Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 8: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:06, 8 June 2010

< 2010 June 7

Deletion review archives: 2010 June

2010 June 9 >

8 June 2010

Enlightenment for Beginners_by_Matthew_Blythe

This is a page describing my book, how it came to be, the publishers details, ISBN, number of pages etc. a link to the book preview on google books, a quotation from the books cover and an image of the front to cover of the book I uploaded to wiki commons. This is not advertising. This is my first night on wikipedia EVER and the very first article I have written, I probably could have written it better or given a chance to fix it but it was deleted immediately without so much as a "speedy delete" tag. I did duplicate the page which was given a "speedy delete" tag which was fair enough but deleting BOTH pages was just plain unecessary. I have tried to contact the admin four times but no response! Too busy I guess? Thanks for reveiwing, nobody is perfect least of all me but I do my best. Mattblythe (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. The barefaced cheek of talking about "my book" and expecting us to re-instate is truly amazing. "Contact the admin four times" - what on earth are you talking about: you tried once and I am responding within minutes. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you FOUR emails you please check the wiki communications channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your expectation of response from RHaworth is unrealistic. Everyone here are volunteers, the article was deleted at 20:28, you were here complaining of lack of response 1 hour later. What's the absolute urgency? Looking at the cached version I would have to agree it has a promotional tone, doesn't appear to give any indication as to why it is important or significant so would fit at least one of the other speedy deletion criteria. In general I think you may have difficulty meeting wikipedia's inclusion standard on this, the basic one being the general notability guideline which says the book itself must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage multiple independant coverage reliable sources, i.e. the world at large must demonstrate interest in this. Since this has only just been published (and self published at that, suggesting that a publisher wouldn't be interested in it) it'd seem unlikely that will be the case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then notoriabilty is the issue here, not advertising. You are basically saying come back when you are famous enough LOL ok just remember one day you were discussing things with me in real time not in the future. Who is the judge regarding infamy? Do you speak for the world at large? Google me!

That isn't what I said, I said it was promotional in tone. I also highlighted that there were other issues and the likely highest hurdle of being consiered notable in wikipedia's terms. Being famous isn't important there are plenty of people/things who wouldn't be considered famous but meet wikipedia's inclusion standards. Googling you is not important for this because (a) Hits on google don't make for something notable in wikipedia terms (indeed a google for my name says 253,000 who many are to do with me and how many are significant coverage by third parties is a different matter) and (b) the article was about the book, not about you. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, never heard of you.

The point was he never would have deleted it had I not duplicated the article (in error) but since it is open to discussion:

Importance of civility

During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.

Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.

And now he wants to delete the picture of the book cover which I submmitted to the wiki commons open source so that anyone can view it *sighs* I took this picture with my own camera up the downs where I live :::::* Unsurprisingly, I have nominated File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG for deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citing the reason as SPAM! This photo was/is DIRECTLY relavent to the article in question. PERSONAL more like ;-)

You deleted an article I spent the last three hours working on. How was it advertising? I merely described my book, added the date it was published and the books publication details, ISBN, number of pages etc. and quoted a section from the cover. The was a small part about "how the book came to be" and a link to the book on google books where readers can see a preview. And a CC image of the frontcover.

HOW WAS THIS ADVERTSING?

I am new to wiki just signed in today. Just becuase I wrote the book doesn't mean I cannot write an article about it.
Please restore this page "Enlightenment for Beginners by Matthew Blythe" this is a unique page describing a book that has recently been published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to take a look at what wikipedia is not and also the conflict of interest guidelines --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will thanks

Endorse It was more than open to RHaworth to conclude that G11 was met here as the tone of the article was exclusively promotional. If you want to recreate the article in a non-promotional tone, you're free to do so, but bear in mind WP:COI. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORE OK how can I get a copy of the article so I have the opportunity to fix UPS I meant re-write, since I wasn't given the opportunity?
Userfy, but require Mattblythe to read WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou SmokeyJoe at least then I get a chance to fix it! I read the COI's thanks
Yeah, userfy it. It's a new user's first article and to refuse userfication would be far too bitey. But I think it's important to set Mattblythe's expectations correctly here: an article on this book would probably not survive a deletion discussion if it was moved to the mainspace now. It'll be ready for the mainspace when it's been discussed in reasonable detail in reliable sources (plural, as in, more than one reliable source) that's independent of the subject. I'm sorry, Mattblythe. I can fully understand why you'd want to come to Wikipedia and tell us about your book. But we have to have sensible rules about what's allowed to be included and what isn't. If we didn't have those rules, you'd never be able to find anything on Wikipedia except marketing spam. The guideline we use is summarised on this page and I'm afraid it's applied rather strictly.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan James

Was speedily deleted by User:TexasAndroid for being 'unnotable' when clearly is. User hasn't replied to my discussions. Note: is a UK bookmaker (company). Christopher Connor (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas replied here. Did the article say that the organisation is notable in any way? Thincat (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List at Afd. Reasonable contest of a speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thimio Gogozoto

There wasn't a consensus to delete the article(but a consensus to keep it) and I had added a citation for the medal which the closing admin didn't notice. ~~--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual to wait longer than 28 minutes between asking the closing admin to reconsider and opening a listing here, bearing in mind that people can be offline or busy. Also, despite your message to him, AFD is not a vote; arguments based in policy can be given higher weight. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything Stifle says, but I would just like to add that it's possible the source provided may have explicitly refuted the case for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Shimeru didn't even notice that there was a source.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, its not for the closing admin to substitute their own opinion of a source above the consensus of the discussion and I'm tempted to ask how would you know if Shimeru noticed it bearing in mind you didn't wait for them to reply to your request to reconsider. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his closing statement he said Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here., while there was citation which I had added 2 days ago I cannot assume anything else except the fact that he didn't notice it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a newly found source that challenges many of the delete !votes, and it wasn't known to most of the participants, then recreation may be in order. Recommend userfication. What is this new source? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity the source was He was also posthumously decorated with the civil medal For Patriotic Activities (Albanian: Për Veprimtari Patriotike).^[1] Without clarity on the nature of the entry (for example was it a single entry on a list or an in depth discussion of the subject or the nature of the award) we really cannot form any kind of judgement on whether this reference or the award demonstrates notability. So more detail from the nom would be really cool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just a list, the paragraph is about education in that period and because Gogozoto's education was partially funded by the Albanian state which gave funds to members of the Albanian minorities in neighbouring countries in order to study abroad there are two short biographies of him and his brother.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that User:CrazyMartini was just indefinitely blocked by delanoy as sock of User:Greek And Proud. Even with his vote, it would have been a 6:5 keep [1], without his (as banned user), it should be 7:5 keep. Still, I don't understand how a 6:5 keep was closed with a delete: it's the first time I see this. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. It's not the votes that count, but the arguments used. The guy is not notable, get over it. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. That AfD was tainted by sockpuppetry so its conclusion is unsafe.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked editor has since asked to be unblocked and his unblock request is pending. He is a new user who was aggresively BIT by the article creator. His unblock request is in good faith, but even if it is declined, there is no reason to undo the result of the AfD. The arguments won't change, and that's what matters, not +1 or -1 vote. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? Can you please provide evidence that Zjarri bit Crazy? All I saw is this. Zjarri never answered the sock. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What am I saying? Look at the talkpage of CrazyMartini's first account: Zjarri posted TWO warnings within 3 minutes of each other, then RAN to WP:AIV to denounce the guy. If that's not BITing I don't know what is. And if you recall, it was you who said that new users should be welcomed, not bit (unless that only applies to new "Albanian" users, only). Athenean (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A new user? You think? While I admire your ability to assume good faith, that user's first edit was to add himself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Members. And J.delanoy indefblocked him; J.delanoy wouldn't have done that unless he was satisfied that abusive sockpuppetry was involved. I certainly agree that user was a duck for a Greek sockpuppetteer.

As for the weight of the arguments, the nominator of this DRV makes a case that there was a source that AfD participants failed to take into account. It's a reasonable point for him to make and there does seem to be some evidence in support of it. A do-over wouldn't kill us in this case.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may yet be unblocked and given a second chance. In which case a do-over would be a waste of everyone's time. As for the source, it is not even verifiable and extremely obscure, all we have to go on is the word of the article creator. Which I can be forgiven for not taking. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really confused. You'll assume good faith on the part of a user who's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry, but you won't assume that ZjarriRrethues—an autoreviewer who's never been blocked—is telling the truth? And the source is verifiable, in the sense that it meets WP:V. It's not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZjarriRrethues is a nationalist SPA of an extremely aggressive nature. The other user was indefed after only two edits, and only because Zjarri BIT him the minute he joined wikipedia (he posted no less than TWO warning templates on his page within THREE minutes of each other, then ran to AIV to try and get him blocked; the very paradigm of WP:BITE). Zjarri also has a track record of falsifying and manipulating sources, this [2] being the perfect example. Do take the time to read and look at the edit history of Battle of Bizani, it is very illustrative. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith on behalf new users; with Zjarri I know exactly who I am dealing with, and am done assuming good faith. I also have good reason to believe he is a sock of a banned user, and plan to file an SPI in the short future. Stay tuned. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Puto, Arben (2009). Shqipëria politike 1912-1939. Toena. pp. 510-2. ISBN 9789994314676. {{cite book}}: C1 control character in |pages= at position 5 (help)

[puto-1] Puto, Arben (2009). Shqipëria politike 1912-1939. Toena. pp. 510-2. ISBN 9789994314676. {{cite book}}: C1 control character in |pages= at position 5 (help)

[1]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ::He may yet be unblocked and given a second chance.  In which case a do-over would be a waste of everyone's time.  As for the source, it is not even verifiable and extremely obscure, all we have to go on is the word of the article creator.   Which I can be forgiven for not taking.  [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 ::*Now I'm really confused.  You'll assume good faith on the part of a user who's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry, but you won't assume that ZjarriRrethues—an autoreviewer who's never been blocked—is telling the truth?  And the source is verifiable, in the sense that it meets [[WP:V]].  It's not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see [[WP:SOURCEACCESS]]), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see [[WP:NONENG]]).—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
+:::ZjarriRrethues is a nationalist SPA of an extremely aggressive nature.  The other user was indefed after only two edits, and only because Zjarri BIT him the minute he joined wikipedia (he posted no less than TWO warning templates on his page within THREE minutes of each other, then ran to AIV to try and get him blocked; the very paradigm of WP:BITE).  Zjarri also has a track record of falsifying and manipulating sources, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZjarriRrethues#pov_edits] being the perfect example.  Do take the time to read and look at the edit history of [[Battle of Bizani]], it is very illustrative.  I am perfectly willing to assume good faith on behalf new users; with Zjarri I know exactly who I am dealing with, and am done assuming good faith.  I also have good reason to believe he is a sock of a banned user, and plan to file an SPI in the short future.  Stay tuned.  [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)