Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12

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

12 September 2006

Akmaral Dosumbekova, Milana Loboda, Gayni Zhumasheva, Arstan Mirzagereev

These pages had information to add to the whollistic subject of SuperStar KZ, they just seemed to be randomly deleted. :( ZlatkoT 09:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akmaral Dosumbekova
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milana Loboda
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayni Zhumasheva
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arstan Mirzagereev
• We typically do not have articles on individual contestants in reality shows, since most of them do not exceed the fifteen miunte fame threshold. Not even to counter systemic bias are these likely to be considered encyclopaedically notable, sorry. Guy 11:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closures, but relist. The closure was proper given the participation. However, given that it's essentially Kazakhstani Idol, and that we are woefully inconsistent in our handling of American reality contestents, I question whether these articles were victim more of Ameri-centric bias than true nobility. I think a relist where the participation is higher and where the facts of the case are presented objectively (such as, for instance, noting that they're on Superstar KZ from the outset) will result in actual consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Usually I agree with Jeff and his badlydrawn evil twin, but I'm finding these people NN. Does Kazakhstan use the Latin alphabet? Maybe they are notable in another script, but I'm not finding much. Wjhonson 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted

Comment: As this appeared on the Russian portal (listed so we could check each one of them separately from that page), I went to each one individually and found that the Latin alphabet googles had been used "against" all these people, which was particularly unfair on Makpal Isabekova, who actually had 37,800 Cyrillic Russian googles at the time. I put all the numbers of Cyrillic googles on each individul candidate's AfD pages, so people could consider their view based on real numbers. Nevertheless, even after I published the correct figures, and mentioned that the lady had an article on Finnish Wikipedia, at least one person voted for the deletion of the Makpal Isabekova article as "per nom", although the three arguments given by the nominator had been clearly disproven. So, it is clear that there was some bias in a number of the votes. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the deletions quoted here. Though perhaps the norms for including American Pop Idles (no mis-type there) should be adjusted to the same norms that we are now holding the Slovak and Kazakh contestants to. --Pan Gerwazy 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Should self evidently have been merge and redirect, unless the whole show is considered NN. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44 13 September 2006 (GMT).

Image:Cowbell2.gif

Per [1] except I count 4 keep and 3 delete votes. I don't really do image deletions so I may be missing on some policy here but it seems out of place. Sasquatch t|c 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per WP:CSD. Replaced PNG and GIF files are not to be deleted following a transfer to jpg. Also, no one seems to actually close WP:IfD debates. Is that normal? --tjstrf 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, although the deletion debate is unimpressive we already have three fair use images decorating one article on a comedy sketch. Having one be an animation is just exacerbating that issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Less cowbell! Sorry, couldn't resist :-) Is this not redundant per another format? Guy 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

replyNo, as mentioned above, and specifically stated on WP:CSD, gif files are not redundant with jpg's due to the loss of information by changing the format. --tjstrf 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it it was like this one. You can't do animations with jpegs. ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and organize a poll on the talk page. There's been an argument on the talk page but I don't see a clear majority (mostly because it's done in a haphazard fashion). ~ trialsanderrors 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: The animated image is useful for the depiction of the skit. --Durin 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Lebedev

This article was deleted because people were annoyed by trolling (I myself am responsible for trolling preceding the debate, vandalizing user pages and other improper actions; and User:Samir acted exceedingly agressively during the discussion). Lebedev's notability is supported by verifiable sources: independent experts calling work "ingenious" and "striking", press and TV coverage, publications in highly ranked journals. Samir's claim that a scientist cannot be considered notable for his scientific work unless he holds an administrative rank violates rules of scientific conduct and is not supported by a reference to any verifiable source. I suggest that these arguments are reevaluated by an experienced administrator (for example User:Petaholmes). --GoodContentback 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Please note that this article was deleted today based on a general consensus after a lengthy discussion (see summary after the articles AfD), and not because of the behavior of User:GoodContent. The above user refuses to give up despite very clear and thorough arguments that the deletion was merited. Furthermore he keeps accusing editors involved in the dispute as acting "aggressively" toward him, where the only personal attacks, trolling and vandalism came from User:Goodcontent himself. Moreover, please note that User:Goodcontent prompted the AfD of the article, and then strongly opposed it, apparently just to fuel argument. Please do not further feed this inappropriate behavior and waste everyone's time again by un-deleting the article. Nrets 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure appropriate close with consensus that Mikhail Lebedev did not meet the relevant notability guideline. More than 60 85 edits made by Goodcontent on the AfD, including personal attacks undermine the good faith of this DRV. 8 delete !votes including nom compared to 4 keep !votes for what it's worth -- Samir धर्म 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification Please do not attack me for my inapropriate behavior outside that page. I already apologized for that. My evaluation of Samir's posts as agressive is not emotional. I only mean that he often criticizes the opponent, not the arguments. In addition, I contest the read of votes as 8:4. It is more like 7 delete, 4 keep, 1 no opinion, 1 nominated, but was not sure. --GoodContentback 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There has been no indication that the closure process was flawed, and, especially in the case of a majority !vote, there's no need to replay the AfD -- Samir धर्म 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It depends upon what the closing administrator had in mind. If he supported your bogus argumentation, then it was definitely flawed. The policy of verifiability was violated in favor of obscure original research. --GoodContent 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure testy exchange but not an invalid closure. In cases like this one it might be better to offer more than a terse "result was delete" closing statement, but then again we've seen closures being contested because the closing admins provided more detailed reasoning, so feel free to ignore my advice here. Btw, I notified User:Srikeit of this nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment should review be entertained: User:GoOdCoNtEnT suggests User:Petaholmes (who voted "keep" in the AFD) re-evaluate the AFD. If such a course of action is taken, then I suggest the previously un-involved editor User:Gleng as a far more appropriate commentator. Rather than pick someone whose "expertise" is in agreeing with GoOdCoNtEnT, some other academic, such as User:Arthur Rubin, should be polled for their opinions. Pete.Hurd 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we should entertain such an idea. Perfectly fine to notify them of the DRV here but deletion review is a consensus finding process, not a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - While I'm sure we all have every desire to debate this article ad infinitum, 1) speaking personally, User:GoOdCoNtEnT's explanations have really managed to confuse me on the subject rather than clarify and 2) The majority voting for deletion provided excellent arguments that the usual WP:PROF standards are not really met. User:Antorjal's arguments about the relative unimportance of Lebedev's pubs were never convincingly refuted. My Alt Account 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User Antorjal told us a story about his article being rejected from Nature. The rejection letter said "Your article does not address a broad readership". He was trying to conclude something from this anecdotal event, but the only conclusion is that he got a standard rejection reply. The other argument of this user is "Anyone can be trained to do ingenious experiments". May I say this sounds silly? I do not think that this user said anything meaningful that needed to be addressed. He does not quote veriiable sources. His opinion does not count compared to the verifiable evidence from the experts in the field. --GoodContent 12:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly I would like to thank trialsanderrors for notifying me about this discussion. Now I closed the AFD discussion as delete as 1) I found the arguments of the users in favour of deletion, especially those by Samir & Pete.Hurd's, quite convincing. 2) Although some of User:GoOdCoNtEnT's comments were quite conducive to a healthy discussion, many of his edits can be classified as trolling. He even resorted to userpage vandalism when he felt the discussion was not going well [2] [3]. Also his arguments to contest the deletion of the article were not convincing enough when compared to the pro-deletion ones. Not only did the pro-deletion arguments have the numerical advantage, they were also quite well represented and showed that the WP:PROF standards were not met. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. You confirmed my impression that your decision was (at least partially) based on my trolling (real and alleged). It is also clear that this unfortunate vandalism contributed to the decision of several users. This is not true that the vandaism happened when the discussion turned to Samir's favor. On the contrary, Samir's position was quite shaky at that point, and he instrumentally directed the focus of the discussion to my behavior instead of real issues. Samir's and Pete Hurd's arguments may sound convincing, but they represent their original research. They do not cite any verifiable source that shows: 1) number of neuroscientists whose work was called "ingenious" and "striking" by experts in the field; 2) number of neuroscientists who received press and TV coverage; 3) mean or median h-index for a neuroscience student/professor; 4) number of publications in this field that can be considered notable (36 in this particular case). Because of the absence of these data, their original research is not reliable. User Nrets went even further by questioning universally accepted rules of scientific conduct about authorship. According to him, an author deserves credit only if he has a suffient administrative rank (for example, Lab Chief, Department Head). Although this may sound reasonable to some users, this is not how credits are supposed to be assigned according to the rules of scientific conduct. The bottom line is that, although Samir and other's arguments persuaded you, they are not veriable. You should not violate wikipedia rules by supporting original research and rejecting verifiable evidence. --GoodContent 12:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Samir's and Pete Hurd's arguments may sound convincing, but they represent their original research. The WP:NOR has no bearing on Talk/WP page discussions. Ediors are encouraged to research claims of notability brought up in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, since the closure is indeed valid and although the content itself is a judgment call there was sufficient input in the AfD, backed by credible reasoning, that it is reasonable to accept the result. Guy 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Picard Song

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Picard Song

I can not see any valid reason why The Picard Song was deleted. I know for a fact people want to look it up on wiki all the time. It strikes me that many articles marked as "not-notable" are decided upon by small groups of admins who do not always appreciate the popularity of certain subjects that are then marginalised. I know it's not really the place but I would like to also add that in my opinion wiki's deletion policy is poorly laid out, confusing and inaccessible to the vast majority of lay users and to my mind raises serious doubts about the open nature of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.14.52 (talk • contribs)

• Obviously it's not the project for you, then. Cheerio. Oh, endorse deletion of this sub-stub article on a song for which the article made no claim of significance. Guy 09:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable - fads are typically not encyclopedic. --Improv 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Another anon waste of time. Danny Lilithborne 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Process was followed; reasonable deletion. Recommend anon user consider emigrating to Antiwikipedia.com, Encyclopedia Dramatica, UrbanDictionary.com etc. Bwithh 17:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You forgot Uncyclopedia. Oh the choices... ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but if an admin wanted to be bold they could still redirect the article to YTMND rather than have an ugly deletedpage template. VegaDark 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ifdef

As mediazilla:5678 seems not to have been fixed yet, I think this template should be brought back until that bug is cleared. _→AzaToth 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Brody Ruckus

Relist. Due to its controversial nature, the article was speedy deleted for recurring nonsense. Despite this, what Brody Ruckus has created is a bona fide internet phenomenon. In under a week, he has become an internet celebrity on the social networking site Facebook. His group (old screenshot for those without an account) has been growing exponentially to over 325,000 members, and is currently still increasing at a rate of approx. 10 members a second. He illustrates the viral potential of Facebook's new mini-feeds feature, as well as that of the internet itself. He now has an almost cult-like following in certain college and high school circles, with fan-made t-shirts and graphics, much like the recent internet-based obsession over the film Snakes on a Plane. For further information, please see this story on VH1's Best Week Ever or the article's talk page. --Mark Yen 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, sophomoric trivia. A whopping sixteen unique Googles, which includes knockoff merchandise spam. Guy 09:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

endorse- Internet "phenomena" are almost inherently unencyclopedic. Here one week, permanently gone and forgotten the next. If he gets any real mainstream press coverage, hesitantly recreate... I don't know if I can vote here, not being an admin... but reading the above instructions, I think so. Please leave me a message if I can't as well as <del>'ing my vote or removing it altogether. Storkk 12:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply: There are several other examples of people coming to internet fame and gaining a wiki article, such as keyra augustina (among many). I'm fairly sure that CBS, CNN, or VH1 never covered her antics, and yet her fame is undeniable. Mainstream press coverage simply is not necessary in this case. Relist - There is a article written on the talk page, explaining the situation and proving that while a lot of people may have posted nonsense in the article it is certainly possible to have a good article on the topic. I suggest that the new article be moved from the talk page, and the page put to a real AfD vote instead of speedy deletion. Hundreds of thousands of students (currently close to 350,000) have joined this group, and know the guy's story, and want to see the photos. There are going to be recurring requests to recreate this page, and I don't think it's a bad idea. --TexasDex 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure So apparently thousands of people want to see some porn online for free, eh?. whodathunkit? Bwithh 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure WP:NOT the place to post stuff that happened on the internets 15 minutes ago. ~ trialsanderrors 17:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Relist. There is precedent in Wikipedia. There are several cases where an Internet phenomenon page for a non-celebrity was created an allowed to exist. Keyra Augustina has a wikipedia entry for being a college student who broadcasted webcam captures of herself that feature her butt. Kimbo Slice is an underground boxer who has posted fights on the Internet. John Titor claims to be a time traveler and posts his travels on Internet message boards. The list goes on. See: Internet Phenomenon. Brody Ruckus is at least as well known and culturally significant as these people. If these pages are permitted to continue, then there is no justification for denying the Brody Ruckus page. If the Ruckus page is permanently removed, than other non-celebrity Internet phenomenon pages should also be removed. This would be ironic as Wikipeida itself could be defined as an Internet phenomenon. In response to user Bwithh: A topic being morally questionable is not a criteria for exclusion from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many pages on porn stars and companies. In response to user Trailsanderrors: Events are often posted on Wikipedia soon after they occur. There is even a Wiki shorthand for addressing current issues (see below). --AJseagull1 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Eh? I was objecting on grounds of boredom and banality, not morality... Bwithh 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply In that case I would say what one finds boring is a matter of opinion not fact.--AJseagull1 08:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Relist. Starting with nothing but a Facebook account, Brody managed to gain the attention of hundreds of thousands of Facebook users within a few days. This also coincided with the launch of Facebook's News Feed feature, which is the reason his popularity was able to grow exponentially (users can now easily see which groups their friends join almost immediately). It is no longer just about Brody and his threesome, but rather the power of social networks. Cheesy

Um, yeah. That's why we have articles on Facebook.com, MySpace etc. and Web 2.0, rather than every stunt/prank/wannabe on those networks Bwithh 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, all notability evaporates as soon as the power goes out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. If this gets recreated, it's bound to be a vandalism target that'll just get protected anyways. --Zsinj^Talk 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's doubtful that a person named "Brody Ruckus" even exists; therefore, it's inaccurate to state that "he" created an Internet phenomenon.
• Endorse deletion a supposed "internet phenomenon" with just 29 unique Googles?. Doesn't sound like an article we need. Verifiability is an issue, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Are you implying that Google is the ultimate authority on the internet? Additionally, being less than a week old, it is impossible for Google to have crawled every site containing information on Brody Ruckus anyways and therefor this argument can not be used as valid until a decent amount of time has passed for Google to index the new information. VroomanGL 12:38, 13 September 2006 (EST)

"Are you implying that Google is the ultimate authority on the internet?" Pretty much, yeah. If someone's claim-to-fame is internet-based, then it's reasonable to assume that they'd have a decent presence on the internet. 29 Googles is a very, very, very small number. To put it into perspective, I make no claim to be a "phenomenon", celebrity, or famous person of any sort, yet I get about 9 times more unique Google hits than that. If we're not counting only unique hits, the difference is even more extreme: I get 27,600 hits and Brody gets 275 hits, less than 1% of my total. I'm not famous, and Brody would seem to be only a tiny fragment of even that level, which isn't much. See what I mean? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Relist. Notability of many situations evaporates when "the power goes out" yet they aren't deleted from a real encyclopedia. You don't hear people saying that something should be removed from Britannica because nobody reads it, that is the basics of your argument. As if any of your usernames have notability that matters to anyone other than yourselves, yet you still have an article. Why not delete the article when "the power goes out" then if that is your argument in the first place, time being it is still a valid article on a man who created a group that has become larger than 400,000 people now in just a few days. By deleting the article you are only feeding the fire, making Brody Ruckus an even bigger phenomena and hurting your own arguments. VroomanGL 12:11, 13 September 2006 (EST) Edited 12:21: Mistyped in an attempt to get all my thoughts down. I meant to reference an encyclopedia rather than a Dictionary and for that reason I have modified my original post.

Your only edits prior to this DRV suggest you need to understand notability a bit more. Facebooks is significant but not a huge phenomenon. A facebook meme is as notable as "that guy that sold his wifes weding dress on Ebay" (oh wait, I expect he has an article - still that's the Pokemon Defence...) Rich Farmbrough, 22:07 13 September 2006 (GMT).

Relist. Wikipedia claims to be an internet encyclopedia, edited by the people, with information that would never find itself into a physically published dictionary. Brody Ruckus has almost half a million member in his group in less than a few weeks. Half a million people know Brody Ruckus, yet probabaly do not know 95% of the other facts on this website. Brody Ruckus should be relisted simply on principle. It is not fair to delete pages just because an editor is not interested in what is being read. Also, claiming that the article will be vandalized is a weak argument, as any page can, and many that have are still up, even though the public is much less aware that they exist. Tucker Max has made his way onto Facebook, even though he does not have a confirmed following. Brody Ruckus has allmost half a million confirmed supporters. If Wikipedia does not relist this website, it will lose some legitimacy as a go to source for trivial information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.176.166 (talk • contribs)

Um... Hooray!! Bwithh 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm anyone else find it curious that all the "Relist" votes are styled in the same fashion? ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes... I think [[[User:Trialsanderrors]] is onto something here... Bwithh 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted - I have no idea what you're talking about, hundreds of thousands... what? "Brody Ruckus" gets 112 google hits. That's NN as an "internet star" in my book. Wjhonson 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Invalid argument, Im wondering if you even know what Facebook is? Do some research and then come back with a valid argument other than one that has been repeated a few times which really because of the short time frame involved is not valid as Google has not necessarily had time to index and update indexed sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VroomanGL (talk • contribs)

Emphatic relist - whether a hoax or a real phenomenon, Brody is highly notable with almost any college student familiar with facebook. At the conclusion of all this (however that comes) he will have an article either way; we delay coverage of this unique event at the peril of our own credibility. --BDD 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Relist. Now that it is confirmed a hoax, I think it "Brody Ruckus" is even more worthy of an article. "Brody Ruckus" convinced 400,000 Facebook members of his fake cause. Now there are rumors that the Ruckus music service had something to do with the entire thing. Once more facts come out, someone should rewrite the article. 207.151.251.109 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted He did not start any internet phenomenon. Get the real story, this idea started at HelpWinMyBet.com. Also see, HelpWinThisBet.com. There is an article on AntiWikipedia about this, Brody Ruckus - AntiWikipedia. This guy, Brody Ruckus, or whoever he really is, is just following in Jim's (the guy at HelpWinMyBet) footsteps. If anything, there should be an article at HelpWinMyBet. JustOneJake 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

all eyes on the shins

deletion log

the "all eyes on the shins" page should be recreated.

Extreme Unction deleted it before gaining a full understanding of its contents (I was still doing early drafts). I'm anticipating that wikipedia will be somewhat of a repository for peoples analysis and reactions of the project.

The article is not mere band promotion. The band isn't such a big deal - THE BIRTH OF OPEN SOURCE TELEVISION PRODUCTION IS!!!!

THOUSANDS, YES THOUSANDS of audience members are going to participate in the making of a television program by submitting footage that they shoot on their own devices. This is the first time this has ever happened and I think it is worthy of an entry. I think this could lead to new models (open source) of production in traditional broadcast media. Plus it's NEWS! It's got a ton of buzz on music blogs all over the web. The article should be allowed.schutte 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur1kook (talk • contribs)

• "Scheduled to be filmed on September 16th, 2006". So, there being no deadline, let's wait until we have some indication as to how significant it is. Give it a year for proper historical perspective, then we'll know if it's more than a footnote in The Shins. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not Myspace. Guy 09:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository of analysis and reactions, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia. You should have not posted drafts on WP, but even so, the subject matter was not encyclopedic. Danny Lilithborne 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the article is unencyclopedic, and if this is about the birth of Open Source Television... well, we should wait for the birth to happen, and then have an article on that. Themindset 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)