Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25: Difference between revisions
IronGargoyle (talk | contribs) →[[:Category:Wikipedians by religion]]: closing discussion, result was deletion overturned. |
|||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
====[[:Blessthefall]]==== |
====[[:Blessthefall]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Blessthefall]]''' – Unsalted – [[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{la|Blessthefall}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Blessthefall|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Blessthefall}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessthefall|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>Article was deleted and recreated four times according to the protected articles page for May 2007. I never saw the page when it was around, but the band is clearly notable; see [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hvfoxqedld6e~T1 Their Allmusic writeup] and [http://www.azcentral.com/ent/calendar/articles/0619eventsbless0620.html Arizona Star article] noting nationwide Warped Tour appearance. I am willing to write the article and establish notability if it is unprotected. [[User:Chubbles1212|Chubbles]] 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
:{{la|Blessthefall}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Blessthefall|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Blessthefall}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessthefall|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>Article was deleted and recreated four times according to the protected articles page for May 2007. I never saw the page when it was around, but the band is clearly notable; see [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hvfoxqedld6e~T1 Their Allmusic writeup] and [http://www.azcentral.com/ent/calendar/articles/0619eventsbless0620.html Arizona Star article] noting nationwide Warped Tour appearance. I am willing to write the article and establish notability if it is unprotected. [[User:Chubbles1212|Chubbles]] 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
*This was rather promotional in tone, and would have needed rewriting and better sourcing to survive an AfD. But it was deleted under A7 ("no assertion of significance or importance") while the article as last deleted included "blessthefall's debut album, His Last Walk, surfaced in April 2007". This might or might not be enough to pass [[WP:MUSIC]], but IMO releasing any album at all (assuming this was a true release, not an Internet-only release, which i think it was, since a real label is mentioned) is enough of a "claim of notability" to avoid an A7 delete. I would '''overturn''' and list on AfD. But in any case, this should be unsalted as there is a good faith statement of intent to write a proper article on this group, which if possible should not be blocked merely because someone wrote a poor article in the past. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
*This was rather promotional in tone, and would have needed rewriting and better sourcing to survive an AfD. But it was deleted under A7 ("no assertion of significance or importance") while the article as last deleted included "blessthefall's debut album, His Last Walk, surfaced in April 2007". This might or might not be enough to pass [[WP:MUSIC]], but IMO releasing any album at all (assuming this was a true release, not an Internet-only release, which i think it was, since a real label is mentioned) is enough of a "claim of notability" to avoid an A7 delete. I would '''overturn''' and list on AfD. But in any case, this should be unsalted as there is a good faith statement of intent to write a proper article on this group, which if possible should not be blocked merely because someone wrote a poor article in the past. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:Just a follow-up: that is indeed a true release, on [[Record Collection]], which is a major-label subsidiary. [[User:Chubbles1212|Chubbles]] 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
*:Just a follow-up: that is indeed a true release, on [[Record Collection]], which is a major-label subsidiary. [[User:Chubbles1212|Chubbles]] 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Unsalt''' The last version isn't worth undeleting. Support unsalting and recreation with sources. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Unsalt''' The last version isn't worth undeleting. Support unsalting and recreation with sources. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[Radio Monash]] (closed)==== |
====[[Radio Monash]] (closed)==== |
Revision as of 13:39, 1 July 2007
Pokemon species by gender categories (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nominator believed that gender played little role in only a small aspect of the Pokemon franchise, two users came forward with more detailed examples of the significant role this feature plays. supporters of the nominator added little to the discussion, characterizing the categories merely as "over-categorization" with no arguments or reasoning to back them up. The closing admin unilaterally closed the debate when a consensus was clearly not evident. ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Wikipedians by religion (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This category was closed as delete against a consensus of 30:11 in favor of keeping. The closing admin in his comments retained all of the arguments in favor of deletion (even though they had been contested by several editors) and none of the arguments in favor of keeping. Request DRV on the basis that this was closed in error with no visible consensus to delete and a probable rough consensus to keep Ramdrake 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of categories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that are neutral categories that can help the project. The comments in favor of keeping are addressed by the fact thhat "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can be used for the purpose raised in these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn closing admin's rationale makes no sense. "other similar categories deleted on same basis" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. This was a discussion for these categories and an overwhelming consensus to keep. You can't cite other consensus to override this consensus. -N 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Blessthefall (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Radio Monash (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not proposing undeletion, but current contributors to the article seem to not have correctly understood the procedure for review. Coren 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tony Rumble (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
====[[:]]====
Closing admin used WP:SNOW with two "votes" for this; eight similar Afd's also closed with SNOW after very little input or time elapsed. John Vandenberg 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Didar Singh Bains (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No claim of significance or importance). It seems to me that such statements in the article as "one of the richest Sikh farmers in North America" "a leading figure in the Sikh community for the last 20 years". "president of the World Sikh organization" and "founder chairman of the World Kabbadi federation" do constitute an assertion of significance. Obviously better sroucing would be needed for this to survive an AfD, but I think these claims ought to be enough to avoid an A7 speedy. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, but has not responsed, although he responded to two later requests to reconsider speedy deletions with "Please see WP:DRV." DES (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was deleted with the comment "Biographical article that does not assert significance" four times by the same admin. The admin was asked on his talk page to restore, and has not responded. The article says "Moore co-wrote the true-crime novel Deadly Medicine with ex-husband Dan Reed in the early 80s. The 295-page work went on to become a New York Times best-seller for seven weeks in 1988, and also a NBC TV movie-of-the-week." That is a very celar claim ot notability. I don't see how anyone can think this is an A7 speedy delete. On that basis alone I would be incined to a keep at an AfD, assuminmg that this claim was sourced. But even if some editors might reasonably opt for deletion at an afd, this isn't the kind of "clear-cut" case that speedy deletion is intended for. Overturn deletion. DES (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Spyware_Terminator (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Rewriting the entire article based on other existing articles Spyware Terminator's page was deleted for reasons of "blatant advertising". Upon comparing what was on the page previously, the information contained was no different from the information contained in Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spysweeper, or Windows Defender. I also rewrote the page following the layout and information of Ad-Aware and that was also deleted. I do not mind rewriting the page from scratch, and working with people to make it look less like an advertisement, assuming it ever did look one. Cableguytk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is my draft which was so nicely deleted:
This layout: 1) does not appear to be advertising to me 2) follows a mesh of the layouts at Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Windows Defender (mostly focusing on Spybot) 3) has a good amount of sources. Unfortunately due to the age of this product (around 1.5yrs), the lack of a hosuehold name like "Ad-Aware", and continuous negative campaigns against the product, including here on Wikipedia, not many other sources are available outside of the ones provided. Please review the entry and let me know your opinions. Cableguytk 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
the "11" links to the Spyware Terminator domain were to cover me should anyone claim that any of it was independent research, since Im always beig flagged for this kind of stuff. I linked to Download.com (which Ad-Aware does), I linked to a couple domains which have awarded the program (Softpedia.com, and Xmaesto.com), and I linked a press release which was about Spyware Terminator's associated former parent company changes in business practices. Other than that, there really isnt much out there worth linking, unless you want me to link up to the plethora of download sites similar to Download.com and Softpedia.com that have reviewed and listed the program. In all, I have links to 4 different independent sources (websearch.com, softpedia, xmaesto, and download.com) By comparison:
Cableguytk 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Akradecki:Why dont you go check Ad-Aware or Spybot or Windows Defender while you are at it and tell me what you think of those articles?
Ok, I'm going to make one more attempt at trying to clearly annunciate for Cableguytk and Sleepm:
Having said all this, and since I'm involved in the discussion so can't exercise admin tools here, with a current tally of 9:1 endorsing deletion, can someone please snow this thing? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
is advertised on that page and it even says it is recommended by Wiki-Security?http://smitfraud.wiki-security.com/wiki/ov_Parasite/Smitfraud/. This is a blatant ad. sleepm 28 June 2007.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jessica Michalik (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as a delete on AfD despite only about one third of responders arguing for this option, based apparently only on the opinion of the closing admin. The excuse appears to have been on the grounds of WP:BLP, despite the fact that a) the person concerned is dead and b) if there any grounds that would affect living relatives, neither the closer nor anyone else has suggested what those might be. This was completely out of process. (Edit: Tony has since claimed on IRC that he interpreted this AfD as needing "consensus to keep", evidently due to the odd BLP argument. I've never seen a case like this.) Rebecca 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Multiple government inquests clearly shows an impact that can be considered notable and Riana adequately explains why BLP is not an overriding issue here. --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Velvet D’Amour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Was previously deleted as article was poorly written and contained no sources; today in process of rewriting and adding sources found article deleted within 5 minutes of post. Would like new article vetted for AfD at least before auto-delete. Would also like to know if there is some existing protocol for adding models and actresses to Wiki, as well as how to ensure that public access photographs don't keep being deleted due to not knowing the correct protocol for copyrighting the images via Wiki tags? AntiVanity 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid A7, unless being in a non-notable movie is an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn "known via the worldwide media coverage she received after her appearance in Jean-Paul Gaultier's 2007 Spring/Summer prèt-â-porter collection shown in Paris in October 2006." is a claim of notability. So is "D'Amour's appearance on a catwalk for a designer who does not currently produce plus-size clothing was widely categorized as a farcial..." (emphasis added). So is "D'Amour also featured in the title role of Avida, the 2006 French film directed by Gustave de Kervern and Benoît Delépine, which was selected for the 2006 Cannes and 2007 Tribeca Film Festivals." It may be that none of these claims would be judged suffficient for inclusion at an AfD, but that is a judgement call. Any plausible claim of notability, whether sourced or not, and whether it is enoug to clearly pass WP:BIO or not, is enough that an A7 speedy should not be used, but an AfD or a Prod, which allows the question of notability to be debated and settled by consensus. DES (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Even if we accept the unsupported hyperbole asserting notability, the article was an unambiguous G11 as spam. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Even if the previous article was deleted as spam, it wasn't salted because there is the opportunity to create a real page about this model/actress (who absolutely passes notability; a quick Google search shows a fair bit of coverage from newspapers). Deleting an article in under 5m simply because the article was deleted before seems very 'eye for an eye' to me; this admin could easily have given the re-creator a half hour to at least get her information organized. Expecting articles to spring forth from editors fully formed or risk deletion seems contrary the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --Thespian 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- That wasn't why it was deleted. It was spam. As in: here's a link to her photographer, here's a link to her agent kind of spam. The type which doesn't seriously try to be anything other than an advert. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, clearly fashion isn't your strong point or you would not mention the Wikilink to Nick Knight (photographer) ('her photographer') as spam. AntiVanity 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- The deletion log entry said, in full "(CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance) " Not a word about spam there. if this was delted as spam, I would expect a rather different log entry. DES (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which is, of course, my *point*. Regardless of why it was deleted, it wasn't blocked forever; there's absolutely a chance that the new article might have been good, clear and precise (my quick poke showed current news stories and 10k refs on google; a reasonable amount to get a good, solid article from, even if they're 90% fashion blogs). So "Even if the previous article was deleted as spam" there is no reason to believe that, given more than 3 minutes to build a page, the new one wouldn't be better. There was no emergency that made the admin think they needed to take action, 90s after the page was created, to delete it. --Thespian 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nor do I think that fairly describes the article as it was in the last version before it was deleted. It did list her agent, which i would remove from the restored article. It also discussed the alleged controversy surrouding her appearence as a model in a particular show, and allegations that the designer was merely using her to make a point about "the international model health debate". This is surely a subject that is not without general interest. DES (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn A7 deletion, as there clearly was an assertion of notability. I wouldn't apply G11 to the latest draft. Strike the last sentence, and it would have no spam content, which means that the "fundamentally rewritten" test of G11 isn't met. However, blogs aren't exactly reliable sources, so better sourcing and an improved version are clearly to be desired. GRBerry 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, regardless of whether it should've been speedied or AfD'd, no good sources were provided, I can't find any, and none have been brought to light here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but my Google search found links to the Toronto Star, the Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment Tonight, her work on IMDB (the movie, working on Mo'Nique's Fat Chance, etc). It was speedied in under 5 minutes from creation, and seems to have been entirely based on 'we deleted this before'. It could have easily been deleted in an hour if it was obviously going down the same garden path. Many articles about people who could well be notable, verifiable, and more are deleted because of things that have nothing to do with the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia, but instead being deleted because the article isn't suitable. These are good rules, that we need, but they should not be used to prevent the information from ever being available on wikipedia, if someone is willing to do a better, more complete job. --Thespian 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't find any of those with a search for "velvet d'amour". I do find a lot of blogs, and a lot of articles which name-drop her and are substantially about something else. That's why I didn't say I found "no sources", I said I found "no good sources". If you can provide links to your findings, I'd certainly be willing to look at them and reconsider my position if appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can I ask how you're searching? I'm hitting google with "Velvet D’Amour", just like that (with quotes), and the first non-video hit is to a column about the appearance in Gautier's show in the Sydney Morning Herald (the second is to an SMH blog by the author of the column, and I'm wondering if you just assumed they were both blogs). Other stuff is further down; there *are* a lot of blogs, certainly, but it's there. --Thespian 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Same search, I'm guessing you're referring to this one? [3]. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, it's not a substantial source about her, it just mentions her in a photo caption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm, no, the first 5 paraghraphs are about her appearance in Gautier's show, with quotes from her and such. (ok, technically, the 3rd paragraph is explaining someone else was there so that D'Amour's reaction to her could be in the fourth). It will take some digging to do a good job with this, but the sources are there. While I don't expect you to do deep on this (I will likely help if overturned, which is why I went further to see what was available), I'm unsure how you missed that. --Thespian 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did miss some there, but that doesn't substantially change my opinion of that one. A few paragraphs about someone in an article which is mainly about something else (the fashion show as a whole) does not make sufficient material for an article. (An article on the show, that mentions her, certainly might work, if there are more sources available about it, and an article about her might work if more material on her over time is available that's more than a quick blurb "X appeared at Y show (brief description and maybe quickie quote)."). Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm, no, the first 5 paraghraphs are about her appearance in Gautier's show, with quotes from her and such. (ok, technically, the 3rd paragraph is explaining someone else was there so that D'Amour's reaction to her could be in the fourth). It will take some digging to do a good job with this, but the sources are there. While I don't expect you to do deep on this (I will likely help if overturned, which is why I went further to see what was available), I'm unsure how you missed that. --Thespian 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Same search, I'm guessing you're referring to this one? [3]. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, it's not a substantial source about her, it just mentions her in a photo caption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can I ask how you're searching? I'm hitting google with "Velvet D’Amour", just like that (with quotes), and the first non-video hit is to a column about the appearance in Gautier's show in the Sydney Morning Herald (the second is to an SMH blog by the author of the column, and I'm wondering if you just assumed they were both blogs). Other stuff is further down; there *are* a lot of blogs, certainly, but it's there. --Thespian 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't find any of those with a search for "velvet d'amour". I do find a lot of blogs, and a lot of articles which name-drop her and are substantially about something else. That's why I didn't say I found "no sources", I said I found "no good sources". If you can provide links to your findings, I'd certainly be willing to look at them and reconsider my position if appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but my Google search found links to the Toronto Star, the Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment Tonight, her work on IMDB (the movie, working on Mo'Nique's Fat Chance, etc). It was speedied in under 5 minutes from creation, and seems to have been entirely based on 'we deleted this before'. It could have easily been deleted in an hour if it was obviously going down the same garden path. Many articles about people who could well be notable, verifiable, and more are deleted because of things that have nothing to do with the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia, but instead being deleted because the article isn't suitable. These are good rules, that we need, but they should not be used to prevent the information from ever being available on wikipedia, if someone is willing to do a better, more complete job. --Thespian 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn A7 ~ As the editor who wrote the article I can assure you that I have no personal interest in promoting D'Amour's career or creating spam; the rewrite was simply to allow individual model entries to the article plus-size model remain as brief as possible, with elaboration to be provided separately under the individual's own article, with AfD to be undergone at that level. Principally though, the resumption of work on the D'Amour article was due to continued vanity edits under her name on the plus-size model article which have been difficult to curb. This article was actually the most neutral, least vanity-stricken posted to date. If I am a little zealous with Wiki- and URL- linking associated names and sources it is only because I've been through a few AfD's and the discussions have indicated that over-citing references gets you further along in the game. AntiVanity 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. An encyclopedia is not a repository of every tiny irrelevant blip in pop culture. This individual has not achieved notable recognition. 209.247.5.138 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)