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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 17 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Less cowbell! Sorry, couldn't resist :-) Is this not redundant per another format? Guy 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Several of those have been uploaded as "fair use screenshot" but as far as I can tell they are actually derivitive works, copyright of the creator of the derivitive work. Guy 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something to it. How was this one tagged? ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Overturn: The animated image is useful for the depiction of the skit. --Durin 21:22, 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)

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)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Not notable - fads are typically not encyclopedic. --Improv 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Another anon waste of time. Danny Lilithborne 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- You forgot Uncyclopedia. Oh the choices... ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- I made the redirect to YTMND. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ====[[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. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">[[User:AzaToth|A]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">z</font>]][[User:AzaToth|a]]</font><font style="color:#325596">[[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]]</font></sub> 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 [http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2207756044 group] ([http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=facebookcl4.jpg old screenshot] for those without an account) has been growing [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~trhaynes/images/threesome.tiff 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 [[Facebook#News Feed and Mini-Feed controversy|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 [http://www.cafepress.com/badassbrody t-shirts] and [http://hs.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=2207756044&view=all graphics], much like the recent internet-based obsession over the film [[Snakes on a Plane]]. For further information, please see [http://www.bestweekever.tv/ble/story/1475/ this story] on VH1's Best Week Ever or the article's [[Talk:Brody Ruckus|talk page]]. --[[User:Mark Yen|Mark Yen]] 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-: '''Endorse deletion''', sophomoric trivia.  A whopping sixteen unique Googles, which includes knockoff merchandise spam. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 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 <nowiki><</nowiki>del>'ing my vote or removing it altogether. [[User:Storkk|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:Brody_Ruckus|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. --[[User:TexasDex|TexasDex]] 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Closure''' So apparently thousands of people want to see some porn online for free, eh?. whodathunkit? [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Closure''' [[WP:NOT]] the place to post stuff that happened on the internets 15 minutes ago. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|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). --[[User:AJseagull1|AJseagull1]] 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-::'''Reply''' Eh? I was objecting on grounds of boredom and banality, not morality... [[User:Bwithh|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.--[[User:AJseagull1|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. [[User:Cheesy|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 [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', all notability evaporates as soon as the power goes out. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 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. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>[[User Talk:Zsinj|Talk]]</sup></font> 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 [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brody+Ruckus%22&hl=en&lr=&start=30&sa=N 29 unique Googles?].  Doesn't sound like an article we need.  Verifiability is an issue, too. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 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. [[User:VroomanGL|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 [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22andrew+lenahan%22&hl=en&hs=WVY&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=230&sa=N 9 times more unique Google hits] than that.  If we're not counting only ''unique'' hits, the difference is even more extreme: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Andrew+Lenahan%22&btnG=Google+Search I get 27,600 hits] and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Brody+Ruckus%22&btnG=Search 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? [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 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. [[User:VroomanGL|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...) ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|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. {{Unsigned|70.238.176.166}}
-::::::Um... Hooray!! [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::'''Hmm''' anyone else find it curious that all the "Relist" votes are styled in the same fashion? ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::::::: Yes... I think [[[User:Trialsanderrors]] is onto something here... [[User:Bwithh|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. [[User:Wjhonson|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. {{unsigned|VroomanGL}}
-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. --[[User:BDD|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. [[User:207.151.251.109|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 [http://www.HelpWinMyBet.com HelpWinMyBet.com]. Also see, [http://www.HelpWinMyBet.com HelpWinThisBet.com].  There is an article on AntiWikipedia about this, [http://www.antiwikipedia.com/Brody_Ruckus 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]]. [[User:JustOneJake|JustOneJake]] 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''', misses the target of being encyclopedic by a couple thousand kilometers.  --[[User:Cyde|<font color="#ff66ff">'''Cyde Weys'''</font>]] 05:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)