Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 27

< June 26	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 28 >

27 June 2007

Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG

^demon deleted it on June 25 because he/she thought it was unused, apparently unaware of the fact the image was being used on Lemony Snicket since June 21st. CyberGhostface 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Belew Trio

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 "Biographical article that does not assert significance". But the article (as it was when deleted) says that the group has twice "toured throughout the East, South, & Western United States". if sourced, that alone is enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and even if not sourced should be enough of an "assertion of significance" to avoid an A7 speedy delete. Overturn and list on AfD for a proper assesment of notability by consensus. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn per nom. JoshuaZ 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Adrian Belew is notable, so the Trio meets MUSIC 6. I'd like to see Julie and Eric Slick merged into this article and then deleted. Hoof Hearted 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redirect/merge Julie and Eric Slick to here. Haha, I'm just trying to get King Crimson to featured article status and I encounter this when considering the possible deletion review of Fields (1970s band).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & redirect Julie Slick (now deleted?!) and Eric Slick to Adrian Belew Trio. AfD is a valid course if no sources are provided, but there's no reason this should have been speedied. — Scientizzle 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stehr

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. While IMO this article would need improvement and better sourcing to pass an AfD, i think that "He anchors Eyewitness News at 5, 6 and 11 p.m., the top-rated newscast in Indainapolis" is at least a claim of significance. Overturn as an improper speedy, and optionally list on AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the reasons given, and tag " unreferenced" or "prod." DGG 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gather (website)

Extremely useful and significant website Sm8900 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted with the note that it did not assert significance. However, there was an onoing discussion at the talk page, where I indicated I would provide more material. I did indicate that the deletion was contested. clearly, there is reason to include it. it is very significant and unique among websites of thst type. with more time, more facts and soruces can be added, as I indicated at the article talk page. i feel this deletion was very unwarranted. thanks. --Sm8900 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Gather the facts and materials first, then recreate it. Note that it may still be listed for deletion at Articles for deletion if it doesn't meet notability criteria for web content.-Wafulz 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was already useful and informative, and well-presented, in the form it was originnally written. --Sm8900 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The only assertion it made was "It is highly significant and unique, in that it is the first blog-driven website to integrate networking, tags, blogs and groups". It doesn't provide any external sources or state why this is important. It was five sentences long and sounded like an "About Us" section of a website. If you'd like, I can move the content to your userspace for you to work on it until it meets notability criteria. However, in its current form, it will be deleted again and again by other administrators.-Wafulz 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn "First... to combine" is an assertion of importance. It doesn't have to use the word "impotant" or "notable". It may not be a sufficient degree of importance , but that's for AfD. DGG 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree. I can create a product that is the first to combine nuts and gum, or the first band to combine Mozart with gangster rap with The Beatles, but that's not a claim of importance in and of itself.-Wafulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Reigns

Four Reigns was deleted with the logged reason "see WP:OR". But Original research is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I agree that this would need sourcing and cleanup to remain for long, it appears that parts of it, at least, are OR. Parts appear to be a factual description of a book. While the book might not be notable, a google search on "Four Reigns" Kukrit Pramoj gets several hundred hits. Also, as the author Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand, he is clearly notable and his novels are likely to be so. This is the sort of thing that can be discovered more easily if possibly non-notable articles are not speedy deleted (when they do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria) but are given a little bit of time, Rather than having new speedy criteria made up to get them deleted quickly. Such speedy deletions prevent debate and the prime virtue of wikipedia: "More eyes". Overturn and cleanup. The deleting admin has been requested to undelete, but has not chosen to respond. DES ^(talk) 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Indeed I might add the mere fact that a novel first published in 1981, originally written in a non-english language, is still widely on sale in english translation alone sugggests a degree of notability, although that alone does not prove notability. DES ^(talk) 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Undelete OR is not a criterion for speedy, and that is the end of that. I ask for a Speedy Undelete. As for the article itself, although this isn't strictly relevant to the undelete, it needs an outside reference or two-- including reviews--but if the subject is notable it might well survive AfD. DGG 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm with DGG on this one - WP:OR is not and should not be a criterion for speedy deletion. Just because one person believes it is irreparable does not mean that sources do not exist and the article can be written to standards, and discretionary closures without any discussion are a bad precedent when they don't meet any of the CSD criteria. Put it on an AfD if it seems unworthy, if the results there start looking like a snowball, then delete it. Unilaterally deciding to do so ahead of time is not good. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
óverturn per nom, DGG and Arkyan. JoshuaZ 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:SNOW. Since when has OR been a CSD? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

myg0t (closed)

Could someone please point me to the last discussion on this? What I had read, it was closed because of OR and being non-notable, neither of these are applicable now, so I'm wondering what I've missed. --Android Mouse 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd DR seems to have been a year ago, May 2006. Closed mainly on the basis of the DRV vote count, 17 to 14. [1] The previous history is complicated--a DR one month earlier had ended up by keeping the article, and there seems to have been a string of less-than-obvious decisions in various directions. I think rapid closing in these circumstances might perhaps be reconsidered, or is the proper course to bring another DRV. There has to be some way to get a hearing. DGG 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of new sourcing seems to be worth it, and consensus can change in a year. If no one objects, I'm going to reopen the DRV. JoshuaZ 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems like we've been a year since this last had a full hearing, and if there's new sources we may change our conclusion. It worked for Jeffree Star Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the evidence / sources advanced are any different from that seen in July, August and September last year or March 7, March 25, April 25 of this year. I believe some other requests were speedily reverted before the {{drt}} template came into use. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources provided are much more than many other articles here would ever hope to obtain. If all other articles were put to this rigor, I'd estimate Wikipedia would have less than a fifth of the articles we have now. I don't see the harm in having a small stub about this group, since they are definately notable in the field of game raging. I also think it is a double standard that other DRs get by with much less evidence of notability. --Android Mouse 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigroaning

I have new information regarding this AfD process.

The Wikipedia article was linked to from Something Awful, complete with the AfD tag, on the day that the page was nominated for deletion. This likely caused a large influx of SA readers interested in the topic. Since Something Awful coined the term Wikigroaning, this created a imbalance in contributions to the discussion, weighted heavily towards editors would be sympathetic to Keep votes. While I think we can assume good faith on the part of the Something Awful editors, this action amounts to inadvertent votestacking. This was not addressed during the discussion.
The AfD discussion was directly linked to in the Something Awful forums, as well. This was not addressed during the discussion.
User:Night Gyr, the administrator who closed the debate, is a longtime and active member of the Something Awful forums, who apparently (based on the linked forum post) has a vested interest in this topic. Again, while I believe NightGyr acted in good faith, there is a conflict of interest here that possibly tainted his interpretation of the results.

Overturn and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close The AfD seems perfectly in order. Sources in multiple independant major media outlets were cited. Another AfD can be tried in a few months if anyone wishes, when linking will not be an issue, and ther will be more evidence one way or the other on notability. As to the merge, that should be setteld on the relevant talk pages, not here. The AfD neither mandated not precluded a merge, but it looks to me as if the consensus of those commenting on the AfD was opposed to a merge, which makes doign one promptly rather problamatical IMO. DES ^(talk) 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only arguments given for deletion were claims of being a non-notable neologism, which were countered by the sources in the article, and even the nominator proposed a merge rather than a deletion. AfD is the place to take things when you want them deleted, not merged, and there was clearly no consensus for a merge within the afd, so I referred it to the talk page for more discussion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If "merge" can't be the result of an AfD discussion, then someone better talk to all of these administrators: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ...and that's just closures from the past few days. Furthermore, this DRV is about the fact that the process that was possibly compromised through imbalanced influence by Something Awful members. - Chardish 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't say a merge result was impossible, I said consensus was in favor of retaining the content, and if it ought to be merged, that could be worked out on the talk page. Stop fighting over this with revert wars on the article and work it out on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted once, I fail to see how that constitutes a "revert war." If you wish to address something only to me, please use my talk page. Thanks. - Chardish 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and try to merge the article so that it won't matter anyway. I voted delete, but if I had to step back and evaluate the discussion, it looked like there were half-decent arguments to keep. I'm not willing to overturn based on the COI because I think the result would probably have been the same without the COI. Shalom ^Hello 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrous - if process says keep unencyclopedic self-referential nonsense, then process is hopelessly broken. --BigDT 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not a dictionary, etc. --Android Mouse 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will endorse close, with some reluctance, since there was no consensus for deletion, although I don't know why people considered a remarkably new term which has just popped up on some internet sites notable. As an editorial decision, I fully support merging this in with criticism of Wikipedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with criticism of Wikipedia. Pretty much, this term just highlights a problem we always had of systemic bias on articles. In this case, it is about articles getting shafted due to age, fictional importance or for one reason or another. I don't find the term notable enough to make this article stand out by itself, but it would be useful at criticism of Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete. "Wikigroaning is a term brought to public attention in June 2007"... WP:NEO, WP:ASR and pretty much WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem a wildly unreasonable close. There were some problems with this afd: apparently advertised on Something Awful, and looking at the huge number of editors commenting, and the relatively high number of new, inexperienced and unacculturated editors it's evident that the discussion was heavily skewed. Having said that I would probably have closed this one as keep myself. Criticism of Wikipedia does look like a suitable merge target, but that (as Night Gyr rightly says) is a decision for the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as reasonable. There are obviously sharp divisions on how to deal with these articles, and a discussion on a possible merge would seem a reasonable next step. DGG 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth First

"Political Spam" Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted "COI spam by owner of politcal party", however while it was created on the behalf of the President, whose account this is, it is hardly spam as much as it is a recognition of our status as equal to comparable movements who are similarly referenced in Wikipedia, including, but not limited to Australian Young Labor and the Young Liberals (Australia). Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See that word "our"? Endorse deletion until we have credible evidence that anyone but the group cares. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion If the group is notable, someone uninvolved will create a real article in time. We'd need a pretty darn good reason to undelete a blatant WP:COI violation, and nominator presents no such reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion A quick glance did not find any reliable sources that talk about the group. If we had them we might be able to have an article but we can't without any real sourcing. JoshuaZ 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoLite

Page was deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, but it wasn't advertising. The article was about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado, GoLite. The company is of similar size to other companies that have articles, such as CamelBak and Kelty, and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, such as the article on Hydration packs, the article on rock climber Ray Jardine, and Primal Quest. Lucien Dray 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete I'd say they pass WP:CORP, and the article didn't have a spammish tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Definitely a real company... Heck, I own two jackets made by them. — George^[talk] 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Better sources (that is, independant ones) would probably be needed, or at least asked for, at an AfD. But this was a speedy, not an afd, and this does not read like advertising, far less blatent advertising, to me. DES ^(talk) 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSAREALCOMPANYALRIGHT does not seem to be an inclusion guideline, article was unsourced and requestor and article creator has no other contributions. All of which serves to engage my scepticism. So: Lucien, can you cite the multiple non-trivial sources from which a rewritten article that does not fail policy, will be drawn? Guy (Help!) 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - There's plenty of sources to choose from. A Google News Archive search brings back 502 results, the first page alone of which contains the LA Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, and two New York Times articles. Google Books brings home some book mentions too, mostly backpacking how-to guides. This is plenty sourcable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per Starblind. JoshuaZ 17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

myg0t (closed)

Andrew Lande (closed)