, so there is no convincing case to overturn its outcome. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and restore current userspace version An AfD that does not give a reasonable result is a wrongly closed AfD, and in view of the present user space article, I regard the result as clearly very wrong, and contrary to the plain documented facts of the subject. We're not a bureaucracy, so we can consider what we ought to do with the subject regardless of prior discussions. If we're looking for errors, apparently the close gave too much weight to completely erroneous claims of OR, to a failure to consider potential sourcability, and to changes made during the discussion. As no reason was given, as is the closer's general practice, it is impossible to be sure, thus my wording of "apparently" but they are the only factors which I think could have resulted in the decision. In particular, the failure to give a detailed rationale when the article changes leaves it unclear how well the close has been considered. The reason the closer gives here is that he disagrees with the contents of the article, about as wrong a reason for closing as can be imagined--such disagreements are for the article talk page. As others have noted, there seem to be two subjects here, and there should be two articles. I think the griffith technique so extremely well documented in the literature that it should be a separate article, and should be approached from that direction. The section "origin" in the current user space version is sufficient of a RS to establish the subject as notable, (I am truly astounded at the initial nomination as "hoax" ) and the remainder of the sourcing there is excellent. The "last-minute hero" should probably be a separate article, but I have not examined sourcing for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually been debating changing my opinion to relist due to the new title, but have not decided that for certain yet. However, where does postdif say his opinion in the AfD? CycloneGU (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He didn'tat the AfD , but he did above in the discussion here at Del Rev, near the top. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My only opinion when I closed the AFD was "every participant but for the article creator credibly asserts that this article is OR," and even the creator conceded to some extent that he was making some things up or that the sources didn't support everything; that's at least part of why he keeps changing the article title and topic around. Really, this AFD stood out as an easy one to close, so whether or not I agreed with the participants it could not have been closed as anything but delete.

          I formed my opinion and observations written above only after this DRV was listed, because I then reviewed the article and noticed for myself that the creator simply doesn't seem to know what basic film terms mean or how to use them. His response to my criticism above illustrates this well, in that he made an admittedly personal decision to define a technique as being used "in cinematography" even though the original source does not say that and it's contrary to what cinematography actually means. I understand that this difficulty comes at least in part because English is not his first language, so I don't doubt his good intentions here, but he isn't demonstrating a clear understanding of the subject matter or an ability to properly represent what the sources actually say. Which means that he might be better off taking some time to edit existing articles (and learn more about how Wikipedia works and how to work with other editors) rather than trying to start new ones where he isn't even clear on what the topic is and not fluent enough with English. Again, all of this except for "the clear consensus in the AFD was delete" is all post-DRV observations and conclusions.

          I was also put off by him demanding that I userfy his article so he could nominate it for FA immediately after it was deleted at AFD, which I can chalk up again to a lack of understanding deletion policy and article standards, but unfortunately instead of him recognizing that maybe there's something he's not getting, he's refused to take others' criticisms and comments seriously. So as I said, I think he needs to spend more time actually learning how Wikipedia works by more small-scale, mundane editing, rather than jumping into the deep end and expecting unrealistic results. And maybe someone from Wikiproject film, for example, may be willing to mentor him if that's the area he wants to focus on. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As to why it was initially nominated as a "Hoax", when I initially tagged it for Speedy Deletion, and then subsequenty as a AfD nomation, the article was nowhere near the form it is now. It was titled "Just-In-Time-Lad", and rather than focusing on Griffith, the whole thing was just a random collection of pop-culture references in the style of a TVTropes article. As I could find no resources to substantiate the claim that this was indeed a real term, I initially labeled it as a possible hoax, and definite OR. The pages author completely revamped the article during the AfD discussion, which is why it probably seems strange at this point as to why it was ever considered to be a flat out hoax. This probably has little to do with the current discussion, but I thought I would just clear that up for you.Rorshacma (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (again, see below CycloneGU (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) - I'm not ready to approve it for the mainspace yet, but let's have a fresh, uncontroversial AfD based on the new title and new article. It's not perfect, but this user clearly is trying to work on it in good faith even with us all babbling on about original research. It seems this user, while he comes across a bit, er, opinionated at times, is trying in good faith to come up with an article here, and there is more merit to a discussion of where the content can be used if not in its own article. CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely no doubt that the editor is working in good faith. There is an equal amount of doubt as to whether the article is entirely original synthesis. Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, and I think an AfD on the new version of the article would be handy. CycloneGU (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not opposed to the idea that some article produced from this could see mainspace at least to be relisted, but I'm not comfortable recommending that course of action until the article has a specifically defined topic and sticks to it. The current userspace situation, with a lede (and quite a bit of text) about a cinematography/film editing technqiue, but sections discussing movies that do not employ that technique, a passage about a figure in the Qur'an, and the stock characters template, perhaps left over from what originally showed up at AFD, doesn't fill me with a great deal of confidence that WP:SYN isn't still a live problem here. The whole purpose of userfication is so that the editor taking possession of the would-be article can attend to its flaws and get it mainspace-ready ... and, so far, this isn't. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to AfD. The deletion review part of this is easy, because the deletion for "Just-in-time lad" was conducted correctly and closed in accordance with the consensus. But, the deletion discussion for "Just-in-time lad" would have focused on the sources for that title. This is a different title, and therefore the sources will differ. It warrants a fresh discussion.

    I'm not overjoyed about the accusations flying around here. Deletion Review is about content, and this is not the place to make accusations of bad faith against anyone. We don't have the power to enforce sanctions against editors and we don't make decisions on the basis of an editor's conduct. That kind of thing belongs on one of the drama boards.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I see little connection between the version of the article now in the user's space and the version of the page I commented on in the AfD. Let's take the pieces in turn.
    I find no errors in the closure of the AfD discussion. The community consensus was clear. The one piece of contrary evidence (almost 17 million google hits) was rightly discounted because it was based upon a malformed search - the search returned hits with any of those three words. A google search on the exact phrase returns far fewer hits and the majority of those are false-positives and do not support the argument being made in the AfD.
    Edits were made to the page during the AfD discussion. The last two commentors reviewed the revised content (based upon the timestamps, one covering all changes and the other seeing all but the very last edit which changed the opening paragraph) and both explicitly commented that it remained original research. Even had all the prior opinions been discounted, that still would have been sufficient consensus to close as a "delete". I endorse closure of the AfD.
    Rewrites have continued since the restoration and movement to the userspace. A casual review would suggest that this page is so different that the normal course of editing (boldly post it and re-AfD if necessary) would be appropriate. However, since the question has been posed here, I can not endorse movement to the mainspace. The tone of the article has shifted from a neologism about a particular character archetype to a neologism about a particular plot twist. While the examples proving the existence of that plot device are well documented, there are no sources talking about the plot device. The draft also incorrectly attributes this literary technique to modern times when it actually traces back to, well, no one really knows - it was well-established by the time of the Greeks, though. This version still fails WP:SYN. Relisting would be pointless even to a process-wonk like me. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have another problem here: copyvios. The first two paragraphs of this section are taken almost verbatim from this source. The third paragraph of that section is almost verbatim from this source. The fourth paragraph of that section is taken almost verbatim from this source... I first noticed it with the text cited in his userspace article to footnote three, p. 606 of Richard Abel's Encyclopedia of Early Cinema, here. Everything in the sentence after "According to Richard Abel, Professor...Arts" is a verbatim quote from that text. So he's literally copied and pasted text from different books together. This userspace page needs to be deleted, and the rest of his contributions reviewed for further copyvios. postdlf (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and it's not limited to this article by George Serdechny: compare this with this. I don't have time to follow up further right now, but this obviously needs more investigation and a removal of all the infringing texts. postdlf (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found the first paragraph starting a copyvio at the bottom of page 36 of that source, and paragraph 2 leads in around page 38. I lost track soewhere in the middle of that paragraph. The third and fourth paragraphs I have not specifically found. Can you give us page numbers of these? Once these are proven, the entire section immediately needs to be deleted without haste and I would perhaps the page speedied out of sight so the copyvios are permanently deleted from the history. CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second sentence of the third paragraph is a nearly verbatim copy beginning with the last word on p. 62 here and continuing on 63 ("Griffith interspersed shots of Danton..."). The first sentence is also from p. 62 of that source as well, though more edited ("the film chronicles the misadventures...their separation before and during the French Revolution, culminating...").

          The fourth paragraph is from beginning on p. 120 ("...a relatively truncated version of the last minute rescue...Even so, Griffith employs both editing..."). Note that these are only the portions of the text I searched for, and all of them turned out to be lifted; I have not checked the entire article, so I can't say this is it, and as I noted above, at least part of another article he posted also has text lifted verbatim from a source. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request for Closure - At this time, in light of the evidence brought up above, I am going to request a closure of this DRV by an uninvolved admin. An article with copyvios lifted and embedded inside should not be present on Wikipedia. I will also request the user's working copy deleted and the user's editing privileges blocked temporarily until we can determine whether any other copyvios have taken place that have not yet been found. CycloneGU (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody knows that any copyvio can be reworked in a few minutes. And you know why I've copied it without any changes? Because I knew for sure that even after the artcile has been rewritten completely, it will be still framed with OR. Now the truth surfaced and yet nobody took back allegations of original research. You know how it looks like? It looks like: "Delete it! Delete it! For God's Sake! Delete it!". What's up, uneasy conscience betrays itself? – George Serdechny 07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, last post before I head to bed: I found copyvios elsewhere in the article, not just the Griffith section: In User:George_Serdechny/Last-minute_rescue#Slapstick, the last three sentences of that section are taken verbatim, though out of order, from the second paragraph on p. xxii of this source ("the last-minute rescue in Slapstick comedies is not brought about by divine intervention or melodramatic coincidence..." + "The games slapstick comedy performs take place on the brink of the abyss..."). postdlf (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nota bene* Note to reviewer: No need in urgent closure. Quick "switch" from OR to CV haven't been settled yet. When other discussants, who stated that the article is an OR, will confirm that it is not an original research and stands far from original research, I will rework copyvio in a single edit (I've stored a reworked version, cause I knew that this moment will come). – George Serdechny 07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement "I've stored a reworked version, cause I knew that this moment will come", so you've knowingly put up a copyvio version? You have a version which is (in your view) non-copyvio, but wanted to wait until found out to fix it? Why put something you know is wrong in expecting to be found out? Why wait to be found out to resolve it? If it's there waiting now, why haven't you fixed it now having been found out? This makes absolutely no sense. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This makes all sense, because verbatim citation of competent sources could not be called an original research. – George Serdechny 08:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a total strawman, this isn't about if this is OR or not, this is about constructing a Copyright Violation. If you are saying you constructed an article which was a copyvio to make a point about OR, that is in itself a problem. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've constructed an edition of the article, which was already tagged for deletion as an OR, and eventually deleted as OR. I did not create the article from copyrighted material, from the very beginning. It's two big differences and I hope you can distinguish between them. The problem is the unwillingness of the group of users to reconsider their previous statements and mistakes. – George Serdechny 09:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you added copyvio material, knowing that it was copyvio material in order to make a WP:POINT then. Essentially from your comments at the AFD and your comments here are further into troll territory than reasoned debate. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let me cite my own "troll" comment at AfD: "Everybody, who have eyes and able to read, can judge by himself". – George Serdechny 09:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again a strawman, no one has said every single comment you've made is troll like, but your continued strawmen here, apparent desire to sweep the copyvio issue under the carpet and continued the evasion of answering direct questions on the issue is still far from constructive discussion. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia means by "original research". An author can have clear citations to facts A, B and C but still be committing original research if he/she then uses them to conclude D when no published sources have previously concluded D. That's the "synthesis" part of original research. Even if all the underlying facts are true, it is not an encyclopedia's place to be the first entity to make the conclusions that go beyond those bare facts. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, he's taken different paragraphs from different works by different film critics and historians, lumped them together out of context and without clearly identifying them as the [verbatim] opinions and analysis of these particular scholars, and added a bit of a gloss (factually incorrect in its use and application of terms, as I noted above) purporting to tie it all together. Which is why it all read as disjointed and sliding from one subject to another, despite the coherence within certain individual paragraphs. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the editor's blasé attitude to copyright violation worrying. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspension in debates: My working day and working week came to an end (it's a Friday and it's a short day today), so I congratulate everyone with the upcoming International Labour Day and I'll see you soon after the May Days. Of course, everyone interested is able to see the final version of the article 3 days before it was deleted and decide to him(her)self whether or not it was an original research ; as well as everybody interested is free and encouraged to continue the discussion if he or she wants to, but temporarily without me. Cheers!
    – George Serdechny 09:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started an AN/I thread, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation. There are still copyvios in the userspace draft, and it's pervasive through other articles posted by George. postdlf (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, I think it laughable that the person responsible for the copyvio article is taking the weekend off. I think it would be wise to finish this up before he gets back and send the message that this is not acceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating party has been banned for copyright infringement after an AN/I investigation. This review can be closed. - Note added by CycloneGU (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

26 April 2011

[edit]

25 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Solex Thermal Science Logo.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Restore: This was clearly a bad deletion. The image, which I did not upload, was listed at puf as a company logo being used without a proper non-free rationale and licence, so I added the fully completed ratioanle and licence for a logo being used in the infobox of the company article, requesting the nomination be closed as a keep, but instead of just closing it, User:SchuminWeb deleted it when it complied with all 10 WP:NFCC. I have requested an explanation for SchuminWeb at User talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted logo but he has not responded. ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore absent a better rationale from the deleting admin. We typically allow logo's for use on company articles and I can't immediately see why this one would be different. The admin has been active since you posted to their talk so hopefully they'll come here to clarify at this point. That said the article it was apparently attached to, contains no third party sourcing (the apparent third party sources are sources regarding the technology it seems rather than about the company) so unless that is resolvable this whole thing may become moot. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the admin has been active but has not responded to two requests, so it appears he is ignoring the request. You may be correct that if the article gets deleted this image would be moot but until that happens the image is valid and would become an orphaned image which is proper reason to delete at that time. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Kane and The Big Show – Just go ahead and recreate this with sources. Further AFD can be left to editorial discretion. Please use REFUND is you need the old version userfying. I'm sporadically on so cannot be relied upon to do it if you need it but its better to start fresh. – Spartaz Humbug! 09:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kane and The Big Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this page should be undeleted because the reasons given at the AFD at the time were that the team didn't do a lot together and were only together from October 2005 - April 2006 along with the fact that they only won 1 World Tag Team Championship together. Well they have since reformed and won the WWE Tag Team Championship which would make the original AFD reasons void as since then the team have come together for a longer period of time and won more than 1 tag team title. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go for it - Ask for a copy of the old article in your user-space to work on, add the new sources, then move it back to article-space. The original AfD was from over 3 yrs ago. Tarc (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What we're talking about here is allowing notability to be demonstrated by the fictional activity of performers in scripted entertainment. We don't do this, for good reason, in any other field of entertainment, and should (collectively) think a bit harder about why we allow it for one specialized niche, which these days borders on being a family business. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actors do. Fictional characters don't. Not for the nature of the scripted activity, which is what's being asserted here. If an actor has a significant role in a notable work, that's enough. It doesn't matter whether the role is as President of the US, Queen of France, or unemployed stumblebum. But the claim here is that this duo is notable as a duo because they "won" titles in performances that were scripted so that the outcome was inevitable. If the role itself is notable, it doesn't matter whether (semi)fictional character wins or loses. Rocky Balboa didn't become more notable simply because his character "won" a fictional fight; he'd be just as notable if he always lost the championship bouts. Real individuals don't actually "win" or "lose" anything in the events involved here; the characters they portray do. And we don't determine the notability of fictional characters based on the outcome of in-universe events; Matt Santos and Arnold Vinick would both be notable characters regardless of which won the fictional election. Helen Santos, however, is borderline-notable at best, and her notability doesn't stand or fall on whether, in universe, the character became First Lady. This whole set of articles does a bad enough job of conflating real-world performers and the characters they portray in McMahon-World; and allowing notability to turn on fictive continuity rather than real-world factors would go way too far. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're on an encyclopaedia where you can achieve notability by "acting" in porn, mate. I agree that winning a scripted WWE match isn't exactly an accomplishment, but then, neither is finishing last in races. If it leads to coverage in reliable sources then what's the problem?

    If there's no coverage in reliable sources, then I'm sure AfD will get involved in due course.  :)—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the porn analogy quite works, we don't see notability for them winning some award whilst "acting" in the porn movie, but do so for winning awards for the "quality" of their "acting" back in the slightly more real world. Reasonably though it is generally, as you say, about good coverage in reliable independant sources. Any broader issue as to if the inclusion standards or the way the information is presented needs to differ in certain cases is far broader than a DRV discussion. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 April 2011

[edit]

23 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Neil Cragg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would had disagreed on this decision to PROD this article if this article was on my watch list (which I rarely watch articles) but these are the point I would like to question on the destruction of this article. First, how can a radio controlled racing world and multiple European champion be considered non-notable, any International Champions will have no problem getting reliable third party coverages; second, you will never come across his name on CNN/Fox News because radio controlled racing do not attract mainstream audiences compared to say football or even so-called "cool/hip/trendy" sport such as skate/snowboarding, one of it is the attitude of the general public toward the hobby, also you are likely to find his name in specialist magazines found in shops such as Radio-Controlled Car Action. Looking up at the website of that magazine, I managed to come across these articles and that magazine is one you find in your local news seller. Third, apart from the link I gave, the deleter said he tried to look for any articles without any sucesses, well I managed to find these - [14] [15][16] [17] Donnie Park (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Substantial procedural errors and incorrect interpretation of the debate that may be summarized as not following the requests of WP:BEFORE, WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:AFDEQ, WP:AFDHOWTO... explained why in more details on this page. I think that all those substantial procedural errors gave a good reason to discard the AfD. "How to discuss an AfD says "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

It is obvious that during this AfD process there was "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines". According to above recommendation, I propose to consider a "dispute resolution process outside the current AfD" which should be restored precisely because of the lack of valid arguments and existing "pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines".

Even if we disregard above mentioned and base decision of his AfD on the above mentioned problematic nomination process and debate, there is obviously much more arguments for Merge than Delete.

I propose to either discard this nomination and debate and restore deleted article or respect the debate and close AfD with MERGE and then merge the article with main page (Vojsava Kastrioti) and other deleted article (List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian).

Note: I was unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator in question. I attempted (diff + diff) that first and courteously invited the admin to take one more look and to answer one simple question (without taking in consideration simple votes but arguments about policies violated by the existence of this article brought in AfD discussion):Why did you delete this article? Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to delete both lists and I think that your response towards the admin who deleted it after he rejected your undeletion request was unwarranted. Btw wikipedia is not a democracy, although even then the delete opinions would outweigh the keep or merge ones. You created the list after its links' inclusion in the main article was rejected both on the Reliables Sources Noticeboard and the Request for Comment on the article's talkpage making the list not only a linkfarm but also a fork.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has already created subpages for the lists.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have an article page? I'd like an explanation for that from Antidiskriminator before undeletion is even considered. CycloneGU (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To present summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav. What WP policy this article existence violated?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Lifebaka: Please provide a link and quote from the WP policy which says that lists are not allowed to contain lists of sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified him of your reply and he may correct me, but I think you want this. Does the deleted page satisfy any of those three? I find it hard to believe. CycloneGU (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is very useful to have this article with summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava was Slav. Having summary of all of them can provide any interested readers with possibility to decide themself about motifs for those claims or neutrality of the sources, and to use those sources accordingly.
Information purposes:Wikipedia policy about notability of the people says:“Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person.” In case of Vojsava Kastrioti one of the most important aspects of her notability is not mere fact that she was a mother of Skanderbeg. There are many other notable people from the Balkans which does not have article about their mothers. Probably the most important aspect of her notability are claims about her ethnicity. That is exactly why this "may be a valuable information source".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Development purposes: Additionally, deleted article had not only informative purpose, but was also suitable "for Wikipedia development purposes" because all sources were presented in citation template form.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore the majority of that last post for right now to ask a question about one specific item. You say, "It is very useful to have this article with summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava was Slav." Why, praytell, can't sources indicating Vojsava was Slav accompany prose in the article about her? That is what makes a separate list article pointless and laughable; we don't refer to a Wikipedia article for something contained within a Wikipedia article. CycloneGU (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)He created the article because for the past six or more months every link he's been adding to that list is either refuted on Request for Comment discussions or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard i.e the list was more or less moved from his userspace to a single article, because the consensus of those discussions didn't allow him to add them on Vojsava Kastrioti, which is obvious because that list among other links has some racist ones about Africans, wrong translations caused by the fact that although he can't read Albanian he probably used google translate for large texts in Albanian etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ZjarriRrethues: Nothing you wrote in the above comment is true except that I can't read Albanian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides many arguments already provided by other users (that it would not be practical, that not all of the sources are RS) the presented sources do not explicitly mention Skanderbeg.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raise the issue on the Vojsava Kastrioti talk page then and present your argument as to why this should be a valid source. It does not belong in a deletion review. I will echo the request below for a speedy close, winter is over. CycloneGU (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CycloneGU is correct. More specifically, the sentence which reads: "Lists contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Of course, lawyering over whether or not specific wordings in non-static policies supports an argument is frowned upon, so to make another argument, I have never seen a single list which included external links as entries, except reference lists at the end of articles. If this list was meant to be a list of references, it should be in the article the sources are referencing; otherwise, it is not a useful stand-alone list and should be moved out of the mainspace. lifebaka++ 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - TBH, "List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav" should be in the reference section of an article about Vojsava Kastrioti if anything as sources, and any real information inside that article referring to the sources. CycloneGU (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, if the sources themselves are dubious and do not qualify as valid third-party sources, it may be necessary to remove the sources themselves. Also, any such source must be referred to in some fashion as a source in the Vojsava Kastrioti article, or it should not be used on the page at all except in extremely rare cases (for instance, a map of a racetrack on the racetrack's article; you won't likely refer to the source in any way through text). CycloneGU (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an entirely reasonable evaluation of the AFD discussion. This content is not terribly useful for article construction, and would overwhelm what is now barely a two-paragraph entry. The article need do no more than note the existence of conflicting opinions of her ethnicity, with a reasonably reliable representative source for each opinion. No doubt we could accumulate scores if not hundreds of sources for the point that Lindsay Lohan was sent to jail yeaterday, but no encyclopedic function would be served there -- and none is here. Isn't there a relevant ArbCom ruling, even if not exactly applicable here, which might serve to alert one or more of the disputants about overly combative editing in this general area? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus was very clear that this content shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article, and the only other possible outcome of the discussion was a merge to the article on this person (which isn't practical, for reasons given by the closer on the creator's talk page, but I suppose this could be restored to non-article space if it is needed for the article's development). The creator alleges numerous procedural violations, but they're all either wrong or don't constitute a reason to overturn the deletion. Hut 8.5 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[18] "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." Please be so kind to have second look to the AfD process and if it really contain this kind of consensus?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of what consensus is, and this AfD exhibited it. Hut 8.5 20:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please be so kind to point to the policy that the consensus this AfD exhibited determined as violated, and quote of few arguments why this article violated it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...I am afraid I do not understand the question. CycloneGU (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. English is not my native language. I will try to explain.
Many, if not all, participants in this debate stated that they think there was consensus this AfD exhibited. The consensus by definition is “determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority.”
Taking that in consideration, I think it is not enough to participate in the review of this AfD by simple voting, claiming there was consensus, but to point to the policy this consensus was grounded in and arguments provided during consensus building. That way we will have answer on one very simple question that remained unanswered. Why was this article deleted?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many voting to endorse the deletion have already explained they agree with the reason the article was deleted. It was not a substantive article on its own merit and, while I have not personally seen the article, it sounds like it was nothing more than a list of links that were denied being added to the article about the subject herself. You disagreed, it sounds like, with the opinion of those removing them and created a separate page that doesn't even have two feet to stand on. That is why the article was deleted, and there is not really a better good-faith explanation than that. At this point, the best route is going to the actual article talk page and raising your issue there for a consensus discussion. You never know, one link might get approved for adding out of however many get disapproved. CycloneGU (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I think you got it all wrong. You can see the article (without FAQ section on the talk page) here. You based your opinion on something someone said, not because he provided a proof for his claim. I never added any source from this list to the article about Vojsava Kastrioti. Many of those sources were never attempted to be added to that article. Therefore I did not and could not disagree with anybody who removed this sources. The only edit connected with the sources from this list which I did in article Vojsava Kastrioti happened after I created those lists. I placed links to those lists in see also section (diff). I don't have any intention to add those sources into the article about her. That is not the purpose of this list. I explained that the purpose of this list is informative and development.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an article? I disagree. That's a bibliography. It does not belong in the mainspace by itself, period. CycloneGU (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I have to take with bad faith any further claim you make that this should be undeleted from the article space. CycloneGU (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's two:
WP:POVFORK: this guideline forbids creating an article on the same subject as an existing article to advance a point of view. If there is a dispute about whether Vojsava Kastrioti is Slav or Albanian the appropriate thing to do is to edit the article to discuss both sides neutrally, not to create List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav and List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian.
WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our articles are, with few exceptions, encyclopedia articles, redirects, disambiguation pages or lists. This article isn't any of these. We do have a few bibliographies, but they are all either lists of books written by famous authors (Charles Dickens bibliography) or lists of books about major topics (List of books about the War of 1812), and in both these cases the material only exists in a sub-article because of space reasons. WP:NOT prohibits articles from being merely a list of links. Admittedly these links are to print references rather than online ones but the point still stands.
Almost everybody in the deletion discussion advanced arguments grounded in policies and guidelines such as these, and you failed to rebut them. Instead you baldly asserted that the policy or guideline isn't applicable. That isn't an argument, as you note earlier. Therefore there was a consensus to delete (or possibly merge) the article and closing any other way would have been a serious error. Hut 8.5 10:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Antidiskriminator, because you took the time to write up such a detailed rationale, I'll take the time to address it point by point.
Detailed analysis/rationale

While following WP:BEFORE is considered good practice, it ultimately a recommendation and not a requirement. Sharing one's "reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag," which you complain that the nominator did not do, would have been polite. However, given his deep disagreement with you over the propriety of these articles' existence, these AfDs were inevitable.

You complain that Gaius Claudius Nero, the nominator, should not have simply linked to policies like WP:LINKFARM without explaining his reasoning. You're right, he should have been more detailed. But your counterargument was no better; you simply wrote, "I believe that this article is obviously not 'a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files' so WP:NOT policy is not violated." If it's so "obvious," then why did so many participants in the discussion believe that WP:LINKFARM was violated? Yours was just as much of an argument by assertion as the nominator's.

You also complain that Gaius personally attacked you in the last sentence of his nomination by writing that you, "as the result of many discussions [were] not able to add the sources of his lists on Vojsava Kastrioti started the list articles as a means to include his preferred content on Wikipedia." Reading through Talk:Vojsava Tripalda and looking at your only edits to the article since February, I do not see evidence to back up his statement. Gaius's statement appears to have been untrue, or at the very least misleading. According to WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks. However, that is nowhere near enough invalidate the whole AfD.

Like your complaints about WP:BEFORE not being followed to a T, your grievances about the articles being bundled together in one AfD and the nominator failing to notify you (and associated WikiProjects) are not reasons to invalidate the AfD. It would have been nice for Gaius to do these things, but it is not a requirement. Similarly, it would be polite for participants in the discussion to disclose their involvement with the article, but it is not required.

It would be absurd to discard these entire discussions at this point because of problems with Gaius's nomination. Many editors participated in the AfDs, and, as Wizardman wrote on your talk page, "you were the only one adamant about it being kept." (Your case for keeping the article used an "other stuff exists" type of argument, which closing admins are generally supposed to give little to no weight.) There was a broad consensus in the discussion that bibliography-type lists of sources should not be separate articles, and that the sources on these pages belonged in the main article on Vojsava Tripalda, if anywhere. Participants in the discussion largely agreed that these articles constituted repositories of links and therefore ran afoul of WP:LINKFARM. WP:AVOIDSPLIT was cited as evidence that this material belongs in the main article, if anywhere. Allen3 noted an additional problem: "No sourcing for the significance of this list is provided or even hinted at." It does not look like this point was refuted.

The question, then, is whether the consensus was to merge or to delete. Essentially, the argument for a merger is that these sources could be useful for developing the main article, i.e. by adding a paragraph on the dispute over Tripalda's ethnicity. However, that argument was refuted by Whpq: "If an editor wants to keep this as aid for article development, then userfying would be appropriate, otherwise there is no good reason for keeping the article. There is nothing to merge here. There is no content to merge here. It's just a list of source material." His point was never adequately contested by those advocating a merger. The implication is that, if this material is to be used for article development, it ought to be in userspace or on the talk page – not in the article. Another strike against the merge proposal is the absurdity of merging "a 35kb list article into a 1k biography," as Wizardman noted on your talk page. He was well within his discretion as closing admin to decide that this was not a feasible proposal.

WP:TL;DR: Following AfD best practices is nice but not required. Only Antidiskriminator was adamant that the article should be kept, and his arguments amounted to "other stuff exists" and the assertion without explanation that WP:LINKFARM was not violated. There was a broad consensus that WP:LINKFARM was violated, and that these never should have been stand-alone articles, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Further compelling arguments for deletion were provided by Whpq and Allen3, and they were not refuted. And Wizardman was within his discretion as closing admin in deciding that a merger was not feasible. These deletions were proper and the result of a valid consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I would have simply SNOW closed this, but I !voted merge in one of the AfDs. It's absolutely clear that consensus does not favor spinout articles like this, from this topic, at this time. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 April 2011

[edit]

21 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Warpath (Transformers) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was nominated to be deleted by a banned sock puppet, and then had popular support to keep, but the admin who made the decision to delete decided that since it lacked many sources to delete it anyways. I went through and added a number of sources, and the admin who deleted it suggested a deletion review, so I think it deserves new consideration. My new version of the article is at User:Mathewignash/Warpath (Transformers) Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - The keep arguments were weak, esp Norton's as the admin notes, and were rightly discarded. I see little in the new version that isn't sources to the same sorts of toy guides, fan sites, and such...i.e. the same sites and same rationales that I've noted you use in dozens upon dozens of TF-related AfDs, which 9 times out of 10, IIRC, has resulted in an article deletion or at best a redirect. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist if anyone wants to relist (I assume from the above that Tarc will choose to do so). GThe main reason for me is that the close was defective because it did not consider the possibility of a merge/redirect & that's usually a reasonable option for this sort of article. A closing admin is not free to ignore deletion policy. There is also the argument that if we reject making articles by banned sockpuppets we should reject attempts to delete them also. The same rationale holds: if they can come and add things/nom articles here anyway, the ban has no meaning. Personally, I'm not sure the policy actually has much effect, but that's the rationale for it usually given and I think it has very wide support. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is only rational to consider compromise solutions in a type of situation that has often led to them, regardless of rules or requirements--someone closing should be aware not of precedent exactly, but of typical procedures. But the position I would really advocate is that the nominator must consider merge and redirect and show why they are not applicable if its the sort of article where it might be, or it is not a complete nomination. An incomplete nomination should be completed if possible, or else rejected and done over. (BTW, I saw this AfD and decided not to participate, because I do not defend Transformer articles like these as individual articles & assumed merging would be considered. If AfDs have gotten so foolish as not to consider compromises such things I will have to go back to joining in more of them, the way I used to.) DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a merge or redirect close here would be a forced compromise and a "super vote". There's no mention of a relevant character list. All participants are responsible for considering and proposing compromises and alternatives – I disagree with dumping that on the nominator or closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clerical note - The "Warpath" link above is simply merged into "Autobots" and thus takes you there. Since Warpath is an Autobot, he technically should be merged in there. However, this is quite lengthy and heavily referenced; therefore, I'm going to say Overturn and keep/relist in the same way as Optimus Prime has an article. CycloneGU (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the original AfD reached the right conclusion. The article was very poorly sourced, and this was not addressed at all by those advocating keep. I have looked at the new draft, and I agree with Tarc that the sourcing is still poor; limited to fansites, toy catalogues and primary sources. I do not agree that the banned status of the nominator has any bearing here because a lot of editors made good-faith arguments to remove the article and it is not acceptable to discard those opinions on procedural grounds. Reyk YO! 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there are primary sources for the fiction, there are also online magazine articles cited in this article as well. Something that didn't exist in the initial article, and the reason it got summarely deleted. As these now exist, the reason for the initial deletion is invalid. 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No. I see one independent online magazine, of dubious reliability, and which mentions the subject in half a sentence. We cannot overturn an AfD on the back of that. Reyk YO! 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Generally, to be fair, I agree with this statement. However, even if the nominator is a banned user, the content of the AfD itself should be considered more than, "I kicked this guy out a week and a half ago". If you think it likely to be deleted on a relist, then that is what to consider. I'll be taking a closer look later, myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That banned user actually nominated several pages, but I wasn't going to contest any of them until I wrote better versions of the articles that had better sources. He used his various socks for several deletion nominating sprees, but yes the articles had no sources when they were around the first time, and no one even seemed to attempt to look any sources up. Mathewignash (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider Jclemens's view to represent policy as I understand it. WP:BAN says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." In the case of an AfD, that would obviously mean it would be fine to delete an AfD that has had no other comments. But nothing in that policy suggests that later edits by other users that have followed a thread begun by a banned user should be thrown out; that would be effectively applying the ban to anyone who happens to agree with the banned user about a particular issue. Nor do I think it has been our practice to apply blind, blanket reversions to edits that have later edits dependent on them, since in many cases this would undo valuable work by non-banned editors. No comment on the deletion at hand other than that I don't think ban policy necessitates overturning it. Chick Bowen 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly right. WP:BAN says "Edits by banned editors or on their behalf may be reverted without question". Not "must". "May". We are not compelled to undo productive edits by a banned user if we don't want to. And if undoing those edits means scrapping other productive edits by good-faith users then we definitely should not do it. Reyk YO! 01:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Speedy keep #3 covers banned nominators. The nominator's status was discovered and disclosed several hours into the AfD and was considered by the closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it is proper to point out that with the current guideline this whole process could have been stopped on 17 September 2010 with a procedural close closure less than 24 hours after the AfD launched.  Note that the closure of the AfD on 23 September 2010 failed to refute this misstatement or explain any basis for ignoring the abusive nomination, so this may be evidence that this AfD was not properly closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing to specific sections (corrected link: WP:Deletion process#Procedural closure). Why did you ignore However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the nomination should not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). (basically the same sentence as in WP:Speedy keep)? Why should Procedural closure, which does not mention banned nominators, supersede Speedy keep, which describes this situation exactly? Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly ignoring it, but I think you would agree it has ambiguity, so there was no purpose to analyze it.  I think the words "speedily closed" should be read as and changed to "speedily kept", I tracked back the text to an entry made in March 2008, and found no discussion on the talk page–although based on the edit comment there may be older discussion.  Two or three things I think we can say clearly:
  1. An AfD page created by a banned user without other comments should be deleted.
  2. An AfD page created by a banned user with other comments ("good-faith edits") should not be deleted, as such comments should remain available in an edit history.
  3. I think you would also agree that the criteria for procedural closure are applicable, "circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed".
At this point, the rules for Speedy keep are a bit arbitrary.  Why should a deleted AfD page be marked as a "Speedy Keep" on the article discussion page?  It doesn't clearly make sense, it seems that there should be a special category so that people know not to go looking for the AfD page.  Certainly, nothing explicit in Speedy keep says that a procedural closure is banned.  Yet there is this extant idea introduced by noting that the nominator's comments will be discounted, that refers to an AfD which has not had a Procedural closure.  So now we have two worlds, (1) the world in which Wikipedians are forced to continue in a WP:BURO process knowing that the nomination was defective, or (2) a procedural closure allowing an immediate new and clean AfD nomination.  A new AfD then shows that someone was willing to accept the responsibility of an AfD nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the quoted sentence is ambiguous. Substantive, good-faith comments by other users → AfD stays open. (Common practice is to speedy keep if all non-discounted comments are keep.) Where are you getting "available in an edit history"? I don't see how that is relevant. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an AfD that just closed, three dozen "good-faith comments by other users" were discarded: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2011 in the Libyan Civil War.  So I think we can discard the idea that a !vote is a terrible thing to waste.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question, normally a banned user's new pages would be deleted, but when a good-faith editor has posted on a page created by a banned user, it may not be right to delete the page and along with it the good-faith edit.  Just consider if there is a new AfD that starts immediately after an AfD is procedurally closed, users should be able to refer to the edit history of a procedurally closed AfD so as to re-post their comments in the new AfD.  I suspect that somewhere along the way, someone got the idea that saving the edit history of good-faith edits on an AfD page also meant saving the defective AfD, but the two ideas should not be coupled.
I don't at this point see how the previous respondent cannot agree that the quoted sentence is ambiguous.  (1) There is the phrase "speedily closed" which has no technical definition in Wikipedia and two possible understandings in the context.  (2) There is the vagueness in the sentence in not comparing the action with "procedure closure", and (3) only indirectly discussing the idea of keeping the AfD open.  (4) The previous respondent has mentioned another issue in that speedy keep is used if all non-discounted comments are keep.  This "common practice" uses WP:IAR/WP:UCS to ignore the guideline.  (5) The explanation in the guideline that the banned nominator's nomination comment will be "discounted" rather than ignored is inconsistent with WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, which is a policy.  (6) There is the absence of talk page comments leaving the rationale for having the sentence unknown.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case we had a sock puppeteer who was speed-nominating articles of all sorts for deletion. He'd come in a nominate articles, then aa few eager voters would support his nominations. If we uncovered the puppeteer before any votes were made, or it was a particularly obvious keep article, the deletion nomination would be ended. If not, the sock puppeteer would get rewarded by allowing his sabotage to stand. I don't think it's a great way to do things, but I was told by people at the time if there was even one legitimate good faith vote to delete, redirect or merge, they wouldn't end the nomination. So basically the survival of an article would be based on who got there first, someone interested in uncovering the truth, or someone looking to vote delete on fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. The way the AfDs unfolded is already a done deal; sock nominates but it turns out it was a sound nomination, given how many weighed in to delete and how the result wound up. Please stop trying to get this overturned on purely procedural grounds, it is a ridiculous, bureaucracy-for-the-sake-of-bureaucracy time-waster. Tarc (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to review here. A sock puppeteer nominated an article for deletion. His status was discovered within 24 hours, but sadly by the ONE editor had already voted to delete. The nomination was allowed to continue. Others then voted, some to keep, some to delete, some to merge (it about even for both sides), but the admin decided to let the article get deleted because it had such weak sources, despite the many keep votes that would normally have made given the nomination a "no concensus". The article was copied to my userspace, where I added over a dozen sources, and I went back to the admin to ask him about restoring the article. He recomended I ask for a deletion review, which I did. This is not a "bureaucracy-for-the-sake-of-bureaucracy time-waster", it's a legitimade request from someone who followed procedure. Mathewignash (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The keep votes were weak, as noted in the closer's rationale. The only way that could have wound up as a NC is if someone came around and counted heads. Since AfDs aren't a vote, that didn't happen. So let's dispense with that tangent of this shall, we? As for the sourcing, it looks like the same (like, exactly the same) sources that you have tried to use in other TF articles over the last few months. No offense, but your track record in those discussions is IIRC fairly abysmal. Except for the sock that nominated some obviously notable ones, e.g. Soundwave, the bulk of those things have been deleted or redirected. I see no reason to return an article to mainspace that tries to make use of the same sources rejected in other AfDs. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a lot of nominations for deletion with similar sources that result as KEEP and NO CONCENSUS, and you are still ignoring the fact that the admin who deleted the article advised me to ask for the deletion review now. If he thought the evidence wasn't compelling, he wouldn't have advised that. This isn't an article about some no-name Micromaster who appeared in the background in an IDW comic, it's Warpath, played by a notable actor, who many people remember, starred in many episodes, and that coupled with numerous sources for support, can result in a KEEP. That's the reason why he had so many keep votes the first time, because he was notable, he just lacked any real sources the first time around. Mathewignash (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a mis-statement. It was 100% accurate. What about it do you think was wrong? Nobody participating in the AfD had any idea the nominator was a sockpuppet of a banned user at the time, and gave their opinions in good faith. Since you started commenting in this discussion, all you've done is try to get people's opinions ignored, thrown out or declared invalid. Just because you disagree with an opinion does not give you the right or the ability to get it thrown out on some bullshit technicality. Reyk YO! 08:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bovine bodily refuse? Genitalia in the edit comment?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely brilliant. But yes, this should have been immediately overturned at the time of the nomination when the banned user was found; it wasn't, the process went through, and another user has claimed they will renominate it when this whole process is over. Come May, this will could be deleted NEway. So I suggest we don't waste time tiptoeing around the daisies. CycloneGU (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I generally prefer not to reward banned users, but even ignoring that the discussion would be better started over--there was too much heat about the nominator and not enough light overall. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you point out specific comments or diffs? I think that this AfD was pretty tame. Mathewignash seemed understandably upset, but he was able to look for new sources, mentioned in a later comment. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the added sources looks particularly compelling to me. I support Mathewignash's right to request recreation here and thank him for following procedure. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an example of an "improved" version, then it only reinforces and reconfirms what I've been convinced of all along: that no reliable sources (by our standards) exist for these minor characters. It's also extremely offensive to suggest that perfectly valid policy-backed votes should be ignored simply because they happen to agree with a banned user. That is absolutely disgusting.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue getting things right, which I suspect will result in a redirect (which is pretty clearly the right outcome), is more important that not hurting people's feelings. I certainly would hope that no one's feelings would be too hurt by relisting. In any case I don't see how a relist is "disgusting," could you explain? Hobit (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/relist as per DGG and Hobit. Too many questionable matters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore  Need to return the article to the point before the abuse.  If there was no one that actually wanted to nominate the article, then everyone's time was wasted, and even now, the disruptor is being rewarded with this deletion review.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will cheerfully nominate this fancruft in a heartbeat. In the end though, it doesn't really matter who the nominator was or what were his motivations were, as many editors in good standing weighed in after the fact. Any "overturn because of nominator" argument is just dumb, procedural wankery, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a great deal of sympathy for JClemens' view. Banned sockpuppets shouldn't get their way. But on the other hand Wikipedia certainly doesn't need any more articles about Transformers (or Pokémon, Power Rangers or anime or manga of any kind either).—S Marshall T/C 07:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly don't think it's a valid arguement to delete an article that we "don't need more articles" in the same subject. It shows a bias against the subject area by the editor. You're not showing an opinion based on the article itself based on it's merrit, but one your dislike for the NUMBER of articles in the subject. I certianly should be ignored if I voted to delete an article about a Christian Saint, and my reasoning was "we don't need more article about Christianity on Wikipedia!" Serriously, where do you get the authority to declare Wikipedia "completed" on a subject? Mathewignash (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are seriously saying we can't write articles on cartoon characters until articles on "important" subjects are written to your satisfaction? Who died and made you the wiki-god? Guess what, I'm not going to write Forestry in Canada or Education in Queensland any time soon, it's not something I know about. Am I supposed to wait for your approval that all the "important" articles are done before starting the less important ones? Mathewignash (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm seriously saying that I think the encyclopaedia doesn't need any more articles about cartoon characters. Other things I don't think we need any more of include biographies of living porn stars, backwoods US villages with a population under 100, individual episodes of American sci-fi TV shows, and sexuality in Star Trek. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia.

    But what I've also said is that while I think we've got more important things to do, I also think there are higher priorities than going round deleting it. In other words, I think the person who writes several thousand words about their favourite TV show today might just be the person who writes Law enforcement in Europe tomorrow—provided we don't annoy them by deleting their contributions.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per Tarc. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  We are here to build an encyclopedia, IMO the callings of an argument "dumb" are examples of procedural irregularities that weigh against the force of reason.  So I think that closer should now consider both the new procedural irregularities in this deletion review, as well as the procedural abuse that spawned this entire process.  One, I would recommend that closer procedurally disregard this and this as not worthy of consideration and in doing so discourage such comments going forward, and two note that the existence of these new procedural irregularities reinforces the position that this article should be restored WP:IAR without relisting in order to discourage such abuse of process going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You: We should restore this article because nobody but a banned user wanted to nominate it.
    Tarc: I would have nominated it, and will renominate it if it is restored.
    You: SILENCE HIM!!!! THIS OPINION IS VERBOTEN!
    I really don't think any closing administrator is going to disregard an editor who responds to a dumb argument by flatly contradicting it. Reyk YO! 21:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert starts here]
Since I have been misquoted, what I said was,

If there was no one that actually wanted to nominate the article, then everyone's time was wasted, and even now, the disruptor is being rewarded with this deletion review.

Because of the abuse by the nominator, we will never know if someone else would have nominated it.  We can also state with certainty that no else but the abuser nominated it.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert ends here]
  • In order to illustrate the point of the "abuse" Unscintillating is talking about, it's not like this is an isolated event. Just the last week nearly a dozen articles have been discovered to be nominated for deletion by sock puppet attacks of banned users. One of the things people might not is that some of us put a lot of TIME into rescuing articles when they get nominated for deletion by the LEGITIMATE nominations, trying to find any legitimate sources people overlooked. If we have to deal with both the legitimate AND illegitimate nominations, we have to split our research finite time, and articles might get deleted simply because no one had time to look for good sources. No need to reward people who are breaking the rules, and make more work for ourselves. Any article found to be nominated by a banned sock puppet should IMMEDIATELY be ended. Let a human being nominate it (with no bias) if they want. Socks don't get a vote. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're simply trying to invoke policy to get your way, honestly. The real heart of the matter though is just because a banned editor does something, what said person did should not be automatically invalidated just because of who he is or what he has done in the past. It's somewhat of an ad hominem, where you're ignoring the argument and instead going after the arguer. Unscintillating is much more blatantly practicing this logical fallacy as he vainly tries to invalidate my opinion on the matter. As my pops used to say, "build a bridge and get over it". Tarc (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does the "bridge building' have to fall on the side of letting attacks of Wikipedia stand? To make you happy? You seem to have decided that banned users attacking Wikipedia shoudl stand, as long as you like their edits. Mathewignash (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on a second. Let's forget who nominated it. Look at the content of the article itself (which is instead now a redirect, but should be in the history of the page location). Would you agree that the article stands on its own merit? If so, then perhaps you may think a relist is needed. If not, then forget who nominated it. CycloneGU (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, yes?  If there are no consequences to abuse, and not only are there no consequences we congratulate the abuser by complying with his nomination, we encourage more abuse, yes?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh Banned editors' edits are supposed to get reverted (WP:BAN), and this article's afd probably should have been closed with no action as soon as the nominator's status was discovered. In general, whether to afd a poorly sourced article is a matter of editorial discretion (it's not obligatory), and per JClemens, banned editors are not entitled to exercise such discretion. Since it went to completion for whatever reason anyway, and since Tarc plans to renominate it anyway if restored, there's a NOTBURO case for letting the existing closure stand. Tarc is entitled to renominate, but probably would not have encountered this article at all if it weren't for the afd/drv, so the banned editor has influenced WP content no matter what procedure is used. We can't completely prevent the influence.

    Mathewignash, I sympathize with what you must be feeling, since trying to rescue an article during an afd is a stressful experience that I've seen people impose on themselves several times in the past. It's better to let the afd close, and (if deleted) ask the closing admin to restore the article to your userspace or the incubator so you can keep trying to source it at your leisure, for later reinstatement once you have enough sources. You can of course also instead download a snapshot of the article while the afd is in progress. Keep in mind also that as much as DRV's are supposed to be purely procedural, the reality for something like this is DRV participants do notice if the article appears to be cruft.

    I know that a lot of Pokemon, Transformers, etc. projects have opened up at Wikia and are doing pretty well (Wikia doesn't have notability requirements) so you might be happier with this type of article over there. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment about Wikia. I try to help out with the Glee articles and see all sorts of things over there (the Glee Wikia) that do not have any role in Wikipedia. Typically, their relevant sources are Twitter accounts of the stars on the show saying things like, "So glad to be back with my regular castmates" and such. Not good for Wikipedia, but strangely legitimate for Wikia. CycloneGU (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathewignash did get this article userfied, the move can be seen in User:Mathewignash/Warpath (Transformers)'s history. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Mathewignash, I've noticed a deletion spree account also, what is going on?  This user started an account and four days later started on a deletion spree.  Within three weeks he/she was posting at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here.  These are not the actions of a newbie account IMO.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is a Checkuser in order? CycloneGU (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD. The article has changed substantially since the last deletion discussion was closed; as such, it should be returned to AfD for another evaluation of the sourcing, etc. That said, I think the last AfD was closed properly; those arguing for deletion clearly had the stronger arguments. By the way, I explicitly reject the idea, advocated by Mathewignash and Unscintillating, that the entire AfD should be invalidated because of the identity of the nominator. Even completely ignoring the nominator, three other users participating in the discussion provided strong arguments for deletion. Enough said. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let me make something clear. If I thought that the fact that an article was nominated by a sock puppet was enough to get the article returned I could give you a list of several dozen articles that need to be undeleted. I HAVE NOT DONE THAT, and do not intend to. I mentioned the unusual circumstances to put the deletion review in context. There were only 4 sources in the original article, and none of them were very good. The undeletion review is based on the new sources, and that the admin who deleted the article advised me have a review after reading the new sources. Another thing to remember is when this article was deleted there was a rash of deletion nominations by sock puppets, sometimes a half dozen a day. It's EASY to vote "delete", on 6 articles in a day, it's actually hard work to go out and find sources for those articles. I think we have to expect that many articles that could have been be improved were deleted for lacking sources initially, but once the sources are researched, those articles have to be re-evaluated, not rejected out of hand based on the assumption that they were deleted once and can never have merit. Mathewignash (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous response that it is "hard work to go out and find sources for those articles".  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - the user draft shows potential. --Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Relist per DGG. As we've mentioned, a merge should be on the table. Tarc has already said he would nominate it, and that's fine. Invalidating the entire AFD is silly; you reject not only the nomination, which is no problem, but every one of the good faith entries by reasonable, not-sockpuppet editors. And that's terrible. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, editors who want deletion trophies get another cut at the apple as often as every three months, and a couple of articles recently were renominated within eight days (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy (programming language) (2nd nomination)).  So the work of a keep !voter may be discarded in eight days by a single editor for whom a previous raw vote of ten keep !votes and one !delete !vote needs to be retested.  But a delete vote in a defective AfD six months ago is a "terrible" vote to waste?  Are "delete" !votes more precious than "keep" !votes?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sock puppet was uncovered one day after the deletion nomination, and it was uncovered partly because he went on a deletion spree where he made wild claims in deletion nominations (like calling Warpath a "spamcruft" "Gobot"?). So basically if we had discovered this nonsense a few hours earlier, we could have probably speedy closed the nomination and have been done with all this work. As for all the "good faith entries by reasonable, not-sockpuppet editors". There were a total of THREE delete votes in the nomination. Mathewignash (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually two, this is a delete !vote without proper foundation.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for christ's sake, quit trying to wikilawyer your way towards your desired outcome. There's nothing wrong with Reyk's deletion rationale, it cites the same inadequate sourcing that plagued the overwhelming majority of these fancruft blurbs masquerading as Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. What planet is Unscintillating living on to claim the argument "the sources are hopelessly inadequate" isn't properly founded? Unscintillating should take the time to read WP:V and the argument in question before trying to get it chucked out. Clearly he has done neither. Reyk YO! 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say quit taking advantage sock puppets to force your desired outcome on wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I want the right outcome for Wikipedia despite the sockpuppet; you want to get your way because of him. So who's taking advantage of sockpuppets? You are. Reyk YO! 10:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:JessicaWild.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I deleted this image as F7: violates fair-use policy as the image shows a living person and a free-use substitute could be created. The pic shows a contestant for a TV show in and out of drag. The original uploader would like the deletion discussed or reviewed. If I could get a review of my decision that would be great. Thanks. Diannaa (Talk) 18:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, fails WP:NFCC#1 and probably WP:NFCC#8 too. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse generally living people are considered to fail WP:NFCC#1 even when creating such a picture would be difficult. In this case the Jessica Wild article states that they appear at venues and events throughout the United States so it doesn't even sound like it would be that difficult. I'll note from the admin's talk page: "I understand the rationale; however, these files were unfairly tagged after my edits were targeted by a vindictive anonymous user." - it's unfortunate people get into disputes and that can lead to bad feeling, increased scrutiny etc. unfortunately regardless of the reasons someone listed them (without judging the underlying dispute) the images have to meet the standard, these don't so there isn't an "unfair" in this. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The underlying dispute is one of an IP-hopper aggressively hounding the contributions of the uploader. The one hounding has been using NHS IPs (at work - taxpayer dollars well spent, I guess) that have mostly been inactive for at the very least one year, some for as far back as 2007. There has been an excessive amount of vandalism from IPs in the same range.[19][20][21] Beginning in earnest on April 14, this user has been ruthlessly targeting Bouncehoper's every contribution, grossly misinterpreting policy and claiming that others are responsible for vandalistic edits literally sandwiched between his/her own. I don't know much about Bouncehoper's history prior to this, but something very strange is going on here. Whether or not the images fail NFCC's 1 & 8, I believe this to be a blocked or banned user who is doing the nominating for deletion. Not cool. The spouting off about AGF seems familiar.[22] They admit to being here for "5+ years" and never to have vandalized even once - virtually all the IPs they use have been used for vandalism even very recently. Doc talk 04:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To play devil's advocate a little, I can see some of the perspective of the IP in this, some of the edits in question like this and I can't say I can see a gross misinterpretation of policy in that (I'd probably agree with the, sophomore is not a common term here in the UK so I'd probably have to go look up what it means). Seeing the quiet update to the MOS [23] by the "complainant" here, the getting involved in reverting etc. I can see some frustration i.e. I can't see one side in this as completely innocent and passive. The methods of the IP certainly are problematic but there is not a totally unreasonable underlying issue, even if it has been blown out of proportion. But back to the issue here, I still can't see anything "not cool" or "unfair" in this, if the images don't meet the standards we shouldn't keep them around, two wrongs don't make a right etc. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken to Diannaa about this - the images will go; and a rangeblock will be put on the IPs the second they continue the hounding. The gross misinterpretation of policy includes, among other things, responding to my comment "The MOS is a guideline. WP:HARASSMENT is a policy. One that you continue to violate. Policy trumps guidelines. Are you able to understand this?" with "I haven't made any bad edits. So if anyone is being harassed that would be me from you. WP:CIVIL is also policy, you would do well to read it and preferably understand it." The user does not comprehend WP:CIVIL or WP:HARASSMENT, is gaming the system, and has outright lied about their activities. They are extremely likely to be a blocked/banned user. Doc talk 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to contest either the deletion of the images or Diannaa's decision. The background just needed to be revealed for clarity. This should probably just be considered resolved. Doc talk 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to contest, but on further review, the deletion should stay.
82.7.44.178, you'll forgive me if I'm a bit wary of IPs at the moment, but I'd just like to say in my defense, that yes, I should have discussed the MOS edit before doing it, but I didn't understand how the sentence how come to be there in the first place. I have since checked and seen a vague consensus, which, fine, whatever. *shrug* It's not worth it to fight a silly battle, especially if I'm only going to be hounded by someone when I do.
  • le sigh* Sorry about the pics...wish they'd work...ah well. Thanks, folks.
Bouncehoper (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ravendragqueen.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I deleted this image as F7: violates fair-use policy as the image shows a living person and a free-use substitute could be created. The pic shows a contestant for a TV show in and out of drag. The original uploader would like the deletion discussed or reviewed. If I could get a review of my decision that would be great. Thanks. Diannaa (Talk) 18:50, 20 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:MorganMcMichaels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I deleted this image as F7: violates fair-use policy as the image shows a living person and a free-use substitute could be created. The pic shows a contestant for a TV show in and out of drag. The original uploader would like the deletion discussed or reviewed. If I could get a review of my decision that would be great. Thanks. Diannaa (Talk) 18:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aram Shahin Davud Bakoyan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

OTRS Ticket#2011041810027277 grants permission to use content from http://www.araratnews.eu/nuce.php?aid=480 under CC-BY-SA 3.0. MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin, I am more than happy to restore based on the OTRS permission grant. --joe deckertalk to me 05:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've restored the article, and noted the ticket number and permission on the article talk page. --joe deckertalk to me 06:01, 19 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Gael Bigirimana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not a notable sportsperson, has not represented at any levels, thus not meeting Wikipedia requirements

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

18 April 2011

[edit]

17 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Villa Giulia (Palermo) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article Villa Giulia (Palermo) was deleted under the A1 speedy deletion criteria as "Not enough context to identify article's subject". The article content included the statement "The Villa Giulia is a building and park in Palermo." (note Palermo is linked), it included interwiki links to corresponding articles at it.wikipedia and de.wikipedia (both of which are much more detailed and include photo galleries), it included the categories "Category:Buildings and structures in Palermo" and "Category:Gardens", and it included a stub template noting it as an "Italian building and structure" stub. When the deleting admin was approached by myself and two other admins requesting undeletion, she refused based on her interpretation of A1 deletion criteria. As the subject of the article was clearly identifiable given the above, the A1 deletion was out of process and I have therefore brought it here for wider review. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Having looked again at the article, I will fully defend the speedy deletion under A1 in this case. I believe that the three users who have complained about this on my Talk page are all confusing "subject" (ie. the specific item the article is about) with "general topic" (the subject category into which it falls).
To begin with, it is impossible to tell from the article in question whether Villa Giulia is a house, a hotel, a hospital, an ancient monument or some other kind of "building". It is also impossible to tell whether the "park" is part of the same complex or something completely unrelated to the building. Cross-references to another wikipedia are of no value in clarifying the subject of an article unless one happens to be a speaker of the language of that wikipedia, and are therefore irrelevant in this respect. On further consideration I actually think that, far from having been inappropriately deleted, this article is a classic candidate for A1, on a par with the example given in the policy: Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Deb (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, since we can't see it, can you perhaps userfy the text to the user's space so we can give a review? We don't have any AfD to work off of here. CycloneGU (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the entire content of the article is quoted above by Ponyo. But I will do as you request. Deb (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is what you wanted: User:Ponyo/Villa Giulia (Palermo) (struck; article is back in namespace, also striking others below - CycloneGU (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)) Deb (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. No kidding, this is the entire article? I will speak with Ponyo as well, but a single line isn't proper for a full article. Pending the discussion with Ponyo, I endorse deletion, just not sure if it's an A1 yet. CycloneGU (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I just looked at the Italian Wikipedia entry (translated and copied to Ponyo's talk page). I also found this (translated). Some translation will be required here, some work putting together an article done, then we can see whether it's good for the encyclopedia here. Therefore, I endorse deletion but also vote recreate with help from the Italian article and other sources, provided we can source the content. CycloneGU (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A1 is when you can't identify what the article's supposed to be about. Also, I see no reason why a translation of the Italian article couldn't be included on en.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with the latter comment, but it's not sourced. We have to properly source the information before we can include it. I've gone to the author's userpage to provide some ideas on what to put in the article, but we can also just edit it ourselves. If so, it's now here; if deletion is overturned, we can move it from there back to the mainspace. CycloneGU (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to source it before we include it, actually. We can include it and then, subsequently, add inline citations for any material that's challenged or likely to be challenged. In view of the fact that there are nine pictures of it on Commons, I think it's probably true that the Villa Giulia is a building in Palermo.

Incidentally, in doing the necessary background reading for my !vote here, I've noticed how inadequate our article on Ignazio Marabitti is as well. If an Italian-speaker can be persuaded to translate the Villa Giulia article, please would they also expand the related article on Marabitti?—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided translation links via Google for the Italian one. I haven't looked at the Dutch one yet. The translation text is currently located here]]. I also referred to the link to the external source named in the Italian version, which is also in Italian; I've given a Google translation to it as well. I don't have a reason to doubt the accuracy is 80% or greater (I don't like the French translations on the other hand), so let's start with that perhaps? CycloneGU (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this process seems a waste of effort. Deletion isn't a final never ever have an article on that subject, so if there is more information out there (and apparently from the other wiki article there is), someone just recreate it with more info, no need for 7 days of bureacracy here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 April 2011

[edit]

15 April 2011

[edit]

14 April 2011

[edit]
  • Me at the zoo – Closed; no consensus between keep or redirect, no votes to delete, and 7 days have passed; discuss at article talk page (non-administrative closure). CycloneGU (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC) NAC voided. DRV closes should be done by an admin - ideally one experienced in DRV discussions. Reclosed as "No Consensus Endorsed" Further relisting at editorial discretion although merge/redirect can be done following a consensus on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Me at the zoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus with a specific note that the debate had been messy and ill-tempered. While I agree this was a rather ill-tempered AfD, I don't believe that there was any attempt made by those arguing to keep to address the reasons given for redirecting it. Indeed, almost all of the arguments to keep were very weak indeed. Proposing relisting to hopefully get a clearer discussion without all the bickering. I've pinged the closing admin who agreed DRV was the right route. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - IMO, only Dream Focus made an actually cogent argument for retaining the article. The rest consisted of a flawed call to speedy keep and a handful of WP:ITSNOTABLE twaddle. Let's see what a relist will bring to the table. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some of the arguments there, such as Fae'as first comment gave the cognent reason that there were good references saying it was important? DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep no consensus - In balance, there were weak arguments to delete or merge and the benefit of the doubt should correctly fall on the side of keeping and I can see little benefit in rehashing the discussion. The article may be of 'start' class length but is not "very short" as might otherwise be a rationale for merging. The article has plenty of reliable sources confirming the notability of the video in terms of being a historic internet milestone and how highly it ranks in any top list of internet videos. Were it to be deleted or redirected to Youtube then this would be the only named notable video in that text that does not have its own stand alone article. Merging this article would be a merge for the sake of arbitrary and bureaucratic housekeeping and there are more encyclopaedic benefits in encouraging expansion of the article rather than making it disappear. Fæ (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly keepable - It's the first video ever posted that started a phenomenon that has taken over the world. That phenomenon is now owned by Google. I never knew what the first video was, nor I know. I think we should try to find a way to keep. CycloneGU (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to both of the above, how can you endorse a "keep" when the AfD result was "no consensus" ? Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct and have tweaked accordingly. Fæ (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevertheless, both of the above comments are treating this as a second AfD. The only matter at hand here is whether the close reflected the debate, and other than a casual remark that "merge comments were weak" neither of the above comments reference that actual discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I don't see what relisting this will do. The question regarding the article is that there is proof that this is the first video ever posted on Youtube. If it is, then end of story, the article is a Keep. If you want to go the other way, however, I do not agree with the interpretation of the AfD debate. The sources establish notability and that seems to have been overlooked. Also, I never "endorsed" a keep as that wasn't the outcome; I said the article is "possibly keepable". CycloneGU (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse relist. I was not involved in the original AfD. Whilst I see that the claims of bad faith clouded the issue, I do not see this masking a delete outcome - rather, the opposite. I see convincing arguments for notability in the NYT and BBC references, but these got downplayed by the some of the keep proponents who instead pushed the bad faith nomination aspect. In other words, if there was no bad faith the keep argument would likely have been made more strongly. A no consensus outcome is the least desirable so let's relist and see if consensus can indeed be reached. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that my conversion in the AFD to a speedy keep was based on investigating the contributions of the nominator after seeing what appeared to be a misuse of process and became readily apparent by reading through their edit history. To summarize this as an assumption of bad faith is misrepresenting the context and itself is an overly aggressive interpretation of AGF. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment by closing admin: I see little point in a relist, which seems to me likely to produce a repeat of the same discussion, and unlikely to result in a consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "delete/merge" !votes would have to be read as "merge", because of WP:ATD. And that leaves a long debate in which only the nominator thought it should have been deleted. Endorse. We don't need to decide about relisting because a "no consensus" close allows any editor to renominate it in early course anyway.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, don't relist. Most of the AFD commemts called for retaining the content; the form in which it should be retained is a routine editing decision, not part of the deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This was, on the whole, a very weak discussion in terms of argument quality. Dylanfromthenorth's pro-merge vote and Thumperward's pro-redirect comment made a reasonable case for their side; Dreamfocus and (to an extent) Milowent made a decent case for keeping the material found in this article in its current location. Unfortunately, the rest of the discussion consisted of "it's notable," "it's interesting," and "per nom/above"-style arguments, or did little but cast aspersions on the nominator or others. I agree with the closing admin's determination that consensus was not reached in this AfD. For those still interested in merging this into YouTube, you are free to propose a merger on the talk page at any time. Given the lack of support for outright deletion, a relist at AfD is inappropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the listing here is to change the closure to "redirect", that isn't needed. It can be done at normal editorial discretion or with a talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Not the strongest of debates ever, but there just wasn't anything resembling a consensus to delete there. And while a merge/redirect is certainly a possibility, that can be discussed at the articles' talk pages. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keepand do not merge or redirect. There was sufficient sources presented that the subject is notable , and it should have been closed accordingly. Every comment other than that in the entire debate was irrelevant to the issue and should have been ignored. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No consensus" on "redirect" versus "keep" means that it shouldn't be at AfD, let alone DRV. This is an article talk page matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
iPad (original) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Advised to go here by WP:SALT. I created the page in January with proper attribution but it was quickly deleted by Nyttend under the nonsense A10 criteria. I recreated the article again in March right after the iPad 2 was formally announced. This was promptly salted by HeretoHelp under the equally bogus repeatedly recreated claim. When I was a New Page Patroller an article was salted after 3-4 recreates and only if the article's notability had not changed significantly in between each article attempt. Since the protection was applied in the heat of a content dispute I propose that it be unsalted and un-revdeleted. Marcus Qwertyus 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page you are referencing at this moment was created in December, 2009. Do you mean to reference another article? CycloneGU (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment the version under the current redirect seems to be largely a copy paste of the iPad article with attribution of this on the talk page. The real issue here seems to be protection rather than anything else, and protection isn't a DRV issue. As to how we got here and as to what the future should be, it seems to me that this is a discussion which should be occurring on the iPad talk page, if there is consensus for splitting out as iPad (Original), the a request for unprotection should be trivial. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably the best of a bad lot of places to discuss, but I can't see why it can't all go in one article. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both of Stifle's points: 1) that we can temporarily set aside DRV's normal remit because this does seem to be the best place to discuss it and the user has been directed here; and 2) that a small number of larger articles are better than a large number of smaller ones. The structure I'd prefer is two articles: iPad and something like List of iPads, plus redirects.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say a medium number of relatively small articles are better than large ones. Large articles are problems for readers with slow connections, do not suit the diminished span of attention that some feel when reading on-screen, make it easier to find specific information, and especially and most important, are easier for almost all Wikipedians to write, which means they are likely to be much better. The exception is when it is necessary to provide a historical or conceptual panorama, often as a complement to smaller articles, or where the content would be largely repetitious. to what extent these different reasons may apply here is an interesting question., but cannot be settled by assertion--unless it's a pure matter of individual preference, in which case we need a vote, because that's the only way of settling questions where it's just a matter of preference. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you think that it's easier to find specific information in among a lot of small articles than in a smaller number of large ones, DGG? That seems counterintuitive, and to me, it doesn't seem controversial to say that our current need is for fuller, more comprehensive articles rather than more of them.

        I agree that short articles are easier to write, but they call us "editors", not "writers", for the simple reason that editing is our primary function. Merging is an editor's job. I also think that we need to create articles that are useful for our readers, not articles that are convenient to write. I think that the problem for readers with slow connections isn't having a lot of text in articles, but a lot of pictures; and finally, I think diminished attention span is addressed by the clickable table of contents at the top of the article combined with an understanding of what happens when you press "control" and "F" at the same time.—S Marshall T/C 06:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • That we are called editors is a weird anomalous use of the English language; we write articles based on pre-existing information just as reporters do. Whatever we may be called, for almost all contributors here it is easier to do it on short articles. We write for people who may very well not know that control-F works here: we are meant to be accessible to anyone who has the barest rudiments of knowing how to use a browser, & I would warrant that 90% of the people who have used Wikipedia would never think of using a search function within an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have found that short articles will grow faster than merged ones. Editors feel like they need to within the confines a particular topic has been allotted. Marcus Qwertyus 12:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For comparison, the iPod and iPhone product lines have 5 articles apiece, see {{Apple Inc. hardware}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm insufficiently acquainted with this subject to decide how we should treat it (i.e. in how many articles, in which articles, etc.), but I do think that the redirect should be unprotected. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A10 A10 isn't about trying to prevent spinout articles otherwise all spinout articles would be speediable. As I recall that was part of the discussion that got us to A10. Not sure we need this article, but AfD or the talk page at iPad is the way to figure that out, not speedy and protection. Hobit (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to process-related issues, I think having an article on each model of such a popular device is reasonable and probably even the right way forward. Each can trivially stand on its own per WP:N (I mean _really_ trivially). So in addition to the A10 being wrong, I think it's best if we have this article. Hobit (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the page is unprotected and recreated, I suggest that it be distinguished from a simple copy quickly, ideally at recreation. I can see why the March version was considered undesirable. The initial version was nearly a direct copy, which is fine (I think it makes attribution clearer), but subsequent edits were quite minor. The redirection was 48 hours after initial editing, and the protection was after another few days. I did appreciate the attribution provided using {{Copied}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and permit re-creation. A10 was explicitly not permitted to be used in this situation, & would not have been approved if it had been permitted to deal with genuine splits. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion citing CSD#A10. The debate here is sufficient evidence that the matter is not unambiguous and that the speedy-deletion was in error. Page protection after only two widely-separated deletions (and a delay of months before further editing) was also overly-aggressive. I have no strong opinion on whether an independent article can be supported but Wikipedia policy and practice is to let good-faith editors boldly try and then decide through consensus discussions (preferably on the article's Talk page) whether to merge back, redirect or or otherwise clean up the experiment. Speedy-deletion substitutes one admin's judgment for the community's and prematurely shuts down the debate. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – Rossami has it right; this was an incorrect A10, and the page protection was overly aggressive. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Writer (song) – Keep with snow. Yes, I participated; but no sense in continuing when it's Keep all around. Ironically, it snowed here today. CycloneGU (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC) NAC by editors that comment on the discussion cannot be allowed to stand so this close is voided. Having said that, the consensus clear so I'm reclosing as "endorse". Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Writer (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin mistook a successful WP:CANVAS for a snowstorm. Although the CA disputes this (see [24]), his failure to give due weight to the CANVAS problem is clear from his closing comment that it had been snowing since day two (reiterated here): Apart from User:Ending-start, who !voted to keep, every user who chimed in from day 2 through 04:39 on April 7 was canvassed by User:Ending-start, and ultimately, ten of the eleven users canvassed by User:Ending-start would weigh in with almost identical WP:ILIKEIT outrage, demanding that the AfD must be closed at once and questioning the nominator's good faith. See [25] (User:Lil-unique1) (!voted keep); [26] (User:Candyo32) (!voted keep); [27] (User:Cprice1000) (!voted keep); [28] (User:Iknow23) (!voted keep); [29] (User:Jivesh boodhun) (!voted keep); [30] (User:IHelpWhenICan) (!voted keep); [31] (User:Novice7) (!voted keep); [32] (User:Tbhotch) (!voted keep); [33] (User:Reaper Eternal) (didn't contribute); [34] (User:Adabow) (!voted keep); [35] (User:L-l-CLK-l-l) (!voted keep). As User:Prodego and User:Fox recognized, both at the AfD and on Ending-start's talk page ([36][37][38]), User:Ending-start violated CANVAS. If the closing admin had correctly interpreted the debate, the canvassed !votes would have been discarded; the CA's statement that a SNOW close was plainly in the offing from day 2 necessarily accepts canvassed votes and thus precludes his claim that they were.

What are we left to work with? I don't deny that thirteen users who don't appear to have been canvassed (although many of them were hostile participants in the preceding merge debate) !voted to keep (User:RxS, User:Dolovis, User:Anarchangel, User:ErrantX, User_talk:Fox, User:Bob_Castle, User:Stuart.Jamieson, User:Physics_is_all_gnomes, User:Fences_and_windows, User:Denaar, User:Pafcool2, User:NellieBly, and User:Rlendog), but Wikipedia isn't a democracy and CAs aren't vote counters. Every one of those thirteen users either ignored or misconstrued the relevant policy WP:NSONGS. For example, User:Dolovis wrote that "[t]he song has charted and is therefore notable," which completely ignores NSONGS' beating heart, the "notability aside" clause, and similarly, User:Bob_Castle simply ignored NSONGS, insisting that the bar to clear was simply "sourced, npov, notable artist." It isn't. Others (for example, User:Pafcool2) relied on mistaken arguments that were wrong when they were advanced against a previous merge proposal and are no more correct today. Importantly, these arguments aren't simply wrong, that they are completely meritless and contradict policy. If they were merely wrong or dubious, I suppose, the CA could justifiably point to the lopsided debate and say "well, chaps, WP:CCC." I would dispute that, too (local and transient consensus can't override the general consensus reflected in policy), but that would be a closer call. Nevertheless, when (as here) the non-canvassed keep !votes "contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, [they] are frequently discounted" (WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS ¶2). If the closing admin had correctly interpreted the debate, the arguments conflicting with NSONGS would have been discarded; the keep close precludes the conclusion that they were.

For these reasons, review is appropriate (because the CA is asserted to have interpreted the debate incorrectly) and the result should be overturned (because the CA in fact interpreted the debate incorrectly by giving insufficient weight to the canvas problem and policy considerations, and excessive weight to the keep !votes). Since there were several articles involved in the deletion, I'd like to request a waiver on DRVP s.5's notification requirement. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keep: Note that I am the sole participant in the AFD that basically agrees with Simon. All of these articles should be redirected to the parent album. The parent album article would be improved, Wikipedia would be improved, less copyrighted material in the form of unnecessary cover images would be used, all around life would be better. However, that is my editorial judgment, not something mandated by guidelines. I agree that the notification was extremely questionable, but this AFD would never have gone any other way: the songs clearly meet even my extremely strict interpretation of WP:NSONGS. Even if you discarded every !vote from everyone that had been contacted, you'd be left with nothing but keeps and merges, and there's no reason to discard those.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cover images of that type are allowed under free use guidelines, so that argument holds no merit; you might as well say delete the album articles because they use copyright images as well, and put the details in the article about the artist. They cannot be used if the articles for the single are deleted, of course, but there is no law prohibiting their free use in an infobox about the single on that article. Either way, the single is notable enough for me. If the rest are still in debate, the nominator should bring those to deletion review as well for analysis (I've been creating a lot of the log pages lately, I'll see them). CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's tangential, but my argument certainly holds merit: by creating separate articles, we create excuses for the inclusion of copyrighted material when, in my judgment, the inclusion is wholly without merit. The identification argument is the weakest excuse to bypass WP:NFCC#8 there is. Still, it's a tangent: I was explaining that while my editorial judgment aligns with Simon's, it's clear to me that consensus goes the other way, and the closer was well within his rights to decide as he did.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I think the Wikicanvassing that took place in the AfD is what bothers me more, honestly. CycloneGU (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:NSONGS: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." The bolded sections seem to be satisfied with this. Please explain how they are not; I can be swayed. CycloneGU (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that my opinion is not swayed by the AfD, and is not an endorsement of the Wikicanvassing that took place in the AfD. Ending-start posted on 11 talk pages in four minutes an identical message; this was a clear canvassing violation even if not intended as such. I presume on good faith it wasn't meant to be, and he seems to regret it on his talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll concede that maybe I shouldn't have used the closing rationale I did but aside from kww's merge recommendation every single !voter in this discussion was saying "keep". This discussion couldn't have been closed any other way. I did take the canvassing concerns into consideration and I figured that the next 5 !votes after Ending-start's "keep" were likely canvassed but it's not the closer's job to examine the talk pages and contributions of every !voter to see who was and who was not canvassed, especially for a unanimous discussion. (though if it were close I might have) My only role here was to either hit, or not hit, the delete button and it was obvious that it wasn't going to be hit. (or we would be here overturning it) The comment about it snowing was based on the fact that the entire discussion, except the last few !votes, took place between the 5th and the 7th. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: Simon Dodd contacted me for advice on this subject. He did not canvass my !vote, but he asked me a question in general terms, and you can see that conversation on my talk page. As a result of his question I explored off my own bat. I found the subject discussion, and I expressed an opinion on my talk page. It was obvious from a mile off that we would end up at DRV.

    I'm not thrilled with the canvassing. Deletion Review's job is to ensure that the deletion process is correctly followed and, as a result of the canvassing, we're looking at a flawed discussion. Canvassing should not be rewarded with the outcome it seeks; that would make a mockery of our deletion process. But equally, in determining whether to overturn, we must not disregard the good faith !votes from uncanvassed participants.

    The closing statement is unfortunate and I hope this will be a learning experience for Ron Ritzman, who is normally a highly accurate closer.

    As I said to Simon Dodd at the time, I think that on the facts of it, WP:NSONGS ought to be consistently applied. There should be a List of Ellie Goulding songs and this title should be a redirect to it. DRV will not normally overturn a "keep" to a "redirect", but if there is consensus support for this view then I am willing to collaborate with others on a merge; this should not be construed as overturning the close, but as a subsequent editorial decision.

    This ought to lead me to "endorse" the outcome but I can't support the closing statement. Ron knew there was canvassing, and I do not think the "snow" phrasing should have been used. The verdict I would prefer is close without result.—S Marshall T/C 07:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Keep - Both the original AfD and this DRV seem rather pointy. Even discounting 10 canvassed votes, 13 keeps to 1 delete and 1 merge is a Snow close and Ron's close is accurate. The remainder of the DRV grounds seems to be that because the consensus interpretation of NSONGS within the AfD disagrees with the nom's interpretation of NSONGS; that the nom's argument should be considered stronger and a deletion should take place. I don't see any policy or guideline that gives the nom's position the ability to overrule the consensus position and feel Ron's keep was still the right one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - I was certainly not canvassed, nor apparently were about 12 other keep !voters. And as many of the keep !voters noted and explained, these songs all meet WP:SONGS and WP:GNG for that matter. Contrary to the statement by the DRV nominator, it is the original AfD nomination that misconstrued the guidelines for song inclusion, not the keep !voters. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify a bit, the crux of the disagreement with the nominator over the interpretation of WP:NSONGS is the sentence "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Since all the articles in question have already grown beyond stubs using verifiable material, they all meet that condition of WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - I wasn't canvassed, this was simply an unsuitable AFD candidate. As noted above, even taking away potentially canvassed "votes", there was a clear consensus for keeping. I don't see what taking it to deletion review is hoping to achieve except looking a little bit like assuming bad faith. Bob talk 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As cogently argued by others, whatever canvassing occurred, the consensus of uncanvassed editors was clear. As Rlendog points out, also, the nomination really didn't make a case for deletion; merger is a routine editing decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Even if we throw out all of the canvassed votes, the overwhelming majority of the participants in the discussion argued that the articles should be kept. Simon contends that the aforementioned majority ignored or misinterpreted WP:NSONGS and that the result of the AfD should be reversed. The subject of the dispute is the following part of the guideline: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." (emphasis mine)

    How does Simon interpret this guideline? The following is taken from his AfD nomination: "The presumption is that individual songs will be treated in an article about the artist or album unless there is something outstanding about the song that warrants treatment in an independent article."

    That understanding does not seem to be an accurate reflection of what the guideline says. "Enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" is a much lower bar than "something outstanding about the song." Or, to look at it another way, the "something outstanding" about these songs is that there is "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Look at each of the articles that were nominated for deletion here. Each has a considerable amount of information, and each appears to be sufficiently well-referenced. None of them are stubs. WP:NSONGS specifically identifies song articles that are "unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs" as articles that should be merged (or not created in the first place, it implies). These articles have already grown beyond stubs. Therefore, I conclude that Simon has incorrectly interpreted WP:NSONGS as presenting a higher bar for inclusion than it actually does, and that the majority also had the stronger arguments. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 April 2011

[edit]
  • Ch interpreter – Two issues here. (1) Is Sandstein's closure of the AfD correct, based on the debate? The discussion below manifests a general consensus that it is, so that closure is endorsed. (2) Is the AfD debate incorrect, in that it inappropriately disregarded/failed to uncover sources that would demonstrate the notability of the subject? On that point, there is no consensus whatsoever. No consensus = no change to the status quo. There are two sub-issues here. First, one prominent question is whether peer review can make independent, for GNG purposes, sources that would otherwise not be independent of the subject. On this point we have argument both ways, and no consensus is apparent. Second, whether certain sources were correctly disregarded by the AfD due to the authors' alleged association with the software's creator. Here, too, the consensus is not obvious. At a minimum, however, the debate raises serious questions about the correctness of the AfD outcome, and therefore, exercising my discretion as the DRV closer, I will relist this at AfD for further discussion. – T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC) (amended after reconsideration, T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ch interpreter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The usefulness of this article for all C and C++ programmers From the discussion we've been having, it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community?

Some research turns out that the nominator was related to Hamilton C shell and his article was deleted by an administrator.

Having checked the website about Hamilton C shell, it seems that this shell is mostly a C shell that works in Windows only for $350, while the standard ch edition with its C compatible shell features is free for commercial use.

The Ch review article from Byte Magazine talks about Hamilton C shell and Ch.

Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter?

There are multiple, reliable, independent, and different sources as I noticed in the page you created. There are seven.

The argumentation in the discussion to deny some of them as reliable doesn't look quite right.

If the software review article written by a professor in a peer reviewed journal (IEEE) cannot be counted as a reliable source material and be treated as "just anyone with an opinion in print", what kind of reliable source are we looking for and from where?

Notability doesn't equal popularity nor does it equal "expert-only" source. Otherwise, most newspaper and media references in Wikipedia will fall short of the notability standard since the authors are not domain experts. Who is authorized to issue expert certificate to the authors when judging them?

In addition, to declare another two articles written not on their own without proof is a baseless accusation. I don't know if there is an interaction for the author(s) when writing an article. But arguing the article cannot be used as a second source because there is an interaction is weak. don't you think such an article might contain more accurate information when knowing more about the software?

Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? Doesn't news reporter need to interact with the subject directly and get influenced when writing an article related to the subject for the media?

However, it is acceptable that we assume the articles are biased when they conflict with others. WK:NPOV requires that "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective."

Garykline (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to keep. The Byte article by Huber is good evidence of notability; it was added before the end of the AfD and mentioned in the AfD. The closer should not have ignored it. There is no real need to discuss other allegations here. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've notified the closer for you, Garykline.

    The questions you ask are fair and relevant and it seems right that we try to answer them here. You ask: it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community? and I think the answer is that while it's not "common practice", it does happen that a user will nominate their competitors' products' articles for deletion for business reasons. In theory, this should not be a problem because our AfD process is supposed to be objective, in that for most matters that go to AfD, there are relatively simple tests that can be applied. You ask: Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter? and the answer is, of course, that nobody is hurt by that kind of article. But from our point of view, the problem is that Wikipedia is very tempting and convenient for marketers. Wikipedia articles achieve high search engine rankings and we accept user-submitted content, so we need a way to filter out marketing spam, because if we didn't, our users wouldn't be able to find the content they actually want to read in among the advertisements. So there are minimum thresholds that articles need to achieve, particularly in terms of having more than one reliable source that's independent of the subject. (The exact definition of "reliable source" has generated enough discussion to fill whole bookshelves, but you can see the principles here.)

    You ask: Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? and the answer is that the sources must be independent. They can (and should) have investigated the subject, but the author and publisher of the source must be editorially and financially independent of it.

    I agree with DGG when he says the Byte article is an independent, reliable source, and I would add that the other sources in the article in your userspace back this up. I think the outcome of the AfD was wrong.

    I would like to be clear that I think that Sandstein interpreted the consensus correctly, but that consensus made a basic error of fact: it decided that there were no reliable sources when in fact the reliable sources were plainly evident. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those seem to have been written by someone who, at least from looking at the AfD discussion, is the creator of the subject and therefore not independent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're asserting that those journals are self-published rather than peer-reviewed, that distinction isn't relevant. That they were mentioned non-trivially in RS is far more important, and "COI" authorship of the article does not impeach a peer-reviewed RS. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jclemens, even though Yaksar is disagreeing with me, I do think he makes a fair point. An article by the software author is of a different quality, in notability terms, to an article by an independent person. Your counterargument that the publisher is independent is, of course, well taken. Other sources by different people are linked in the draft article so it's not necessary to scrutinise the sources I linked too closely.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do find it relevant. The GNG generally multiple independent sources of coverage. Even if the journals are peer reviewed, there's no possible way those specific sources can be interpreted as independent; quite the opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think that articles written in peer-reviewed journals can be viewed as being independently vetted and therefore meeting the definition of independent. Given that others feel the same way, it's pretty plain that there is a possible way. In any case, there are also sources that are clearly independent, one which was found right before the AfD closed... Hobit (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that sources offered to establish notability shall be independent of the subject. Nowhere does it state an exception to the expectation of independence just so long as the source appeared in a peer-reviewed (or other especially impressive) journal. That's for good reason: As noted in the article on peer review, the process of peer review is inconsistently applied and may be directed only at enforcing editorial policy, not at making decisions about notability. The test of notability is not what the subject said about himself or his own work, even if 100% true and published in a learned journal. The test is what do other people say. Msnicki (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nothing has changed. The BYTE article is a minor single mention and none of the rest of the sources is independent. Furthermore, policy states, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed." I am anonymous and wish to remain so. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There's lots of ways to interpret what "independent sources" can entail, but by no stretch of the imagination can something written by the subjects creator be considered independent. The very basic standards of the GNG require multiple reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage, and with this article this has not been proven to be the case, and certainly not to the extent that should overturn an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there's lots of ways the word "source" can be read, and I think we can't get to the bottom of this point without examining them closely. To quote WP:V: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

    In this case, you've correctly pointed out that the connection between the writer and the source weakens its case for notability. But what JClemens said earlier is that because an independent and reputable source published it, this strengthens its case for notability again. Or to put the same thing another way, this is not a self-published source.

    When you say, "this has not been proven to be the case"—an argument that is also repeated below—the links are in the userfied page for anyone to read. And when you say, "certainly not to the extent that should overturn an AfD", overturning AfDs is normal practice for DRV and well within our remit: this page is "the highest court" for such matters.

    Another thing I said above is that there are multiple sources, and I said the userfied page contains them. It does. This page, for example, is not by Harry Cheng. Neither is this one. So even if we were to accept that sources written by Cheng are unacceptable, there are other sources that must be inspected and dismissed before a deletion would be appropriate. I don't see a thorough interrogation of those sources in the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So having looked further into the draft and the AfD discussion, it does seem that there are other potential sources existing. That being said, however, it does look like the existence of these was raised in the discussion, and various objections were given. I certainly don't feel comfortable with an AfD being overturned just because a different group of editors view the sources in a different way, so I still have to endorse this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there. The closer doesn't have the authority to overrule the consensus on the basis of that source and I hope no blame attaches to him. DRV, on the other hand, does have that authority if it finds the AfD consensus was wrong on a point of fact.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just found another article here from an independent source published by IEEE. Here is the quote from the abstract about this article. "The renovated course emphasizes development of algorithmic problem solving skills and familiarity with the C programming language, Excel, and Matlab. Extensive use is made of Ch, a C interpreter, for learning the C language."

From the previous discussions with Msnicki and TEDickey in the AFD, they were consistent from the beginning till the end that no article exists as RS (reliable source) for the Ch article no matter what references were presented. I am not sure how consensus about RS works. By the number of voting or the facts? By just questioning one or two references, then the rest of references will be dropped automatically as non-RS?

The previous 7 articles are listed below for your convenience. They are all published in peer-reviewed publications in the field. I would like to make a note that among these authors, Glassborow, Francis, is an active member of the ISO C and C++ Standard Committees and was Chair of the Association of C & C++ Users. Wilson, Matthew is a columnist and contributing editor for C/C++ Users Journal and Dr. Dobb's Journal, and author of two books on C++. Here is his wiki link. They are definitely experts on the subject. If somebody complains about Glassborow's article again, can you follow AfD "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, please make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist"? Thanks. I saw Gary have made an argument about why they should be used as RS at the beginning. Most people here are senior editors. is it supposed to be easy to make a judgment if his points make sense?

Heller, Martin (2001). Language Environment Byte Magazine.

Glassborow, Francis (2001). The Ch Language Environment Version 2.0 C Vu Magazine. pp. 36-37.

Wang, Gary (2002). Ch Solves Portability Headaches IEEE Spectrum.

Campbell, Matt (2003). A C/C++ Interpreter -- New possibilities for people who like C and Unix MACTECH, the journal of Apple technology.

Wilson, Matthew (2004). Open-RJ and Ch Dr. Dobb's Journal.

Huber, Tom (2010). An Introduction to C and Ch: Your One-Stop Shop for Scientific Computing IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering.

Liu, Li; Wang, Zhaoqing; Jiang, Xusheng (2010). Anchor-based programming teaching embedded with Ch platform Mechatronicsand Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 49-52.

Chuser (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist When new sources that a reasonable person could find enough for WP:N appear at the tail end of a discussion it is generally a good idea to relist in order to see if the source is actually found to be enough. Discussion of sources in this DRV also leads me to believe that WP:N is pretty clearly met, but as I tend to lean toward keep in most discussions and others object, I think it would be productive to see if others agree in an AfD rather than just overturn to keep... Hobit (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the two Wang's were already discussed and discarded due to their apparent close association with Cheng. The Huber source was discarded since it fails the knowlegable/authoritative guideline in WP:RS. Re-introduction of those sources only adds to the confusion TEDickey (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "close association" thing, with respect to a peer-reviewed paper, is really a strange reason to discard a source about a tool/research idea. I realize that's the direction the discussion went and at DrV we should defer to the discussion unless it's really irrational, but darn it, that's pretty out there. The fact it got published in a reasonable place generates the needed independence IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gary Wang has no association. I think you meant Matt Campbell and Wang, Zhaoqing. Regarding Professor Tom Hubber's article in the IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering, I am not here argue if he is knowledgeable or not. It is IEEE editors's job to determine if he is knowledgeable about the subject to publish his article. WP:RS states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It is "or", not "and". In other words, RS can be established if one of the above two conditions is met. Also from WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". The IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering is one of the most authoritative academic and peer-reviewed publications. Chuser (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Both nom and Chuser have charged bias in the AfD. I've been named twice, Tedickey once. I find this remarkable coming from two obvious SPAs, as seen here and here. Anyone who doubts whether the AfD had time to consider all the sources offered (and also, the spamming here and on Amazon) need only look at the history. The article got considered, it was debated right to the end and the consensus was to delete. Also, part of what is missing from the review here is prior discussion on the article's talk page, where a series of editors had expressed doubts, not all of them just about the sources. If S Marshall had been there in the original AfD, maybe he'd have voted to keep, but the consensus would still have gone against him. Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed some editor's concern which was posted years ago that the original interpreter article needs references and it looked like advertisement. There were none of references previously. But the article has been some changes and I have added the references. Everybody can make a judgment by the link restored by the editor here. The question is whether the article should or should not be listed because of the lacking of references. wiki is not about winning. If the original consensus and reasoning supporting the consensus are correct,just keep it. If wrong, what can the DRV do? Chuser (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If new sources have come to light, editors are free to create a new article but it is no business of DRV to make an assessment of such sources. Also, the canvassing going on here is a little unsavoury. SpinningSpark 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one thing here for argument. Are the references provided enough for WP:N to justify a Ch Interpreter article? If yes, then it comes to the next question. Can the original article here be used for improvement or it needs to have a complete new article? If the original article can not be used for improvement, then it needs to create a new article. What you observed is correct. I don't understand why so many arguments about the so obvious WP:N materials and really not want to post any more till I see your message. Chuser (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I find the notion that peer review confers independence on a work written by an interested party deeply suspect. All peer review means is that the reviewers found the argument credible, not that they found the topic significant; that could only be determined by an independent person. Thus, the only source at issue here is the Byte article, which is a review and doesn't amount to much. If this gets more extensive coverage in future, it can obviously be reconsidered. Chick Bowen 01:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewers are independent people. Certain when I'm asked to review an article I'm selected because I know something about the topic, but I, like other peer reviewers (I assume) am looking to see if the research is credible and significant. If it isn't, I reject. I'm pretty sure that's how it works in most, if not all, fields. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we disagreeing that the reviewers aren't independent or that they didn't say anything? I claim that A) they are independent and B) they largely endorse the research methodology and relevance of the work. Are you disagreeing with either of those statements? Hobit (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another point of confusion which was injected a while back: not all content in a journal is "peer-reviewed", nor are all journals "peer-reviewed". Neither aspect has been established for the sources in discussion. Good to remember that before digressing TEDickey (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviewers may be independent and may be fact-checking or otherwise verifying compliance with editorial policy but they are not making any statements in their own voice. That's why they don't add their own names as authors. (And of course, if they did, they would no longer be independent.) If afterward, they go out and write their own articles (while still independent), you can use that. But the fact it was "reviewed" (even assuming, as Tedickey points out, that you can prove that) is not enough. It's still the subject talking about himself and his own work. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Independence of sources" discussion at WP:CORPDEPTH provides additional useful guidance. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I made my statement based on a lifetime of experience with academic peer review, and I stand by it. Think of it this way: if George Smith writes an article on a brand-new topic and I review it favorably, I'm saying it deserves the attention of other scholars in the field; but there's no way that endorsement carries the same weight as if I wrote my own article backing up George Smith's claims. So sure, peer review is better than no peer review, but I cannot imagine Hobit means to suggest that it's equivalent to a genuinely independent view. Chick Bowen 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't imagine Hobit thinks they're equivalent, either, but he does seem to be arguing peer review is good enough and that's where we disagree. I think the guidelines are quite clear that peer or other kinds of review are not a substitute for independence in determining notability. Not even a patent (and think about the standard of review for that!) is considered independent. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we now discussing the articles below written by "an interested party"? I think S Marshall has already made a good coverage for both sides. Maybe wiki policy maker here can make it more clear how those articles published in the journals should be different from those self-published or paid source.
  • Cheng, Harry (1993). "Handling of Complex Numbers in the Ch Programming Language". Scientific Programming: 76–106.
  • Cheng, Harry (1993). "Scientific Computing in the Ch Programming Language". Scientific Programming: 49–75. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Cheng, Harry (1995). "Extending C and FORTRAN for Design Automation". ASME Trans., Journal of Mechanical Design: 390–395. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Cheng, Harry (1995). "Extending C with arrays of variable length". Computer Standards & Interfaces: 375–406. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Cheng, Harry (2002). "C99 & Numeric Computing". Dr. Dobb's Journal. pp. 28–34.
  • Cheng, Harry (2006). "Ch: A C/C++ Interpreter for Script Computing". Dr. Dobb's Journal. pp. 6–12.
  • Cheng, Harry (2009). "Speeding-Up Software Development Using Embedded Scripting". Dr. Dobb's Journal. pp. 8–8.
  • Cheng, Harry (2009). "C for the Course". ASME Mechanical Engineering Magazine: 50–52. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Cheng, Harry (2009). C For Engineers & Scientists, An Interpretive Approach. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0077290467.

In addition to the above articles, there are multiple articles written by independent experts and got published in the most relevant and top engineering and science journals on the subject as I mentioned earlier. For example, Gary Wang's article "Ch Solves Portability Headaches", was published in the IEEE Spectrum -- one of top engineering and science journals. wiki link here states: "IEEE Spectrum Magazine, the flagship publication of the IEEE, explores the development, applications and implications of new technologies. ...IEEE Spectrum has a circulation of over 380,000 engineers worldwide, making it one of the leading science and engineering magazines." It should be no doubt that IEEE Spectrum is one of the top peer reviewed publications on the subject. Chuser (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no - as you have noticed, we're discussing whether sources by close associates of Harry Cheng can in some way be contorted into a third-party source. Harry Cheng's papers are not under consideration at this point TEDickey (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thanks. I thought Hobit has already made some clarification in the previous thread about the close association thing. Good to know about it. However, the concern about the close associates is not a big issue here since there are only two articles involved. I don't see any evidence that the rest of authors have any association with Harry Cheng. To make the discussion easier, I just re-organized those references. The list of publications by independent authors (non-associates) are listed below.
The list of publications authorized or co-authorized by the close associates of Harry Cheng are listed below.
  • Contrary to TEDickey, Harry Cheng's papers certainly are still under consideration. TEDickey (and several other users) are caught up on the ambiguity of the word "source". Per WP:V, the reliability of a source is affected by both the author and the publisher. In this case the author has a conflict of interest but the publisher is independent and peer-reviewed.

    By analogy, if Harry Cheng were a physicist who claimed to have discovered some new principle in physics, then his claims would not be reliable if they were made on his blog. But if they were accepted for publication in the Physics Review Letters, then they would be considered reliable—albeit not quite as reliable than an analysis of his paper by an independent physicist.

    In other words, the Cheng sources can't be dismissed as a conflict of interest if they appear in a reliable publication.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me, S Marshall. They can't be "dismissed", but neither can they be used to establish notability, which is all we care about here. Cheng's papers are not under consideration unless we're also questioning the content, not just the notability. Quoting WP:CORPDEPTH, "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms ... except for any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it ... Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Msnicki (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Why am I arguing this with someone who spent most of his early argument on the possibility that those of us who were there for the AfD didn't know what we were doing?) Msnicki (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then WP:CORPDEPTH contradicts the WP:GNG, which in its second limb talks about the independence of the publisher, not the author; but that's a red herring regardless, because even if you contort the rules into a decision that nothing connected with Cheng can possibly amount to notability, what about the other six sources?

    Still, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be brought back into accordance with the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • When your arguments consist of speculation that everyone in the AfD was wrong or certainty that the guidelines are wrong, don't you suppose it's time to consider the alternate possibility that maybe you're wrong? There's no inconsistency between WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH; both require reliable independent sources to establish notability. You're just very mixed up and way overconfident that if it's your opinion, it must be right. Msnicki (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of DRV is to conduct a thorough and vigorous review of a contested deletion. We aren't just supposed to accept that the AfD got it right; we're supposed to bottom out all the points of contention, so that the admin who closes this gets to see the fullest and strongest arguments that each side can present, and judge whether the AfD took adequate account of them. And that's what I'm doing: arguing the side I think is right, and arguing it as hard as I can. And ad hominem is not okay at DRV, Msnicki. Challenge the evidence and the arguments, not the people making them.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Later) Oh, and I forgot to respond to your point about CORPDEPTH. I think that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written by a self-selecting committee and they tend towards a compromise wording that's least objectionable to several different groups of editors. My position is that they are confused, confusing, badly-written and, in many places, mutually contradictory. My position is also that the GNG trumps all specific notability guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then respond to my argument. Explain why anyone should believe that you know better than the editors came together on the consensus texts of WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Or better still, take it to the CORPDEPTH talk page, right into the lions' den where it might be relevant, and challenge them to explain how they could have made such an obvious error. I think you'll get your head handed to you.

    Personally, I think you should check your work. The only mistakes people remember are the ones you refuse to admit. You need to reread WP:GNG; I don't think you have a clear understanding of notability and, especially, that all the conditions must satisfied, especially independence, and that independence has nothing to do with reliability. Finally, it's not ad hominem to remind you of the same point 82.7.44.178 spent nearly the entire talk page trying to explain, that "calling on DRV to be in general a place to decide that "your" opinion is superior to that of the AFD participants seems supremely arrogant", to which I would add, especially when you seem confused on the basic guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, the fact that you can't see the conflict between CORPDEPTH and the GNG doesn't mean it isn't there. I'll try to make it clearer for you.

CORPDEPTH specifically excludes any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it. On that same point, the GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." The difference is that CORPDEPTH is talking about who wrote the material and the GNG is talking about who produced it. And this is the hole in the guidelines that Harry Cheng's article falls into: it was written by someone connected with the subject but produced by someone editorially independent. Thus, it passes the GNG but fails CORPDEPTH.

This means that CORPDEPTH is taking it upon itself to rule out something that the GNG would permit, so there's a conflict between CORPDEPTH and the GNG. See now?

But none of that matters to the outcome of this deletion review anyway, because as I've mentioned several times now, Chuser has pointed out six sources that are independent of Harry Cheng and thus pass both CORPDEPTH and the GNG. So even if you do use CORPDEPTH to kill off a source that the GNG would permit, this article passes notability anyway.

The AfD was wrong because it didn't make that finding.

I also wish you and 82.7.44.178 would stop calling me "arrogant" or "confused", because from my point of view, it's you two who're arrogant and confused. The matter we're considering is perfectly simple, and the mistake made at the AfD is no less of a mistake because several people made it. "Correct" is not the plural of "error".—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Produce is a verb with a number of meanings that surely must encompass an author producing a manuscript by the obvious means of writing it. Honestly, you don't need to win, just to win. A lot of what we learn is from our mistakes. You're a strong (and contentious) debater so maybe this is the first time anyone ever took you on to explain that your understanding of notability is mistaken. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I answer that, you seem to have disregarded those other six sources again in your reply. Shall I take it that you concede there are six independent sources, or would you like to dispute them?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no new sources. All of the sources were investigated at the AfD. Tedickey and I both chased down the connections on the various authors. We made a good faith effort and it wasn't hard to discover that the various authors are not independent. Did you actually read the AfD or is this just another example of your assumption that nobody else has any idea what they're doing? Msnicki (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say they were new sources. I said they were independent sources. About these alleged "connections"—do I understand correctly that your position is that because some of the authors had previously co-authored papers on different subjects with Harry Cheng, this disqualifies them as independent of this subject? If so, I'm refreshed and intrigued by this unique line of reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they're colleagues who've worked together. They're not independent. The essence of notability is not what anyone associated with the subject has to say about it, it's what people who have no connection have to say about it. Msnicki (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. The essence of notability is that it's a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam that we had to invent when Wikipedia articles started ranking highly on google searches. It was never meant as a bludgeon to stop good faith editors adding verifiable content to the encyclopaedia, although there are certainly people who try to use it in that way nowadays.

    Anyway, your notion of "independence" is overly harsh and only to be found in certain creepy specific notability guidelines. It throws out the baby with the bathwater, as in this case. If you're going to discuss the reliability of sources then the rule that should prevail is the basic one: WP:SOURCES. Note well that this is policy, not a guideline, and it says specifically that it prevails over any and all guidelines about sourcing. It makes no allowance for the provision you wish to raise about people who've worked together.

    And such a provision makes no sense. It suggests that we couldn't allow an analysis of one of Stephen Hawking's theories by Roger Penrose, for goodness' sake. The fact is that people at the bleeding edge of academic research (or other intellectual fields of endeavour such as computer programming) often have to collaborate with each other to make any progress at all, so this notion would rule out a lot of the primary experts on many subjects.

    The fact is that Wikipedia's labyrinthine maze of policies and guidelines is very complicated and mutually contradictory. It's like scripture—by picking and choosing the bits you want to quote, you can find support for any position, including bizarre extremes such as preventing experts who've ever collaborated from commenting on each other's projects. But that's not the intent or purpose of notability. Notability is a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again, you demonstrate in a single remark that you don't understand the concept of notability here on WP and that you're convinced everyone else is screwed up. You're welcome to your opinion that WP's policies are a complicated and contradictory maze. But the editors who wrote it apparently thought it made sense and when I read it, it made sense to me, too. So maybe the problem is you.

    Let's take your example, because it demonstrates your confusion so clearly. There is little doubt that both Hawking and Penrose can be established to be notable based on any number of completely independent works. It's not hard to find entire books devoted to Hawking and Penrose. Once you've established notability, then of course you can use primary source materials written by the subjects themselves to talk about their theories. Again from WP:CORPDEPTH, "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." Msnicki (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you're going to insist on personalising this, I don't see why I shouldn't respond in kind.

    I certainly don't understand your concept of notability, Msnicki. I mean, I'm prepared to believe that when you read specific notability guideline #523, it made sense to you. But the fact that it makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense for the encyclopaedia. To be completely frank, what I think it means is that you haven't had enough experience writing content to see the problem with it.

    I don't blame you for that; everyone has to start somewhere. Start a few more pages of your own, maybe try to develop a GA or two, participate in a few more AfDs and maybe you'll start to see notability for what it is and grok how it's used (and widely misused) in practice.

    I do accept that you care a lot about software-related articles, and you seem to have a clear vision for them including what we "ought" to allow and what we "ought" not to. I don't, and I've never paid any attention to them really. I'm just applying the general standards we have for all articles, on the basis that I think we ought to be reasonably consistent across different subject areas.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think the notability guidelines don't make sense, then you should take that up on the talk pages for the policy guidelines you question. That debate doesn't belong here, where you'd leave the rest of us defending an empty chair (i.e., the decisions of those who wrote the guidelines but are not here now to defend their work.) Here, the job is to decide the DRV based on the guidelines as they exist, not as you wish they did. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be the judge of what I should do, Msnicki. The job is to review the deletion, consider whether the AfD was closed correctly and came to the right conclusion. You've selectively quoted guidelines that support your position and I've selectively quoted policies that support mine.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Msnicki, you claimed "they're colleagues who've worked together." this is far from the truth. As far as I know, they are all not related. You seems to fall into two rules when coming to judge the references with your bias. "rule number one: there should not and could not exist any independent sources; rule number two: if there is such a source, follow the rule number one." I have summarized what we discussed in the AFR: the author of six references I listed are independent and has no association in the past. Most authors are either professors or significant domain experts in the industry. And they are just either Ch users or reviewers. They write the articles based on their own research result. I don't believe you can find any evidence to back up your claim. If you think you do, please post it here. But I don't think you can because there is none. Chuser (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were co-authors on an article, they must have worked together. I don't know how else it could be done. And if they worked together, they are not independent. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that "if they were co-authors on an article, they must have worked together". That is why I have moved out those articles and keep the separate six references to stress that they are independent and there is no evidence that the authors of six references have worked together before. I have no comments regarding your next claim "if they worked together, they are not independent". It is wiki policy's call. Chuser (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just read wiki Consensus, it states: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." It looks to me that it acknowledges that the result of concensus can be wrong and can be overturned for a good reason. I don't mean that the previous consensus should be overturned just because of it though. Chuser (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What that means is that if the DRV endorses the AfD decision to delete the Ch article but new sources are discovered later, you can reopen the matter. It does not mean you can keep relitigating endlessly with only the same arguments and the same evidence until you get the outcome you like. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. This DRV has now gone for over 2 weeks, well past the 7 days a DRV is usually open. Positions seem fixed, so unless we attract some new blood to the debate, I think this is it.
  • 5 in favor of overturning: Garykline, Chuser, DGG and Jclemens, and S Marshall. (But two of those are SPAs, two of them made only a single comment when the DRV first opened and then disappeared, and one of them argues the guidelines are wrong.)
  • 1 in favor of relisting: Hobit
  • 6 in favor of endorsing: Msnicki (me), Guy Macon, Yaksar, Tedickey, SpinningSpark, ChickBowen
Comments, please? Msnicki (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'll comment. Don't expect the closer to count noses, don't expect them to disregard DGG and Jclemens because they only made one comment, and don't expect them to disregard me because of the AfD nominator's one-sentence characterisation of my position. They would be well within their rights to disregard comments made after the DRV should have been closed, though.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 28 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
FASTSIGNS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Recently, the Fastsigns company page met the criteria for speedy deletion for improper capitalization and trademarking according to The manual of style. I was also encouraged to add some additional independent references.I have addressed both issues, and the updated article is sitting in my sandbox. I would love for you to reconsider and reinstate the article if possible. Thank you!

User:Kilgoretrout89/sandbox

  • Overturn and send to AfD I do not exactly understand how improper capitalization and use of a TM symbol was a reason for speedy in the first place; I suppose you meant that it added to the generally promotional tone. I do not consider it a valid G11, being mainly informative. (the deleted article is except for the typography identical or almost identical to the one in user space.) However, I am not at all sure the references provided show notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Overturn as per DGG. The article was not unsalvageably promotional, even if it did include some easily pruneable promotional elements. Notability issues do clearly remain, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD, but remove the trademark signs and use mixed case (Fastsigns) as opposed to all caps, per WP:MOSTM. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I notice that the permissions discussion for the Fastsigns logo image is clearly less robust than, e.g., for the IBM logo image. Can someone kindly advise on policy? Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is probably tagged incorrectly. Either the image is copyrightable, in which case it's unlikely the uploader can grant the license listed, or it's not copyrightable in which case the correct tagging would be something else. I would suspect it's the latter and comes under PD text in the same way the IBM one does. That however isn't really a discussion for here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. In its present form, the article (with the possible exception of the image) appears to meet guidelines. There are multiple sources and little reason to doubt that more could be found if anyone needed convincing of notability. This is, after all, a very well-known franchise. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of convicted Jewish criminals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Seems to be consensus that it is OK per List of convicted Australian criminals and List of Jewish actors plus sources for Bernard Madoff and Ethel Rosenberg Bob19842 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't necessarily agree. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't normally an acceptable argument, and, would we allow a list of convicted Muslim criminals? But equally, DRV's role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and I do think that you have an arguable case. I'm not convinced that this is clear-cut enough to speedy, even in view of the AN/I discussion. So even though I think NawlinWiki was right, I also feel that the better course would be to temporarily restore the article for a proper discussion at the correct venue, which is AfD. But I will certainly !vote "delete" at that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and list I don't see this topic as a clear speedy, and unlike S Marshall, I really don't see any reason not to have such a list article. That said, please try to make arguments for keeping this in line with WP:LIST, your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is not very compelling. I'm also not real thrilled with the 2nd creation of this... Hobit (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had created the article and had added one entry when it was deleted after a minute or two. It was never "a verbatim copy of the Madoff article." Bob19842 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Actually it was neither a copy of the Madoff article nor a list. It consisted solely of a link to the Madoff article and one item does not a list make. —DoRD (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you want a draft version? I only had a minute earlier. Bob19842 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, there is a related thread at ANI (referenced by S Marshall above) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of convicted Jewish criminals. It is likely to end up archived here in a couple of days. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - There is no consensus for such a list, and a similar attempt 5 1/2 years ago was soundly thrashed. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish criminals) The creator is an SPA on this topic and his main objection is that there is a list of Jewish Nobel laureates. That one may be debatable, but it's a definable and verifiable list. There is not such regarding a "list of [ethnic group] criminals" - no definition, no boundaries, and precious little documentation that isn't synthesis. So far he's come up with Bernie Madoff (on the strength of one rabbi commenting on how Madoff had shamed Judaism), and the Rosenbergs (whose Jewishness was thought by some to be prejudicial against them). The only external source for such a list is likely to be a Jewish-hate group, which of course is not a valid source. Otherwise, it's primarily original synthesis and can't be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists do not have pre-determined or externally defined boundaries. Notability is the criterion for inclusion. Bob19842 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which rules out this list, as there is no notability of a general list of "Jewish criminals". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, external notability of the list itself is not a requirement, only the notability of the elements of that list. Bob19842 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a notable criminal could qualify someone for a list of "notable criminals". His being Jewish is coincidental and is not notable. Trying to make it so is "synthesis" and is against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Spanish artists suggests otherwise. Bob19842 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're notable for being Spanish. How is Madoff notable for being Jewish? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't see a transparent double standard there? Bob19842 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Madoff is notable for being a criminal, not for being a Jew. Picasso is notable for being an artist, an is also notable for being Spanish: Artists of all kinds are normally (and verifiably) identified with their countries of origin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So are Jews: List of Jewish actors. I provided sources to establish Madoff's notability as a Jewish criminal, remember? You didn't read the sentencing transcript, but said the paper from the Rabbi was interesting. Bob19842 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" does not equate to "notable". You gave me one guy's opinion that he had shamed Judaism. It also contained a comment disputing the "Jewish criminal" idea. If that's the best you can come up with for a source, you need to find something else to write about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Lists of Jews. Bob19842 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's merely a list of lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. What Bugs said, and because the religion or ethnicity of a criminal isn't a useful or interesting reason to have a list. It seems more like a veiled piece of antisemitism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, and maybe others find it interesting. "Anti-semitism" does not include anything which could reflect badly on Jews, but is a type of unfairness. This is not unfair. Bob19842 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the need to have something whose purpose is "to reflect badly on Jews"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not its purpose. Its purpose is to compile notable information. The information happens to reflect badly on Jews. The charge of "anti-semitism" is spurious. Bob19842 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you keep bringing up the complaint about lists that only reflect favorably on Jews? And why are you focused specifically on Jews anyway? You deny anti-semitism, but your actions suggest otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how that question follows. Please refrain from personal commentary. Bob19842 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not refrain from telling you what it looks like to me. Feel free to explain why you're focused on Jews. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. Bob19842 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far, you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD, doesn't really meet any specific CSD. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As Baseball Bugs pointed out above, the article qualified for speedy deletion as a repost; the would-be recreator has provided no indication that a new article can overcome the issues that resulted in the original deletion. This may not be a textbook G4, but varying the items on a list rather than the inclusion criteria previously found inappropriate should not be enough to evade speedy deletion of an already AFD-d list article.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your position requires you to clarify what in your opinion were the issues that resulted in the original deletion so we can check whether they have been addressed. Bob19842 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what you need to do is go through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish criminals point-by-point, and explain how your approach would resolve the issues raised. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD was in 2005, BB. Bob19842 might reasonably ask whether the consensus has changed in the intervening five years, which is why, all other things being equal, deletion review will normally disapprove of the use of G4 to enforce an AfD so old.—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The points made then are the same as the points being made now, and I don't see the user coming up with any counter-arguments beyond "other stuff exists". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you about the points, but the place to make those points is AfD. Deletion review is here to see that the process is followed correctly and that speedy deletions are within criteria. Where there's doubt, we should refer a deletion to AfD, and I don't accept that a five-year-old discussion should prevail now.

I'm with you in that I don't want Wikipedia to host this content, I'm only disagreeing with you about the process by which we should get there.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I list it at AfD? Bob19842 (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already deleted. This is theoretically about the question of whether to un-delete it. If it gets un-deleted, then it could be posted at AFD, where I assure you it will get deleted again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - There's simply no place in the Wikipedia for this sort of "ethnic-group-as-criminal" intersection, we don't need to procedurally run this though an AfD to figure that out. If there are other similarly problematic lists out there, then they can be dealt with as needed. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that neutrality requires Deletion review regulars to carry the most weight here. The consensus I sense amongst Deletion review regulars indicates restore and AfD is in order. A decision there would settle this matter. If I could be given a day or two to create a draft version of a List it would aid consideration. Bob19842 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how it works at all, no. While various noticeboards do have regular editors that comment on cases that comes across, their voice is no more or less weighted than those who have commented on this particular topic in other locations. For the record though, I am quite a DRV regular, along with having commented on this at AN/I. I'm like a 2-for-1 prize. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because nobody has made a good case for this list existing. What would be the point of having a large and incomplete list of Jewish criminals? How would it be useful to anyone? There is a good well-cited non-racist article on Jewish-American organized crime and a List of Jewish American mobsters accompanies it; I can see a value in these. I do not agree that Pablo Picasso is notable for being Spanish - but I can see that the development of Spanish art is a reasonable topic for people to be interested in. The point has been made by others that "criminal" covers a lot of things - and the list could include examples of Jewish shoplifters, swindlers, Communist spies, terrorists. This gives the list the potential to be very large and incomplete, even if it sticks to notable people who have biographical articles on Wikipedia. I do not think such a list would be useful.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:INTERESTING. Also I checked WP:OTHERSTUFF, where it is clear that this is only a spurious argument if the precedent used is not comparable or notable (ie. a crap article). The precedents I have used have been both. The talk page: "Worst of all, the first little bit of this ESSAY (but never the rest) gets used by people as a weapon in defense of inconsistancy, when it serves their purposes to do so." This dubious reasoning is why I think regulars carry more weight here. People seem to be showing up because they don't like the idea of this article, and using many spurious reasons to get it shut down. This should go to AfD where, if it is deleted, it will be deleted according to due process. Bob19842 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where you can get labeled anti-semitic by a wider audience? Good strategy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's possible to be "pro-semitic"? That is treating Jews to unfairly special treatment, perhaps even labelling those who support neutrality and consistency as "anti-semitic" without any clear definition or argument? Just a thought. Anyway, if editors at AfD think this List is "anti-semitic" I look forward to discussing the issue with them. Bob19842 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or arguing it with them. Why the focus on Jews? Why not start with something narrower, like "List of convicted criminals from Leichtenstein?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See draft in progress: User:Bob19842/List of convicted Jewish criminals Bob19842 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Susanne Kessler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Susanne_Kessler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm an art historian from Berlin and just starting to write articles for wikipedia. I created the page of Susanne Kessler and I'm wondering why the articles should miss the guidelines. The artist is well-known and made an important impact to the society and is well recognized. I appreciated if you could check the page and ! THX! --Leda47 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is appropriate for us to have an article about this person in the mainspace. (Evidence). However, the draft needs referencing with inline citations.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but… The deletion/incubation of the article was in order. I agree with S Marshall that the article is lacking in citations; I also think it needs rewriting to improve the tone. If those concerns are met, the article might then be improved enough to warrant a move back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your Feedback! Please let me know what kind of inline citations would be needed. --Leda47 (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cage of Eden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Anime News Network's news stories are a reliable and independent source, but their coverage of the title is very trivial so far, and isn't nearly enough to establish notability. Once the first volume is actually released in the U.S., it will probably be reviewed by the reliable sources that regularly review manga released in the U.S. (such as Anime New Network and Mania.com). Having at least a couple reviews from reliable sources would allow the series to pass the notability guidelines for books (WP:BK criteria 1). So I would recommend waiting until the first volume is released in the U.S. (currently scheduled for August) and then looking for reviews, and requesting the article be undeleted again then (or just recreating it) once the reviews appear. Calathan (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, to be clear the comments regarding Anime New Network was that the current coverage is trivial, the more substantial coverage their at the moment is use submitted. Should the non-user submitted content expand I've no reason to believe it wouldn't be reliable and useful. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cort and Fatboy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

All apologies if the formatting on this review isn't up to snuff. Please feel free to edit.

  • Oppose I've been through a lot with this article in recent weeks. I defended it in a prior deletion review/debate back on March 18th only to discover that it was slated for deletion, again, when I returned from holiday last week. I attempted to defend the article on its talk page to no avail. The page has multiple citations, is encyclopedic and meets the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, several editors have felt the need to nitpick sources from several solid, reputable publications including the Associated Press and the Oregonian (the biggest daily in Oregon) and others. This is especially frustrating since so many other articles on the site are even less worthy of inclusion and only contain a few citations, if that. I have no idea why this article continues to receive such an unwarranted level of scrutiny. Stumptowner (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the merits of two citations, there's more than enough here to warrant the page. Citation # 1, from the Oregonian, isn't available online for free but can be found via a Nexis search, for those who have an account. If need be, it can placed here for further scrutiny. Carlin's article from the Oregonian (# 7) isn't entirely about them but contains a strong paragraph about the hosts and the show. Excerpt:
    "...followed by "Cort and Fatboy," longtime Portland radio stalwarts whose stint on KUFO-FM ended last fall when the station switched owners. Always popular -- "We were No. 1 in our male, 18-to-49 demo," noted Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts -- the duo would obviously be happy to take a suitable offer from a traditional radio station. But even if Wagner can't pay them, Roberts said, pdx.fm gives them a remarkably potent launching pad for finding their own sponsors and for promoting the special events (midnight movies, the weekly "Lost" screening at the Bagdad Theater) they produce, most often for money.
    'Our show can get something like 10,000 listeners a day, counting the stream and podcasts," Roberts says. "And there's money there. We've got to hustle harder for it, but it's there.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumptowner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having 10,000 listeners a day does not equate to notability. If a certain number of listeners or views meant anything, hundreds of YouTube videos would have articles as well. But this is not the case. Every topic on Wikipedia has to assert notability in the form of reliable sources. Mentioned in a single line in a "major" Oregon newspaper does not assert the notability of a radio/podcast/whatever you're calling it. Being the feature of the article would be a different story. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm....a single line? Please have another look. There's two paragraphs up there and multiple lines. Furthermore, you may not think much of Oregon or its biggest daily (or its multiple Pulitzers) but you are being more than a little bit patronizing. I wonder, do you hold a similar view of the Philadelphia Enquirer, that state's "major" newspaper? Stumptowner (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my quotation marks around the word "major" was just to show that that was what you used to describe the newspaper. I've never heard of the newspaper, and I apologize if it looked like I was mocking it. Anyway, I re-checked the article, and you're correct, there were two paragraphs that talked about the show (one of which is entirely made up of a quote, however). I still do not believe this radio show meets WP:GNG, specifically that it has not received "significant coverage." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, what about the Williams article, posted below? Credible? Not credible? Stumptowner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would review it and tell you, but I cannot seem to find the link. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I included a few excerpts from Lee's article below. The article isn't archived online, unfortunately. The O's online archives only go back 5 years and this one went to print in 2006. That said, here's a few other articles on the show from The Oregonian that might be up to snuff: [43] [44] Stumptowner (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider those trivial mentions, since they only briefly mention Cort and Fatboy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The Lee Williams article was entirely about the show, the hosts and their monthly movie series at the Bagdad Theater in Portland. They were not "briefly mentioned." Also: one other citation that I'd like you to look at. Again, the show is the focus. The name of the show is even in the headline. http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/10/23/well-fuck-cort-and-fatboy-just-got-fired 71.237.193.124 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, here's another citation that should meet these standards. The hosts appeared on the television program 'Outlook Program' in February of 2010 to discuss the show. http://outlookportland.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/outlook-portland-presents-robert-bobby-roberts-cort-robert Stumptowner (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- consensus at the AfD was pretty clear, and complaining that Wikipedia is full of crappy articles that never get looked at is no reason to overturn it. Reyk YO! 20:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You raise a good point but, that said, this article has ten sources and, if anything, should have a solid foundation for inclusion (especially based on the standards applied to so many other items on Wikipedia). If the same standards were applied to all of those, a good 3/4s of Wikipedia's articles wouldn't exist. The high standards reserved for the Cort and Fatboy article is incredibly frustrating and altogether unreasonable. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No different standard is being applied. To meet the inclusion criteria the WP:GNG required multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The non-trivial part appears to be where the AFD found these sources lacking - they don't address the subject of the article directly and in detail - they are either not about the radio show (address the subject directly), or passing mentions (in detail). Alluding to other articles where you imagine a different standard is being applied says nothing, some articles may not meet the standard and when someone nominates them for deletion may be deleted. Others may have fewer references but if they satisfy the actual requirement then the few is far better than having bucket loads of references which don't. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are really weak arguments, each article has to stand on it's own, if the best thing to be said about an article is that it's not as bad as something else, that's not a great boast. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a different standard is being applied. There should be no doubt about that. If you deny this, I can easily supply you with a dozen Wikipedia articles off the top of my head with one or two flimsy citations. But enough about that. The Williams piece from The Oregonian, "Midnight With the Movie Cultists," citation # 1, is entirely focused on the show and its midnight movie series. The article from The Portland Mercury does the same, citation # 2. While a few of these citations may warrant what you call "passing mentions," these two are solid sources.Stumptowner (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me an AFD discussion about a podcast where the article has been kept with similarly weak sourcing? In fact your convinced this is such a broad consipiracy show me 10 such AFDs where a podcast has been kept with weaker sourcing. Weaker meaning they don't have independant reliable third party sources which address the podcast directly and in detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, as stated below by user TEG, the show is not a "podcast." It's an online radio show that draws around 10K+ listeners in a given day. Furthermore, I would like you to defend your accusation that the sourcing on the article is "weak." An Oregonian article I added on Friday included a substantial rundown on the show. While the article was ostensibly about Cascadia FM, there was enough material on Cort and Fatboy to make it a solid, reputable citation. The articles by Carlin and Williams are more focused on the show and come from The Oregonian as well. The Cinematical article further adds credibility to the page. Those of but three of the ten sources on the article. If it is restored, I'm prepared to add further sources. One of the first changes that would also be made is to change "podcast" in the intro paragraph to "online radio program." Before you ask, "Oregon Live" is the website for the Oregonian and it's the largest daily publication in the state. Citations 5 and 7, while not focused entirely on the show, do discuss it for at least a few paragraphs. That should make them worthwhile and credible. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it that's a no you can't show me these AFDs where different standards are being applied. -- 82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're avoiding the real argument here, why or why not these key citations are or are not credible, in your opinion. Address that and I'll give you your AFDs. Stumptowner (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. DRV is not AFD round 2, so issues about the sources etc. were addressed and that was the consensus. DRV is not here simply to reargue the AFD just because you disagree. I am however interested in your claim that a substantially different standard being applied, something you've claimed multiple times and now you are apparently unwilling or unable to actually back your claim. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the discussion of the sources were never properly addressed. Those involved in those prior debates locked in on the AP article and ignored the ones from the Oregonian. Stumptowner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no sign of those many many discussion where substantially different standards are applied then? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Riddle me this: why would I, as a fan of internet radio shows, want to give you, an anonymous user with troll-ish tendencies and an evident passion for pedantic arguments, a list of links to articles with shaky citations? You'd probably run amuck with "speedy delete" tags. Stumptowner (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So rather than actually back your claims you'd rather restort to trying petty insults and insinuation. You also seem to admit that those articles with poor citations would be eligible for deletion if listed, i.e. applying the same standard, not the vastly different standard you claim. Thanks all I needed to know.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stumptowner, please do not assume malicious intend on behalf of other editors, even IP editors. This is Deletion review. The burden of proof for doing something different is on the part of people who want the AfD action reverse. In this case, the people who want to undelete the article have to demonstrate, beyond the burden, that the article qualifies for inclusion. Having looked at the article in both incarnations and looked at the sources I am not impressed enough to consider it includable per the notability and reliable sources policies. Hasteur (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this discussion jumped the rails, the point I was trying to prove is that Wikipedia is full of similar articles with equally "weak" or weaker citations. They're allowed to stand and aren't subjected to nearly the same level of scrutiny as this radio show. I think we can all agree on this. If you really need proof, here is one such example: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Lars_Larson Stumptowner (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, that doesn't appear to have been listed for deletion, a brief look and I in my opinion (FWIW) that article in it's current form (i.e. without looking if there is other material and refs which could be added) would probably be deleted if taken to AFD. That no one has taken it to AFD doesn't lower the standard articles have to meet. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe the other articles are not up to snuff, follow deletion procedures for them and get editors' opinions that way. This deletion review is not the avenue by which to do it. CycloneGU (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair I requested that the material was pointed out, it doesn't show what I felt was required (set of AFDs where article had similar standard of sourcing), and so doesn't change much here. But still was on my request. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (edit conflict) - Consensus was clearly to delete because of notability issues. The sources (where independant of the subject) contained only casual mentions of the show. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not enough grounds to keep the article. If you happen to come across articles that "are even less worthy of inclusion and only contain a few citations, if that" please feel free to nominate them for deletion. Jarkeld (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This isn't true. An Oregonian article I added on Friday included a substantial rundown on the show. While the article was ostensibly about Cascadia FM, there was enough material on Cort and Fatboy to make it a solid, reputable citation. The articles by Carlin and Williams are more focused on the show and come from The Oregonian as well. The Cinematical article further adds credibility to the page. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't see any real discussion of the mercury source in the discussion. While the sources are largely local (only mentions elsewhere) it does seem to meet WP:N. I feel the closer read the discussion correctly, but I can't say I agree with the discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    this one? Hardly goes towards notability: just a mention that they got fired. Lots of people get fired and maybe get a small article on a newspaper blog, but that does not mean we should have articles on all those people just for that. Jarkeld (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is also false. The blog post discusses the show's popularity in Portland and the events the hosted have hosted in the city. Stumptowner (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the word "discusses" is stretching the meaning somewhat. There is no discussion just a list of a few things with no detail. I'm not sure any of it would be useful material for an article - "more than a few people in Portland listened" is hardly encyclopedia material. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than a passing mention & it's reliable. It would seem to count toward WP:N... Hobit (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse The closer certainly closed this per the discussion. That said, though I found the discussion lacked in many ways (was the problem no RSes? Too local? I really can't tell), the final result wasn't unreasonable (sources are certainly on the light side though just past WP:N in my opinion) and so I see no reason to overturn. IMO we should have articles like this, but my opinion doesn't determine how things work around here :-) Hobit (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This material's had every possible opportunity to make its case for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. The rough consensus is that it hasn't succeeded, so I think we have to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. The article was subjected to another deletion review on March 18th and was allowed to be reinstated. Then, just a few weeks later, it was subjected to another "speedy delete" tag and here we are again, discussing the matter unnecessarily. Stumptowner (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll thank you not to call me a liar. The closer of this debate is perfectly capable of reading the 18th March DRV, seeing what conclusion it really reached, and judging for himself whether the AfD was "unnecessary". What's unnecessary is this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is entirely necessary since everyone who has voted for its deletion have been unwilling to consider several citations and their merit. Stumptowner (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This article was created, AfDed, brought to DRV and overturned on a technicality, re-AfDed, and now is back at DRV. The notability of the subject was on par with any other metro area's afternoon radio personalities, i.e. Not enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. This article has had more than enough time to get proper references demonstrating it's notability (as was stated at both AfDs). In both cases of AfD, there were multiple WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments for why we should keep the article. Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practical meaning of OTHERSTUFF is the observation that our decisions on borderline articles tends to be random. That's probably half of AfD. Going either way: deciding to uniformly keep or to delete all borderline articles, or borderline articles on a particular class of subject, would be rational. Making the decision by pure chance without the necessity of AfD would be as rational as the current procedure, and a lot simpler and more equitable. A responsible information source is predictable. A reader has a right to expect that whatever level of inclusion is chosen, it will be the same from item to item. My preferred solution is a Wikipedia Two - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring WP:Verifiability, and NPOV. It would include the lower levels of barely notable articles in Wikipedia, and the upper levels of a good deal of what we do not let in. . The deletionists will have this material out of Wikipedia, the inclusionists will have it not rejected. As a preliminary, it would be interesting to see a search option:
Do you want to see everything (WP+WP2), or only the notable(W)
Anyone care to guess which people would choose? (I assume we are making an encyclopedia for use, not as an abstract exercise to examine the scalability of crowdsourcing.) DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that if we draw a line somewhere about inclusion (and I belive we need such a line) there will always be cases on the line which could "drop" either way. We can't come up with a totally bullet proof 100% certainty model without it becoming a nonsense and something in itself people would argue endlessly about. I we move the line 1 foot back or foward, all we'll do is move where the edge cases are, we don't remove them. From your idea this is WP2 which is effectively everything which can be verified to exist? as to if people choose it, I suspect many wouldn't, the disambiguation for people called John Smith would just become ludicrous (and it's already quite big). Not to mention that given that we can't find much sourcing, the chances are that the pages would be pretty stubby etc. An interesting idea nevertheless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the AfD made quite clear that the 'solid' sources were really about somebody else with a bare mention of the subject or did not discuss the program at all (the duo also hosted a local viewing party for the Lost finale). Proper procedures were followed and this article has had two bites at the apple in quick succession. - Dravecky (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. As stated above, the Williams piece from The Oregonian, "Midnight With the Movie Cultists," citation # 1, is entirely focused on the show and its midnight movie series. The article from The Portland Mercury does the same, citation # 2. While a few of these citations may warrant what you call "passing mentions," these two are solid sources. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the recent deletion occurred while I was away. I'm prepared to further work on the article and add further citations if it's given another chance. Stumptowner (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article is not about a "podcast", but for a radio program, broadcast over the Internet, with listeners around the world. Just because "you" haven't heard of them, does not make them any less notable than any other radio show, local or syndicated, who have extensive articles on Wikipedia. We are in a new era of media, it doesn't matter if the show started in terrestrial radio, ended, and started again in Internet Radio, it is notable, even if in a limited form, compared to some others. TEG (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:EXISTS for why your rationale is entirely incorrect. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While TEG's argument may be irrelevant, the continued debate over the citations included in the article and whether or not they're credible and strong enough to warrant an article about the show, is entirely relevant. Stumptowner (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus was fairly clear that the sourcing of the article wasn't enough to give notability. The arguments made by the articles defenders opposing the closure are largely limited to the kind of things that were discussed at the AfD (deletion review is not a second round of AfD) or are flawed for other reasons. Wouldn't object to userfication if someone wants to work on it. Hut 8.5 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. If that happens, I'll dive in and get to work on bringing the article up to snuff. Stumptowner (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposestruck through as this is just a further comment by the nominator, see below Lee Williams article in the Oregonian focuses entirely on the show, the hosts and their midnight movie series. This is a rather solid citation. The first citation mentioned in the old article, I believe. It was posted here a bit ago but removed by an admin over copyright concerns. Here are two excerpts from the article:
  • "At a quarter till midnight on a recent Friday night at the Bagdad Theater, the KUFO drive-time team, Cort and Fatboy, are fueling some midnight movie madness.The two DJs are hosting a movie trivia game called "Stump the Movie (Person)" before the special midnight showing of "Caddyshack" to a rowdy, near-full house."
  • "It's not quite that crazed this night at the Bagdad, where Cort and Fatboy began showing the late-night movies earlier this summer. (Consider the night an overtime version of their 6-9 p.m. weekday radio broadcast.) Expect some wild fans and maybe some drink specials to fit the flick as well. White Russians were the big drink of choice, the pair says, when they fired up "The Big Lebowski," which launched their movie series in May." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.193.124 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — 71.237.193.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I have blocked the above IP as a suspected sockpuppet of a user with an account, used to create an illusion of support in this discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. It wasn't my intention to break out a sock-puppet smoke screen. I didn't realize I didn't login when I got home last night. Ok, that said, why or why not is this article by Lee Williams from the Oregonian a credible citation? Stumptowner (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't see putting a second bolded sentiment as having a double !vote? I've struck that out above since your stance has already been clearly stated as nominator. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This article rings a very strong bell although as far as I recall I never tagged, edited or commented on it. I have now reviewed every AfD, DrV, and deleted version, and my verdict then as now, would have been 'delete' in every instance. Consensus at the AfD was clear, the sources are inadequate, the sockpuppetry raises other motives to keep this article, WP:OTHERSTUFF is of course no defence and this DRV should not become a meta discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See the note above re "sock-puppetry." As stated elsewhere in this discussion, prior discussions of the articles merits seemed to lock in on the weaker citations while ignoring the stronger ones. I remain convinced and willing to argue that the Lee Williams piece, in addition to the other articles from The Oregonian, should clear the article's "notability" hurdle. Stumptowner (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no substantive issues with the deletion process presented. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the material above this endorsement suggests otherwise. Stumptowner (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet no one but you can see it I guess. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stum, you are the only one making the arguments. Unfortunately, I only see one other vote opposing deletion. I don't have an opinion on this one myself - not yet in any case. CycloneGU (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nail Yakupov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Currently located at User:CycloneGU/Nail Yakupov Due to recreation attempts, the article has been restored to its original location pending the outcome of this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Yakupov has now been named OHL Rookie of the Year with the highest possible score for the nomination (article details that). Article is currently located here, where it was userfied despite agreement from others to hold off on the deletion proceeding until after the award was announced. I have not done any further editing to the page in my user space yet (anyone who wishes may do so, I permit it), but I am seeking permission to move the page back to its old location to work on as a typical rookie can get no higher notability than a Rookie of the Year award, the highest type of notability said rookies can get. He is notable now without question even if the prior article wasn't considered such. CycloneGU (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The commenters in the deletion debate said things like: "as he hasn't met any of the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY, incidently winning rookie of the year would still not do that", "there can be a case for rookie of the year being one, something that will probably have to be argued once he has won it", "There will still be debate about notability of ROY". So presenting it as "notable now without question" seems somewhat disingenuous, you know for certain there are questions. That said it sounds like there was an acknowledgment the situation would be far enough different, so I suggest you do the editing, this gets moved back to mainspace and then can be nominated for deletion if anyone still thinks ROY isn't enough. i.e. you should do the work before it moves, not after. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I have been planning to, I just found the news before going to bed yesterday and wasn't doing any editing during that time, only notifications to the participants in the last discussion. I know better than to edit before bed. =) I'll be figuring out the add today sometime. CycloneGU (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD as reasonably closed. Since the article wasn't salted, any editor may recreate it with additional claims of notability, which appears to be what's proposed here. If more input is requested, there are better places to solicit it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: I suggested he come here because it's the most conclusive venue to establish a consensus that notability has changed since the AFD, so as to preclude speedy deletion or AFD relisting if he were to just take it upon himself to recreate it (or preclude him recreating it if the subject still isn't notable). He should further cross-post notice of this DRV to an appropriate Wikiproject and the AFD participants. I am completely neutral as to whether the new development is enough to obviate the AFD deletion, and I don't take this DRV as a referendum on the reasonableness of my close, but purely a presentation of changed circumstances since the AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note regarding above - All participants in the previous discussion have already been notified before I went to bed yesterday. Wikiproject crossposting isn't done yet, never thought about that. Further, I agree with the above statement that this isn't to question his close, I'm simply following his suggestion to use this venue instead of moving the article back since concerns may still exist on notability even with OHL Rookie of the Year. The CHL one won't be announced for another 2 months I think, so we're still waiting on that. Update - Ravendrop already added it. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think ROTY in the three CHL leagues meets NHOCKEY (it was used as part of the criteria for Ryan Nugent-Hopkins in that recent AfD. So, basically I think the close at the time was correct, but I think he now meets the notability critera, so I guess I fall under Recreate. Canada Hky (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, someone else recently recreated the article. I have requested it be speedily deleted. I will move my existing page into place after the duplicate is removed so as to further facilitate discussion and so that the page is not repeatedly recreated. CycloneGU (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Carry on discussion with the article in place, anyone wishing to add to the article can now do so without threat of deletion as I will still want it userfied and salted if deletion is still endorsed. CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For what its worth, I think the article should be kept userfied (and redeleted/salted) per failing WP:NHOCKEY. I would consider the CHL (and not anyone of the WHL, OHL, or QMJHL) as the top league, and the three merely as parts of the same league. Therefore, I believe that CHL Rookie of the Year would qualify for notability, but that OHL would not (it would be similar in my mind to a conference Rookie of the Year in the NHL, which, besides the fact that its the NHL, wouldn't be notable as the top ROY award, the calder still would be). Ravendrop 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:NHOCKEY: "4. Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League..." - In other words, Yakupov has won the Emms Family Award, how does he not now meet WP:NHOCKEY? Also, he meets WP:GNG now per information below. And while I'm not making this article myself (it was also previously deleted), his teammate Alex Galchenyuk made first all-rookie team with Yakupov; both are probably notable now, but Yakupov more than Galchenyuk. CycloneGU (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to mainspace If the argument was (and it seems to be) that GNG and ANYBIO were met, but NHOCKEY was not, then there was no reason for this to have been deleted in the first place. SNGs are logically and'ed with the GNG: if any article topic passes the GNG or any SNG, it's notable. The discussion, both in the AfD and above, doesn't seem to reflect that. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me provide some independent sources, then. Brandon Sun and ourstcatherines.com are just two independent sources, and they are covering the Rookie of the Year announcement. Granted, they'd probably cover it for any player who wins it, because they are presuming he will be a future NHL star whoever it is...but it does meet GNG coverage. CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relationship between specific SNGs and the GNG varies, but for sports-related SNGs, I think the terms of a sport-specific SNG should control absent unusual circumstances. Most pro team sports (at least in North America, the market we're dealing with) are covered extensively by the press, and the SNGs provide useful rules of thumb to distinguish between routine/superficial coverage and the more substantial coverage that demonstrates notability. Therefore, I see no reason not to retain the current version of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the criteria state. The secondary criteria are just that, secondary. NSPORTS states "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." and goes onto set out a basic criteria which matches the GNG. So yes meeting the GNG is all that is required for inclusion, but meeting a SNG on it's own may not be. --82.7.34.193 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 April 2011

[edit]

7 April 2011

[edit]
  • Magnus Wolff Eikrem – allow recreation. I am closing this two days short of the normal seven day period because there is clear and objective evidence of newfound notability (now that the subject has played matches at the top professional level), evidence which I don't see being particularly controversial. The protection in place is preventing improvement of the encyclopedia, and if a seven-day rule is preventing improvement of the encyclopedia, there is an explicit basis for ignoring it. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This player is now notable for an article. He have played two matches for Molde FK in the Norwegian Premier League, after the transfer from Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy [45]. Thanks! --- Løken (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shane Duggan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Shane Duggan meets WP:GNG. He played as a full-time pro in the League of Ireland for a number of years. He has represented Ireland at U23 level. Hsetne (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer: This isn't my editing subject area, so I relied entirely on the AFD participants' comments for my close. There weren't a lot of participants, but they were unanimous, and I figured deletion based on lack of GNG coverage or failure to meet subject-specific notability guidelines is easy to overturn, simply by showing that the subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. As represented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the League of Ireland is not fully pro, so I don't see a rebuttal of the AFD judgment that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL; the article at the time of its deletion also included that claim, and the AFD participants judged it insufficient. Re: WP:GNG, Hsetne needs to present the multiple reliable sources that show significant coverage of Shane Duggan to establish that GNG is satisfied, rather than merely assert that GNG is met. postdlf (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very hard to censure Postdlf for closing an AfD in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participants, you know. That's even more true when we're dealing with a biography of a living person where the sources have been called into question. I agree that evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources would be sufficient to overturn the close, but unless such evidence is provided I would expect an endorse outcome to this deletion review.

    Postdlf—not arising from this particular AfD, but as a general point—I've observed that you don't appear to provide closing statements, and I wonder whether you would be prepared to consider changing your practice by adding a few words of explanation to each close, perhaps with a link to the relevant policy? While that's not necessary for experienced Wikipedians, I think it would be better if our processes were more transparent to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • After some resistance to the idea, I've gotten more in the habit of providing closing statements where the discussion was really contentious and drawn out (e.g., here or here), but I still don't see a need or point to providing a closing statement where the AFD was as clear as this one. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for another 7 days so that Hsetne (talk · contribs) can make his case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that premature before we've seen that there even is a case? This is the first place that should be presented before anything is undone. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe. Is there any harm in relisting? I haven't seen the deleted article. I don't see real difference in (a) undeleting for a relist and (b) userfying to allow Hsetne to make his case. I recommend (a) as it invited more people in, especially the previous participants in the AfD, while (b) will probably be a discussion between you and Hsetne. I think relist is better than running AfD2 here. Obviously, no criticism of the close, but we do want to accommodate new editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, arguably there is harm in relisting. Discussions are "closed" after the AfD is over because a conclusion has been reached, and I think it's better if there's an element of finality to that, unless and until new evidence comes to light or sufficient time has passed to allow consensus to change. I mean, there seems little value in closing a discussion if a deletion review will reopen it again on request. Of course there are many times when there really are substantive grounds for DRV to direct that a discussion should be reopened, but I think those grounds have to be more substantial than those presented here.—S Marshall T/C 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the close of a discussion is to be regarded as carrying FINALITY, then low-participation discussions would have to be closed as "no consensus" because two or three in isolation are a pretty weak representation. Also, we do not welcome new participants, to the project generally, or to the AfD process pages specifically, by telling them they can't be heard because of some rule.

            On the other hand, Hsetne would be more persuasive if he would provide the sources that meet the WP:GNG, or cite (link) specifically the part of the specific notability guideline that is met by being "a full-time pro in the League of Ireland" or having "represented Ireland at U23 level" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • No one's saying "they can't be heard"; we're just saying that they should show they actually have something to say beyond an unsupported opinion, as you acknowledge in your second paragraph. I have no interest in keeping anything deleted that shouldn't be deleted regardless of whether I was the one who deleted it, but it's a waste of time to undelete and relist something purely out of some concern that we're biting newbies, without even a prima facie showing that the wrong decision was reached. Hsetne (talk · contribs) may be a "new[er] participant" than you or I, but he has been editing since October of last year, has participated in numerous XFDs, and has even started CFDs and AFDs himself. postdlf (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as no evidence has been presented that the deletion process was not followed properly, nor has new evidence been provided that was not available during the AFD. As noted at the top of the deletion review main page, deletion review is not to be used simply because you disagree with a deletion discussion's outcome for reasons previously presented. Stifle (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "I Disagree" is not a valid reason to file a DRV, and no rebuttal was given for this league being classified as "not fully professional", thus a football notability fail. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who's giving "I Disagree" as a reason? Hsetne (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you? Tarc (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The unanimous consensus during the AfD discussion was that Duggan failed WP:NFOOTBALL, and nothing indicates that the participants in that discussion interpreted the guideline incorrectly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were links in his article supporting how Shane Duggan "represented Ireland at U23 level". Cork City F.C. were fully pro when he joined the club in 2008, and in 2009. He also received significant coverage in the national media for being named in the PFAI First Division Team of the Year, there was a link in his article suppporting that. Hsetne (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shane Duggan representing Ireland at U23 level covered in the national media,
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0928/irelandunder23.html
http://www.extratime.ie/newsdesk/articles/4380/
Shane Duggan being named in the PFAI First Division Team of the Year was carried in the national media,
http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2010/1021/1224281703779.html
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/1021/pfai.html
Obviously that's not taking into account coverage in national newspapers.
I'd also like to add that I've been involved in (starting and contributing to) a number of AfDs (and CfDs) in relation to Irish footballers, in support of deletion in many cases, however Shane Duggan is one who is definitely notable WP:GNG. Hsetne (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of those four links, the first two are identical, and all four mention Shane Duggan precisely once each (the first two contain three "false positive" mentions of Robert Dugggan, whose article was also previously deleted). Passing mentions are explicitly not enough for WP:GNG. Do any sources actually address him in detail? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a radio interview (on red fm, a major radio station in Cork City and County) with him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgGn6auo7ZA
He hit the headlines in the national print media this morning after scoring the winner against Waterford United last night - "Duggan blasts Cork top" - http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/duggan-blasts-cork-top-150951.html Hsetne (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the deletion process was followed correctly, and I maintain that the correct decision was made - no evidence of notability has been presented, as this article fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I'm not a fan of NFOOTBALL's obsession with full-time leagues, there's no question that the AfD closer was not at fault in evaluating the consensus reached there. If you think you can round up more reliable sources on the subject which show that he's notable (simply being a member of the team of the year probably isn't enough) then it might be worth requesting userfication of the article until it can be expanded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about NFOOTBALL. The League of Ireland is just behind the Finnish Veikkausliiga in the UEFA Coefficient rankings ( http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking ), which wiki says is fully pro and allowed to have player articles. The UEFA Coefficient is a much better indication of whether a league's players are notable than wikipedia's definitions. I'll have a look at getting more sources but it'll take time, busy at the moment Hsetne (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. The player in question has not played for his country at senior international level or appeared in a fully professional league, which fails both criteria stated at WP:NFOOTBALL. He was contracted as a youth team player to a club in a fully professional league, but did not play at first team level before being released. I have seen no significant coverage in reliable sources which demonstrates that the player is either an exceptional athlete or has played in a major international competition. I have seen plenty of coverage which could be considered trivial and routine, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:43, 9 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Colin Hatch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted, in my opinion on very weak grounds. In the discussion it becomes quite clear that many users thinks it should be Kept. I find that the AFD discussion should have resulted in a No Consensus decision as I think its definitly no clear consensus for Delete. Five comments and !votes in favour of Keep atleast for now. And four Delete !votes with no real explaination to its decision except the usual guidelines that can be interpretated in any way the user find it suitable. Either way 5-4 and with in my opinion good reasons for the Keep-side I will suggest that the article should be restored on Wikipedia per the No Consensus AFD.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist, at least on procedural grounds. The AfD was improperly formed on February 28 and didn't get listed until March 8. It was then closed on March 9, it should have run for 7 days at that point or been relisted to cure the error. There's also a very good argument that it should have closed as no consensus in its current state, the "comment" votes show uncertainty as to the proper outcome.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • EndorseOverturn – Overturn based on procedural grounds, but not on nomination discussion. I see only one delete (BabbaQ) and one comment (UltraExactZZ) that supported marginally supported a keep decision. One comment (Mezuu64) supported another's Neutral comment(RFBailey)and one comment (4meter4) asked why the AfD was not closed after 10 days. One can only assume since the other comment did not specify keep or delete that they were neutral. I do not see the 5 delete !votes the nominator is referencing. ttonyb (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Milowent. An AfD should be listed on the AfD log for seven days. Otherwise, participation in the AfD will be disproportionately affected by interested parties (ie editors who watchlist the article or participate in projects for which there is relevant deletion sorting). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The fact that it was off the log for 9 of the 10 days it was listed makes it next to imposible to be sure if consensus was really reached. Best thing to do is just relist it and run it correctly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. On a procedural basis, this should probably be relisted - it was added to the log late, as noted. That said, there are an awful lot of comments for an unadvertised AFD, and I think the discussion was properly interpreted by Wizardman - Concerns about notability were not addressed during the AFD. I note also that the article was started after the subject was murdered, which indicates that notability was not present prior to the subject's death. I touched on this concern in my fence-sitting comment, and others hinted at it as well - and this was not addressed by anyone favoring Keep. So, on the merits, I would endorse. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. DRV is not a place to re-argue matters that would properly be discussed at the AFD discussion, but it is a place where we catch procedural errors. As mentioned above, I find that the fact the listing was only open on the AFD daily page for two days to be material. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:BURO, there's no need to relist just for the sake of technical bureaucracy. A reasonable consensus to delete was found in the AfD, and the keeps pretty much amounted to "maybe it'll be more notable someday". Tarc (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it has been fairly established that so was not the case Tarc. Technical bureacracy? This is a matter of a article being deleted when in fact there were no consensus for deletion. And what is a reasonable consensus. either it is a consensus or not. If it is in fact as you say only a "reasonable consensus" then it should be relisted anyway to get a "stronger consensus for delete or keep,"--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there was, you just (per usual) happen to disagree. I would not be much opposed to a simple relist is that is how this trends, but an overturn to NC is out of the question, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could atleast once post a message without a "mini-personal attack" against me and other users that just happen to disagree with you on a subject. OK but back to the issue.,. that sounds like a good way of solving it.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He can't BabbaQ, its like a tourette's thing, but it does seem endearing over time.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was pretty mild and not even worth commenting on, but I guess some skin is thinner than others. At least I didn't give him the "Wikipe-tan supporter" treatment. :) Tarc (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recommendation would be to overturn and make it a No Censensus decision for re-evaluation in a few months time when the situation can be fully evaluated.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There was a consensus for this AfD. The question is whether or not it was a nonprocedural consensus. If this is overturned, why would this have to wait any period of time to reevaluate? ttonyb (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
its a matter of opinion I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist procedurally, given the fact that the deletion process was not followed properly here. I think there was a consensus to delete present in the AfD, but the discussion was listed on the AfD log just one day before it closed. Only one editor voted after the bot listed it on the log; the rest presumably found the discussion in other ways. Like Milowent and Mkativerata, I feel that listing on the log is the best way to expose the AfD to uninvolved editors for the formation of an organic consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree with you on that a Delete consensus had been reached. However I agree with you on the rest that the AFD was inproperly closed and a No consensus should have been reached if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - per Milowent. How can a consensus have possibly been reached? The whole thing wasn't conducted properly. Orphan Wiki 20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on procedural grounds, totally endorse closing debate (as is) as a delete. I'm not impressed by BabbaQ's absurd and misleading appropriation of the neutrals and comments to the keep side though, we can just as easily present this as an 8-1 KO delete if we count the delete votes as 'people who voted delete or didn't care either way'. In future I suggest sticking to the facts. Bob House 884 (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not impressed by you (in my opinion) personal attack against me. Definitly not the right forum for that. In the future I suggest you stick to why you believe it should be relisted or not without going on the attack mode. What is absurd is your 8-1 KO delete comment which is totally inappropriate and misleading, and your claim that it was a Delete consensus when it definitly wasnt. I make no excuses what so ever for sticking up for this articles re-creation and proper evaluation of its notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll observe, my entire point is that the 8-1 comment is absurd. I'm simply stating that you shouldn't be presenting a !poll where the result was 5(D)-1(K) and 3 non-!votes as though the non-!votes default to keep, it's a cheap trick and it doesn't work because people tend to read the discussion before commenting, although I am in no way insinuating that you were deliberately being dishonest. You'll notice as well that this isn't a personal attack but rather a comment about one paticular action you have made as a user which is directly relevant to this discussion, and I have kept my rationale seperate from my comments and in fact agree with you here. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but that seems more like your personal opinion than a certain fact. A waste of time is hardly the way to describe this upcoming AFD, as the result of the AFD contested here was in no way a certain Delete more so a No Consensus if anything.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giving it a little more thought, I'm prepared to accept that arguments can be made in good faith for why the sentencing, if not the person, is notable enough to have an event on, and so relisting would at least allow for those arguments to be made. Not that this is in any way an endorsement of BabbaQ's own opinions as to the article's notability nor consensus in general. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 9 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Kevin Hufnagel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as WP:CSD#A7.
In my opinion, the claim in the article that the topic is famous for being part of three notable bands is typically seen as enough to show notability per WP:NMUSIC#C6, and certainly enough to indicate significance and pass A7.
Deleting admin declined restoring the article as it was.
Amalthea 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion A7 says that the question of whether a person is "important or significant" (assertion of which bars speedy deletion) "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability". Here there was a credible claim to importance and significance (" He is most famous for fronting the progressive metal band Dysrhythmia, and for being a member in the latest reunion of Gorguts" - both Dysrhythmia and Gorguts have articles, incidentally), and although the article needed work and more references it did not merit speedy deletion. The only slight pause is that the creator of the article Kingofthosewhoknow (talk · contribs) was blocked the following day, with questions to be directed to Arbcom, and so there might be more to this than meets the eye. BencherliteTalk 12:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7. Deleting admin's talk page response contradicts A7, and article includes clear assertion of notability, not merely significance. Judging by the article creator's edit history, the article creator's block would appear to have no relationship to this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is not mentioned above is that I did try to have a dialogue with the creator of the article before he was banned, in order to get him to improve the article. But I don't respond to harassment, and I've already said I don't have a problem with the article being recreated. Deb (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 did not and does not apply.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. Contested CSD#A7s should be undeleted and listed at AfD immediately on a reasonable request. The discussion is needed for somebody to learn something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On looking harder: Straight Overturn. "He is most famous for fronting the progressive metal band Dysrhythmia, and for being a member in the latest reunion of Gorguts." (from google cache) is explanation of the subject's significance, and so it beats the wording of WP:CSDS#A7. This was an overzealous speedy. Optionally List at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err. I'm a little less certain about this than others seem to be. On the one hand I can understand the "overturn" recommendations above, because Deletion Review interprets the Criteria for Speedy Deletion rather narrowly and will almost always overturn a case that isn't clear-cut. But on the other hand I wouldn't want to censure Deb for deleting what seems to have been an inadequately-sourced BLP written by a blocked user. I'm minded to prefer allow recreation (which is what Deb's already said).—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a censure. We're constantly told that admins aren't perfect. And it's no big deal because when they make mistakes they can be reversed. That's all overturn means. That the admin made a mistake that is being corrected. There's no punishment. There's not even some sort of demerit attached.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Broadway (Band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The close of this afd is problematic. The close does not in any way reflect the discussion. The closer uses a reason not mentioned by any of the participants in the discussion. Closer is incorrect in stating that passes WP:NMUSIC as the two artists mentioned are not members of Bradway as would be required to pass. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A closing statement which starts "I'm going out on a limb with this one -- & against not only consensus, but Beeblebrox's...", will always be problematic. It's pretty much a statement the closing admin should have joined the discussion rather than closing it and has given too much weight to their own view point and research. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pretty blatant case of the closing admin casting a supervote. The consensus in the discussion, by the closing admin's own admission, was to delete the article. The close made arguments regarding the notability of the article which were not made in the discussion. The role of the closing admin is to interpret the consensus of the discussion and act on it; here, Llywrch plainly did the opposite of that.

    I haven't personally evaluated the notability of this band, but I imagine that Llywrch's new information would have led to the AfD being relisted, if only the information had been presented in the form of a vote. Therefore, in my opinion, we should strike the close and relist for further discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist Painfully obvious supervote. Yoenit (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clear-cut "overturn and relist". With a side of trout.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not find this to be a well-reasoned close. A close read of my comments will reveal I actually did not advocate deletion or retention, I merely reported on facts not previously made evident at the AFD and commented that it was in fact not substantially identical to the previously deleted version. The fact that the closing admin apparently read that as an argument for deletion and then decided to disregard it anyway throws the entire closing into question. The remainder of the close does read more like a vote than a neutral closing statement. If you have to qualify your close with "I hope" and state that you are going against consensus, you shouldn't do the close at all and instead participate in the discussion. overturn and relist. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The criticism of the closer's action as a "supervote" is well-taken; considering it as only an ordinary !vote would likely mean a lack of consensus, and further discussion on the points involved could be useful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I honestly don't see that I cast a "Supervote" -- if I understand that unfamiliar term correctly. I have no dog in this fight; my intent was just to close a discussion. Just to explain my thinking on this matter, I was at the point of closing this as a "delete", with those very words & supporting text typed into my edit field, when I had a nagging doubt that a "delete" was just too simple a conclusion: deleting the article might just be a regrettable mistake we all make. Hence my further research, which was an effort to find enough justification to silence that nagging doubt. Would it make everyone happier to "trout" me for erring on the side of a keep? Fine; I like rainbow, although cutthroat trout is also acceptable. But if I am to err, I would rather do it on behalf of keeping an article than deleting it, because the first kind of mistake is always simpler to fix than the second. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not that you wanted to look into it further, that's absolutely fine. The problem is you then used that to determine the decision. Once you'd looked into and found detail not presented in the debate why didn't you just add your voice to the debate, instead you added your voice whilst simultaneously preventing any further response or analysis on the matter. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closer WP:Supervoted. Ask closer to immediately revert his close, and convert his opinion to a standard !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either that, or close as non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, per all above. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The closer did exactly the right thing by having nagging doubts and researching. But once they found something of interest they should have !voted, not closed. Hobit (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article does not correspond to the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines therefore it should be deleted. The AfD didn't last long enough. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to relist at AfD if you want. I am ambivalent about TPH's AfD closure. On the one hand, he is right that if one is going to "vote" speedy keep it's better to explain on the talk page why an AfD is not appropriate rather than creating it, even as a favor for another user. On the other, 45 minutes and two comments isn't really enough time to fully evaluate the arguments and close based on WP:SNOW. I have long held that 24 hours should be the bare minimum length for good faith AfD's. In this case though, I can't say that relisting is either strictly necessary or a good idea. The amount of coverage this has generated is quite large, even from non-local sources such as the BBC. There is no chance that the article will be deleted, and even a re-name seems unlikely. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I don't agree with the AFD's closer that the original AFD was a process-nom only - Camilo Sanchez was genuienly trying to nominate the article for AFD, and NH merely completed the nom for him, and there was support on other pages for the deletion. (That support has since disappeared.) While I agree the AFD was closed too early, I can't see the result changing at this time, as no other user has supported deletion on the article's talk page since the AFD's closure. Relisting this one would be process for process's sake, at this point. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist/start new AfD. It appears that Camilo Sanchez attempted to nominate the article but was unable to complete the process. It was done for him by another user who then !voted to speedy keep (which, IMO, was not a valid recommendation). Easiest thing to do is just start a 2nd AfD to replace the problematic first one—then it starts with a clean slate. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Susanne Kessler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Susanne_Kessler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm an art historian from Berlin and just starting to write articles for wikipedia. I created the page of Susanne Kessler and I'm wondering why the articles should miss the guidelines. The artist is well-known and made an important impact to the society and is well recognized. I appreciated if you could check the page and ! THX! --Leda47 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is appropriate for us to have an article about this person in the mainspace. (Evidence). However, the draft needs referencing with inline citations.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but… The deletion/incubation of the article was in order. I agree with S Marshall that the article is lacking in citations; I also think it needs rewriting to improve the tone. If those concerns are met, the article might then be improved enough to warrant a move back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your Feedback! Please let me know what kind of inline citations would be needed. --Leda47 (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
365Chess.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I think the article 365Chess.com deserves a place here at wikipedia for may reasons. One of most important reason is that the site is already relevant for many wikipedia contributors because there are more than 300 references only in english as you can see here and, according to google, it has more than 1800 references all over wikipedia in many languages like english, spanish, portuguese, russian or japanese as you can see here. I think that is a demostration that the site adds value to many articles here. I created a new version here: User:Masugly/sandbox including references to external sources like: 2, 3 and 10. I took as a reference articles like chess.com or here chessgames.com. I know this article was deleted in the past, more precisely on 2008. But the site is much more relevant now. Besides of the many references the site has here on wikipedia, many prestigious sites listed it too. For example: chesscafe.com or Lars Balzer chess links and you can also find recommendations and links to 365Chess.com from famous chess players like WGM and member of the Russian Olympic chess team Natalia Pogonina (there's a banner at the homepage at the left) or chess clubs like Kenilworth Chess Club or recognized chess references link to it like Dan Heisman. I already discussed this issue with Roger Haworth. Thank you all for your time. Masugly (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; leave sandbox version in userspace. One of the ways to assess the signficance or importance of a subject is to see what independent reliable sources have written about it. None were cited in the version that was deleted under CSD A7; none are cited in the sandbox version. —C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are references to external sources in the sandbox version. You can see references 2, 3 and 10. --Masugly (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are generally not reliable sources as required for notability. NW (Talk) 04:04, 4 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Life Project 4 Youth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page neutral about a NGO No advertisement or promotion File:Example.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanmarcdelaporte (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and salting. The most recent speedy deletion was for criterion A7, no assertion of significance or importance of the subject. That criterion was correctly applied. I would also agree that the tone was promotional and criterion G11 would still apply. Also, Jeanmarcdelaporte (talk · contribs) appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject; while he may attempt to draft an article about LP4Y in his user space, it's probably a task better left to a neutral editor working from reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete, salt and block of original author. Blatant self-promotion despite repeated warnings. Deletion easily warranted, and block the author to stop this in its tracks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jean, you might want to review our general notability guideline before continuing to pursue this. We generally only presume that a subject is worthy of inclusion if others are writing about it. From a perusal of Google News and Scholar, the string "Life Project 4 Youth" returns zero hits. This suggests that the charity should not be included here. Unless you can provide reliable, third-party sources written about the Life Project 4 Youth, I doubt it will be able to have an article. Endorse recent A7, though I'm fairly sure earlier spam concerns could have been taken care of by heavy copyediting. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete and salt I can't find any way that this conforms to the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dolf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Since the article was deleted, Dolf has since become notible. Dr. Patrick Chaplin was the first person ever to earn a PHD in darts and is the world leader in dart history. It was awarded by Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge – the title of his dissertation being: ‘DARTS IN ENGLAND 1900-1939 – A SOCIAL HISTORY’. He noted Dolf in his newsletter http://www.patrickchaplin.com/News%20Letters/Issue%2013%20April%202011/Dr.%20Darts%20Newsletter%20-%20Issue%2013%20DKONLINE.pdf on page 13. The references for Cricket (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Cricket_(darts)) and Dartball (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Dartball) appear don't appear to be as strong as this reference yet are considered notable. Cross referencing the notability guide lines, this reference to Dolf is meets the following:

The source is Reliable Source is a Secondary Source The source is independent of the subject It was mentioned by a reputable media/expert source

Please indicate the specific reasons to why you consider Dolf as not notable. Jasonbook99 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting admin's comment. The article was substantially the same as the version deleted by the AfD discussion. The only addition was the link to Chaplin's newsletter. Ignoring the issue of whether the newsletter is a reliable source, the coverage is not significant: it's a scant paragraph about Dolf that's really just a pointer to the website. I don't see enough change to permit a new article or even to relist. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Notability, the content of the article does not directly affect the notibility. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Notability. It would appear that what is important is the reliability of Chaplin's newsletter as a source. Also, please indicate how the references for Cricket and Dartball suffice but the one for Dolf doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbook99 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your first sentence relates to, I'm guessing you as reading the "the article was substantially..." as a notability argument. It isn't. It's reference to the speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G4 which covers "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." which is where C.Fred sees your recreation. The standard of general notability is for non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. C.Fred concentrates on the non-trivial part of that, the coverage in that newsletter is trivial it tells us pretty much nothing about the game, merely notes it's existance. In your words "It was mentioned", the guidline talks about addressing direcly in detail which is significantly more than mentioned. Even if it were more detailed the other aspects such as requiring multiple sources haven't been fulfilled... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the line being quoted is wrong it is actually Notability does not directly affect the content of articles. That simply means that each piece of content does not need to be notiable in its own right to be included in an article about a notiable subject.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the other is also correct, notability is determined by factors outside of wikipedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse essentially per C.Fred - the article was identical to the previously deleted version apart from the addition of the newsletter and the content of the newsletter doesn't constitute significant coverage. Hut 8.5 16:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shaytards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This channel has became one of the most notable on YouTube. It has over 800,000 subscribers and over 300 million combined video views. The last time it was deleted was over a year ago when the channel was less popular. An example stub for this article can be found in my sandbox. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as per last time this came to DRV, i.e. forget WP:BIGNUMBER - where are the multiple reliable, independant, non-trivial sources for this? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation [46] is a mighty fine source (3 pages in a book), [47] is reliable (though minor) and [48] is merely in passing. So one very good source, some poor ones, and more than a million Ghits and a pretty high YouTube ranking (I mean you'd have a charting record with that many folks buying your album). It's very borderline but I think we're there. Hobit (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The second one there is not reliable. It's user submitted content. See the link to "Submit a story", see also the link to "flag story for moderation" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is not a mighty fine source, unless we've changed our requirements to be (a) primary sources - it's largely interview material and (b) not address the subject directly and in details - it isn't about Shaytards and doesn't address Shaytards directly or in detail. The only part about the , Shaytards is "when he launched his quickly popular ShayCarl and Shaytards youtube channels, where they have more than 1 billion subscribers" - it's trivial, not to mention the quality of fact checking with the claim of 1 billion subscribers, 1/6 of the worlds population - I think not. The third as you say is similarly a passing mention. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the tone of the book and the fact that the correct number is found 2 pages later, I'm assuming the billion number is for humor value (as seems common in the book). An interview format is generally a fine source and certainly gives us relevant things to write about. It _is_ about Shaytards as the show is pretty much all he talks about. Perhaps this could become a BLP about Shay Carl? [49] is a RS (yahoo finance), [50] is an official Forbes blog I think. All minor (other than the book) but it's pretty plain that this guy and his work are very well known. (for the record I've never seen an episode nor more than heard about it in passing until this DrV) Hobit (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the tone is such that it's difficult to distinguish between fact and humour then it really is a lousy source. Interviews are primary sources by nature. I guess we'll have to agree to differ as to if the writing is addressing Shaytards directly and in detail or not. The other two you've now listed are both trivial coverage. It maybe pretty clear to you etc. but the whole point in the guidelines such a WP:GNG is to remove that subjective side of wikipedians deciding what is "pretty clear" or not. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a time when the guideline is probably wrong. We have enough stuff to write about (the interview is fine IMO, primary sources can also be used) and it's pretty clear to me that when you have 200,000 people watching on a regular basis what you are doing you are probably worth our covering. Please keep in mind the GNG is a guideline. So yes, I'm pretty much in IAR territory, but I think the GNG should be applied with deliberate care. It looks like others don't agree (which is fine) and I realize an IAR exception here would need a pretty strong majority. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have sympathy for some of your view. There will always be execptions which don't quite fit though there is a general agreement that it should be included none the less without any desire to change the basic guideline. In this case however I can't reach the same conclusion as you, a handful of passing mentions and inclusion of interview material in a book doesn't indicate much importance to me, sure more than some but given the number of videos out there that's not necessarily a high bar. The metrics of it are quite difficult to interpret - 800,000 subscribers yet the view per "episode" is much less than that, and no way of telling how many multiple views occur etc. US population it's a small fraction who view, potential worldwide audience even more so. Of course that's why we don't let wikipedia editors work out what the good numbers are. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unless reliable sources are presented this should not be recreated. The sources presented by Hobit are not reliable as 82.7.40.7 so clearly points out. (1 billion subscribers? is it still april first?) Yoenit (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree that sources are hard to come by. That's the whole reason I didn't write some huge article on them. But the fact remains that people they work with on a regular basis such as LisaNova have Wikipedia articles and they aren't even as popular. I don't quite understand why there's not the news coverage there to match their popularity. However, even if we don't recreate this article right now, I think that it's totally against the spirit of Wikipedia to have its creation blocked. I would contact the last admin to delete it, but alas, he is retired. Illinois2011 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Emilia Carr (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The initial keep !votes were based on a belief that there was a guideline that women on death row are notable. Upon investigation this turned out not to be the case, and the relevant guideline WP:EVENT, is clear that local coverage of a local event that is not covered elsewhere, does not make it notable enough for Wikipedia. Once this was pointed out, the !votes turned to delete. At the close there were 19 delete !votes to 13 keep. It is speculation to say how it would have turned out if kept open, but the momentum had clearly swung to delete. The AfD was closed as "no consensus" based on the view that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE was mentioned - though a reading of that section of WP:EVENT supports deletion, as there has been no significant outside coverage at all, let alone "continued" - this is an ongoing local event, covered by the local media only. There have been no case studies as suggested by WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There appear to have been two reasonable options open on March 12: close as delete according to guidelines, or - if unsure - relist to gain firmer consensus. Closing as keep via a call of "no consensus" when discussion was ongoing and active, and momentum was toward deletion seems unsound. I feel there is enough support both from appropriate guidelines and comments and !votes in the AfD to overturn this to delete, though relisting is also a viable option. SilkTork *YES! 22:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has taken place with the closer. SilkTork *YES! 22:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had already been relisted once. If the momentum swings back and forth, what can be expected but a non-nconsensus close?. Or do you think the closer should try to time the close like people time the stock market? or continue the debate until it came out the way you wanted? Consensus may be clearer in a few months. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The !vote was split, the arguments leaned toward delete (especially at the end). But A) I think NC is an accurate reading of the debate and B) I personally don't think the sources are so local as to clearly need to be discarded (including an AP article). Hobit (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "delete" votes were certainly spirited and well-argued, but to me, the question is whether it's right to use WP:EVENT to protect convicted murderers from coverage on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, in practice this seems to depend on the notability of the victim. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox was closed as "redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher". But I don't think anyone would nominate Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark David Chapman for deletion. If this view is correct, it argues for a redirect to an article about the killing. I certainly don't think the gender of the murderer is relevant, and I'd personally have given !votes based on the gender a great deal less weight, which also argues for a redirect to an article about the killing.

    But at the end of the day, whether or not Emilia Carr should be a redirect to an article about the killing, it certainly shouldn't be a redlink. This nomination never had a prayer of resulting in a "delete" outcome. Endorse accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per your own comments: "At the close there were 19 delete !votes to 13 keep. Closing as keep via a call of 'no consensus' when discussion was ongoing and active, and momentum was toward deletion seems unsound. I feel there is enough support both from appropriate guidelines and comments and !votes in the AfD to overturn this to delete, though relisting is also a viable option." A 19-13 vote, no matter which side the 19 is on, is a clear and definitive "no consensus". There is not enough support to turn to a "delete" scenario. Even without looking at the article itself, just based on the AfD and your comments from it, I endorse the outcome. CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain status quo. I'm not crazy about several things about this AfD, and in general I think there are very few circumstances in which a bio of someone known only for committing a crime will rise to the level suggested by the relevant guidelines. However, the move to the current title was clearly the correct call, there does seem to be sufficient coverage to justify that article and maintain it appropriately, and the redirect as such has never been considered and would probably be kept if it were. Thus, I see no reason to overturn this. Chick Bowen 04:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as a reasonable interpretation of the discussion that took place. Sine this has now been moved to an event article, there's no need for any further action on that front either, so the current situation appears to be fine. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While there was a reasonable basis to discount some of the opinions voiced for "keep", there is nothing compelling the closing editor to do so. It is clear that without discounting "keep" opinions, there was, in fact, no consensus. Bongomatic 06:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and support current page move to Murder of Heather Strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed, not original discussion anymore - The article has been renamed to Murder of Heather Strong and also rewritten to change perspective. And the focus has changed its not the same article anymore, Not the one people discussed on AFD and not the same before April 3 that people has endorsed. So lets end this discussion. Also per Chick Bowens reasoning, per Alzarian16 reasonings and per Bongomatics reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 April 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Don't delete this page (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone deleted it! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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