Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:45, 5 September 2006

< September 1	September 3 >

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

2 September 2006

The Martians Band

Following a chat with the user who deleted this I have been asked to put the following forward:

The article was deleted as non-notable. The article in question concerns a band, so I will work from Wikipedia's own guidelines; "The Martians" meet the following criteria:

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

The Martians have been featured in the Scotsman (UK wide paper, [1], The Sunday Times [2], and the BBC [3]. References from the Washington Times and North Korea Times are also available!

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

See 'David Sneddon', ex member of The Martians and winner of Fame Academy UK

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

"The Martians" recently won Cameron Mackintosh's "Highland Quest For a New Musical [4]

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

The Martians have been the subject of three broadcasts by BBC Scotland's "Radio Cafe", and also feature in a TV documentary to be released in 2007 by Endemol.

Hopefully this is enough to meet the notability guidelines and have the article reinstated.

Regards, Geoff.robbins

Undelete, List on AfD - This probably should have more eyes on it to judge notability. --Improv 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, List on AfD - becoming notable perhaps. Definitely deserves more scrutiny. --Dennis The TIger 01:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, list on AfD. Was deleted per its AfD, and speedy deleted again under A7/G4. However, as it appears they may have become notable lately, another round of AfD can't hurt. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. Don't see the need for AfD if it clearly meets the guidelines, which it appears to. Akradecki 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, looks pretty cut and dry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Clear evidence of notability provided. If that can be dropped into the article, I see no reason for another round of AFD. (If another round of AFD is done, please include this evidence for people there to see, so they base their decision on this evidence and not the previous AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the discussion and the recommendations for deletion of the Yuria Kato article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria Kato were based on unfairly inadequate and misleading information. The notability tests were made in English, producing drastically fewer results than are obtained with using her actual Japanese name. Claims of her non-notability showed far, far less notability than she actually shows with the search on her actual, Japanese name (加藤ゆりあ). Similar models who have shown less notability (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2) have recently failed AfD nominations. Can the case be reconsidered with the evidence of the Japanese search (i.e., significant presence on Amazon and an article on Japanese Wikipedia) being weighed into the matter? Dekkappai 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted - Barring the creation of a WP:JAPANESE PORN BIO, the only notability tests we have for this person are WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PORN BIO. She would fail both of these tests, even a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO, because she has no notable awards in Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Also, keep in mind that Google hits has been determined to be an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars because of the porn industry's habit of Google bombing. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note, I did not mention the 482,000 Google hits the Japanese name gets, though the fact that the English name produced only 550 hits was mentioned in the discussion. I should probably have pointed out the 19 DVDs and 7 VHS tapes at mainstream Amazon, the 35 DVDs I found at another site, and her article on Japanese Wikipedia. None of this information was made known at time of nomination for deletion, only bald, unsupported assertions of non-notability. I'm just asking for a fair discussion. Dekkappai 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Google hits is not an accurate way to determine notability of porn stars. And there's no established criteria to say what number of DVDs and VHSs make a Japanese porn actress notable. All we can go by are WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PORN BIO. Even using Japanese equivalents, she still has no notable mainstream work in Japan, or notable awards, notable magazine appearances, etc etc. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, HongQiGong, I am aware that her 482,000 Google hits are not recognized in the proposed porn-star notability test (though, interestingly, not in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) test). That's why I didn't bring it up. You did. Dekkappai 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google hits is mentioned in the "Alternate tests" section of WP:BIO. But if you object to using WP:PORN BIO because it's only a proposed test, we can always stick with WP:BIO. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. If I am correct she's not notable in English but in Japanese. Language should not be a barrier to information. — Insta ntnood 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per Dekkappai. Being known is not the only possible criteria, only "should be known" outside their interest-group. If the question of notability turns on whether or not she "should" be more widely known in English, then she passes the bar. I would like to see PROOF that she gets 400 thousand google hits in Japanese however. Anyone? Link? I don't read Japanese, and so these little boxes could actually say "Dogfood" for all I know.Wjhonson 18:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem still exists that she is not notable even amongst Japanese-language media. Or at least, that still has not been verified. It's likely that it is unverifiable. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & Relist The late opinion in favor of keeping made a cogent argument which wasn't countered by any more opinions. This one should've been given another spin at AfD to solicit more opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the fact that she passes neither WP:BIO, or WP:PORN BIO, or a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO, because she has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, even in Japan? --- Hong Qi Gong 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence, relist. ~ trialsanderrors 01:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what you mean. I don't see how demostrating that she is not notiable even in Japan means we should relist. I fact I see it as evidence that we should not. --My old username 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. I don't understand that line of logic either. What's the point of relisting someone who is not notable? --- Hong Qi Gong 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find your argument that she's not notable weak and the counterargument if not convincing, then at least better sourced, that's why I ask for relisting to get more opinions on it. That's all. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a weak argument that she's not notable based on the fact that she has no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, no notable awards, etc etc, even in Japan? That's not sourced because she hasn't done anything notable... I can't source something that does not exist. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That's bullshit. Those are all claims you made either based on research or pulled out of thin air. If you done your research, you can provide your findings. Unsupported assertions are never strong. ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Its a lot harder to prove a negative but you should be able to find something if she is infact notiable in Japan. Since you are the one making the claim you should be the one trying to prove it not the other way around. --My old username 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not making a claim either way. This isn't AfD Round 2. I look at the AfD and see insufficient grounds for deletion, since most of the me-too votes might be based on incorrect information. That's why i'm proposing another go-around at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. May be (perhaps marginally) culturally significant in Japan, but evidence of significance to the English-speaking audience is lacking. Lack of hits makes verifiability problematic. Guy 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The actress in question does not qualify under WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. She does not appear to be known very well outside Japan. I also strongly disagree with the argument that the deletion should relisted on the claims that her lack of notibility have not been proven. If someone wants to keep this article they should be the ones to provide evidence. --My old username 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *'''Undelete''', looks pretty cut and dry. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Undelete'''. Clear evidence of notability provided. If that can be dropped into the article, I see no reason for another round of AFD. (If another round of AFD is done, please include this evidence for people there to see, so they base their decision on this evidence and not the previous AFD. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Perfect Kirby]]====
-From the reason given for the criteria for speedy deletion, I checked out the page for the discussion for deletion of the previous article. It seemed to me that the previous one was solely based on a webpage that was really not thriving at the time. However, I do believe that the present article is not based on simply a webpage, but the Flash series itself. I see no harm in bringing back this article so that it could explain what the subject is about and not about a webpage.
-Also, there are articles about Flash movies that explain virtually similar things as the Perfect Kirby article, like movie summary, origin, etc., like [[Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom]]. There are other articles about Flash movies and/or Flash artists that do not seem to be quite notable or have secondary sources, yet they have been on Wikipedia for quite some time, such as [[High Score]]. And I know that the article is not perfect, that is what Wikipedia is for; to help articles reach as close to perfection as they can by other editors.[[User talk:The Chinchou]] 16:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)