Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:24, 6 March 2008

< March 5	Deletion review archives: 2008 March	March 7 >

6 March 2008

Zooped

Zooped is a social networking similar to Orkut or Myspace.I first added images which where actually advetisements and then found out that it was against the rules of Wikipedia.Then i deleted the images and created the artciles on the basis of how other articles on social networking sites where created.Can anyone tell me the procedure to add Zooped on Wikipedia again and also the changes to be made in the article i posted

The last version of the article created just goes through the features of the website. Having an article that just covers its features makes the article basically an advert for the website. In order for an article on Zooped to be accepted would suggest that a user space version of the article be created (for instance at User:The Ruler496/Zooped) which is written in a neutral point of view and has reliable secondary sources establishing notability (suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (web) to show our notability guidelines for websites). So endorse deletion until a user space version has been produced. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Looking at the last version it was pretty clearly an ad, with no particular notbility stated, adlike tone, and lots and lots of links to the Zooped site. If undeleted, it would probably last a minute or two before being G11 speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bjarne Berg

Notable

Overturn and list Article was speedy deleted as a bio that does not assert importance (A7). However the intro stated 'is a professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Lenoir Rhyne College in North Carolina and is an internationally recognized expert in SAP Data Warehousing and Business Intelligence.' This seems to me to be a clear assertion of importance. Now there are conflict of interest problems (User:Bberg009 created the article) and the article is pretty poor (but it was only about 10 minutes after creation when it was deleted) but there is enough there to suggest having an AFD to see if the article can be improved and reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

USERSPACE DRAFT HERE

Two months ago this article underwent a deletion review that was speedy closed for having "insufficient new information". In this deletion review I will prove that ED is as notable if not more than 4chan, which is certainly notable enough to survive deletion.

The 4chan article and the ED article I rewrote which was speedy deleted are remarkably similar in sources. Both rely on sources which do not focus on the website in question but mention it in passing. Nevertheless, the fact that 4chan has not gained itself a special feature in some magazine does not make it non-notable. The same goes for ED.

Ignoring the references which source 4chan itself or blog comments, here are the sources which mention 4chan in passing as an Internet community:

Toronto Star (lolcats)
Daily Pennsylvanian (lolcats)
Wired (lolcats)
InternetNews.com (bomb threat)
Interview with Tay Zonday on HHNLive.com
CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. (Tay Zonday)
HeraldSun (bomb threat)
National Post (calls it an "underground hacking website")
2 YouTube videos of national news which mention it by name

In contrast, here are the sources in the ED article I wrote which reference ED in passing as an Internet community:

San Francisco Chronicle
Warren's Washington Internet Daily
Chicago Tribune
North Adams Transcript
New York Times Magazine
The Observer
Maclean's
Wired
Nu.nl
2 YouTube videos of national news which mention it by name

In addition to all this, an article on Gawker, an oft-cited blog, puts 4chan, ED, and Something Awful side-by-side.

Based only on these references, and not making wishy-washy personal judgments, ED is clearly as notable as 4chan if not more. Any attempts to disprove this should be based on outside sources and not on your personal opinion. Shii (tock) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit Recreation. This article is being forced into sourcing much more rigorous than most of what already passes WP:WEB. It's time to give it a new chance. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What new non trivial third party coverage has ED received since the last time we reviewed its deletion? WjBscribe 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was mentioned on television and on several notable blogs (blogs with their own Wikipedia articles) in connection with Project Chanology. Shii (tock) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, sources do not equate to notability. If you search my name in Google, you'll find sources. Doesn't make me notable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is not a valid argument and should be discounted. Have you been mentioned in as many print sources as another deletion-tested article on Wikipedia? Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It needs more than references "in passing." It needs to be the subject of sources. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote to delete 4chan? Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation There is now enough . the Gawker item cited is a usable source for notability for websites. I think shii is correct that we would accept this for anything else. DGG (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Every supposed ED "source" I've ever seen has been either a blog (or similar unreliable source), or just a trivial/passing mention... indeed some of them didn't mention it at all. Come back when you have genuine non-trivial reliable sources, and preferably a workable userspace draft to show us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote to delete 4chan? Here is my userspace draft: User:Shii/ED Shii (tock) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
permit recreation with given draft We finally have a version of this that is well-sourced and decently written. We will of course need to watch the article carefully but this does at this point appear to meet WP:WEB. The Gawker cite pushes it over. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse deletion. This has been requested a billion times. You're not getting on the billion-and-first. You are very lucky you haven't been banned. Will ^(talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

Closed as delete when the results were no consensus. I know it's not numbers alone, but when you have a three on two debate for something that isn't violating anything, and where no one really can prove if it actually is useful or not, and good arguments on both sides, that's not a consensus. No hard feelings on anyone, and I know a lot of people will feel this is a boring topic, but it is what it is, and I'm bringing it to DRV. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Since the focus of an XFD closure should be arguments, rather than numbers, I feel that the closure was appropriate. (Disclosure: I'm the original nominator and a member of this category.) The "keep" reasons asserted the usefulness of the activity of random page patrolling, but did not specify how the category helped in the improvement of articles or was otherwise useful. One does not need a template-populated category to click the "random article" link and then to click "edit this page". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very weak argument for deletion. No one needs a template or category to do recent changes patrol either, or a large number of other tasks which we give user categories. Some users wish to see how many other users are using or encouraging such methods, and is just as valid as Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this category is just as valid as the recent changes category (in any case, that's an "other stuff" argument). Recent changes patrol requires/involves some specific expertise (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use), whereas random page patrol does not - it's just a general form of browsing and editing. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise? Are you joking? I have no doubt there are levels of expertise in recent changes patrolling, but the same can be said for any form of patrolling, including one's own watchlist. Even if you were correct, how does Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers help editors when any editor can add themselves, not necessarily an expert or anyone who's good at helping other users? Do users add themselves to this category/userbox with the intention on helping other users, or just telling people that they do RC patrolling? It's perfectly comparable, because recent changes patrolling, with all the mad skillz "required", doesn't need a category to help people anymore than random patrolling. Nor is this an "other stuff" argument, since the example is explained. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "the same can be said for any form of patrolling". If that is the case, then please identify what type of expertise is involved in random page patrolling? As for the fact that the members of Category:Wikipedian recent changes patrollers are not necessarily expert RC patrollers ... well, so what? Using user categories for collaboration is always a probability game; however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher.
With regard to your question about the intent of users in this category ... I don't know, nor do I feel it's particularly relevant in this instance. I may add myself to a category just to tell others I do RC patrol, but if someone asks me for advice or clarification regarding RC patrol because of my membership in the category, I will do my best to help. You emphasize the question of "need", but I prefer to look at things in terms of utility (technically, there is no "need" to do anything except eat, breathe, and sleep). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same type of "expertise" in any given form of page patrolling (identifying possibly problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, deciding which user warning notice to use).
however, we should distinguish between cases where the chances that a category will facilitate collaboration are virtually zero and those where they are slightly or significantly higher. And how are you coming to this conclusion? You've only asserted that you feel it won't facilitate collaboration. Nor have you explained how having a user category for RC patrollers does facilitate collaboration. Personally I think both categories are appropriate because they help other editors see who's using such methods. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random page (RP) patrolling only rarely involves identifying problematic edits, deciding if/when to revert, or issuing warning notices. It just involves clicking "Random article" and making small or large improvements to some random article. I come to the conclusion that the collaborative potential of this category is virtually zero based on my previous comment: RP patrolling is not a standard form of page patrolling, but rather a very general method of browsing and editing. Also, I have explained how the RC category could (not necessarily does) faciliate collaboration: someone wanting to become involved in RC patrolling could ask a current RC patroller for information or advice. (e.g. What should I do if I come across an edit that's questionable but not obvious vandalism?)
As for your justification for "appropriateness", why is it important to know who's using such methods? I could understand wanting to know whether a specific editor is a RP patroller, but then your port of call would be the editor's user page, not a directory of RP patrollers. As a statistical tool, categories are completely useless, since one can draw virtually no valid conclusions from them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The discussion did not produce a consensus and so it should have been closed as No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why you feel that the discussion failed to produce a consensus? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion failed to produce a consensus because the contributing editors failed to agree. One camp saw this as "trivial...no need...what purpose". The other camp said "perfectly good...will encourage others...certainly does help". The balance seemed to be evenly divided and there were no pressing policy reasons to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Do you not think that one should also consider whether each camp stated why the category is useful or useless, in light of the fact that a claim of utility that is unaccompanied by an explanation is not necessarily informative? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per BF. Valid close. --Kbdank71 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus Two policy based keeps, three deletes--including 34 or 5 comments from thee d. who proposed the deletion. That's not consensus for a fairly widely used category. the closer closed according to personal opinion, & shoudl rather have joined the debate and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Black Falcon. Just because the category is widely used does not indicate that it is useful; the userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment. There is no reason why someone would need to identify random page patrollers, and in fact the category is totally useless for collaboration due to its random nature. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santogold

Requesting Unsalting based on this user draft. Chubbles (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation Sources in the draft article establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate, now it's a good stub that establishes notability. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 ** Would you vote to delete [[4chan]]? Here is my userspace draft: [[User:Shii/ED]] [[User:Shii|Shii]] [[user_talk:Shii|(tock)]] 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 *'''permit recreation with given draft''' We finally have a version of this that is well-sourced and decently written. We will of course need to watch the article carefully but this does at this point appear to meet [[WP:WEB]]. The Gawker cite pushes it over. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy endorse deletion'''. This has been requested a billion times. You're not getting on the billion-and-first. You are '''very''' lucky you haven't been banned. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers]]====