Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[No personal attacks]]: closing moribund debate
→‎List of language speakers: closing moribund debate
Line 14: Line 14:




====List of language speakers====


[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 1]]

:[[:Category:People by language]]
:[[:Category:English speakers]]
:[[:Category:French speakers]]
:[[:Category:Spanish speakers]]
:[[:Category:German speakers]]
:[[:Category:Italian speakers]]
:[[:Category:Portuguese speakers]]
:[[:Category:Dutch speakers]]
:[[:Category:Catalan speakers]]
:[[:Category:Danish speakers]]
:[[:Category:latin speakers]]
:[[:Category:Welsh-speaking people]]

There are two rather serious errors with this block deletion.
# At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1&diff=61744045&oldid=61743834 this] point in the debate, the list contained just 7 categories and 8 votes cast. By [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_1&oldid=62339613 here] the list had grown to 12 categories yet only 4 more votes had been cast. By the end, the list contained 12 categories and 20 votes had been cast. So in other words the list was not ''stable'' during the voting. It is '''vital''' when voting on a list that a stable unchanging list exists from the start to the end. (We would never dream of adding on people to ballot papers half way through an election day. A basic rule is that everyone votes on an identical list.) Put simply, the vote was botched. It should have been aborted and restarted with a ''stable list''.
# Not just was the vote botched, so to was the categorisation. The add-ons, well into the vote, were of a different type of category. There is an argument to be made that lists of French speakers, Spanish speakers, English speaker etc aren't notable because practically everyone in their countries speaks those languages, so of course a Danish person will speak Danish. It would be a surprise if they didn't. Well after the voting started a different category of language speakers was added in: small minority languages where the fact that someone speaks them arguably ''is'' notable. Few Welsh people speak Welsh. Very few people speak Latin. So those lists may have more revelance; saying that 'x' from Wales is one of the small number who speaks Welsh could be quite important, in a way that saying [[Tony Blair]] speaks English is not. At the very least the issue is debatable. Two different concepts of language use were bunged in together, with one type, minority usage, added in ''after'' a lot of voters had already voted. We don't know if a user who voted on the short list to ''delete all'' would have included minority languages like Welsh, Catalan or Latin. Perhaps they just meant 'delete all' the big categories and had no idea later that their vote would be interpreted as saying 'delete all' minority languages too. Or maybe they would be happy with the interpretation. We don't know. People's decisions should be clear. We shouldn't be adding interpretations on them later, which is what happens if the list keeps being changed mid vote.

The whole vote was botched. It should have been aborted and restarted. A decision certainly should not have been called on the basis of a vote where 8 at least, possibly more, of the voters were voting on a different list. Irrespective of whether one wants to delete them all, or delete some, keep all or keep some, we cannot call a vote where the issues being voted on were changed ''after'' some people voted fair or objective. A full revote is the only logical way to allow users reach a conclusion on all the categories. The list '''must''' be '''clear, precise and stable''' when voting takes place. And arguably, the list should be voted as two separate ones; large scale mass languages and small minority ones. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' of all except Catalan, Welsh, and Latin--'''relist''' those. I agree with the nom that the late lumping of these categories together hurt the chances of the latter three, but even with that irregularity, there was clear consensus for deleting the "majority" languages. -- [[User:Northenglish|'''NORTH''']] <sup>[[User talk:Northenglish|talk]]</sup> 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''comment''' It is a fair point. I would however suggest that it would be useful here to establish a clear principle: everyone votes on the same thing. No changing of what they are voting on mid-way through. I've come across quite a few cases lately where people change what the issue is, and people find that their vote is then interpreted in a way they never expected or intended. (It has happened to me.) Saying 'this entire process was wrong. It has to be done again' would send a clear message to everyone that this tinkering with what is being voted on is not acceptable. The danger is otherwise that we say 'well, if the decision is clearcut doing dodgy things is OK.' IMHO the principle needs to be set: every vote must be fair, objective and the question unchanging. If it is unfair, unobjective or the question changes, even if 100% voted for something, the vote is invalid. It has to be done '''right''', and seen to be right, every time. The issue isn't the outcome, but that the process as corrupted. We need to assert that the process is fair ''everytime'' with no deviation from standards allowed under any circumstances. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse all but the latest ones'''. Those should be renominated, and then logically deleted due to precedant. Process is good, but the only ones which were remotely out of process were the ones added later, the other had the full time and full consideration. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Restore and relist''' Catalan, Welsh and Latin, '''endorse closure''' for the others. It's not really the closing admin's job to detect those late adds, it's the job of editors to keep their peers honest. For the most part the delete votes sound inclusive enough to cover Danish too, but the rationale for fringe languages is clearly different. So relist those only. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist all'''. This looks like it's been misdone enough that the whole thing should probably have a redo. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse all''' -- as closer, I only checked that each category had been tagged, not the date the tag was added.
**However, after closing, it was brought to my attention, and I researched the issue. AFAICT, the additional categories were added to the CfD '''as they were added to the main category'''. It's true that these took a few days.
**But the closing itself took place 3 days after the usual closing date (July 1 &ndash; July 10). Extra time had passed.
**Moreover, the trend was so clear and unambiguous that even the creator of many of the categories agreed to deletion:
**:I give up. As this is a loosing battle, I've created new categories to keep the subcategories for language professionals. They are [[:Category:Languages by occupation]] and [[:Category:Occupations by language]]. Please give me a chance to populate these before nominating them for CFD. I change my vote to '''"Delete"''' -- Samuel Wantman 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)"
**Since the remainder will be logically deleted (again) because of precedent, and the parent category itself no longer exists, is there any reason at all to go through the process again? [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause]]
*:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
<s>::'''Reply''' which is exactly why non-admins shouldn't be closing controversial nominations...</s> --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::'''16d:4k''' -- There was no controversy. This is an overwhelming supermajority. Also, look at the well-reasoned comments. The closer had no idea that any contrversy would ensue.
::::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't think there's anything the closer can be blamed for, CfD histories are hard enough to investigate as it is, and if s/he isn't alerted to the fact that categories were added belatedly it's a perfectly reasonable closure. I think the fringe languages should be relisted to get a clear answer on those, but the question for main languages has been overwhelmingly answered. There's no sense in listing them all again because it just muddles the issue. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Point taken, statement retracted. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*::::::: '''Comment''' The deleter was informed on his talk page that there was a problem and chose to ignore it. Retrospectively claiming that he had no realisation that there was a problem, when he had been alerted to the problem's existence after the closure and chose to ignore, is, someone less than accurate. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*:::::::: Right, ''after'' the closure. As I pointed out above it is a bit much to expect closers to perform a duty that squarely rest on editors, namely to point out that listings were added post hoc. The complaint should be directed at the editor who added them without mentioning it and alerting prior voters and to other editors who noticed it but didn't mark it. As about his later consideration that the initial votes were inclusive enough I think that's a judgement call that will probably stand in many cases. Late additions aren't uncommon and it doesn't always make sense to stop the process for them if they squarely fit under the umbrella. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Relist all''' per nom [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''' those that were added. I can hardly complain about the others, but I would point out that the closer refused to acknowledge the problem when it was pointed out to him. [[User:Deb|Deb]] 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relisted''' -- That would be me, and as I explained at the time, the parent category was clearly and unambiguously deleted, and it is not at all unusual for a little time to pass for folks to tag all the subcategories in an umbrella nomination. However, bowing to the consensus here, I've relisted, carefully marking that only 3 are under consideration, because they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7. (heavy sigh)
*:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*::'''Comment'''That is a complete mispresentation of what happened. A twenty second check of the history of the page would have shown that there was a procedural issue in how the vote had been conducted. (It only took me that long to see the glaring error.) You didn't check before deleting. So less of the heavy sighs. The cock-up was your doing. Secondly, to claim that the issue is that they were only discussed for 4 days instead of 7 is such a gross representation the mind boggles. The problem is that ''you'' interpreted votes for one list as applied to a different list, a list many of those users had not voted on because it had not been on the page when they were voting and unless they possessed psychic powers they were hardly going to be able to know which one of the one million entries to WP were going to be added in to the list ''after'' they had voted. It is hardly rocket science to check to make sure that everyone was voting on the same list, is it? Deb had pointed to you on your talk page out that there was a problem. You curtly dismissed her intervention. If anyone should be sighing it is the rest of us for having to clean up a mess caused by a mishandled closure of an improperly run poll. And that, my dear William, is entirely your fault, not any of ours. We are simply trying to fix your mess up. Next time, ''please'' check first and when someone raises a possible error in your closure, show them the courtesy of listening, and check to see if the criticism has a basis. And where the issue being discussed is a list, just doublecheck to make sure everyone is voting on the same thing, and don't credit votes for one set of entrants as belonging to a totally different one. If you had done that the first time, we wouldn't all be calling for a correction here. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*:::'''Comment''' TBH, who cares? It's not like someone's gonna vote differently because the reason why this CFD was relisted is different. The important thing is that the categories were relisted for deletion and that now they'll be deleted again after due process. [[User:Yonatanh|Yonatanh]] 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*::::Please desist from personal attacks. There was no "cock-up". '''Nobody is ever likely to check''' to see what date a tag was applied in an umbrella nomination. They are '''frequently''' added during discussion. As noted above, after being notified by Deb, I checked, and replied on my Talk. The parent was deleted, the 3 in question had 4 days of discussion instead of 7. IMnsHO, this whole complaint brought two weeks later was without merit. But you got your wish, ''the squeaking wheel gets the grease'', and the discussion was relisted.
*:::::--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*::::::If you can't be bothered to check to make sure a vote was correctly in order, then you should not be doing the deleting. Leave it to people who ''do'' do the checking first. Others do. People making decisions have a duty to do it properly, and pay attention when it was pointed out to them, as it was to you, that there were facts you had not noticed because you had not checked. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


==== [[Colorado Rockies (NHL)]] ====
==== [[Colorado Rockies (NHL)]] ====

Revision as of 13:35, 23 July 2006

< July 17 July 19 >

18 July 2006

Colorado Rockies (NHL)

A well-written and factual article about a professional sports team was deleted as CSD G3 - I have no idea how it happened but it should be speedily overturned. BoojiBoy 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without knowing the state of the page at the time of deletion, it's hard to say for certain, but in principle, overturn and revert to the last acceptable state. Doogie2K (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G3 is Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism. I don't get it, it was an article about a NHL team[1] that eventually became the New Jersey Devils. ccwaters 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't that make it a candidate for simple reversion, not speedy deletion? I can't fathom what could have been done to make all archived versions back to the beginning of Wikipedia unusable. Doogie2K (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it; the page was vandalized by User:Seamore the Sponge and Naconkantari apparently forgot to check the page history to verify that it was a real article.  RasputinAXP  c 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the speedy restore. The page was vandalised in a group of pages that had no history. Sorry for the confusion. Naconkantari 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat in the hat with a bong.jpg

This image was on page 47 of BJAODN. It appears to have been deleted, but I was not able to locate the record of this deletion. I am proposing a review of the deletion, in order to clarify the procedure that was used to delete this image. Thanks! --Tokahontas 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Closure - Here is the deletion log entry where it was deleted - [2]. Here is the commentary from WP:PUI - [3]. Based on the comments there, it almost certainly was a derivative work of a copyrighted image. BigDT 06:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This article was created to create more space on the main Big Brother (UK series 7) article. It was then put up for deletion by User:9cds and subsequently deleted. I campaign for its undeletion due to the Chronology section of the main page becoming excessively large. When it was waiting to be deleted, it received far more "keep" votes than "delete" ones. I know Wikipedia isn't a vote etc. etc. but this article is needed as the chronology section on the main page is getting too big. Thanks!! ellisjm 16:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, if it was undeleted, then it would be moved to Big Brother (UK series 7) chronology, due to Wikiproject Big Brother naming conventions.

Archived discussion. —Celestianpower háblame 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep deleted: The arguments, such as they were, for keeping were that it was big and blobby now but would be shortened to a tight little chronology eventually and that the original article was too long. The second argument is sort of self-negating: the article may be too long for this to be added, but no one has said this material is needed or helpful to it in the first place. The first argument is a valid argument for keeping notes going in a text editor or some place other than article space. As an article, the thing was nebulous, a repeat of a blow by blow of an ongoing event. There wasn't discussion, contextualization, or anything actually discursive about it, and therefore it was quite unencyclopedic. The deletion was, indeed, not completely in process, I admit, but I can't see any way to agree with the presence of the article. Geogre 16:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have said "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything" when closing the debate. Sorry for this.
As to the change of circumstances, my view remains. What is there at the momewnt is mostly totally unsourced, unencyclopedaic rubbish, written in a very chatty, POV style. If it were all like "Weeks 1 and 2", we wouldn't need a subpage, since it would be a fine size. In fact, someone should probably remove what's in the chronology section now altogether as POV and unsourced. Anywho, keep deleted. —Celestianpower háblame 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is this really for deletion review? You want to move what's currently in the article to Big Brother 7 chronology, don't you? This would be substantially different to what was deleted, so you could do that by policy quite legally. If someone thought that was unsuitable, they would AfD it again. This discussion shouldn't really happen here. We already reviewed my decision to delete. —Celestianpower háblame 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Withdrawn Incorrect closure. Result was clearly No consensus - keep, unless closing admin has grounds to discard keep votes. No argument was offered unless it's written in invisible ink or transmitted via ESP. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | Withdrawn after reading first DRV, which was closed as moribund but had an endorse consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Discard votes? No, AfD is not a vote at all. I looked at the arguments and saw that the arguments for "keep" were much weaker than those of "delete". This is what I'm supposed to do. Plus, it was clearly in my range of discretion. —Celestianpower háblame 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a consensus finding process using votes, or "comments" if you prefer the term. As closing admin your job is to determine whether consensus has been reached or whether reasons to discard votes comments exists per WP:DGFA. I can't mind read, so I don't know what your rationale was to discard them, but the result of the debate was clearly not delete as stated. What's the thing about the 1st DRV btw? Are we doing a DRV on a DRV here? ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (already endorsed by drv, with no new information brought to light) Also, if the chronology section is getting too large, it should be trimmed down, as it should only contain notable events anyway, not a blow by blow of every day. Even those supporting keep on the afd said that it would be cut down after the end of the show, but that's the wrong way round, imo, wikipedia should add things that are proven notable, not add everything and then take out what turns out not to be so. Wikipedis is not a crystal ball, and neither is it a web blog for TV fans to discuss current shows. Regards, MartinRe 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - This is an inappropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia, not much different than having articles on every meal BushJr eats. Maybe some other wiki would be a good place for this kind of thing, but not Wikipedia. --Improv 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there was no out of process deletion, and as others have said: this is not the kind of information we're looking for. Go for quality, not quantity. I'd rather have a smaller article that has decent (secondary) sources than yet another article as an excuse to go in so much unsourced (!) detail. --JoanneB 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's not going to get undeleted, could it be moved to my userspace? --JD[don't talk|email] 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and keep article Antares33712 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing adminstrator made a correct decision: The policy on verificication is not susceptible to overturnment by concensus. However, it is needful that the more people are going to feel like they are getting shafted the more effort the closing adminstrator has to make to explain things. - brenneman {L} 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Patrick Moore

Moved from July 17 page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Patrick Moore

This article was created by the suspected abusive sockpuppet's named user:bluecanoe. Futhermore, the same sockpuppet created an article for Blue Canoe Records (which is also under afd) adding a link to "subscribe to Blue Canoe podcasts." In the disscussions comments a "Karen Frieske" who is supposibly an executive producer for Blue Canoe Records is found tirelessly trying to save the mentioned articles. Isn't it obvious that these articles were created simply for self-promotion? The afd discussion for Joseph Patrick Moore was closed by user:Tony Sidaway as "keep" with over 80% of the concensus voting for delete?? Thanks! OSU80 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD isn't a vote. While this is clearly a vanity article, this is a real time-served jazz bass player. By my reckoning, all of the delete comments either said it should be deleted because it was vanity or "see above". We don't delete articles solely for vanity. Thus the case for deletion was not made. I closed with a strong recommendation to cleanup (which the article sorely needs). endorse, I see no reason to change the close. --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppetry was a problem with the two other albums that suspected sockpuppets created and then linked to the jazz musician's article. These editors have not contributed since, and even the excuse that "Ms. Frieske" that she asked for her account to be deleted around 2pm, one of the sockpuppets appeared before then. I can say that this article was created for pure promotion of the artist, as Bluecanoe then proceeded to add links to Joseph Patrick Moore into every single article relating to this artist. He was listed alongside more notable artists at Bass guitar [4], at Fretless guitar [5], at Bassist [6], and on other articles. Ryulong 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there was a keep vote from Sallyroberts28 (talk · contribs) at the AfD for the label and that user and Bobj7 (talk · contribs) both contributed to "one of [their] favorite bands and verifying that this (joseph patrick moore) article is correct" when they wouldn't know anything about the notability in question unless they were in contact with Ms. Frieske or Ms. Frieske herself. Their edit summaries were also way too similar for separate users. Ryulong 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision. The non-reflex voters were right, and Tony was correct in his judgment call this time. Out of process? Maybe, but that's what we're on this page for. Other related AfD's will have to be judged on their own merits. (wow, 5 edit conflicts in a row.) --tjstrf 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, the editors contributed to the article in question, and other articles affiliated to this artist. Ryulong 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that doesn't mean the article itself is bad, just those users. --tjstrf 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They created it!! C'mon Tony, you know that if they are soapboxing, it is wrong and these users are clearly sockpuppets. OSU80 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But does being eMusic's top downloaded artist make him notable? I've looked this guy up through iTunes and it doesn't look like anyone even bought the album there (the place where "People who bought this also bought..." is empty at least for his latest album). Ryulong 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bobj7 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Decade 1996-2005 (updating this awesome cd. There are many notable artists and reviewers who we're not mentioned in this article. I've included notabile names, links and cross references.) <--That's a good one! OSU80 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete :to me, this article screamed non-notable and vanity, as it seemed that he was a session player who put out some records on an internet only "record label". Does that make him notable? I don't think so. How many other musicians have done that? Probably thousands. --Awiseman 04:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete Incorrect closure: numerous arguments for deletion below because this is a vanity article, but this isn't compatible with Wikipedia policy. We don't delete such articles, we clean them up is wrong according to guidelines WP:VANITY Those that offer some claim of notability, however remote, are usually sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Deletion of the article normally ensues, although sometimes it may be moved to the user's user-page. Even famous Wikipedians have had articles about them judged to be vanity articles and deleted and WP:AUTO If you create such an article, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. WP:NOT Self promotion endorses WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO. They're perfectly compatible with WP policies and editors can call for deletion based on their judgment whether they trump or are trumped by WP:NN (an essay). ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per trialsanderrors. Tony should have put his opinions (and maybe fixed the article, if he could) while the AfD is in progress so the rest of the people who come to the AfD can see his comments, not come in with his opinions at the end and closed the AfD the way he wanted to. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD is not a vote. Once the gratuitous spam links are stripped out this is a significant artist. It would be nice if Topny would occasionally try to fix AfD from the inside, by taking part in the debates, rather than simply subverting it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete: When you see a very offensive, obviously failed article that loses an AfD but your research shows that a good article could be written, then delete the thing and start over. What, exactly, is the point of preserving the junk in history? How does it help anything at all to keep a spam casserole in history, when you're going to overwrite virtually every word but the prepositions? Follow the policy and, if the vandal was on a proper lemma, write a new article. Geogre 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Keep with a strong cleanup note seems an appropiate close, especially with the lengthly closure note. An article that is biased is not always appropiate for deletion as per WP:DP, to me a vainity article is a specific type of biased article, that if you remove all the bias, you are left with nothing. However, in this case some editors pointed out that the subject was notable/passed WP:MUSIC (if barely) if someone "copyedit[ed] the crap" out of it (and it's always easier to copyedit/work on an existing article than create one from sctratch, hence the keep) However, as the keep was semi-conditional on the cleanup, if, after a reasonable length of time, the article has not improved, it could be sent to afd again. That said, though, the article was blanked by the original author with edit summary of "delete"[9] which could be taken as a deletion request, so deletion now might be a more pragmatic solution as clean up is less likely given that request from the inital primary contributer. Regards, MartinRe 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus", otherwise endorse. While I think that "keep" was probably pushing it a bit, given the quality of the arguments of those advocating deletion, I think that this was probably within the bounds of discretion. However, if the article is not cleaned up within a reasonable time, I would most likely vote "delete" on an AfD. But I kind of agree with JzG, too. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be taken as the general idea that I would prefer that the decision be overturned and the article deleted? Regardless of the consensus for the article to be deleted, the major proponent for the article to be kept was the supposed executive producer and original author. The weak keeps and keeps from three editors who were not biased merely stated that this guy gets a large amount of ghits, is sold on B&N's and Amazon's websites, and suggest that the article be kept and cleaned up. Another was that he passed WP:MUSIC's criteria because of six albums, but the guidelines say that two albums would have been released on a major label or a notable indie label, which this guy did not pass (Blue Canoe or any of the other ones that are listed), or any of the other criteria. Ryūlóng 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I was the originator of the AfD. I was surprised that the article got closed as a keep, more votes were for delete. That said, I was sitting on the fence; I'd like to hear more from the jazz community on whether this guy is notable, and whether or not the independent sources (some sources provided by User:bluecanoe and friends were clearly independent of the artist) are notable. This is a borderline case, in which case I tend towards keeping; it's clear that Moore isn't a teenager in a garage who knows some chords on a guitar. At any rate, I don't think deletion at this time is warranted--allow the article to be cleaned up. The behavior of User:BlueCanoe and such is IMHO a separate issue. --EngineerScotty 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is anyone actually cleaning this article, or is everybody just passing the buck around miming "you do it"? It looks like User:JzG tried to take a stab at it, but now User:Bluecanoe2 is back in the game. It seems quite clear that if no one picks this up now it'll go back into gush mode in no time. ~ trialsanderrors 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While reading my own comment, I just realized that User:bluecanoe and User:BlueCanoe are two separate entities; the former is involved in this AfD (and has been accused of sockpuppetry). The latter is a user who has been around Wikipedia for a while, and is not involved in this dispute in any way that I can tell. It doesn't appear that User:Bluecanoe is an intentional {{impostor}} of User:BlueCanoe, but a better user name might be warranted. --EngineerScotty 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it's time for a (non-involved) admin, someone who isn't presently a party to this AfD or deletion review, to formally suggest to User:Bluecanoe and anyone else professionally associated with Moore, that they refrain from editing articles related to him, or inserting links into the encyclopedia about him? Even if he's notable, and I'm willing to let the article stand, it's gotten to the point where it's clear that a conflict of interest exists, and the Carl Hewitt principle should apply. --EngineerScotty 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that User:Bluecanoe and User:BlueCanoe are two separate entities. The former is claiming to be the executive producer of Blue Canoe Records based in Kentucky and the latter is a legitimate user. However, User:Bluecanoe2 can be said to be a sockpuppet or impersonator, as this user's edits contain a personal attack due to my involvement in conversations with the original Bluecanoe (User:Bluecanoe claimed to have her [or "our" as she stated] account deleted in the past few days. User:Bluecanoe2 was made today and performed similar edits and did the personal attack, calling me a twit). Ryūlóng 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I guess it's time for this article to go. Clearly and contrary to some of the retroactive AfDing going on above the discussion was led on both sides, with arguments for and against notability exchanged, and adherence to WP:MUSIC never properly established. Consensus was clearly for Delete. The closing argument made false statements about policy, and even if the subject is borderline notable, the article is still a mess and in three weeks when the harsh searchlight of AfD/DRV has moved somewhere else the article will be back to shilling Blue Canoe Records' wares. There is a reason why we have WP:VANITY, and it's to discourage such behavior. ~ trialsanderrors 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes I agree completly with trialsanderrors. I have better things to do, eg. contribute to the encyclopedia, than to babysit a page designated solely to advertisement. Now that the albums are gone and the company was deleted, where else do they have to turn other than this remaining article. OSU80 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Barring a clear policy problem, this close amounted to opinion. The closing adminstrator's opinon does not count "more." I'm also puzzled by the phrase "We don't delete such articles, we clean them up." Who is "we" here?
    Aaron Brenneman 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We in this context are Wikipedia. Advertising, vanity and promotional language alone are not criteria for deletion. They indicate a strong need for cleanup. Hence my close, which adhered rigidly to the deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT
    • Who is user Ryulong? He deleted and blanked out my contribution to this article and accused me of being a vandel. What I added was not spam, in fact this article is far better after my subtractions and additions. I removed many of the name dropping and added links to verify the information that could be backed up and I indeed "cleaned up" the article. Furthermore, I'm not a sockpuppet of user bluecanoe, I do not know who this is. I also do not know joseph, however I've seen him perform with his group on several occasions.
    • Yesterday, I signed up as new user so I could start submitting articles and links (I should point out that I've been using Wikipedia.org for sometime researching medical information). I'm an amateur bass player and started looking up some of my "bass heros". When I came across jpm's page, I was disturbed by the "discussion" concerning him. I decided to "cleanup" this article partly because of the invitation to do so: "You may wish to contribute to the review" (as stated at the top of the article). I did so and user Ryulong deleted my contribution.
    • Is this the policy of Wikipedia.org? If users of your site can't contribute and add information to articles, you should re-examine your policies. --Doctorteddynewman
      • Your honor, I rest my case. ~ trialsanderrors 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dunno, this almost seems too convenient. Doctoreddynewman's only other contributions as of 2 pm, July 19 have been to bass players, and the only things he's done is add a link or two here and there. Then he makes a huge contribution to Joseph Patrick Moore. He doesn't use edit summaries, except for on the Moore page, where his edit summaries start with "User: Doctoreddynewman..." like he's trying to prove the edits aren't from a sock puppet. This all seems fishy to me - I think whoever is trying to hype Joseph Patrick Moore is just getting smarter about ways to get around Wikipedia rules. --Awiseman 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. Perhaps the article ought to be protected until the deletion review finishes? The DR should concern the process and not the article's content; so protection shouldn't affect the DR. If the outcome is "overturn and delete", changes are moot. If it is "reopen AfD" or "endorse"; then changes can to the article can be accepted, and the issue of any sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry from the record company can be dealt with.--EngineerScotty 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what this should accomplish. It's not as if the sockpuppeteering can't be handled, and the article is currently still mostly in the state it was when it was created by the sockpuppeteer. And as I mentioned above, the best chance for a cleanup is when an article is under intense scrutiny. ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Finding of "keep" consensus is baffling. Delete votes outnumbered keep votes. Also, the article is mostly unsourced and User:Themindset's "weak keep" vote should have been given diminished weight (though not ignored) since the reasons given (listing on B&N and Amazon) don't actually speak to notability (those sites will list anything from anyone). Something similar could be said (to a lesser extent) for User:Stifle's keep vote based on six released recordings, since WP:MUSIC specifies that the releases should be on major labels or important indie labels, and Blue Canoe doesn't appear to meet the criteria. The sockpuppet issues also need to be taken seriously and were not addressed at closure. If this person is genuinely notable, then a neutral third party should write an article.

    Also, I endorse User:Trialsanderrors's remark that Tony's assertion that deletion is not a remedy for vanity articles contradicts WP:DP. Deletion is not mandatory in these cases, but it is definitely an available remedy for any vanity article regardless of whether the subject meets other notability guidelines, on NPOV grounds. Keeping articles like this around turns Wikipedia into a spam magnet. Legitimate (i.e. neutral) Wikipedia editors should not be required to spend their time cleaning up articles entered by spammers. Closing admins for this type of AfD should not find consensus to keep unless such a consensus really is there. Per User:Jdavidb, "just because some vandal shows up to advertise his company does not obligate us to put "clean up this guy's mess" on our todo list. If nobody can or wants to NPOV it, we're going to delete it. Wikipedia is not a blank wall for people to put their billboards up on." [10] That is one of the wisest remarks I've ever seen. Phr (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Before Tony or someone else can say so, the AfD isn't a vote, but the general consensus was that the article be deleted because of the presence of biased editors and the rampant spamming of his article throughout Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 03:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked over a the rewrite at User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Joseph Patrick Moore I am still not convinced that the wp:music guideline is satisfied. Whom were these albums released by again? Am I wrong in that these are not "albums" per se having never been pressed? - Aaron Brenneman 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, it's an internet only "record label". --Awiseman 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nowhere near finished. The guidelines are neither exclusive nor authoritative. Remember that this fellow's main business is session work. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The local equivalent of the Grammy award"??? Is that like if the Swedish chef in my school cafeteria gives me his "Bork Bork Bork award", my Wikipedia bio can call it the local equivalent of the Nobel Prize? A Grammy is a Grammy, this "local equivalent" stuff is very smelly. Tony, do you have any personal or fannish connection with this guy, that affects your neutrality either for writing the article or closing the AfD? Of course that's not a crime, but ought to be disclosed. You seem unnaturally interested in having the article stay around. Phr (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, the sole editors (who only contributed to the article) were biased, and there have only been sockpuppets who have added to the article, especially those who seem to target me because of my involvement in getting rid of the idiotic self-promotion posted all over this encyclopedia (Bluecanoe2 (talk · contribs) and Doctorteddynewman (talk · contribs)). This guy even found the digital "record label" that his latest album was published under, and his earlier albums are no more notable than his latest one. Ryūlóng 04:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Most of the 'keeps' came from suspected sockpuppets. --InShaneee 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_18&oldid=65373882"