Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 24

< February 23	Deletion review archives: 2007 February	February 25 >

24 February 2007

Category:Mega Man antagonists – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus was reached here. The same is true of all the similar categories also dicussed RobbieG 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You are claiming that User:Mike Selinker closed the CfD incorrectly? If so please spell out your objection. I can see that summarizing the different votes could have been challenge. All I can find is your message to Mike [1] where you argue there was no consensus. I hope we will see Mike's opinion here also. EdJohnston 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to clarify: many people put forward their opinions on the CfD, and their were (IMHO) strong arguments delivered by both sides (I personally feel that one side was stronger, but I can understand the concern expressed by those supporting the other POV). User:Mike Selinker closed the discussion, as I understand it, on the grounds that it had been going on too long. He then proceeded to follow the suggestion he himself made during the debate, with no apparent reference to anyone else's suggestions. I believe that to have been an incorrect closing of the CfD; if I'm wrong, then I'm sorry and please forgive me, as I'm rather unfamiliar with this aspect of Wikipedia (I normally just edit the articles themselves). RobbieG 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking back the suggestion was not his originally, so he was taking other people's suggestions into account after all. However, the fact remains that the disputes were never truly resolved, and both viewpoints had a similar degree of support. I do not consider that to constitute "a consensus." RobbieG 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to give my perspective, and I thank RobbieG for alerting me to his concern. I closed it because it had been 15 days since the nomination, so it seemed like it should be closed. When there is a contentious debate like this one, I look at three things: 1) Is there an overall consensus to delete? In this case, no. 2) Is there a majority opinion to do something? In this case, I believe that there was at least a tie considering votes in favor of either deleting or merging. 3) Is there clear precedent to make a certain type of change? In this case, absolutely. All POV terms for characters--heroes, villains, protagonists, and antagonists--the latter very clearly at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Fictional_antagonists, which had unanimous consent--had been merged to "characters". It seemed that all that added up to a case for merging (not deleting), and so I did it. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is precedence addressed by any Wikipedia guideline or policy? I'm not sure what the advised practice is in such circumstances. Several people - for example, I think User:Cosmetor, argued that video games were exceptional circumstances and fundamentally different from the other fictional antagonists. I stress that that is not my viewpoint, but it was a concern that was not addressed. If Cosmetor was correct, then precedent was, in this instance, irrelevant. RobbieG 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. It's governed by WP:CCC, meaning that consensus can change and that precedence does not tend to hold over the long term. ColourBurst 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that precedent was three weeks earlier, not the long term.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. As "substantially similar" recreations, WP:CSD G4 applied, and debate was unnecessary. Considering the debate, which is frankly irrelevant, there were many similar CFDs closed over the recent days, including at least two on the same day, which merged "X villains" into "X characters" Local consensus does not override broader consensus, and the broader consensus was clearly to merge up these categories. Cosmetor made the same argument dozens of times, with almost no impact in terms of editors citing his argument. WP:CCC isn't relevant over such a short timescale. In my opinion the debate should have been closed as a speedy delete, not a delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reasonable closing according to guideline and precedent. >Radiant< 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as nominator. Closing admin has explained his reasoning very clearly here and acted on a large number of precedents regarding POV-named fictional character categories. Otto4711 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a sensible streamlining of fictional character categories. I agree with the reasoning of User:Otto4711 who was the nominator of the original CfD. EdJohnston 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Who in popular culture – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

As background, there has been a "drive" lately by a number of users to delete "in popular culture" articles. For example the nominator Otto4711 has nominated 24 articles in the past 2 days and dozens more over the past few weeks, along with a few other users. The arguments are mostly the same, citing WP:NOT. However WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish this article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did any of the other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale. In fact three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article! Deleting the "in popular culture" articles has been controversial and it's been about 50/50 depending on who happens to vote and the quality of the article if it survives or not. Controversy can be seen in the discussions of each AfD, and This discussion. Wikipedia has a long and clear tradition of "in popular culture" articles and there are not clear rules against it. The only argument with strength in this AfD is that the article had some cleanup issues and was not of the best quality, but those are content level issues and have nothing to do with the articles existence. Stbalbach 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion — this article is in the same boat as Rush in popular culture, which was deleted with overwhelming consensus. I feel that overall, consensus is to delete these types of articles. — Deckill er 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many pop culture articles are surviving AfD, there is not "overwhelming consensus", in fact it is very controversial. Anyway, I thought we are reviewing the AfD decision based on the strength of the extant votes. Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy against in popular culture articles. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion in popular culture. Almost every "in popular culture" section or article fails the ten year test. Most fail the ten minute test. A few fail the ten second test. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "However WP:NOT says nothing specific about 'in popular culture' articles" isn't really a good argument that it doesn't satisfy WP:NOT. It doesn't say anything specific about game guides either, but the consensus seems to be to delete most of them. The main problem I have with these types of articles is that they're places for rampant original research as people say "well this might be related to X so I'll add it in X in popular culture just in case", and then try to defend it by saying that these things don't need sources because it's obvious to everybody. ColourBurst 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the consensus seems to be to delete most of them - that is inaccurate, 50% or more survive AfD. Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy or consensus about popular culture articles, so why were these arguments counted in the closing decision? -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Looks like the closing admin made a reasonable judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion your disagreement with the editors on their interpretation of WP:NOT does not constitute an error in judgement on the part of the closing admin. I suggest take the argument to Village Pump, and get the policy about 'in pop culture' changed, if you believe that concensus can be arried at for that outcome. But in this case, the closing admin made an impartial and reasonable assessment of the editors input to the deletion debate. Jerry lavoie 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "policy about in pop culture"? Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy or consensus about popular culture articles, so why were these arguments counted in the closing decision? -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I could not see an error in the AfD process for this article. It's fair to raise general arguments here about a class of articles, like 'in popular culture', but it's not clear what criterion that DRV reviewers should apply when they hear such claims. Since I'm at a loss for a criterion, I'm going to just accept the AfD as being correctly decided, and give my support to the idea of User:Jerry lavoie that you take the general issue to the Village Pump. EdJohnston 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is as mentioned above, credence was given by the closing admin to the notion that there is consensus and/or policy about 'in pop culture' articles - which is not the case. If you remove that from the vote, there was really only one or two delete votes and everything else was keep. And the delete votes didn't make a strong case IMO compared to the keep votes. -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question So your request is that we should overturn and relist the AfD and tell the next closer to disregard all votes in which 'in popular culture' is cited as the reason for deletion? EdJohnston 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is serious business deleting an article, it requires a compelling and clear argument, in particular when there are many keep votes. I just don't see in this AfD, the deletes were mostly general non-specific arguments about pop culture lists. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many of these articles end up being deleted, but many of those arguments appear to be mere opinions and not very convincing. Calling verifiable facts "insignificant" or "unencyclopedic" is subjective. The closer "felt" that the delete arguments were stronger. WP:NOT#IINFO may be cited, but why it is cited has to be explained, because it doesn't cover "in popular culture" articles. At least some "in popular culture" articles achieve consensus to keep. Please stop citing Rush as a precedent, as someone could very well cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination), even ignoring the fact that Rush in pop culture had copyvio issues at the outset. Those who wish to reinstate this article should look for reliable sources that discuss The Who's prominence/impact on popular culture. Perhaps write it in contextual paragraphs instead of a list so it looks less like "trivia". Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles may be of interest. Pomte 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - can't recall if I nominated this one or not, but regardless I still endorse it. Wikipedia may have a "tradition" of this sort of articles, but consensus can turn against them and I dispute Stbalbach's contention that 50% of "...in popular culture" articles survive AFDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes have all closed recently with deletes. A number of the kept articles were kept under the theory that it's better to have this sort of trivia in its own article than in the main article, to which I respond that junk is junk whether in the main article or in an "...IPC" article. Stbalbach has said on at least one occasion that he agrees that this sort of information doesn't belong on Wikipedia so I'm at a loss as to why these DRVs. And yes, the words "...in popular culture" do not appear in WP:NOT. I would prefer that a clearer policy statement be made and I have proposed such a statement. However, I believe that existing policy statements against indiscriminate collections of information and lists of loosely-associated topics already speak strongly against these "...IPC" articles. Otto4711 05:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Spacepotato 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Neverball – deletion endorsed among established editors; creation of a encyclopedia worthy article may be possible, old content can be userfied to help with recreation – GRBerry 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The game is pretty well known in open source circles, see for example http://happypenguin.org/show?Neverball which has almost 200 comments for Neverball;
It's included in almost all linux distros; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paxed (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There is an active community for it at www.nevercorner.net;
Several other open source games have just as "bad" articles on wikipedia, if Neverball article is deleted, then those should be deleted too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Bubble and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLTron for example, I can list more with a bit of searching, if needed...) --Paxed 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist -- the article might not have been the most well written article on Wikipedia, but it appears the editor who deleted the article didn't take the tiniest bit of time to investigate the matter. A simple search on Google shows that speedy deletion is clearly unacceptable in this case. -- parasti ^(talk) 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice to creation of a sourced article (content will be userfied on request). A free download game with no secondary sources is a valid A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no predudice against recreation. Your argument "if X is deleted, then so must Y and Z" is a clear example of fallacious logic. The representations made above about supposed notability are contraary to WP:NOT... blog and forum comments do not constitute sources. The fact that the program is distributed with Linus does nothing to establish notability. Closing admin made the correct decision. Jerry lavoie 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The article on speedy deletion says that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub." I find it difficult to believe that it couldn't at least been reduced to a stub, from where a more appropriate article could have been developed. As for Neverball's notoriety, the fact that, as paxed says, it comes with many Linux distros (eg: Fedora Extras); is often featured in lists of 'top' open source games (eg: this one here); and is recognised as being one of the more polished and successful open source games around by every single person I have ever talked to about it (unfortunately, I only have my personal experience to cite here). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.231.40 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- To that I can add that, contrary to a comment above, the Linux Game Tome isn't a "blog" or a "forum" and is in fact one of the most prominent game sites of its kind; Neverball scores 9th by rating (3rd by the old ratings) and has been among the top 10 games for a couple of years now. -- parasti ^(talk) 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Relist I enjoy playing Neverball. It is a super GNU game and part of several Linux distributions including Debian, and could be part of Windows and presumably also Macintosh distributions. There are over 200'000 Google references. Even if there are a great many duplicates and blog-type mentions, I'm sure this shows notability. It seems the article itself needs work, but for this it should be relisted. --Theosch 07:55, 1 March 2007
Endorse No evidence that this is notable, no claim of notability in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(software) says: "... the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable: 1. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor. 2. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution. Statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution."

I went over to this suggested site [2] and found that Neverball seems to rank 1290th of 12170 packages, i.e. almost in the top 10%. Now I call that notable! --Theosch 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Relist Neverball is matured and well-known game that should be on Wikipedia. I agree that the article needs work, but it should not be deleted. -- Wenli 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

YouThink.com – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I-Am-Bored.com, a less significant site was not deleted. either I-Am-Bored should be deleted or both should be merged onto Youthink.com.Electricbassguy 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Also, the other article mentioned should disappear in a short while or five days. MER-C 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone already removed Speedy and Prod on the other article. People seem to be defending it do to the no consensus. I think it's only fair if that is kept, Youthink and IAB should share one article, preferably YouThink.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse valid AfD. To show notability you have to have non-trivial 3rd party sources. None have been produced. I-Am-Bored currently has two links to 3rd party reviews. Note that being cool, interesting, useful, or even popular are not reasons for keeping an article on wikipedia if the subject is not encyclopedically notable. Eluchil404 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I-am-bored is actually Youthink, however. the whole site is a copy of the "Links" from Youthink.com. Also, I could find 3rd party reviews of YouThink as well. There are several online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse - and I-Am-Bored has disappeared (well, when I hit ALT-D) -- Tawker 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion "If X is Deleted, so must Y and Z" is fallacious logic. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to overturn a properly closed AfD. Jerry lavoie 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

MY HUSBAND, THE PIG – Warning misunderstood by nom. Please see the TfD which is still running – GRBerry 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

VERY USEFUL 128.187.0.178 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I use Wikipedia all the time to look at information about my favorite T.V. shows, and as I was looking at the next episode of Desperate Housewives, I noticed this comment in the VERY USEFUL Episode Guide Template: ‹The template Desperate Housewives episode has been proposed for deletion here.› I am not impressed, because I and my friends find it very useful. There should be no reason that it need be deleted. So, although the deletion has been proposed, I urge you not to ratify it. Thank-you.[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hamilton Stands – overturned, listed at AFD – GRBerry 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

My article on the Hamilton Stands company was deleted under WP:A7 (non-notability) by Centrx, despite the fact that Bob Dylan and The Monkees notably used their products, as mentioned in the article, and a link to the company's Web page was included. I have spoken with Centrx, who insists that "reliable third-party sources, such as books and magazines, that cover the company as their main subject", be cited before he will restore the article. I find this ridiculous; by the same token, the Wikipedia articles on such companies as Ernie Ball and Dunlop Manufacturing should also have been deleted, since they do not cite such sources. Dylan biographies have included photos of Dylan with a Hamilton capo (if you've ever seen one, you can spot them a mile away) on his guitar, and Rhino Records liner notes to Monkees albums mention Hamilton Stands... as was noted in the article. I do not have the time to dig through media in an attempt to find an outside article or story about the company, and should not have to; the foregoing mentions ought to be quite enough to assert the company's notability. (A Web search for "Hamilton Stands" also turns up scads of listings of their products for sale.) Zephyrad 08:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse simply being used by a notable professional or being sold over the internet does not confer notability. See also WP:INN it is quite likely that there are articles on wikipedia on companies even less notable than this one, but that doesn't mean they won't be held to the same high standards just that they haven't been yet. Eluchil404 10:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will this work, as an article asserting notability? Bill Carpenter acquires Hamilton Stands This article states that Hamilton originated the folding music stand. I'd call that notable. Zephyrad 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:Notability and WP:CORP. If Hamilton originated the folding music stand but there are no sources about the company itself, then that invention should be mentioned in some article about music stands or music history, but it does not warrant a separate article about the company itself. —Centrx→talk • 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source appears to be reliable, independent, and non-trivial. If another one can be found I will strike my Endorse opinion. Eluchil404 15:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The comment by User:Centrx that you found to be ridiculous is just standard Wikipedia policy: insisting that "reliable third-party sources, such as books and magazines, that cover the company as their main subject", be cited before he will restore the article. If you believe this is an important article subject, then it's reasonable for you to find the needed references and add them. Having the sources means that future readers will be benefitted. In that way you will have shared your knowledge. EdJohnston 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already listed one news article about the company above, and have also contacted the company itself for information about possible news stories. Are you (collectively) saying there needs to be a whole book or magazine devoted to the company's history, or will an article in a magazine or book be sufficient? I have to wonder which among you are musicians; any musician who has bought or used a Hamilton product would shake their heads (at least) at the idea that the company isn't "notable"... and I have already "shared my knowledge", in the deleted article. Zephyrad 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion The "rediculous" statement by the closing admin is actually a longstanding fundamental policy WP:N of wikipedia that was derived from community Concensus. Your article, in absense of cited sources is Original Research, and is not allowed. WP:NOR It is not possible to verify a neutral point of view WP:NPOV without sources. The subject of this article does not seem to me to be notable. Possibly, providing sources could sway that decision. Jerry lavoie 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am prone to disagree. This is not some tinpot company a guy runs out of the back of his garage; this is an American manufacturer that has supplied equipment to musicians and music students (particularly public school music programs) around the world, for over a hundred years. Have you considered that the reason there may be little current press coverage is because musicians already know about the company and its long history? My questions about what would suffice for "notable" coverage, and are any of you who have weighed in against it musicians, have not been answered. (I will look for printed press coverage about the company, but I am concerned that a trade-paper article about the company wouldn't be good enough for you all, since the Net article I already cited above apparently is not.) I do not find the statement itself to be ridiculous; I find the usage of it to be so, and I think you're setting the bar too high for "notability" in this case. Zephyrad 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Hamilton Stands is an actual company that actually exists and actually produces something. A lack of sources doesn't take away from the fact that the company exists and contributes something to the world. If 'Hamilton Stands' were actually the name of an obscure bit-part character from a Star Wars spin-off novel, would it then warrant an entry? armanddeplessis 17:05, 26 February 2007.

- I believe that you ment overturn the speedy deletion and restore the deleted article, as you appear to be arguing for its retention. Endorse in this case, means "I endorse the deletion of the article as proper". Eluchil404 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, as I believe armanddeplessis intended to vote. Does it help that it's mentioned in the Middletown, Ohio article? --Lukobe 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, list at AfD Company exists since 1883, that's enough of a claim to notability to run it through AfD, especially if it's a specialized equipment manufacturer. AND "Unimproved for months" is certainly no speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.