Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 1

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

1 November 2006

The Colbert Report recurring elements

User:Night Gyr nominated this article for deletion on October 27, citing that the article violated the WP:V and WP:OR policies because it did not contain any sources. However, the majority of the users that replied stated that it should instead be kept and cleaned up (some even offered to do so), eventually resulting in 18 users advocating for the article to be kept, 8 advocating for it to be deleted, and two advocating for it to be merged. Ignoring this consensus, User:Angr deleted the article, explaining that "since this is a discussion, not a vote." Though it's true that AfD isn't a vote, what this article needs (and what seems to be the consensus among the users commenting in the AfD) is to be heavily trimmed down and sourced, not deleted. In fact, I for one am very willing to help clean the article up if it ever manages to get restored.--TBCΦtalk? 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I said in my summary, the arguments in favor of keeping the article weren't. They were arguments in favor of keeping The Colbert Report (which wasn't up for deletion anyway), pointing to the importance of that show in American popular culture. I didn't see any convincing counterarguments to the nominator's point that the article violated WP:NOR, and looking over the article myself I was inclined to agree. The editors of the article had nine months to source the information, and didn't. I see no reason to believe the article would be brought into conformance with policy if restored. Keep deleted. —Angr 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why not restore it and let users add citations and clean it up so that it doesn't violate WP:OR? As I noted above, I'm very willing to clean up the article. After all, if the article wasn't sourced in the past, doesn't mean it can't be sourced in the future.--TBCΦtalk? 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • At the risk of repeating myself, the editors had nine months in which they could have been sourcing the article and weren't. Why should anyone believe it would be sourced if it were restored? "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "Be naive". —Angr 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: how about restoring it to TBC's user space (or restore and move it there, whatever's necessary) from where it can be moved back into article space when sufficient cleanup has been done? Cheers --Pak21 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• I thought that the article was going to be kept, and I was willing to give it a chance to improve, if someone was actually going to put in the effort. It's pretty much been a dumping ground for observations about the show, without anyone bothering to source or edit it, but I think moving to userspace or off wikipedia would give it that chance if someone really wants to work on it. I have my doubts that any work will happen, though, and it definitely doesn't belong as an article in the form that was deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article I did not participate in this AfD discussion, but if I had, it would've certainly been on behalf of keeping the article. It certainly had its problems, but nothing that couldn't be solved with a good clean up (and I, like TBC, am absolutely willing to help with that effort). The AfD absolutely created a consensus, and that consensus was to keep the article. It also wasn't as if there was IP vote-stacking; prominent editors were on both sides of the discussion, but considerably more people wanted to allow the article to exist. It doesn't have to be repeated that AfD is not a vote, but it is the job of AfD to allow a consensus to come to light, and in this instance, the consensus opinion was ignored by the editor who closed the AfD. -- Kicking222 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of people "voted" to keep it, because it was people interested in the article who saw that it was up for deletion. But no one actually addressed the basic problem with the article -- not that it didn't happen to have sources, but that the information covered in it can't be sourced. One of the strongest arguments in favor of deletion I saw in the discussion was actually prefaced with the word "Keep": Lockesdonkey wrote "the only 'research' that really can be done is watching the show (or is there a book or website cataloguing this stuff that I'm not aware of?)" -- in other words, it would be impossible to cite secondary sources for the claims made. Verifiability by means of reliable sources is Wikipedia policy, and if the only way to verify the information in the article is to watch the show, then the article has no business on Wikipedia. That was the thrust of the "delete" voices' argument, and that was never countered by the "keep" voices. The "keep" voices just kept saying "the show is an important part of American popular culture", which no one ever denied. There was definite consensus on that point, but unfortunately it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I'll be glad to restore the article to someone's user space so it can be worked on, provided the people who want to work on it can tell me exactly how they plan to improve it. What secondary sources are available on the topic of the recurring elements of the Colbert Report that you plan to cite? —Angr 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources can also come from scripts, reviews, etc.; not just from watching the show.--TBCΦtalk? 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Does TBC really have to tell the closing admin "exactly how they plan to improve" this article including "what secondary sources they plan to cite" just to get this text userfied? I get the impression from the deletion guidelines for administators that this is common courtesy, and possibly even required of the closing admin if the content of the article is not simple vandalism. -- Bailey^(talk) 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Angr's above statement. Wickethewok 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore (and cleanup). Angr, secondary sources do exist for some of the information in the article, since reviewers have discussed many of the specific recurring segments on the show, but beyond that, reliable sources and secondary sources are not the same thing. One of the main points that was made in this discussion was that using television shows as primary sources is explictly permitted by our WP:RS and WP:NOR. Original analysis of those sources is not allowed, but merely describing that source without analysis is permittable. So, for example, stating that Colbert has a segment called "Formidable Opponent" where he debates against himself is fair and does not need another source. Same goes with the list of minor characters, which there is clearly precident for. Personally, I think a considerable amount of information in this article is problematic, but not all of it. Since there are editors volunteering to work on it, there's no reason to nuke the whole thing. I'll stand my assessment that the article should probably be split into seperate lists of recurring segments and recurring characters, with the rest cleaned up and merged as appropriate. But deleting an article entirely because it relies on primary sources contradicts policy. -- Bailey^(talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overtun and restore (and, of course, clean up). As Bailey said, that a source is a TV show does not mean that it is 1. original research nor does it mean that it is 2. unverifiable. Perhaps hard to verify, if the show is not easily accessible, but given that everything on the Report is available online and for free from MotherLoad, as far as I can remember, anyone can check whether or not something something stated in the article is true. If that isn't verifiability, what is? Furthermore, would you have us delete everything about TV shows which haven't developed a base of people willing to write about them? Naturally, the article wasn't perfect. Finally, on a personal level, I applaud you, Angr, for having the dexterity of mind to take my argument, intended to clarify and crystallize a commonly-held opinion about verifiability and original research that (I hope!) is neither too broad nor too narrow-minded (in other words, the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's) and transmute it into what is possibly the narrowest interpretation of OR and verifiability with regard to television ever seen. Lockesdonkey 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore - The article most certainly needs a lot of work, but, as I said in the AfD discussion and others have said here, people are willing to work on the article. Moreover, as Bailey mentioned, television shows are regarded as reliable sources, under WP:NOR, and there was in no way rough consensus. The arguments for deletion were most certainly addressed by a number of prominent users, and in all honesty, I began to stop arguing the issue because I felt that there was overwhelming support for keeping the article, and there was no way an administrator would delete it. Please don't take this as a personal attack, Angr, but deleting this article because you resent the presence of any popular culture-related articles on Wikipedia, and the neglect of "important" articles (see this page) is not fair. It is indeed a shame that more important articles are neglected, but it is no reason to delete such articles on popular culture. Similar articles to this one have survived multiple AfDs (see [[1]]), and articles such as Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches and those related to The Simpsons have been present on Wikipedia for over a year. Several such articles are adequately referenced and are quite decent, for example Themes_in_Blade_Runner. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, even the nominator thought the article was going to be kept. Need there be anymore proof that there was no consensus to delete the article? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That was a matter of what I thought would happen, not what I thought should happen. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, I was just pointing out there there was obviously no consensus. Even though AfDs are not votes, it's not simply an argument. Whichever side presents the stronger argument doesn't necessarily win; in order for the article to be deleted, the delete camp should present a significantly stronger argument and be at least close to as numerous as the keep camp (much like the conditions needed for an RfA to pass). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore per above. Article should have been kept: 8-18 is not consensus to delete. Even if the closing admin thinks that there isn't a keep consensus, it should certainly be closed as no consensus. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion, what part of "AfD is not a vote" do you folks not understand? If you don't present new arguments, which none of you has done, then there will be no overturning of this discussion, and the close was perfectly proper. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! What Zoe said. Eusebeus 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I know AfD isn't a vote. I'm not even that attatched to this particular article. But I strongly feel that this should have been closed as 'no consensus'. Angr closed this AfD on the basis that no one presented arguments that effectively counter the arguments made in the original nomination. I disagree. I admit there were some unhelpful comments on either side of the discussion, but from what I can see, it was argued that:
    1. A fair amount of the information in the article is purely descriptive information sourced to The Colbert Report, which according to NOR and RS is an acceptable, reliable source;
    2. that several of Night's examples for precident were/are irrelevant -- obviously, a list of Slashdot jokes or YTMN jokes is different, since we're explicitly allowed to use TV shows as primary sources, but not forums and community websites;
    3. that precedent exists for keeping articles sourced entirely by trivial observation of a television show, such as List of vehicles in The Simpsons which survived three deletion attempts;
    4. that precedent exists for keeping articles sourced entirely by TV shows that have an even greater level of detail than this, such as articles on individual episodes, which indeed have been upheld in the AfD process repeatedly: see Bart's Dog Gets An F, or Death Has a Shadow for a non-Simpson's example;
    5. that some information in this article actually can be attributed to secondary sources since the Colbert Report has been subject to many, many reviews in print publications, even if secondary sources are sort of a red herring in this conversation;
    6. that lists of minor characters, such as the one included here, have been upheld repeatedly and are explictly allowed by our deletion policy on recurring characters, and that lists of recurring segments on a show composed entirely of segments (ie, a comedy/variety show) is entirely relevent to understanding that series, which would lack a traditional plot synopsis;
    7. that this article needs work, but is not unfixable, considering acceptable sources exist for it, and editors are obviously willing to work on it, removing original analysis and possibly refactoring content via some form of merge, rename, or split; and finally,
    8. We don't generally delete articles which are fixable simply because they're in need of cleanup -- we usually fix them.
  • I really don't mean to rant, and I empathize with the "delete" argument, since this article really in bad shape -- but I also don't see how these arguments fail to address the nominator's premise. It was widely acknowledged in the discussion that a large part of this article needs to fixed or scrapped, but there was clearly no consensus to delete. -- Bailey^(talk) 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And there we have it, the points made by the delete boat have been well-addressed. Even if an admin finds their side to be "winning" the argument, rough censensus is needed to delete an article, and this has certainly not been reached to delete the article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Proper close, no new evidence. Encyclopaedia cruftannica is somewhere else; the Colbert Report is notable but this was far too m uch detail and all form primary sources. We are not the Colbert Report fansite or FAQ. And anyway, the number of Colbert Report articles has tripled in the past few years. Guy 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not new evidence has surfaced, the close was ill-reasoned, and the admin obviously carries an enormous bias against articles relating to TV shows and such (see this page, then read this one). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, the fact that Colbert is responsible for vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion of Colbert-related articles. I hate vandalism just as much as you, and I have reverted many incidents of vandalism to the Elephant article, but Colbert remains to an influential figure in popular culture, and this article remains to add significantly to the subject of The Colbert Report. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Angr's actions were appropriate and based off of a badly needed proper understanding of what's needed for the project (i.e. AfD is based on discussion and policy, not simple votes). --Improv 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand that AfD is not a vote. I simply want the article to be restored and cleaned up (whether in the article namespace or the userspace) to a point in which it does meet Wikipedia's numerous guidelines and policies. After all, from personal experience, starting a new article from scratch is much more difficult than improving an older one.--TBCΦtalk? 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak relist: I would rather see a relist in this case because, while I think this articles and articles like this are useless and, in fact, non-encyclopedic, the principle for deletion was OR and V, and I don't think those apply. I agree that any conclusion drawn is OR, but I also think we're getting a little too far in our V insistence. If there are citations to the originals (links to downloads) and passing references to others who talk about regular segments and the like (and there are dozens to choose from), our authors should be freed from being simple automatons and Google bots. My feeling is that the article is properly deleted, but because of its being non-additive: it provides us no encyclopedic information, does not discuss a topic that is beyond list status, and has no appeal except to those who already know the information (which is how I define "cruft": rabid Dr. Who fans know about daleks, and an article about dalek emporer Squigglebotty IV is, essentially, repeating/reliving for the fans). Therefore, I would vote to delete the article, but I cannot feel comfortable with a deletion on NOR grounds. Geogre 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Both WP:V and WP:NOR are official policy. They absolutely apply to this and every other article. Rather than spend time and energy trying to restore this policy violation of an article, we should be tracking down all the others that are as bad or worse and deleting them too, if only so people will stop calling their continued existence "precedent". —Angr 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of the policies. The question is how they are interpreted. It has become fashionable lately to intrepret them so strenuously that we become a digest service, with no critical capacity. This is a mistake, a very grave one, that robs us of our expert editors, and it is a fashionable development rather than longstanding practice. People will use tu quoque and "this other one's as bad" arguments no matter what we do, so this is not an argument, either way. I would not vote to keep this article, and I am not advocating restoration. I am saying that applying NOR and V in this manner is not sufficient for overturning consensus voting. "Hunting" is a thing we do when we're hungry, not when we're trying to build, IMO. We need to prune the tangles, but crusading never has ended well for anyone that I'm aware of. Geogre 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, userfy on request. This isn't an automatically non-encyclopedic article, but if 80% of keep !votes qualify it with "needs cleanup" and nobody does it, deleting until someone steps up and offers to {{sofixit}} is a perfectly viable call. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Trialsanderrors is absolutely right. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The malaise of "keep and cleanup" votes which have resulted in a lot of substandard articles being kept and almost no substandard articles being cleaned up was on the way out even before we were told to focus on quality of articles over quantity. And now it's certainly an almost paper-thin argument for overturning a properly-reasoned close. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How is the close decision properly reasoned when the keep camp has not only addressed the delete camp's argument throroughly, but vastly outnumbers them? AfDs are not votes, but they do require rough consensus, like RfAs. An RfA would require at least 80% consesus, yet you're advocating the removal of content, of knowledge, from Wikipedia when only 25% agree with you? An admin's place is to make judgement calls on whether there is consensus and whether the delete camp's arguments have been addressed (they have, see Bailey's above comment), not with which side he or she agrees. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The admin closing the discussion did not follow Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, plain and simple. Those in favor of keeping the article presented valid arguments (see Bailey's comment above) and vastly outnumbered those in favor of deleting the article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - for all the reasons above. Just because of the whole Elephant incident... c'mon now people. --Bobak 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems that both sides present good arguments, and there is about an equal number of editors of each opinion, so could the article at at least be restored to someone's user space (you could restore it to mine or another user's, and I would work on it). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article I think this was a disgusting oversight by wikipedia. Why were you so lazy and willing to delete a perfectly good article? All it needed was a little cleanup and perhaps a small rewrite, and it would have been fine. If User:Night Gyr stopped for one second and actually asked for someone to clean the article up instead of rushing off and deleting it, the Colbert article would be much better off. dposse 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There were requests for cleanup and sourcing on it for a month before I listed it for deletion. Nothing was done before or after I made the AFD, even by those who said it could/should be cleaned up. I deliberately didn't jump straight to deletion, because I wanted to give it a chance, but after a month with no improvement (and several months before that with none either) it was clear that the article wasn't going to get better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. Just clean up and source the thing.--Kross^Talk 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vernian Process

This article was deleted by User:Coredesat because according to the consensus of votes, it didn't meet the music notability guidelines. The main one being that it is not signed to a record label. However, I have no intentions of signing to a label, untill I find one that will not try to rip me off at every given opportunity. For now I give away all of my music for free. I do have a link to lulu.com where my most recent L.P. can be purchased for $8, yet if a fan can't afford that, I will happily supply them with a link where they can d-load the album for free.

It was pointed out early in the review that the article read like an advertisement. I will admit that I was new at writing wikipedia articles at the time, and had gone and changed it to reflect an encyclopedic, and non-point of view style.

I would also like to point out that this project is the first music project that has attempted to capture the spirit of the genre Steampunk. Another band Abney Park (band) adopted this same image about two years after I started my project, yet they have a valid wiki article.

I mentioned also in my deletion review that my project has been featured in national print media, as well as recieving the attention of Mick Mercer, who is the foremost authority on the Gothic genre of music. And an accomplished journalist within the music industry for well over 25 years. Upon searching for "Vernian Process" (in quotes) on google, I recieved approximately 679 hits, from various sources both national and international. I would also like to point out that this is a studio music project geared towards creating atmospheric film score material, not a rock band. So the idea of touring nationally is a non-issue. This was actually brought to my attention via a fan who saw the deletion review posted on my wiki article. Oh and another thing, all references to my project were also deleted from the List of Steampunk Works article as well. Which smells like a personal vendetta for some reason.

However the one thing that irks me more than anything, is that as an internationally recognized DJ and music connoisseur, I have spent the last 4 years attempting to create something completely unique that can not be compared to any pre-existing music and it is being deleted from wikipedia. Yet any number of no-talent artists who just rip everything else off, or emulate what has already been created can have a valid article. That just turns me off from this so called encyclopedia entirely, and makes me want to delete any information I have contributed here in the past. --FACT50 10:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• No matter how novel your works are, if we have no way to know if they're notable, how can you expect us to have an article on it? Without standards, anyone could claim to be notable enough for an article, insisting on having an entry in Wikipedia to satisfy vanity. --Improv 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• this seems to be a problem with the system, rather than with the band in question. this happens to be an area of music with which i'm familiar, and Vernian Process is definitely an important band in both the steampunk and sepiachord style histories. that it doesn't fit into the traditional categories of notoriety shouldn't be an obstacle in its specific case. i'll throw my vote in that an exception should be made, without treating it as a precedent. Whateley23 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting man, now hopefully someone will actually read it, and understand the notability of this project. It's hard to claim notability when you are part of a relatively young and not widely known genre. --FACT50 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: no evidence as to notability provided. No prejudice against recreation if evidence of having "been featured in national print media" is provided. --Pak21 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well here is a link to Livid Looking Glass Magazine (This is now a webzine, but my review was posted in issue #1 which was a print magazine available through various outlets such as Tower Records.) interview in Girls & Corpses Magazine. Yes I know it is a silly magazine. But it is available in print form through various outlets, as the site says. I have also been featured in various webzines Starvox, Aether Emporium, The Mick, and have links on most major Steampunk related genere sites Steampunk Database, Polish Steampunk database [ [ --FACT50 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the hang up about a having to have a record deal. In this day and age many artists are having successful careers with out signing their lives away to a record company. And what size record label is considered valid? Should we remove posts about various punk bands because they're work was release on tiny labels, often labels that were created by the band just to get thier music out. How is creating your own "bedroom" label different from self releasing your work through the internet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.189.42 (talk • contribs) 2 November 2006 (UTC).

See the WP:MUSIC guideline--TBCΦtalk? 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

This is an important band representing a population that is difficult quantify (that is young, poor, punk kids) but are nonetheless very active in producing our culture. Young artists which will have a signifigant impact in 20 years and have wiki mods eating crow. The criterion of "notability" the mods present is shallow. there is no way to measure the cultural impact of small bands, and if you measure their impact by their commercial status or records sold in an information age where pirated and free music make unrecordable impact on people, the standard for what is "notable" would be very mediocre as well as deceptive. and nor is there any harm done in having an extra article, especially one so unique as this. I think the mods here are abusing their power and denying freedom of information, see: 1984.Diversityrules 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this edit is this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. Is anyone surprised? --Pak21 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a PhD in astrophysics to know mindless oppression when I see it. --Cristina Brooks, age 23. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diversityrules (talk • contribs) .

• Well I can tell you it wasn't me. I'm not surprised though, considering I've mentioned this issue in a few Steampunk subculture forums. However I would like to get some feedback from you guys on the links I posted a few days ago. I have provided proof of notability, yet no one has said anything as of yet, let alone the people that asked for it --FACT50 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first thing I'd note is that both the print interviews you are citing actually appear to to be exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure they really count as multiple works. Personally, I'd say Vernian Process/you are bordering on the edge of notability. Whether you are or not is likely to be established in the next few months, so leave it for now and let somebody else write the article when you are, noting WP:AUTO. --Pak21 16:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)