Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26

< May 25	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 27 >

26 May 2008

Cristina Cruz Mínguez

I find it odd that the closer would close as delete with one keep vote and three comments. I am not an expert in the field of spanish film and TV and,yes, would have been good if there were more involvement but feel this is not the best way to improve articles. The main character in a (short) TV series? hmmm... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but allow new version. Looking at the article as it existed, and the comments, I think the closing admin was justified to delete the article for failing to meet the verifiability guidelines. While I endorse the deletion of the article, I also have no objections with allowing a superior article, including multiple references (even if they are in Spanish), to be created. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own close of the AfD. Ideally, an AfD debate will provide some hints about possible future sources even when those already in the article are not quite enough. Opinions may differ as to what is 'enough.' If her role in El Abuelo received any published critical approval, that might be enough for me. My own Googling did not bear fruit. WP:BIO seems to call for important and widely-recognized work, not just a few appearances on screen. No objection to re-creation if better sources are found. I agree that Spanish language sources would be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Poor sourcing presents BLP issues and we should lean towards deletion in those cases. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.22.227.53

This used to be my "anonymous" user page. My IP address changed (I moved), I went away from wikipedia for a while, and after a while it was deleted. I spent hours getting it to the state I wanted, and would like it to be undeleted (if this is possible) for a few days time (ie. until June 1st) so I can download it for nostalgic reasons. -Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a working e-mail. Would it be acceptable to e-mail you the content instead? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks (including the diff history, if possible). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could've simply asked the deleting admin... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have asked you, but I discovered how to figure out who the deleting admin was after I read about the deletion review process :) (via the "logs" link from the DR template above).

Should such a situation ever come up again, I'll do that. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LyricWiki

Wikipedia has a clearcut policy on linking to sites which violate copyright. It was made completely clear in the discussion prior to the keep decision that the people involved at LyricWiki know full well that they violate copyright, and have no plans to do anything to change that unless the rightful copyright holders of the songs whose copyright they violate specifically come to them and ask them to remove the infringing material. Wikipedia should not host an article which endorses such behavior. A decision to keep this article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies on copyright. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting case. A notable website for which we should provide an encyclopedic treatment, but to which we shouldn't link. :) Can this be solved by placing "nowiki" tags around the URLs? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah, endorse. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I guess, although referencing in the article should be improved. We have articles on a lot of sites that are objectionable... Stormfront (website) pops to mind. Not liking a website isn't a good reason to delete the article on it. Note that YouTube, as far as I know, and 99% of other websites, take the same approach... they don't remove any copyrighted material without a request from the rights holder. Then we have articles on sites like The Pirate Bay which mock people who come to them with copyright concerns. This DRV's premise seems quite a bit off. --Rividian (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keeping the article is not a policy violation, the only possible policy violation is the external link to the website and even that's debatable. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Wikipedia has plenty of articles on things of dubious legality and morality but that's not the same as endorsing it and I don't see why LyricWiki should be any different. -Halo (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure. If the site is objectionable, then we shouldn't link to it, sure, but if it's notable, then we should have an article on it. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the youTube article isn't going anywhere any time soon, despite its even more egregious violations of copyright and trademark. Happy‑melon 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FootnotesSmall

I believe the TfD for the page should be reviewed. I don't believe the input by other editors in the TfD was taken into account and I see no logical/"common sense" reason why all usages of the template should not be replaced by {{reflist}} then deleted. Rockfang (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the TfD ended, redundant to {{reflist}}, but may cause collateral damage if deleted. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ca. 2000 transclusions of {{FootnotesSmall}} should be gradually replaced with {{reflist}} during the course of regular editing, but targeted replacement is probably not necessary. (On the other hand, there is Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. An additional 2000 edits won't affect performance, given that we receive 150-200 edits per minute.) Perhaps the replacement could be made a general fix in AWB? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but why is this here? I'm not saying that Rockfang is violating policy, but I don't see what is going wrong with what's been done, so I'm simply confused. Dozens of articles on my watchlist have already had Rockfang's idea implemented. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I have already started changing the {{FootnotesSmall}} template to {{reflist}}. This DRV for the TfD is here because I believe the closer ignored the input given by other editors. Also, administrators are supposed to determine consensus and examine policy pertinent to the situation. Consensus showed that the template was redundant. Policy states that redundant templates should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where, precisely, does it say that a redundant template cannot be redirected? Gimmetrow 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin: In this TfD, the rationales of the majority of the contributors (and since it's not a straight vote, the rationales are more important) made almost unanimous reference to the template's "redundancy" to {{reflist}}. The clear consensus of the discussion is that the functionality of {{footnotesSmall}} should be replaced by the functionality of {{reflist}}. A direct, but very inefficient, way of achieving this end would be to replace every occurence of {{FootnotesSmall}} with {{reflist}}. A very much simpler and more elegant solution, which was not explicitly suggested in the TfD but which is emminently sensible, is simply to redirect one to the other. Running an AWB script or bot to update the articles is simply unnecessary (WP:R#NOTBROKEN also applies very clearly in this instance). Happy‑melon 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How would switching the templates on articles using AWB be inefficient? Using AWB to switch them over allows you to do spelling fixes, formatting/style changes (to be inline with the MOS), etc, at the same time. It is simple and quite easy to do. I still believe the Delete part of the consensus, and established policy was ignored. --Rockfang (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand what the problem with the action that were taken is. The consensus were that the template were redundant and should be replaced with {{reflist}}. As Happy-melon said above, the easy and common way to do this is simply to redirect {{FootnotesSmall}} to {{reflist}}. The only "benefit" to changing via AWB/bot/manually is a bumping up of edit counts. Redirects are cheap. KTC (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Substituting the template is not only unnecessary, those doing it are doing it incorrectly. In many cases {{FootnotesSmall}} generated notes at 100% font size. These should have been replaced with <references/>, not {{reflist}}. Gimmetrow 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin (bicycles)

Although I have not seen the article before it was deleted as I have only started long after it was deleted, but does 562,000 ghits mean the brand is not notable for this site Jay Pegg (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure you really meant 2420 hits. Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can overturn the expired PROD deletion for you, but unless you've got some sources you can add it'd just be deleted through WP:AFD. Or we can userfy it to User:Jay Pegg/Merlin or something similar so you can work on sourcing it before moving it back to mainspace. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want help with anything. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentYes, it can be undeleted and I think an adequate article could be written, but you really do need to have some additional material available to put into it, such as some 3rd party reviews of their products. DGG (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]