Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 13: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:18, 18 October 2006

< October 12	October 14 >

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

13 October 2006

Images for the Utopia, Limited article

File:NekaylaKalyba.gif

All were taken from this page which clearly says at the bottom "These clip art pictures are all copyright free illustrations. They are from contemporary [ 1890s ] sources (mostly contemporary periodicals). They are in PCX format, which can be used by a number of microcomputer programs, including WordPerfect. If your program cannot use PCX files directly, it may have a utility with it to convert PCX files to a format that it can use."

I am unable to notify the administrator, there being no note of who it was that I can find. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. I pulled them all from the same source. Also, almost all of the ones left on the page (all of the black-and-white ones) are from the exact same source. --AlbertHerring 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These images are well over 100 years old and are public domain. -- Ssilvers 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted because there was no copyright claim put on the Image page. If you want to upload them, go ahead if they don't violate copyright, but you are still requied to put a copyright claim on the page. This is standard behavior for untagged images. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that there was a statement on the description pages that they were in the public domain, but it wasn't using any of the standard templates so Orphanbot wronglyh tagged them as unknown status. the wub "?!" 10:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upload to Wikimedia Commons with the correct tags since they're undoubtedly public domain. the wub "?!" 10:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted and let the submitter re-upload them, correctly tagged, to Commons. Sandstein 11:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pee Tanks

A band from Maryland who may seem unimportant two of the four members went on to form other bands(The Thumbs, and Cross My Heart, and The Liars Academy) that don't meet the criteria for deletion. Therefore this article should remain. Dbress 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, no. Just because someone is marginally notable that does not make everything they have ever done notable by extension. Guy 14:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Following nom's logic (ad absurdum), and "6 degrees of separation": absolutely everything and everyone ever is notable, since it can be connected to something genuinely notable through a chain of "well, these concepts are linked"-type reasoning. This is why we have clear guidelines. --Storkk 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, send to AfD. The other bands give it enough of a notability issue to give it a hearing, and challenged A7s should go to AfD anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to AfD per Jeff. The article contents clearly state importance, this shouldn't have been deleted under A7. The article will almost certainly be deleted anyway, but I think in the interests of fairness, we should have a debate on it. Mango juice^talk 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion When members of a non-notable band go on to form notable bands, we don't create articles for the non-notable bands. We mention it in a sentence or two in the articles on the notable bands. —ptk✰fgs 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Ptkfgs. ~ trialsanderrors 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Unplugged

A professional wrestling organization now in its second year had it's account deleted when either members or fan of a rival organization posted a delete request. The organization has had several firsts in the industry of professional wrestling, as well as superstars who compete internationally and who are currently featured on WWE and TNA television. Several other pro wrestling organizations are listed in Wikipedia. I humbly ask that you review this deletion. - Psphenom 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I have a registered account, but the User:PSPhenom link I placed in does not seem to point to anything.
You should sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ which should solve the problem. In any case, I corrected your user name to what appears in the edit history. Also, we discussed this just a couple of days ago [1]. Absent new information, Speedy close. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Unplugged and speedy close as recently debated per above. Guy 09:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per AfD. Danny Lilithborne 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and speedy close per JzG --Storkk 16:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per AfD -- Tawker 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion For heaven's sake Psphenom, are you even listening to anyone? The article wasn't deleted because people hated PWU; it's because all you're doing is making wild claims of notability and doing nothing to verify these claims. Just because Wiki has articles on other wrestling promotions means every promotion should get one; the promotions on Wikipedia are notable and said notability is sourced and verifiable. Unless you can show evidence that PWU is notable, it doesn't warrant an article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ARTICLE: The people who have endorsed this article's deletion know NOTHING about professional wrestling. If they did, they would know that PWU is a major wrestling organization that clearly deserves an article. Whether PWU deserves a Wikipedia article is not debatable. It is not one of those topics that is right on the line between warranting an article and not warranting an article. It clearly, absolutely, and most certainly is notable enough to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs)

It's not our job to know much about professional wrestling, actually. That's why the article itself needs to make clear why its topic is encyclopedic, so we don't all have to be experts in everything. If you post reliable, verifiable, external sources about PWU, I'm sure people will come around to supporting your article's inclusion. In the absence of that, however, you're going to keep getting the same answers. The responsibility is on the article/article creator to do the homework if encyclopedic merit is questioned. -- nae'blis 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The people who have endorsed this article's deletion know NOTHING about professional wrestling." Thank you, you're too kind. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per AfD. JIP | Talk 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vamp star

Was a musical band that was deleted for non-notability. The author of the arricle, Rob gray, believes the band merits an entry on Wikipedia, so I'm helping to create this review for him. -- P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. If the band is notable, it sure isn't shown here. - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion. AFAICT, this is pretty clear-cut. In spirit of helping the article's author, I think nom should point out that we have a notability criteria guideline for music. To make this credible, Rob gray should show how Vamp star meets it. --Storkk 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 -->
-====[[Celtic Alliance of America]]====
-:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic Alliance of America]]
-Yet another example of an admin ignoring the vote and doing whatever the hell they want. 6 Votes to delete (unless i'm missing some people went back and forth). And 6 votes for keep, its tied, and if it was only 1 more vote for delete it would still be not a consensus to delete. Not only should the article be undeleted, but the admin powers of the deleter should be reviewed...
-*'''Endorse''' per the AfD article had problems with [[WP:V|verification]] which is a cornerstone here at Wikipedia. If you want to write a article with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] have at it. <b>[[User:Whispering|Whisp]]</b>[[User:Whispering/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]<b>[[User talk:Whispering|ring]]</b> 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse'''.  The only possible close.  None of the keep votes came from an editor with suffrage, and none of their arguments for keeping addressed verifiability.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' I count seven deletes, but in any case given the SPA's and strength of arguments that was perfectly within the discretion of the closing admin. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 06:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion.  Discussion based on Wikipedia's standards is weighted more heavily, discussion by established users ''may'' be weighted more heavily.  As the delete opiners based their points on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the keep proponents did not do so, and the keep proponents generally looked to be brand new, deletion was the only reasonable close of that discussion.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''', valid AFD. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. AfD was entirely properly closed. Almost every keep vote was from Single Purpose Accounts. AfD is not a formal vote - votes by puppets or SPAs can, and should, be ignored. [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 ====Images for the [[Utopia, Limited]] article====