Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:08, 28 September 2006

< September 25	September 27 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

26 September 2006

All Sorts of Trouble for the Boy in the Bubble Sketch Comedy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Sorts of Trouble for the Boy in the Bubble Sketch Comedy

In the the deletion discussion section of this article, I was very happy to work in open dialogue with the editors who nominated it for deletion. There was some concern that the article may not meet any Notability requirements, and it was recommended that I look over Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). I followed their suggestion, and found that the group could, in fact, meet the Notability requirement "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". The evidence cited (found in both the article and the deletion discussion) to prove the group's prominence in Bloomington, Indiana was a newspaper article in which the group in question was voted First Place "Best Comedy Show" in the "Best of Bloomington 2004" Readers Poll feature. Shortly after I pointed this out, the article was unceremoniously deleted, insisting that "there is no evidence (provided here or on the article page) this group meets any notability standard." I felt this was a little unfair, as there was no mention from any of the editors as to the new evidence (or the argument) that was provided.--GoodAaron 00:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from closing admin). I thought this group didn't come close to meeting any notability standard, as several commenters noted, and in particular fails Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) pretty strongly. Of the ten suggested reasons for inclusion, this group prima facie fails all but one, which is the fourth: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...". Now, when I read that, I take "city" to mean a city of some size, NYC, Chicago, London, Mumbai, maybe Houston or Seattle or similar; in short, a city large enough to have something called a "local scene". I'd be surprised to find that this was intended to refer to a place like Bloomington, Indiana, which is a medium-sized college town in the Midwestern United States. But even if we're counting Bloomington's local scene, the argument that they are important in the Bloomington comedy community is that a college newspaper voted them #1. In summary, it is a college comedy troupe which has received rave reviews from their college's paper which also has some name-recognition in their college's town. --- Deville (Talk) 05:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose my question would be, then, what would constitute produceable "evidence of being representative of local scene of a city" if not a reader's poll from a college newspaper of a primarily college city? I hope you see my point. Also, I don't believe discounting Bloomington (or Indiana University) simply because of its location in the Midwest should be an adequate factor.--GoodAaron 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It's not its location in the Midwest which disqualifies it - it is its comparatively low population. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does this mean that the noteworthiness of towns based on population should also be considered for deletion? What about small towns with populations of nary 500 people, let alone 70,000? It just seems to open something of a Pandora's Box.--GoodAaron 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Edits like this [1] lead me to believe that the purpose of this article is promotion, not information. Only 10 of the 27 (count 'em!) Google hits are unique, and not one of them is a reliable source. Guy 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I added that link when a notification was added to the article stating that it needed more outside Wikipedia links linking to the page. You'll find I also added a link to List of sketch comedy groups under Sketch comedy.--GoodAaron 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per closing admin. I agree w/JzG as well. Eusebeus 08:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal liberation movement

There's a lot of confusion surrounding this, so I'm bringing it here for clarification. This category was proposed for deletion or renaming to Animal rights by Grutness (I can't find the vote, but will post a link when I do). As an alternative to renaming, he suggested that two categories should exist: Animal rights and Animal liberation movement. I therefore went ahead and did that, splitting the animal rights articles into (a) a main category called Animal rights containing general articles about the concept and issues and (b) a subcategory of Animal rights called Animal liberation movement, containing articles about activists/groups/campaigns. I then paid no more attention to the CfD vote because I thought the matter was settled.

Now User:Kbdank71 is merging all the articles back into one cat called Animal rights. I would like to retain both categories, and so I'm bringing it here for review because I'm not sure where else to go with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD discussion is here.

Undelete Category:Animal liberation movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closing admin: I determined this to be a merge consensus. I have no opinion personally if it should stay or merge. --Kbdank71 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. · XP · 16:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Seems reasonable. Themindset 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, I don't think the original CFD was sufficiently well advertised. Messages were not places on wikiproject animal rights, the animal rights or animal liberation movement articles. It was only when other pages I was watching had their categories changed that I knew anything about the CfD. Hence the CfD only attracted a few respondents which did not generate a good consensus. I think this is often a problem with CfD discussion, as category pages tend to have a only a few people who have edited the pages and hence only a few have them on their watchlists.

The Category:Animal right cat is pretty full and seems a good candidant for sub categororising. I'd like to see a wider discussion on how this should be done. My personal oppinion is that there animal liberation has distinct difference to animal rights. Animal liberation involves activly liberating animals and often involves Direct action techniques, animal rights is a not as radical an agenda. --Salix alba (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there has indeed been a lot of confusion about this, mainly thanks to User:SlimVirgin. I proposed this category for either renaming or for it to become a subcategory of a more all-encompassing Category:Animal rights. While this CFD discussion was in process, SlimVirgin arbitrarily decided to pre-empt the discussion by creating a separate animal rights category. Almost everyone who voted after that point voted for a merging of the old category into her new category - hence Kbdank71's perfectly logical closing of the discussion and merging of the two categories. SlimVirgin was notified of the proposed changes at a very early stage and - despite being a member of the WikiProject in question - seems to have done nothing to notify other members of the WikiProject in order to garner more discussion. She also has several times accused me of doing things relating to this category which a quick check of the history of it and my contribs would make it clear I have not done - something which I am getting thoroughly sick of. As to the category itself, I agree with Salix alba that, while some form of subcategorisation is a good idea, this may not necessarily be the best way to split the main category, and as such, further discussion should take place before undeletion is agreed to. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, of course. In my view this is bordering on process fetishism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi Irwin

I recreated this on this version, and detailed my reasons on the Talk page, and the article stood again for a time: "I've gone ahead and done so, with extremely heavy sourcing. Notability has been established and will only grow each week we draw nearer to her own show and press coverage increases even further. WP: not a crystal ball is no longer applicable in any fashion here." Yes, her own show has not yet aired, but will be in 3 months' time, and there is no sign at all that the glut of media coverage surrounding her is abating in any fashion. She does not get a lot of press yet in the United States, but gets what appears to be massive media coverage in Australia, the next most populuous English language country.

Review the rewritten version of the article I made--I established her notability to warrant at the least a stub, rather than a redirect to her father. Above and beyond that, each week/month, the press will just grow still more. Like this, this, and this, just since I last edited the now-valid article several days ago. As people refuse to accept her notability on apparently just procedural rules and are refusing to ignore the AfD per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR etc., I'm filing here. This needs to be an article now.

Previous AfD · XP · 14:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist "This needs to be an article now." is bit of a counterproductive argument, however.... Given the apparent very high likelihood that Bindi will appear in her own widely watch TV series in Oz at some point, I recommend a relisting in the light of this and continued media coverage - especially as there seems to be some (or beginnings of) out of process edit warring on the article page over whether this page should exist or not. According to the news articles, Bindi has already completed 7 episodes of her own documentary series[2]. Even if Bindi had to step away from the TV career for whatever reason (or even if there was another freak wildlife accident), these episodes would very likely be shown to a wide audience. That's my opinion though, so another relisting should be done to generate consensus. If it feels too soon after the first afd, wait a couple more weeks or somethingBwithh 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we really need to have this discussion. Obviously, she merits at least a redirect/merge to her father; the decision to branch her off could be taken editorially at her talk page. Xoloz 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was, and people keep RVing it on procedural grounds. This is in response to that. · XP · 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Process gone wacky - The old AFD made the right call, but isn't and shouldn't be binding on this article.
This AFD, which was overwhelmingly in favor of a merge (but this is before the Documentary Kids show, mind) was closed as a procedural speedy delete without respect to the content's quality, as the article was created by a banned user. This article isn't written by a banned user, so merge it or keep it or AFD it on its own merits; the old AFD is based on old facts and was (rightly) closed without respect to the debate anyway.
The lesson learned here? Process sucks donkey butt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstood and badly-applied process does suck. That's all that we have here. Xoloz 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's any other kind? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Watch me close some DRVs -- that's delicious process! ;) Xoloz 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The deletion should be without prejudice for a new article. If people want it deleted, they should AfD it again. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, let them AfD it. Themindset 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD per above. --Core des at talk! 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. What is the rush here, exactly? Why can't we wait until her show starts and notability becomes unambiguous, rather than re-creating the article each time there is a new mention in the Mudhole Flats Womens Club Journal or whatever? Guy 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result of the original decision, on the basis that the clear consensus was merge and redirect, despite the procedural closing. Nothing substantial has changed since the AfD: this is still the same article, albeit with cosmetic changes. --bainer (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this version in detail, I don't think it's the same article, and it does make an effort to establish notability. I'll agree with Overturn on this, and it can be relisted if someone think's it is still deletable. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow. No need to overturn the result of a prior debate; this article is a new one, and a genuine attempt to meet WP policies, and if someone wants to nominate it for deletion, it can be discussed. Mango juice^talk 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow - She is now on the cover of the 3rd most widely read magazine in Australia (New Idea), read by 10% of the population. She was also on the front page (very prominently) of several newspapers, eg the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 September (front page can be viewed through [3] - her photo of her reading her speech took nearly half the page. Her speech was reportedly viewed by 300 million. I think she is right now more notable than many living people with wikipedia entries. If that notability is not sustained then relist for AfD - however, at present her notability has evolved since the original debate. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per Mangojuice and Golden Wattle. No need for AfD. JoshuaZ 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Doesnt meet CSD-G4, and is a different article. If someone else wanted to nominate this version of the article for deletion, then it may be discussed then. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elemental Heroes/Destiny Heroes

I believe these two pages were deleted wrongly; they just disappeared overnight without any proper and at least kind notification that they would be deleted beforehand. While the Elemental Heroes page was originally deleted, it was recreated with information specifically pertaining to why it should continue to exist (that they are the primary cards of Jaden Yuki's deck, and as such, they are pop culture icons). The Destiny Heroes page had the same information. Selectively singling out just these two articles clearly indicates that something has gone wrong in the process, as many of the pages related to Yu-Gi-Oh! cards remain untouched (why does Dark Magician or Blue-Eyes White Dragon remain, if these two articles cannot? They are just as important to the plot of their respective series, and have large card bases in the Trading Card Game.

Overturn per my nomination --Benten 13:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied them, as recreations of pages deleted here. The versions I deleted were substantially similar to the last deleted versions; the only addition was some waffle about their role in the anime, already covered in extreme detail elsewhere. While the untouched articles may or may not be of questionable quality or encyclopedic value, these articles were G4 recreations that showed little hope of becoming encyclopedia articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Man in Black's explanation is sound Bwithh 15:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have every right to exist. They're as much a part of the anime as, like Benten said, Blue-Eyes or DM. You had absolutely no right to delete those pages. They're not just cards, the Destiny Heroes in particular are pivotal to the character of Aster Phoenix, and the E-Heroes do the same for Jaden. Really, there was no reason to delete them, they should be reinstated as soon as possible. User: Drake Clawfang.
I suppose hoping for third-party coverage in reliable sources would be hoping for too much, eh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, per AMiB's sound reasoning. Guy 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe EVERY card doesn't need to be listed, but the card series are notable. The E-Heroes are practically synonomous with the anime. I don't know about the E-Heroes, but for the D-Heroes, what about a page that explains how they've impacted Aster Phoenix, their history in the anime, and how they're abilties are based on time and/or British history. Would that please you? User: Drake Clawfang.
How about you do that in the Aster Phoenix page? Seems like you don't need two pages when it's only notable as an aspect of a notable character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; agreed with A Man on all counts. If you desire to add fancruft, put it on the character articles and actually relate it to the characters. Interrobamf 05:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Man in Black. Naconkantari 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nintendo Megaton

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nintendo Megaton

A simple vote count shows this was 50/50 and attempts were made to address the lack of sources problem that was the stated reason for deletion. However, it was closed as delete without further elaboration as to why. Ace of Sevens 06:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per my nomination Ace of Sevens 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of this Nintendo fan in-joke. No evidence of significance has eben presented, and delete arguments from policy were countered with personal anecdote and refernce to trivial mentions. Wikipedia is not gamefaqs, and not a collection of random fan trivia. A very short mention in Nintendo culture and a redirect would probably be proportionate to the importance of the topic. Guy 09:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid afd. Afd is not a vote, and sometimes admins have to make tough calls. This wasn't one of them, however. It's just a bunch of sweaty fanboys jumping to conclusions after receiving a vague translation of a hype-mongering article. It's also a matter of precedence: Eon8, a similarly vague item, led to a far bigger misunderstanding... and it's now been deleted. Garrett^Talk 10:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD isn't a vote, but if an admins deletes something for which there was not pooular support, I'd think they're obligated to explain their reasoning. Ace of Sevens 15:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, within the range of admin discretion, given that the "keep" opinions basically boil down to "take my word for it, it was big, really big!". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 14:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of British West Florida

Article was deleted as repost of deleted article, but new article was not the same as the deleted article, and the original delete (NN) criteria may no longer apply. Bo 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Micronations are generally of importance to a maximum of one person: the creator. No evidene otherwise has been presented in this case. Guy 18:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. DBWF made it into the Lonely Planet Guide (3 page entry), has been discussed on the world history blog, got a mention in the Australain (as part of the book review), and is listed on the Northwest Florida News website. (I had put the defence in the talk page (which went away aparently with the main page) Bo 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion While there is a longer history of colonial Loyalism in Florida, this is an article about a self-declared Dominion dating back to 2005, and is essentially a social club for one or more persons. Couldn't find the 3 page entry in the Amazon.com electronic search archive of 2 current editions of the Lonely Planet Guide to Florida - though this would be insufficient by itself. . Book references and media coverage does not automatically equate with encyclopedic notability - e.g. This teddy bear which has had exponentially more practical impact in its short life than the Dominion of British West Florida has had since its 2005 "restoration". Bwithh 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Bwithh 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Recreating a fresh version doesn't get around the G4 criteria unless you can offer evidence that the substance of the AFD no longer applies. For micronations, the burden of proving notability (most of them don't seem to exist beyond a few webpages) is pretty high. Fan-1967 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations. Page 139-141 ISBN 1-74104-730-7 I should have shown that above, my bad. Does being listed on the North Florida Daily News website, and being singled out in the Australian (newspaper) book review help ? Bo 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the book description of the Micronations guide from Amazon "this is a fully illustrated, humourous mock guidebook to the nations people create in their own backyards" Hmmm. Maybe you could do a very brief mention/external link here: :West_Florida#A_short-lived_Republic but you'll probably have to go through some discussion with editors there too Bwithh 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think it would be 'right' to try to link a 'micronation' to a real short-lived republic in the main space. Kids might get confused. Thanks for giving a suggestion though. Bo 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle (with draw request for reconsideration). Bo 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, while the old article appears to have been deleted for lack of "notability", the version recently speedied does show "notability". JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 *'''Undelete''', of course. In my view this is bordering on process fetishism. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-====[[BabyFit]]====
-I added this entry, it was marked as advertisement, and I re-wrote it to include pertinent information about the Babyfit.com website, used by thousands of pregnant women to stay healthy during their pregnancies.  It was deleted without any kind of information as to why.  I made every effort to make the content pertinent and useful to someone trying to find out what the site is all about.  I think it should not have been deleted.  [[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]] 14:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-* Can someone help me figure out which admin deleted it so I can let them know?  I'm REALLY trying to follow all the rules here, just not always sure how :)  [[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]] 14:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-*:The article was deleted yesterday ([[25 September]]) by [[user:DVD R W|DVD R W]] with the comment "CSD A7", which means they felt it met the criteria of [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles|Speedy deletion criteria A7]] (criterion number 7 for articles) which reads "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.". The way to find out this information is to look at the [[special:log/delete|Deletion log]].
-*:It was first marked as a [[WP:PROD|Proposed deletion]] (PROD) by [[user:Merope|Merope]], the PROD tag was legitimately removed by [[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]]. [[user:CBDroege|CBDroege]] then marked it for speedy deletion, presumably unaware that it was a disputed PROD. The CSD tag was then removed by Jknepfle three times and restored by CBDroege twice before it was deleted. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Send to AfD''' as a contested PROD, although I don't hold out much hope of it being kept. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-* Hi, I was the one who deleted it, sorry. I was emptying the backlogged speedy deletion category and this one was in it. It was tagged by someone else for deletion for being an advertisement, but we don't exactly have a criterion for deleting ads and I was seeing some notability issues with the article so I deleted it. They seem like an interesting, well intentioned group of people though. It would be nice to hear what others think upon reviewing this. [[User:DVD R W| DVD]]+[[User_talk:DVD R W| R/W]] 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-* Hello, I'm the editor who added the db tag to the article. When I added the tag the first time, The entire article consisted of paragraphs cut and pasted from the organization's website. This has strong precedent as a reason for speedy delete. Whenever, I put a db tag on any article, I check back several time just to make sure that the original author did not remove the db tag. No matter whatelse the author was doing to the article, it is not the original author's job to remove the tag. I was returning it to the article each time as a matter of precedented policy. I agree that the organization itself is worthy of a well written non POV article, but I'm not sure if this author is capable of that, since (s)he works for the organization. If a new article can be written, that does not sound like an advertisement for the center, then I'm all for letting it stay.  :)  [[User:CBDroege|CB Droege]] 15:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-**My apologies on deleting the db tag.  It was an honest mistake.  The first time, I just selected all the text and deleted it, while adding my own personal explanation of what the site does and who it is for.  The second time, I misread the instructions about using the hangon tag.  I thought I was supposed to remove both it and the original db tag.  I did not remove it a third time.  My question becomes, then, who is more qualified to write an article about a pretty popular site for pregnant women than the people who run the site?  And, how can I find that qualified person? [[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]] 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-So, what can I do now to get it un-deleted?  [[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]] 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.   I recreated it as a redirect to <s>Smart</s>[[SparkPeople]], as nothing which isn't in that article was ever in this one.  My apologies if this is out-of-process, but it seems the best option, for now.  If you ([[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]]) can write a stand-alone article, please do so in the talk page, first.  If someone wants to do history-only undelete of the non-copyvio versions, I have no objections.  (I also have no objections to the redirect being proposed for deletion, as failing [[WP:WEB]].)  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-**I think thias is a good solution. [[User:CBDroege|CB Droege]] 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-**I agree that the redirect is a good solution. I think that at present any expansion to the BabyFit content should be done on the SparkPeople article as this is likely to result in one article of better quality than two separate ones. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-**Thank you all for your time and effort on this.  I think it's a very reasonable solution.  [[User:Jknepfle|Jknepfle]] 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Bindi Irwin]]====