Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Free Range Studios]]: Deletion endorsed, new version created, now back at AfD
Line 27: Line 27:
*'''Endorse restoration'''. In the same way that we don't run AfDs on articles 'improperly' speedy deleted that will obviously be deleted anyway, we shouldn't run DRVs on articles that will obviously remain restored. Usually Tony is one of the first to support the principle of not wasting Wikipedians' time on process for its own sake. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse restoration'''. In the same way that we don't run AfDs on articles 'improperly' speedy deleted that will obviously be deleted anyway, we shouldn't run DRVs on articles that will obviously remain restored. Usually Tony is one of the first to support the principle of not wasting Wikipedians' time on process for its own sake. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


====[[Free Range Studios]]====
:'''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios]]'''
I feel this AfD was improperly closed. I don't see a consensus to delete here. While Wikipedia is not a vote, there were 3 (non-sock or shared IP) votes to delete and 2 (1.5 if you count weak keep as half) votes to keep. One of the original nominatior's main reasons for deletion was that it fails [[WP:CORP]], which I determined it passed as the references included multiple non trivial published works about the company. My main concern here is that when another admin relisted the AfD to generate a better consensus (after only one valid vote), the AfD was closed only 6 hours afterward after 2 more valid keep and 2 more valid delete votes were added. I don't see how if the original admin determined there was no consensus before, the closing admin determined there was after equal votes supporting opposite positions were added. I think it was closed far too soon and there was not a consensus to delete the page. Furthermore, I felt the arguments for delete were rather weak (such as "I'd vote keep if it was written better". Comments on the talk page of the closing admin have gone unanswered so I feel the need to list this here. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This was run the required five days, there is no requirement to run it for five more days after it's being relisted, just enough to collect more opinions. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' As closer, I count 4 delete votes, and 1 keep vote. There was a remaining "weak keep" vote, but that vote hinged on a "strong rewrite," which is in my opinion an untenable solution: who's supposed to rewrite this article? So that one was a wash, but even 4-2 is a pretty clear majority. I do not discount votes by established users that happen to forget to sign their comments. And the issues raised here (notability and whether it was advertising or not) are certainly the kinds of issues that consensus should guide us on. (BTW, I did count the nominator's vote: it was well-reasoned and had no obvious bias.) The debate was open for over 10 days, so I don't think I jumped the gun. Even Vega's vote required a rewrite for NPOV. NPOV is too important to allow self-promotional articles to remain in case someone would eventually fix them up. If someone wants to write the article from scratch, neutrally, please do so. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<font color="orange">'''juice'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
**[[:Template:POV]] is used to identify articles that need an NPOV rewrite, that isn't usually grounds for deletion. If so perhaps someone should go through every page with that template (a few thousand) and nominate them all for deletion. ''"I do not discount votes by established users that happen to forget to sign their comments."'' - I didn't discount that vote, I discounted the nominator's vote. The AfD page was his first edit. As far as I know discounting such a vote is standard practice, if it wasn't then people with an agenda could easily create a sock and make a reasonable nomination and then support it with their regular account, and would be counted as 2 votes. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' let me expand further on my analysis of the arguments for deletion. The nominator states:
''"This article is about a small, non-notable graphics company. It is maintained by a single user and reads like an advertisement with no critical insite or references. It sets a bad example for any small start up with a few web films who wants to use Wiki as a free billboard."''


This company is notable per [[WP:CORP]]. WP:CORP states that "A company or corporation is '''notable''' if it meets any of the following criteria: 1)The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The second and third references on the page met this criteria, hence is notable per the guideline. This alone weakens the nomination's argument, the first delete voter that voted per the nominatior, and it completely eliminates the "Notability not shown" vote. The mere fact that this company meets this guideline should be sufficient enough to keep the article by itself, but let me go on.

''It is maintained by a single user and reads like an advertisement with no critical insite (sic) or references.''

Wrong. The article included many references, all of which I checked. Some parts did indeed read as an advertisement, but the whole article didn't. Simple solution: delete/reword the parts that do, don't delete the entire article. We also have another handy template, [[:Template:Advert]] for that. Now let's take a look at the last vote for deletion, the most well reasoned.

''Delete. The article reads like it was written by an advertising firm.'' - Already addressed. ''It's clearly not WP:NPOV and it looks a lot like WP:ADS.'' - already addressed. ''Many of the claims lack verifiability and could be considered original research.'' -Which ones? There were many references and their biggest claims checked out from my review. Delete the original research or tag with cite needed. ''It's not very encyclopedic. Publishing both a "Mission Statement" and a "Vision Statement", in addition to a listing of employees and an accompanying image, all seem a bit WP:VANITY.'' -Agree, all that should be deleted. Not grounds for deleting the entire article though. ''It appears that this company has produced some interesting material, but so have countless other advertising firms around the world.'' -Meets WP:CORP ''I'm not seeing anything particularly distinguishing here, despite the numerous examples of WP:PEACOCK used to describe their work.'' -reword them then, not grounds for the enitre article to be deleted ''If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it.'' -Speaks for itself. Now I know DRV should be discussing the PROCESS of deletion and not the reasons for/against, but I do feel the process failed after all this is pointed out. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per MangoJuice's comments. POV is perfectly a reason to delete, it's against our policies. Per [[WP:NBD|no binding decisions]], this doesn't mean it's being banished forever from WP, it just simply puts the onus on the editor to create a keepable version. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
*'''NOTE:''' - I would be willing to rewrite this article if an admin undeletes it so I have something to work from, it looks like that wouldn't be opposed and would render this discussion moot. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
**Is that a request to userfy? If so, I support it. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
***I should be able to work fast enough so a userfy isn't necessary, but that would work if someone didn't want to outright undelete. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I think Mangojuice's closure argument is well justified. I will userfy at the request of VegaDark -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''' <small>धर्म</small>]] 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
**Seems like VegaDark is already done. Anyone want to AfD the new article? ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
***I've deleted all the most obvious unencyclopedic parts and writing. It still needs lots of cleanup but I think I've addressed most of the POV and advertisement issues. If you want to see the changes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VegaDark/Free_Range_Studios&diff=75394780&oldid=75387100 look here]. Feel free to further make changes to the article so it more adheres to policy. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
****I'm sending it to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios (2nd nomination)|AfD]] as a procedural. This should clarify if it's NPOV now and also gauge the unsolved WP:CORP issues. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


==== [[Mikhail Lebedev]] ====
==== [[Mikhail Lebedev]] ====

Revision as of 01:22, 13 September 2006

< September 11 September 13 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

12 September 2006

Wikipedia:Process is Important

Seems to have been recreated out of process. Ho hum. --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Web 3.0

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0

This article was apparently speedily deleted without any discussion. Deletion log

I think that content is of interest and relevance to the evolution of the Internet (as Web 2.0 is). If the article deletion is confirmed, I would like it at least restored to my user namespace so I can continue work on it. Peter Campbell Talk! 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web 3.0 and the Semantic web are analagous, so I think the best option is to redirect from Web 3.0 to Semantic Web and add the content in the (deleted) Web 3.0 article to the Semantic Web article. I don't have a copy of the content - if it is restored to my user namespace I can do this rather than start again from scratch. Peter Campbell Talk! 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_12&oldid=75413253"