Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 8

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

8 October 2006

Third briefs

This was deleted on the grounds of being a made-up article, even though it is clearly notable enough for inclusion here. It shouldn't have been deleted. --TheblackWire 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Close this DRV without further review. Third briefs was closed as patent nonsense, user is not challenging process, and this request is TheblackWire's only edit ever [1], save for some strange template moves on his user page a few minutes ago. --Aaron 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid CSD:G1 (patent nonsense) deletion. Thryduulf 19:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy G Wittet

Article speedy deleted even though numerous references and showed notability. Article was not name spamming. Wittet notable as prominent local figure on school board, town revitalization team, junior citizen of year, riding president for local liberals, etc and as candidate for election. Controversy re: subject of article both in terms of his running for election having never lived in jurisdiction and in his removal from town revitalization team. All of these assertions were backed up by references to other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyWittet (talk • contribs)

• Keep deleted. Pure vanity/self-promotion. Election manifesto to boot. -- RHaworth 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the election manifesto RHaworth, I would like to know that? I see no election manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyWittet (talk • contribs)

Is currently running for trustee coupled with your home page is good enough evidence. -- RHaworth 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• A note from the speedy deleter: this was a pure vanity article. There was not a single assertion of notability in the article. This was, with all due respect, just another student running for just another function in just another school board in just another district. This doesn't even come close to WP:BIO. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane Farrell

Article was duly deleted by consensus on July 8 (note there were attempts by third parties to alter discussion on that page). It has since been recreated, and multiple speedy delete taggings by User:SandyGeorgia have simply been ripped off the page without explanation. Now admin The_wub has more or less blessed these actions per this discussion on his talk page. Some of us believe this is out of process and should be reviewed. Beyond the recreation issue, I believe the subject still fails WP:BIO notability and WP:C&E. (While WP:C&E is technically only a proposal at this point, it is already being cited in AfD discussions and other House candidates have had their pages removed for failing it; as such, I don't see why Diane Farrell should be treated any differently). My !vote is to redelete and salt page until WP:C&E is complied with, and that only a WP:C&E-compliant page be recreated (see WP:C&E#Information to be included) if Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 is ever created and properly filled out. --Aaron 18:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Interested parties may also wish to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Diane Farrell. --Aaron 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redelete. WP:C&E is persuasive and would clearly apply in this case. —ptk✰fgs 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redelete speedy. Process was violated, and an exception was made for one candidate, against WP:C&E. One candidate should be treated no differently than all, and decisions to restore articles should be subjected to community consensus, not made on IRC chat. More importantly, guidelines clearly state that the Election article should be created *first*: it never was. Sandy 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about the lack of an article on the Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006, why don't you write one, instead of deleting this bio of a notable figure?--Francisx 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 per my arguments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Diane Farrell and the evidence presented on my talk page. Note that if you're using the process argument then the two speedy deletes were both technically out of process. CSD G4 is clear that it is only for "A substantially identical copy" of an article that was previously deleted and warns "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject". See original that was deleted at AfD, first speedy deleted version, second speedy deleted version. Also while I'm here and moaning I'd like to point out that "G4" is not a sensible entry in the deletion log [2] since it's totally incomprehensible to anyone except wiki-nerds, and I guess was part of the reason for Malangali's confusion when he raised the issue on IRC. the wub "?!" 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge votes usually don't work, since often, no one does the work of creating the merge article, which in this case, should have been created long ago, and before the Farrell article, according to guidelines. Wiki guidelines should not be determined on IRC chat. Guidelines call for an election article for non-notable candidates: if Farrell's article is restored, all candidates for Nov 7 elections should be restored, and Wiki candidate and election guidelines become subsumed to IRC chat. Sandy 19:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a recognition that guidelines are guidelines, and exceptions to them can be made when reasonable. If Sandy's chief interest is to have the district election article, she should write one; most of the needed information is here and in Chris Shays. Septentrionalis 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is accepted consensus on Wikipedia that it is up to the article's creator to ensure it conforms to guidelines and policy, not the person questioning whether it meets guidelines and policy. If it weren't, there would be no need for AfD to even exist; every time anyone nominated an article, we could just throw a {{sofixit}} tag at the nominator and and close the debate, and use speedy tags for everything else. --Aaron 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My chief interest has nothing to do with this election, and I don't have the knowledge of that election to write the article: my objection is that an exception is made for one candidate based on a chat with an admin, overriding policy. All AfD's candidates should now approach admins on IRC to have community consensus overturned. Sandy 19:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is no deletion consensus, community or otherwise, and the New York Times and about 30 publications per week clearly don't agree with your notability assesment. The deletion discussion took place over the summer, before the 4th District race achieved national prominence and is therefore out-of-date. The IRC requirement is overly burdensome (I don't, for instance, have IRC) and is prejudicial against the only major candidate for a top-ten US Congrsesional Race not to have their own WP page.--Francisx 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, perhaps merge; we could use an article on the race, but this is a reasonable substitute. The list of inclusions in WP:C&E is a list of possible subjects; to salt this until all of them are provided would be damaging to the encyclopedia. Some of them are already here for Farrell; there's less information in Shay's article. Septentrionalis 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Diane Farrell is by any measure a notable political figure. She is the former First Selectwoman of Bridgeport, a position equivalent to Mayor. The 4th District Congressional race is one of the top ten in the country, and she has been profiled on the front page of the New York Times (repeatedly) and other newspapers.--Francisx 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "She is the former First Selectwoman of Bridgeport, ... " Really? Who knew. Sandy 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for the typo. I meant Westport. Your obvious familiarity with the subject manner suggests that your animis towards this article has not in fact been made in good faith, and may reflect antipathy towards this particular political candidate. While under normal circumstances it is important for WP to assume good faith, it should be noted that nominating an article for speedy deletion is not one of those circumstances, and that nominating an article in bad faith is in fact grounds for rejecting a speedy deletion nomination. --Francisx 19:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)