Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31: Difference between revisions

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

31 July 2006

Gazeebow Unit

There were two AFD discussions regarding this page (here and here), but I believe those who voted for deletion misinterpreted the group itself. While most who voted for were basing their decision on WP:MUSIC, Gazeebow Unit were really more of a cultural phenomenen than a legitimate musical group. It's hard to explain unless you actually live in Newfoundland & Labrador the impact this group has had on our culture. Therefore, attempting to review the article in terms of WP:MUSIC is really pointless.

Even so, there have been many articles written on the group in Canadian Newspapers, especially here in Newfoundland...I will try to track them down, but here is one from Memorial University of Newfoundland's student newspaper, which describes a recent lecture on the group by a folklore professor. They have been featured on CBC Radio One's ]] Definitely Not the Opera, and recently (last night, in fact) performed along side Canadian musician Matt Mays.

I'm wondering if the deletion could be reviewed not in terms of WP:MUSIC, but merely as a cultural phenomenen in one small area of the world. They really are a comedy act more than anything, caricaturing the Skeet sub-culture and, to most people who have heard them, epitomize the uniqueness of Newfoundland English. --Crabbyass 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion AfDed a couple of times, and I'd hate to set a precedent whereby band articles deleted under WP:MUSIC can come back as "local cultural phenomena". WP:MUSIC is a very good (and if anything, quite lenient/inclusionist) and has served us well. Besides, verifiability was the big issue, and would remain the big issue whether they claim to be a band, a "local cultural phenonomena", or a hairstyling cream. Keep deleted, let us know when it passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: If they pass our standards, they're in. Until then, they're out. Local phenomena are local, and they're not included. For example, a recent AfD was over a big explosion on a highway. It made all the local papers and TV news. It did not make Wikipedia, because it was just a local happening. Geogre 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I have a friend in St. John's, and I asked her about them and she had never heard of them. So they're not particularly culturally relevant. The AfD was proper. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Avenged Sevenfold Band Member Pages

The articles in question are The Rev, Zacky Vengeance, and Synyster Gates. There'd been some problems with spam and junk on the pages a while back, and a few days ago, they were deletedREDIRECTED, with their contents put into the main band page, Avenged Sevenfold. I know some older versions of the page weren't up to par, but I spent a lot of time last night trying to put relevant information up, and citing the sources. But they were still deletedREDIRECTED again. There was a reason I only brought three of the five member's pages back, and that was because those were the only ones I felt were up to the standards of Wikipedia. There's been arguements that the band members aren't notable enough, which I believe is completely untrue. This band is one of the biggest new rock bands to hit the airwaves in a very long time. They have a large fan base, and people deserve to know a little bit more about them. I can easily name many other Wikipedia entries of other bands' members that are much shorter, yet nothing has been done to delete those. Some of them include Steve Jocz of Sum 41, Spencer Chamberlain and Aaron Gillespie of Underoath, and Dan Jacobs, Travis Miguel, and Marc McKnight of Atreyu. If these band members have pages of their own with no problems, many of them not cited in anyway, why can't the pages that I brough back, with relevant information and citations, be left alone, as well? -- BoaDrummer 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• The pages, AFAICT, were not deleted, they were just made redirects -- the history is still available. I wasn't involved in the redirection, and my only involvement is that I've vigorously patrolled the M Shadows page to remove the crap random people (mostly IPs) kept adding (I've never heard anything by the band, I just came across it one day with Special:RandomPage cleaned it, and had an intuition ppl would be back to mess it up again). I believe that a good guideline would be to ask if the band members have any significant notability outside the band. My guess is no. --Improv 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points I'd like to make:

1. The criteria (in my opinion) isn't on other bands, it's on these people, and if they themselves are notable.
2. The only reason these people are notable is the band. If you can find any reason they might be notable that doesn't involve the band, then fair enough, keep it in, but until then, I'm not at all keen on this band (who to be honest aren't any more popular than any other band out at the moment) having articles for seperate members. I myself rigorously patrol all the pages to do with this band, and have seen them live on many an occasion, but the band members themselves simply don't meet WP:BIO! HawkerTyphoon 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you're going to start redirecting pages, you might as well get on those other band members pages. --BoaDrummer 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Another point I'd like to make, is the fact that you're stating that these people wouldn't be notable if weren't in bands. How about other famous musicians, like, say, Ozzy Osbourne? Or Dimebag Darrell? Should their pages be deleted or redirected to some other page because the chances are, they probably wouldn't be notable if they weren't in bands? Just food for thought... -- BoaDrummer 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete (meaning un-redirect) and give Boadrummer a chance to shape them up into real articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Trinidadian English terms

(removed due to duplication - please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 30)

The Kilns

The article for band The Kilns was deleted, I'm not sure why, but I think it had something to do with the fact that it was all a load of promotional rubbish. Hilarious though.

Anyway, I tried to recreated a shorter, truthful article that was completely NPOV and everything. But it got deleted! What's the deal?--Caleby 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked User:Tyrenius, who deleted it the second time as a recreation of deleted content (WP:CSD G4) to check to make sure it really was substantially similar. If not, I hope he'll undelete it so we can all check out your revised version. Powers 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The repost of Caleby was much shorter, and seems to me a clear A7 in any case. Xoloz 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Caleby, you're right in everything you say and it's a neat piece of writing. The trouble is that things can get deleted if they don't meet MUSIC, which means something like having 2 albums on a recognised label. That's nothing to do with you: that applies to everyone. Check it out and see. Maybe there's something more you could add. It would be better as a speedy delete under A7, which means notability isn't asserted, but that doesn't sound very nice. The text was, in case you want to userfy it (put it on your user page):

The Kilns are a rock 'n' roll band from Christchurch, New Zealand. Borrowing from indie, blues, pop, folk, electronica, punk and other styles, they are often described as literate, enigmatic and bitter.

==External links==

• MySpace page

Tyrenius 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: To the author/nominator: the reason the article got deleted is that there were no internal claims for notability of the group. Imagine if every single rock group, regardless of whether they have performed or not got an article. There isn't enough copper in the world for a hard disk that large. So, since we're not going to be in the business of approving or disapproving of "good" bands, we rely on our internal standards. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information: we only report the reports of others. Therefore, there have to be disinterested 3rd party discussions of the band for us to draw upon, and then we will require that the band be "notable." That generally means a record contract with distribution and demonstrable sales. All of these things have to be verifiable and mentioned in the article. None of these bars were passed in this case. Geogre 00:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mergedisputed

I sought only to redirect (not delete) this template. The debate was closed by a non-admin (despite the fact that six people voted to redirect or delete, rendering the outcome far from "unambiguous"). As the nominator, I'm hopelessly biased, but I believe that the rationales provided by the "keep" voters were extremely flawed, as they were based upon false impressions and assumptions. In fact, these comments actually served to demonstrate the confusion that this template causes, which is why I nominated it in the first place!

One respondent noted that the standard merger tags "indicate to uninvolved readers that an article may be defective" (which couldn't be further from the truth).

Another (who voted twice, including an unsigned comment) was under the impression that a merger is "nomiat[ed]" and should have an "expiration date," and believed that "when one idiot is going against a consensus [by inserting this template], it can be removed by the majority who will have no trouble getting bodies to avoid 3RR." (This makes absolutely no sense, as the tag merely indicates that one person disputes a merger.)

Another stated that "the template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute, which clearly delineates the set of articles from a category of unreviewed." (In fact, no such process exists. The tag is inserted by a single concerned party who disputes a merger.)

Another claimed that there is "no way to get rid of" disputed merger proposals without using this tag (as though consensus alone is insufficient). Similarly, a different person stated that this template is the only solution to a situation in which "someone slaps a merge tag on an article against consensus" and that it "will prevent a possible merge while the dispute is active." (In actuality, a merger tag that defies consensus should simply be removed, and this tag—which might mean that one person out of ten disputes a merger—does not prevent a merger from occurring. That's what discussion is for.)

All of these are examples of precisely the sort of misconceptions that make this template harmful, and they've been counted as "keep" votes. Among the other "keep" voters, one commented only that "it's informative of the discussion." Similarly, another claimed that "it tells readers there's no clear opinion towards the merge proposal." (These statements simply aren't true, as the tag reflects only one participant's opinion). Another provided no justification at all.

It's clear that there was not consensus to keep this template, especially when one considers the fact that virtually all such votes were based upon the types of misunderstanding that justify its removal. In any case, this certainly wasn't an appropriate debate for a non-admin to close. Overturn and redirect the template to {{merge}}. —David Levy 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Relist for broader consensus. Even if we accept all of the keep votes, there were 9 keeps and 6 for deleting or redirecting. That's hardly a clear consensus, and I agree it should not have been closed as "keep" by a non-admin. (I would perhaps have accepted a "no consensus", which would have allowed a relisting sooner than the "keep" will.) Powers 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... when I counted it there were only 3 delete votes... User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe you missed David Levy's vote (in the nomination), Aaron Brenneman's clear support for a redriect (although he failed to bold it, possibly because this was a Templates for deletion discussion instead of Templates for redirection), and Lar's delete vote, which is way over on the righthand margin when I look at the page. The other delete or redirect votes are mine, Thesocialitesq's, and SCEhard's. That's six. Powers 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Properly closed after 12 days on TFD - [1]. Well argued on both sides, but a clear numerical 9-6 consensus for keeping the template in a debate with broad and lengthy participation. As in the debate, the nominator refuses to accept any arguments on the keep side. For him, they were all based on "misunderstanding" and should all be discounted. It explains why he left roughly 12 very long comments in the debate addressed to every participant who disagreed with his reasoning. However, these comments did not change the clear consenus that existed in the debate and this is not the place to reargue the merits of the template. --JJay 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but you obviously aren't familiar with our deletion process. On Wikipedia, there's no such thing as a "numerical consensus." These discussions are not majority votes, so the numerical count is only one factor. Regardless, even if all of the "support" votes should be deemed valid, 9–6 is not a consensus; the closer has already acknowledged a bad miscount, and non-admins are only supposed to close debates with "unambiguous" (meaning unanimous or nearly so) "keep" outcomes.

Yes, I do believe that most of the support votes (including yours) were based upon obvious misunderstandings (aside from the one that included no rationale). If you read my nomination, you'll see that I cited one of these patently false impressions (the widespread belief that the tag indicates an official status that sets an article apart from the others with proposed mergers) in my original nomination. The fact that numerous people stepped forward to defend the tag because of the inherent confusion that it causes is a reason to remove it, not to keep it.

And yes, I posted many replies. How is that a bad thing? This was a discussion, not a vote. Most of the participants never even responded to my comments. —David Levy 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, should have been closed as no consensus. But the discussion had 12 days to play out - and your many, many long comments to all the keep participants were not particularly convincing. You will note that I and others responded to your comments. But your attitude that everyone with a different opinion is "wrong" and "confused", their comments based upon "obvious misunderstandings" - is not conducive to discussion. --JJay 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that your sudden shift from "properly closed" with a "clear consensus" to "no consensus" (which means that you should update your above vote) was based upon the realization that you misunderstood our deletion process. I made you aware of this fact via my reply, just as I attempted to provide helpful information to the similarly mistaken participants in the previous discussion. You stated that "[you] and others responded to [my] comments," but Instantnood (who initially cited no rationale) was the only other person to respond.

You believe that my comments "were not particularly convincing," so I'll ask you to kindly explain how Ste4k was anything other than confused in stating that "the template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute, which clearly delineates the set of articles from a category of unreviewed." —David Levy 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Shapiro (discussion blanked by speedying admin!)

Extra material from this page, including relevant sections of WP:BLP and extra sources for the article have been moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 31/Shapiro

Let AfD run course. This article was speedily deleted as an attack, despite every word being sourced and referenced. I quote from WP:CSD: "This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to." It could be argued that perhaps the article was negative in tone, it was not gratuitously so; any negativity resulted solely from the verifiable facts included. It was no more negative in tone than any Wikipedia article on any infamous person, say Pol Pot or John Wayne Gacy, or even Uri Geller. More importantly, the article was most definitely NOT unsourced. As such, it meets no speedy deletion criterion. Several people, including myself and User:WAS 4.250 (see his working version here: User:WAS_4.250/1), were working on making sure the article was sourced, relevant, and NPOV. Instead of giving us chance to do this while the AfD ran its course, User:Tony Sidaway decided to delete it -- this despite the fact that the grounds for a speedy was contested several times already. If the consensus is that this article shouldn't exist for whatever reason, that's fine -- but let's try to get a decent article first, and then judge it, rather than speedily deleting an evolving article that does not have to be just an attack page. Powers 00:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me add, also, that despite the objections of two particular users, the references used in the article all appear to be reliable. The alleged bias of Overlawyered.com, in particular, is irrelevant as long as the information presented is not biased (and it isn't; it's "just the facts" without commentary). Local newspapers are also reliable sources, so I'm not sure what the complaint is in regards to them. Powers 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, effectively an attack page -- it was created to disparage and since there's no plausible reason to keep it around, keeping it would only endorse that motive. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that to class this individual with Pol Pot is utterly absurd. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    I missed this one. Wow. Yes, this attorney is hardly even infamous in his own community, let alone nationally or internationally. A local newspaper reported about the sanction of the attorney for false advertising. That is hardly the equivalent of Pol Pot or John Wayne Gacy. To compare them says volumes about the author, but not about the subject of the attack.jawesq 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    So what exactly is your objection? First, you seem to make allegations about tone of the article. Admittedly, the article was crap before, but that can be addressed. Then when someone tries to address the tone, and claims that the tone can be addressed just like an article on Pol Pot, you switch your arguments to notability. While noone is going to claim any parallels with Pol Pot with regard to notability, if your objection is that the article is nothing more than an attack article, it is a valid comparison. --Bletch 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    This lawyer is known only in his local community - you could not find any national, let alone international, articles about him, so he is hardly famous or infamous. To compare him to Pol Pot and John Wayne Gacy is beyond absurd. It's crazy. And Wikipedia guidelines say that in such a situation, to immediately delete poorly sourced (or unsourced, as this article was when it was AfD) statements that are 'negative in tone'. This clearly meets that. Speedy Delete criteria says the same, and to speedy delete if there is no way to make this NPOV. And there is indeed NO way to make this NPOV, since the sole purpose of it was to attack the lawyer.jawesq 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    While the notability is certainly debatable, the prospect that there is no way to make an article NPOV is fundamentally absurd. There are certainly ways to make any article comply with WP:NPOV, whether you are talking about Jim Shapiro, George W. Bush or Goatse.cx. --Bletch 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Well, that is one of the guidelines for speedy deletion. And in fact, there is no way to make this NPOV because the entire purpose of the article is to broadcast to the world how a local Rochester attorney is sleazy. jawesq 02:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    • For the record, I was NOT "comparing" Shapiro to Pol Pot. I'm using Pol Pot, the article, as an example of one filled with verifiable facts that paint the subject in a negative light, yet does not violate our NPOV guidelines, and saying that there is no reason Jim Shapiro, the article, can't do the same. Powers 13:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, attack page. Blanking was also correct per WP:BLP by extension, althoguh I have suggested we clarify this in WP:BLP. Sorry for putting this out of order, but I don't want to get mixed up with the lengthy text below. Just zis Guy you know? 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, for the same reason -- it's an attack page. There is no reliable source that can be referenced here. "Overlawyered", although a political page, may sometimes be refereneced for an opinion, but not as the sole 'reliable' resource. The other sources were a local paper and a local court sanction of the attorney. This attorney is not known outside his local community. To disparage him like this on Wikipedia is to make him known, in a purely disparaging way, to the whole world. It is not encyclopedic. Rather, it is tanatamount to a gossip rag. jawesq 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This was from WIkiquote administrator, where a similar attack was waged on this lawyer, linking to the WIkipedia article:

• Delete. Jim Shapiro must not use the Internet to get business, as this ill-sourced attack page has been around for nearly two years. Our article was created only 1 day after the WP article was created, and the second WP edit was made 3 minutes later to add the WQ box link, strongly suggesting that both article creators are the same person. The sole external link provided in the WQ article appears to be a squirrely personal website with no provenance. (I've listed some details about it in the AfD for the WP article.) All in all, this looks like a set of bad-faith editing by someone with an axe to grind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  Speedy delete, per discussion below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [copied here from WIkiquote by jawesq 01:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)]

  I also want to point out that the article that was set for speedy deletion had no citations, so how the author can claim every word was cited is beyond me. IT simply is not true. He only added citations after it was called an attack piece. And none of those references are reliable, therefore it meets the speedy deletion guideline. One cannot make an attorney known only in his local community notable. Moreover, one cannot under WIki guidelines write an article about a non-notable individual that is purely disparaging. A number of people weighed in on this, explaining why it merits speedy deletion. The article was purely a hit piece.jawesq 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, it should have been speedied anyway --mboverload@ 01:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted First off the speedy deleltion was correct on its face. The purpose of the article as written was an attack on Shaprio, consciously or otherwise. It's entire purpose was to show Shaprio in all his sleazy glory. The article made no claims of his being notable. The original external links did not even work and the original article was citation free. 2ndly, not every article is worth saving. The hallmark of a good writer or editor is the ability to recognize this fact. Even a well written article (which stylistically the last version was not) and well researched article cannot make an non-notable lawyer notable. Adding links is not going to change that salient little fact. And face it, Shapiro is not notable. Name me one major case he has won. Just one. Name me one major scholarly article he has published. Just one. You cannot for he has not done either. Your claim that he is notable due to his commericals. This is laughable on its face. You will find, if you care to look, that similar late night PI commercials have run in every major market at one time or another. Can you prove that Shaprio was the first to run such commericals (that might make him notable)? I know Shaprio isn't the first lawyer to be on the wrong end of a legal malpractice case, so that is hardly notable. Someone valiantly tried to source the article. Can anyone prove the links reliable? Can anyone prove the archived videos were not tampered with in anyway to make them more egregious? Overlawyered.com has been known to leave out important details in its reporting (e.g. its touting of the TTP study without disclosing TTP was an interested party who refused to reveal its sources and methods so that its study could be independently verified). Can you prove it's "just the facts" given Overlawyer.com's history of omission of pertinent facts? I don't think so and Overlawyer.com, in my opinion, forfeited its right to trustworthiness with its academic slight of hand. Six people have weighed in saying that speedy deletion was in order. That's 6-3. If its by majority rule consensus, then the issue is settled. I am sorry to break it to the original author and others, but we are not dealing with a lost masterpiece by William Faulkner here. The article as originally written was an attack without citation or sources. It isn't worth reviving and no amount of editing and adding citations and sources is going to make poor ole Jim notable. Its nothing personal. That's the plain and simple facts Gfwesq 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Gfwesq, I have a healthy respect for the amount of time you and your spouse have available to write about this issue, but some of the statements you've made really aren't correct. First of all, the speedy deletion criterion refers only to unreferenced articles, which this one no longer was. Second of all, newspapers are reliable sources, local or otherwise. They may not be reliable for scientific or legal analysis, but the references being sourced here were not being used for either of those, merely to verify the facts of the legal case. Third, proving that a video has not been altered or modified is well beyond the scope of WP:RS. Fourth, overlawyered.com can be replaced if there are valid objections to it, but no one gave anyone a chance to do so. Fifth, you demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of the AfD process; it is most certainly NOT a vote and not subject to majority rule; that the "vote" was 6-3 is irrelevant and does NOT represent a consensus, especially since it had been up for less than 24 hours. I am sure you and your spouse are fantastic lawyers, but I would suggest that you spend some more time around Wikipedia to learn our processes before you start talking about 6-3 majority consensuses and similar things. Powers 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I still believe this was a re-creation of material that had previously been voted for deletion before; there's no other way I would have been aware of Mr. Shapiro's advertising. But I haven't been able to locate the previous deletion debate or the previous article. I'd be very interested if anyone finds it. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. OK, I'm completely baffled. The "view and restore deleted pages" history currently goes back to "21:02, 25 September 2004 . . Bletch (Talk | contribs | block) (Creating article)". I could have sworn that yesterday the history was much shorter and showed the article as having been created recently. I can't find anything in the page history that indicates that the article was ever deleted. I hope someone wiser in the ways of Mediawiki can figure out or not I was simply mistaken in believing there was a previous deletion debate and deletion of this article. If the article has actually existed since September 2004 then it seems bizarre to me that there would be any urgency about not letting it exist for five more days. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • FYI, I had never heard of this person before I saw him at q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion#Jim Shapiro. When I checked the Wikipedia article's history shortly before 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC), its history went back to September 2004 (although, for some reason, my observations suggest it was 26 Sep, not 25 Sep). Wikiquote is a much smaller community, so much so that I've had a hand in nearly every VfD there since April 2005, so I'm certain Shapiro's article wasn't up for deletion there anytime in that period, and I would have checked WP before commenting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted even though I think Tony Sidaway's action was high-handed, premature, and inappropriate. Although I believe the article was created as an attack page, I believe that when Tony Sidaway deleted it, it had been acceptably edited into a good short article—about a person of no great importance—and there was no good reason not to let the AfD run its course. I further believe that despite the negative tone of the article, well, it was reasonably well-sourced and factual; I won't say Shapiro deserved it, but this was no Seigenthaler affair. I voted "delete" for two reasons: first, I believe but have been unable to find evidence that it was a re-creation of previously deleted material, second, I believe Shapiro was only locally notable, and only for his ads, and they didn't need a whole article; I believe it is exactly parallel to Ernie Boch, in which the article was deleted— Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boch but Boch was properly noted briefly in the article about his home town. But the bottom line is, I voted to delete, and it appears to me that there was a consensus to delete, and the AfD had been running for long enough to make some kind of judgement about it. If I were to vote to relist this, it would be just to express my disapproval of Tony Sidaway's action... and I think that would be perverse and verging on WP:POINT. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 16 hours is rather short for an AfD, don't you think? And technically, this entire deletion review is to judge whether the Tony Sidaway's action (specifically, the speedy deletion) was appropriate. It's not a comment on Sidaway himself, true, but if you disapprove of the deletion, you shouldn't hesitate to say so. Powers 11:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I disapprove of Tony Sidaway's action but do not think overturning it would serve any purpose relevant to building an encyclopedia. I have clearly expressed my opinion of the action above. My position is that the article should indeed have been deleted, but not for the specified reason and not in the manner in which it was deleted. Fait accompli, water over the dam, facts on the ground, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, etc. I don't like it, but I don't think overturning and relisting would re-mould Wikipedia any nearer to my heart's desire, so I prefer to put up with it.
    • I'd suggest that those who think Shapiro is an important bit of Rochester lore might try inserting about three sentences (with supporting links) into the Rochester, New York article, probably in the Culture and Recreation section, limiting them to the content of his advertising and not his conduct as an attorney. I suspect that would fly. (If Shapiro and his ads are not important enough to mention in that article, then they're certainly not important enough for a standalone article.) Something along the lines of "Attorney Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro's late-night television ads are locally proverbial. They include violent imagery of explosions and crashes, and Shapiro shouting 'I may be an S.O.B., but I'm your S.O.B.!' [2] and 'I cannot rip the hearts out of those who hurt you. I cannot hand you their severed heads. But I can hunt them down and settle the score.'" (I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable about the Rochester region to attempt this myself.) Dpbsmith (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That's fair enough. =) As for merging it into the Rochester article, it's tempting, but the darn thing is getting unwieldlily long, and there's no obvious place to put it (I see your suggestion of Culture and Recreation, but there's no similar content there with which to group it; adding this would make it look consipicuously like content merged from a deleted article  ;) ). Powers 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Understand that it's not exactly clear where to put it in the Rochester article. There's a subsection on "vernacular," so maybe a subsection on "local color" would fly. I have no idea whether this link will work: [3] If not, try the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle's search feature and type Jim Shapiro into the "Search for" field. I get three or four of relevant hits. I can only read the first few sentences without paying, but they seem to support Rochester-area notability/notoriety. One of them is about a bit of philanthropy: "A Rochester lawyer, famous locally for his outlandish television commercials, has once again demonstrated that appearances can be deceiving.. James Shapiro, better known as Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro on television advertisements in which he promises to squeeze cash out of drunks and insurance companies, has donated a 14-acre parcel..." Another says "four former clients of suspended lawyer Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro have sued him, claiming that he botched their personal injury cases" Another says "Tough-talking personal-injury lawyer Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro, known for his in-your-face TV commercials with images of falling bodies and promises to deliver top dollar to accident victims, recently got some legal comeuppance." Amusingly... and strongly suggesting he's locally proverbial... is his appearance as a fake answer in a news quiz: "Here's a quick quiz on last week's news: Local/state. 1. Whose office will soon be at the former Palmyra Town Hall? a) a local doctor b) Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro c) WZXV 99.7 FM d) the New York state historic marker program." I repeat that if he doesn't rate a mention in Rochester, New York, it's hard to believe he rates a whole article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Granted, however there are lots of people famous in Rochester who have articles but are not mentioned in the Rochester article. =) Powers 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now. My main concern about this article was the lack of reliable sources. The ones I'd took some trouble to check (including an apparent personal website page called "The Jim Shapiro Files" and a Harvard blog that mentioned a page called "Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended" from a New York lawyer career website) were either manifestly not reliable or had text buried behind for-fee registrations. I see that User:WAS 4.250 was developing a new version with more sources, but the current state of that recreation still seems to have two significant problems: no clear notability outside the subject's immediate locale, and no attempt to discuss the subject broadly, only a specific aspect (his over-the-top activities and subsequent sanctions against him). If I wanted to create a proper article on a subject that engenders this much controversy and has already been deleted, I would do the following:
  1. First, determine if he is in any way actually notable outside his immediate locations. If he can't muster any attention besides his local papers, local news program trivia quizzes, and legal documents, he probably isn't going to pass notability muster. (Any supporting evidence for a more general notability should be cited clearly and succinctly in the deletion-review request when it is made, but wait…)
  2. If this can be done, then a general article should be developed offline, one that includes basic biographic details, career information, and other stuff you'd expect in an encyclopedia article. While it's true a stub article doesn't need to be this well-developed, it's important to establish this data for an article that screams "delete-bait".
  3. Finally, I would thoroughly examine the sources with a skeptic's eye toward the notability of their subject and potential arguments about their accuracy. Only then would I call for a deletion review.

  I am not a lawyer, but even at Wikipedia, preparing one's case ahead of time before appealing makes logical sense. I suggest this process not because I necessarily want to see this article recreated, but as a possible means to avoid running afoul of Wikipedia's greatly increased attention on quickly deleting the kinds of attack pages that have gotten it undesirable attention in the global press of late. It's simply prudence in the light of controversy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as an attack page, but unsalt. Attack pages should be deleted, but not salted, rather monitored to keep attacks out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral comment, but significant new sources I'm not "voting" in this process, but I did find a number of new sources (there were actually far more than I had time to process), the content of which surprised me, as it suggested that Shapiro's shadow is cast further than we thought. He is mentioned in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, listed by Cornell University School of Law, and Motor magazine, while Brand Week talks about his "national media attention", which obviously puts him on a bigger platform altogether. There are more and varied sources for his various legal entanglements, as well as his former renowned TV presentations, some of whose slogans get repeated round the internet on university websites, blogs, poem spots and even MySpace.com, where some young people list him as a "favourite". He's written several books, and to give a rounded picture there are verifiable sources for his philanthropic side with charity work, including quite large donations, which should help to allay the fears of an "attack" piece. (Note to DRV closer — earlier "voters" may not be aware of this information.) P.S. a rather nice quote on one blog — "The mind reels that Wikipedia has an entry on Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro. Wikipedia knows all." Tyrenius 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better it should have said "Wikipedia cites all." To paraphrase Artemus Ward, it ain't so much the things WIkipedia doesn't know that get us into trouble, it's the things Wikipedia knows that just ain't so. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NO significant new sources - A single line about a one-second TV spot does not warrant an entire attack article. First, by your comment Tyrenius, you most certainly are voting. Second, none of the references you apparently dug up are in the revised 'article'. Third, these comments in the publications you mention are a single line. It was like using Findlaw as a reference with his name and address. Again, if you google him, you come up with at most a one-liner - hardly national or international infamy or notability. And the blog comment on Wikipedia's entry is further reason NOT to have an article on him. I was not aware that it was the province of Wikipedia to make someone infamous, despite your previous use of video clips to show how this lawyer is indeed unsavoury. There is no way this article can be made into anything other than an attack piece on a non-notable subject. For example, your reference in the Canadian Medical Journal states a generalized comment about American lawyers with websites: "Many American lawyers now have cyber practices and some certainly catch visitors' attention. The Shapiro and Shapiro site - www.shapiroshapiro.com - is home to Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro. This firm actively seeks medical malpractice cases with slogans such as "Sue the Bastards" and "I may be an S.O.B., but I am your S.O.B."" And the 'national attention' you mention was a line about a one-second television ad - that's it: "Hurt?" yelled personal-injury lawyer Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro in a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention. "Victim?" he asked in another micro-ad, as a fist crashed through glass." This hardly shows national infamy (let alone international fame or infamy).

Your attempt to drum up references for an non-notable figure must have taken some work. I googled him and found almost nothing - but the Wikipedia entry and what had lifted from WIkipedia. That is a problem. If WIkipedia continues to create attack articles like this, there will be more WIkipedia scandals like the one that caused the introduction of the Speedy Delete guideline for non-notable attack articles. Such an article is an abuse of Wikipedia jawesq 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think, if I may say so, that you have unfortunately missed the point. I'm glad I can put your mind at rest that, should anyone wish to do so, there is now enough other material to ensure it will not read as an "attack" article. I can also reassure you about DRV that if I say I am not "voting", then it won't be counted. I'm glad you picked up on the Canadian Medical Journal and noticed that the paragraph was generalised, apart from singling out Shapiro - showing that his reputation was certainly not confined to Rochester. Your description certainly makes him appear exciting for the average lawyer. Obviously we must avoid scandles where false material about someone is inserted, which is why the new sources are invaluable to ensure we rely on facts. Tyrenius 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete or unsalt - If the original article was in violation of WP:BLP, the proposed rewrite clearly is not. --Bletch 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The original article had 3 or 4 sources. There are now 30+, drip-feeding into an embronic article in a sandbox somewhere. Tyrenius 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• List on AfD: No personal data can be betrayed. Now, I think there is a snowball's chance in Hawaii that it's going to survive AfD, and I would/will vote to delete, but, at least the version I saw at the time of the speedy delete, it was not narrowly considered a CSD. It's within the purview of an administrator to make the call that it is. Had there been no DRV, that would have been fine. However, folks are asking for consideration. Fine. Let it be considered and get deleted. Geogre 00:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC)

This was actually close to a week ago, but still, is it regular for RfCs to be deleted without warning? Granted, the talk page had become less about MONGO and more about accusations of trolling by complainers, but regardless, the thing should be kept as a step in dispute resolution. There are a number of reasons that it should be kept on that line, as evidence of good faith or lack thereof by either or both "sides", but the base point is that there is no real reason to delete it. I think calling the discussioin page a flame war is a little stretch, especially considering that the one's doing the flaming were the ones who were saying it was meritless and should be disregarded anyway. Karwynn (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore. I don't see why, if the talk page "is nothing but flames", the project page ought to be deleted. Powers 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The section was curiously not archived at WP:AN/I archived in a place I couldn't find it, but the last edit that I found was located here. The rationale by the admin who speedied it was "was endorsed by two users who "supported off-wiki personal attacks and the revealing of personal information ... As such, there are no valid certifiers to this RFC." Thus, my deletions." Which is completely and utterly false, of course, as it was endorsed by three users, none of which "supported off-wiki personal attacks" or "revealing of personal information." I'm not taking a further position on this one at this time, but people who do decide to take a position should be aware of the ongoing revisionism surrounding the dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's in archive 124...[4]--MONGO 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore, as bringer-upper(?) If I can't vote, someone please strike this out. Karwynn (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the RfC was not about undeleting the ED article, so people swooping in and saying "You can't make article decisions based on what you like, it's got WP:V problems" etc. are missing the point. Karwynn (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore - Every rfc should be preserved about MONGO because he has alienated so many people by his arbitrary reverts and deletions without explanation, and because he does not follow Wikipedia own rules. He never investigates complaints thoroughly and makes superficial judgments. Those who are not in the special group of editors he protects need to have some way of voicing their opinion and having that record preserved. This is true because there is no sign that MONGO intends to change his aggressive behavior. Why should he always receive special consideration by the admins? Orangehead 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  This is your 14th edit out of less than 50 total as of my comment now and you sure seem to think you know a lot about me and my activitiies...--MONGO 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • See, the thing is, those judgments aren't necessarily fact, there the sort of thing that's supposed to be decided by this RfC. If these complaints about MONGO are false, why not keep a record of it? Eliminating venues for discussion is not in the wiki spirit, and to speedy an RfC is pretty ludicrous. If the RfC is bogus, why not let it speak for itself? And if it's not, as Orangehead seems to think, it should obvously be preserved. Karwynn (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    It did speak for itself, hence, the reason it was deleted.--MONGO 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I've had enough ED drama. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with ED, it's about perceived personal attacks, incivility, lack of discussion and failure to AGF. Karwynn (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tom, this RfC was not about ED. Some people unfortunately dragged ED legacy stuff into it as a supplemental thing, but the RfC itself was strictly about MONGO's perceived incivility as an admin. rootology 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it was, and remains, all about ED. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There were links to perceived incivility, non-AGF, personal attacks etc. Most of the links did involve MONGO's reaction to certain ED happenings, but they were there because they were perceived as incivil and hostile, not because they had to do with ED. WOuld you care to explain why you think it's about ED? Karwynn (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the participants. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom, are you saying that you agree with comments then made previously by MONGO and Hipocrite (and a couple of other admins) then that anyone who argued for keeping the ED article are now without merit themselves? That seems to be implication here, along with a sense of drawing wagons close. Irregardless of what did or did not happen on any 3rd party outside website, no one should get a free pass for any misbehavior *on* the Wikipedia site. Regardless of whether they are a regular user, or an admin. This was a validly certified RfC that should be kept for a historical record. rootology 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn: "Would you care to explain why you think it's about ED?"

Me: "Because of the participants."

Rootology: "So you think anyone for keeping the ED article is without merit?"

I have given my opionion and the reason for it. As I said above I have had enough ED drama. I do not think further discussion is likely to be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore. RfC should not have been deleted. rootology 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This nonsense is coming close to harassment and far supercedes any linked "wrongdoing" that was provided by those that brought this hostile Rfc against me.--MONGO 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you explain how bringing up this RfC was close to harassment? It may help the complaining editors avoid that mistake in the future. Karwynn (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The Rfc was deleted I assume because it was as the deletioner stated: "There is no historical or process-related value here". In light of your actions on my talk page which resulted on you being blocked, other commentary about me, which also resulted in you being blocked two more times [5] and now your attempts to get this Rfc undeleted, I would say that I have every reason to believe that you are indeed harassing me.--MONGO 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Interestingly, Karwynn was not a signatory to the RfC. Just because people use misleading deletion summaries doesn't suggest a conspiracy around every corner. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • So I was blocked because I was "harassing you", and you know I'm harassing you because I was blocked for it. That doesn't quite answer my question. Why was the RfC itself (which I didn't even file) close to harassment? What parts of it? Do you remember any specific wording that was harassment, that was not a statement of perceived abuse followed by diff links to show examples? Karwynn (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • You were blocked three times...you didn't even certify the Rfc, yet bring it up now and to what end? My perception is that this is harassment, again.--MONGO 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Validity of those blocks aside, my question is why was the RfC, which was NOT FILED BY ME, harassment? I'm not talking about what I'm doing, I'm talking about the RfC. Karwynn (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. RfCs are deleted after 48 hours if they are not certified by at least two editors, who must provide evidence of having tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Of the three editors claiming to certify the RfC, only one posted evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute under the appropriate section (SchmuckyTheCat). Consequently, this RfC was only properly certified by one editor, and was deleted entirely within process. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the evidence provided, to my knowledge, demonstrated multiple editors attempting to resolve the dispute, or I would have added even more evidence. This is reflected in the summary for deletion and further explanation, where the evidence was not considered, but instead a falsehood about the actions and motives of two of the signatories. The RfC was properly certified, so your commentary is a nonstarter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  In my personal case my attempts to resolve disputes with MONGO were deleted with the ED article. Does that mean the history of those incidents are invalid per Wikipedia policy? rootology 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • • I even asked if there was a way to undelete the article and blank it so we'd have those diff links, but I got no response. There was evidence, and we made every possible effort to make it available. Karwynn (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Mackensen (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Oh, and if it is restored, I want to sign JoshuaZ's view. I didn't know about this until just now. AnnH ♫ 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As little that Sam has said is true, how should this be interpreted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore or at least userfy to my userspace. I wasn't even made aware this was brought to DRV, even though I wrote the RfC. Sam Blanning is simply incorrect; all of the signing users asked Mongo to stop lumping them together with trolls and such. They occured on several discussion pages. As well, I added diffs that showed other Wikipedia administrators, not people involved with the ED dispute at all, asked Mongo to stop taking on the issue himself, that he was in bad form, and should take a break to cool off. SchmuckyTheCat 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  I've examined my edits since I can, and I don't see anything close to approximating the kind of comments you made here calling another editor "a troll of the first order, as he has frequently just plain lied in order to get his wikidick sucked. You bought right into his lies"[6]

  ...I mean really....nothing I have ever stated about you can come within miles of that kind of hate talk. This Rfc was simply revenge since you and the others that fought to save the Encyclopedia Dramatica article erroneously believe that I am a larger force that led to it's removal from Wikipedia.--MONGO 03:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I agree with Jeffrey O. Gustafson's decision. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, bad faith nomination. The usual suspects once again ganging up on MONGO. Take your ED crap and shove it back to ED and keep it off Wikipedia. There should be RfCs and RfAs filed against the gang here. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)