Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 2

< January 1	Deletion review archives: 2007 January	January 3 >

2 January 2007

Talk:Jediism

This talk page was summarily deleted and then protected by User:Philwelch despite there being no previous deletions or any untowardly comments on it that would warrant protection. He deleted it after summarily deleting and protecting the redirect Jediism. After I reversed these unexplained deletions, he reversed them back and stated at [5] that he deleted them because of something related to link spamming, but there has never been any link spamming on this page, nor is there any link spamming at its target, Jedi census phenomenon. I have put Jediism at Redirects for discussion, but there is no reason why this talk page should be deleted and protected. —Centrx→talk • 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfD results in a keep, restore as a talk page that is no longer orphaned. If it results in delete, keep deleted for the opposite reason. I don't think this really needs a separate DRV until the RfD concludes. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even assuming the outcome of the RfD is to delete, Philwelch wants the talk page to be protected, but there is no reason for it. —Centrx→talk • 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure if this is the reason. The talk page may have been protected because the article was deleted a a copywight violation. of this site [[6]]. Pleae look at the deletion log if you wish for confirmation. --67.71.79.225 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete regardless of the outcome of the RfD. Unless there has been actual and substantial trolling on the page, preemptively deleting it serves no purpose. BigDT 13:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - definitely if RfD reinstates the redirect, more hesitantly otherwise. I do not understand the deleting/protecting admin's reasoning here. Of course, as a non-admin I am relying on the nominator's indication that there is nothing in the deleted edit history that would militate strongly for another outcome. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The grand total of edits to this talk page are two edits from August. The first edit is, roughly, 'Don't redirect to Jedi census phenomenon!!! This is a real religion!!!' and the second edit is "Sources?" —Centrx→talk • 09:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok ... some of us don't have the benefit of being able to see the history. But what is wrong with that talk page that justifies deletion or protection? Even if the discussion isn't meaningful, there's no reason to cut off potential meaningful discussion on the appropriateness of either an article or a redirect by this name. If that is the only content on the talk page, I guess nothing is lost by deleting it, but I don't see a justification for protecting it. --BigDT 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, there is no justification for it. —Centrx→talk • 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, absolutely no reason to SALT this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Waiting for the rfd to end is not needed - the page should be restored prior to that, and then deleted depending on the rfd result. There is absolutely no reason why that page should have been salted. --- RockMFR 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore For all the reasons above. Dionyseus 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, both of my wikistalkers showed up for this one. Philwelch 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore per above... Addhoc 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Hunt

Specialized Bicycle Components

Camp Ramah in the Berkshires

Originally was deleted because a camper created the page and posted nonsense, causing the page to be deleted in protection from re-creation. The same thing may happen to an alias of the camp, Camp Ramah in Wingdale, created by the same camper and with similar vandalism nonsense. The thing is, Camp Ramah in the Berkshires is an important and notable place and should be allowed to be recreated. I don't know so much about this particular camp, but there are editors who can constructively create and expand a flourishing article. In addition, the administrator who deleted and protected the page, Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs), is on a wikibreak and has protected their talk page from comments so I am unable to notify him/her about this undelete request Valley2city 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a copy of the article you would like to create on the camp in a subpage of your user space (such as here - User:Valley2city/Camp Ramah in the Berkshires. Whenever it's done, let me know via my talk page, and - assuming it's ok - I'll move the new article to the correct location. Any questions, let me know. Proto::► 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Folkloric Dance

Henry A. Roa I made a mistake by listing an incorrect source for Mexican Folkloric dance. I should not have shown that it was from www.mexfoldanco.org. It was not. It was my own words. Please help me correct this because there is nothing on your site on Mexican Folkloric dance and I think that my input is important. --Mexfolroa 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Henry A. Roa mexfolroa@ameritech.net[reply]

This article was signed by the editor, but I don't see anything nearing spam or evidence for copyvio:
"Mexican Folkloric Dance developed over five centuries from the pre-Columbian, the Spanish conquest, the French Intervention which included an Austrian influence, the Porfiriato, and the 1910 Revolution to the modern. The fusion of all these influences with the indigenous created over 300 dance styles, within the thirty-two Mexican states, that are now just "Mexican" and unique. Mexfolroa 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Henry A. Roa mexfolroa@ameritech.net"[reply]

I thought we might already have an article on Mexican folk dance, but the only thing I could find is this: Baile Folklorico. ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because of this revision where it states "From The Mexican Folkloric Dance Company of Chicago, www.mexfoldanco.org. I'll remove the protection from the page so that the article can be recreated. Naconkantari 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Pui-Mun Law

The day before this article was deleted I edited it substantially to include links and references to prove her notability, but I believe the edit and the points I made on the deletion talk page were overlooked. The references I included give her two credits from the WP:BIO. I asked the administrator to review this but he never responded and now is on administrative Wikibreak. Pui-Mun Law is probably the most well known watercolorist in contemporary fantasy working today and her clients include every big name in the business; she's also done work for authors who have their own Wiki articles and other editors have included her name in related articles such as Fairy painting. There are many fantasy artists of much lesser renown with Wiki articles, so if hers remains deleted then they should ALL be reviewed (so as not to show personal bias) and therefore maybe the notability of contemporary fantasy artists in general is in question. I hope the page edit I made still exists to show undeletion for this article should be carefully considered. Inkgod 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history restored for this review ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already opined in this AFD before this edit and comment on the deletion review. I glanced at it at the time, and saw no reason to comment again in the AFD. Looking again at the edits, I see a group nomination for an Ennie Award at [7] and a later solo win at [8]. These awards are fan awards awarded at one of two Gen Con sites, which used to be when I was a gamer long ago the top RPG con in North America. All this is nice, and I continue to suspect that a non-stub article that would be more than just a list of works could be written from reliable sources. GRBerry

The article could be expanded biographically; there are genre sites that have reprinted much of the existing information in various length and form, and there are neutral interviews from reliable sites including the Crescent Blues one (which was done by a writer from Science Fiction Weekly). I've also found more references that cement her heavy notability in the field, including work done for Michael Swanwick, a list from Locus (magazine) recognizing her credits, and an upcoming project with Larry Elmore. Overall I believe her work and name is clearly "widely recognized" and an "enduring record of the field" (in reference to WP:BIO requirements) and furthermore her tens of thousands of google hits / fan listings show her "large fan base." In comparison, many contemporary fantasy artists in Wikipedia don't even have a fraction of Law's credits or notability (including Amy Brown, Julie Bell, Rebecca Guay, Susan Van Camp, Erol Otus and many others). Inkgod 10:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm. When you say "reprinted the information", reprinted the information from where? An official bio? Also, I'm not sure working for a notable employer automatically implies notability for a subject, otherwise every single employee from a large company would automatically meet the criteria. In addition, what is "large"? That seems subjective to me, so it's actually better to argue from sources instead of how large something is, because people can just argue back that it's not "large enough". Lastly, you misuse the term "neutral interview" - interviews by their very nature report the subject's words, and therefore would not be neutral (due to the subject being a primary source. However, any bio information in an interview is secondary source material.). Remember, with WP:BLP, we can remove anything that isn't sourced, even if it's accurate (because we have no way of verifying such), so the artists you mentioned may be valid removals, even if we have heard of them. ColourBurst 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant reprinted as the content in each is largely similar - yes, the base source may have been a published bio; when I used the word "neutral" in regards to it and the interview though, I meant extracting the neutral, factual information, such as schooling, a timeline and accomplishments... nothing subjective like personal opinion. The primary source material should be her prolific artwork done in the industry, which brings notability (good or bad) because fantasy games and books (and their synonymous artists/artwork) are an entertainment medium with an inherent worldwide fanbase; a comparison would be an actor working for a movie studio, not just a lineworker working for Boeing, and the validity of Wizards of the Coast, Gen Con, HarperCollins etc. has already been documented in Wikipedia. The source I used for "large fan base" was 93,900 ghits which in my personal opinion is rather large, as in comparison Frank Frazetta (whose renown and veteran status in the industry is well documented) registers 336,000 ghits. Inkgod 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This was within the deleting admin's range of reasonable discretion. If Inkgod thinks they can find reliable biographical sources about her, I'd userfy the article upon request. I don't think I found enough in my search to compel a keep result. GRBerry 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - substantial improvement and increased assertions of notability warrant a fresh look which will probably prompt further improvement and give the article its best chance. Userfication is also a defensible outcome, but probably a longer path to the same result. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]