Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:52, 11 November 2006

< November 5	November 7 >

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

6 November 2006

The Wakefield High School Marching Band

I feel that this page can be informational to anybody wishing to know the history of this marching band. I have found that this website provides very good information on a wide variety of subjects, and I do not think that an informational article should be deleted just because it happens to be on the subject of a school band. There are articles about professional bands. Most of those do not get deleted. I do not think this should either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodnash2 (talk • contribs)

Endorse Deletion. Wakefield High School (Raleigh, North Carolina) is a better place for it. --humblefool ® 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion no new evidence to overturn (CSD A7). Mention in the school's article if need be. Kavadi carrier 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. More proper at Wakefield High School. Yanksox 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - Add any pertinent material to Wakefield High School. There is a gigantic difference between a professional band with record contracts and media attention and a school band. Please present evidence that would suggest that CSD A7 should not apply. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karius Vega

I feel that this article/bio about the IDM artist Karius Vega should be kept up in my mind because its to give information about a new and upcoiming artist and can be expanded with the passing of time to be a bigger, more informational and more creative article. Also I feel that this artist deserves recognition elsewhere besides Myspace and his own website. For me, this article is just about the artist exchange by giving you a complete bio, pictures, discography, and external links to the artist. I can understand if others have a feeling that there is not enough information in the article or enough length to be considered an article, but to those that feel this way, let them be reminded that there are a lot of other articles that aren't long enough that you yourself may endorse as well. The statement before this one was not meant as an attack on anyone, its just a thought that hopefully gets some peaceful and intelligent dialouge between myself and others. Thank you for those that actually read my statement and even more thanks to those that understand my idea and reasons behind the article(even to those that understand it and still disagree).

Endorse deletion, clearly fails WP:MUSIC, anybody whose only sources are his own page and his myspace page hasn't proven notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per above. Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability or to advertise in order to build a reputation, it is a record of notable objects wherein the notability has been established and recorded with reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Fails WP:MUSIC at this point, hasn't established notability and isn't verifable. Hello32020 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could understand that, but the pictures were taken from the page, because the artist could not find the magazine issue where his pictures were featured, also this article was not meant to establish a solid fan base, but more or less to give people more insight to the artists of the IDM genre, this artist just happened to be a new and rising IDM artist. Your points are very understandable however, so I will keep these in mind next time I decide I am to make an article. billybob3165 8:44 am (CMST) November 7th 2006

Go Sailor

Go Sailor (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) Let's see, I am not in Go Sailor, I do not know anyone in Go Sailor. They broke up 10 years ago. I looked up them on the wikipedia and found there was no article. Fortunately there were 100's of thousands of articles on google. I went to answers.com, and there was the article. I found it strange that answers.com claimed wikipedia had an article about Go Sailor, when in actuality it does not. So I copied the article from answers.com and pasted it here. I was not aware it was recently sppeedy deleted. therefore it is notable enough for someone to rewrite an article about it after they broke up.

And Go Sailor meets three of the notability criteria as listed in the wikipedia notable musician policy.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). True, released albums on Lookput Records

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.) True I count 4 reputable sources within the first page of results on google.

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. true Rose Melberg.

Therefore I am going to request this is put up again.

Sorry about putting it back up again, i wasn';t aware it was recently deleted.

So put it back so people can get information about this band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosailorboy (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion. The article did not assert the notability of the band, so it qualified for speedy deletion under criterion A7. If you can write an article that does assert the notability of the band, you are free to be bold and write it. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.220.220 (talk • contribs)
Really? Could you please point to the passages of the article which even claim notability, let alone qualifies it? Endorse deletion, fails WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion w/o prejudice. I looked at it. There's nothing in the article that's useful. Just start from scratch. --humblefool ® 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history Falls under the "subject notable but article doesn't assert notability" rubric. I recreated the article with the claim to notability (members were also members of other notable bands) included. ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history &mdash in its current form, it is a worthy article ➥the Epopt 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:NPA personality theory

Talk:NPA personality theory ([[Talk:Talk:NPA personality theory|discussion]]|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) Hope it's ok to make this request. I am requesting temporary undelete of this talk page to avert any further misunderstandings as to it's contents, like this: [1]. --Zeraeph 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zeraeph/NPA, please tag for deletion once the misunderstanding is settled. Guy 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy, I will tag when it's all settled.--Zeraeph 22:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locksport

Locksport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was deleted despite having seven keep votes and only three delete votes, all keep votes had reasoning that responded to the delete votes. The claims that there were no reliable secondary sources is false and was proven to be such. The term may not be in widespread use but that fact does not make it invalid or a neologism. The article was unfairly deleted.--What_aka_Kevin 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)(I am new to Wiki formating so please excuse any errors.)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locksport

Iffy situation, from where I stand. This is obviously a topic that can be covered, considering the ABC News link and some others that I came across in a quick Google search, but there was some question in the AfD about whether this was a neologism or a valid sport to be covered. I can't see a lot of uses of the word "locksport" that don't reference the association, so I'm going to have to say endorse closure but with no prejudice to the article being recreated in the future if the term takes hold independent of the organization. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy.
A neologism on Wikipedia is defined as a term recently created that is not yet in widespread use.

Anyway, after reading the linked articles, they don't appear to be using the term "Locksport". I suggest that the authors attempt to create an article about events like the Norwegian competition in the main lock picking article, or perhaps competitive lock picking. --humblefool ® 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, there appear to be no non-trivial sources independent of the subject. Guy 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment It seems that there's no doubt that lockpicking as a source exists and has sufficient sources to write something about it, so why can't this be restored and merged to the Lock picking article as a section on sport? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gyr: the distinction between the two articles was made by my first post in the AfD. What_aka_Kevin 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pingus

Pingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD) This article was deleted in spite of having five votes to delete and five votes to keep; thus no consensus was reached, thus the article should have stayed. I don't have any vested interest in the article, aside from playing the game it talks about, but I felt that it was unfair that it was deleted in spite of no consensus being reached. --Stevefarrell 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion without prejudice Keep in mind AfD is not a vote when determining whether there is a consensus or not. While I don't feel the software is notable enough, if there can be other reliable sources to prove me otherwise, I'd support relisting. Wildthing61476 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote and closing sysop may choose to close in a way that overrides the weight of numbers. In this case verifiability is paramount; the fact that the game is significant in the FOSS community doesn't excuse the article from having to cite multiple reliable sources that feature the game. Kavadi carrier 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy, the article did not assert its notability and there were not enough reliable sources in support of that. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera

This article was speedied as Advertising after being listed on AfD; I felt it should have at least gotten a full 5 days on Afd. Also, User:Duhman0009 kicked this off by objecting to it to me during unrelated conversation. He'll be by as well. humblefool ® 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G11 being as contentious as it is, can someone undelete and protect the article temporarily so we can see whether it is really unsalvagably spammy? Unless I can see the article my tentative comment will be keep deleted. Kavadi carrier 03:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted after looking at deleted version. Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB in current form. Kavadi carrier 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless there are multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources. This article has no references and no evidence of significance per WP:WEB. Guy 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not too happy that we're essentially running an AfD here now, but oh well. Overturn G11, not a spammy gush article ← Done. Now → Delete unless independently sourced, zero Newsbank hits, no evidence it meets WP:WEB. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Theory Daily Review

Endorse deletion; it was deleted for not asserting the notability of this website. I indeed do not see any such assertion in the deleted article. Please tell us why this website is notable. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The site is widely referenced to online and much appreciated for a good reason: it's the only site that I know of that has this many daily updated (since January 2003) qualitatively high standing articles related to the broad field political theory. Brz7 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not questioning the notability of the website, nor did the administrator who deleted the article. The point is that the article itself did not tell why this website is notable, so the speedy delete was appropriate per WP:CSD#A7. There are a lot of website,s we just can't have an article on all of them. See WP:WEB for our criteria for inclusion of web content. Note that the nnumber of Google hit are a long rejected way for measuring notability. Tizio 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the article was still a stub of one sentence as far as I remember, including a link to the site, this could be improved. The article did refer to an interview with the editor. The Google search does also show qualitative aspects: the site is recommended by notable people (e.g. Will Kymlicka) and organisations (e.g. Louisiana State University). The site is comparable but a lot more elaborate than Arts and Letters Daily. Brz7 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edyta Sliwinska

Edyta Sliwinska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / I created an an entry for Edyta Sliwinska today who is a fabulous international dancer. Someone seemed to have a problem with an external link to dance videos of a dancer. No explanation for why this is a problem was given, but I was invited to explain why dance videos of a professional dancer are relevant to her biography. I gave the obvious explanation. Along the way, Edyta Sliwinska's written biography was completely butchered by this person, who apparantly knows nothing about dance, and then the entire entry was put on hold. This is my first Wikipedia entry and a terrible experience. Is Citizendium better? Regardless, would someone please restore the entry for Edyta Sliwinska, a world class dancer, along with her video archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.215.213 (talk • contribs)

The article wasn't deleted for the link, but for speedy deletion criterion A7, which is non-notability. However, I don't see where that applies, since her notability is asserted. *Overturn and list at AfD. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Aecis. Said it right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we see a version which is rather less problematic? Prior versions included such gems as Edyta's biographical information is only scantily available, with bits of copy-and-paste from a few fansites and some linkspam. It is no accident that this was deleted twice as A7. Guy 12:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not salt, allow recreation: as I can't see the previous version of the article, I can't judge if it was rightly or wrongly deleted. However, I don't think recreation should be prohibited, as it looks after a short search that she may well pass WP:BIO, being one of the pro dancers on ABC's "Dancing with the stars"[2]. Fram 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon requestor also posted this request under the Content Review section above. That request is close in deferrence to this discussion. Incidentally, a review of history shows that this page was deleted citing case A7, recreated and redeleted by a different admin who cited the same case. While it's possible that there's an assertion of notability somewhere, I couldn't find it in any deleted version of the article. Send it to AFD if you must but I strongly believe that it would be deleted there. Rossami (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Aecis; Rossami may be right, we'd know if the article went to AfD. We have articles on the Strictly Come Dancing pros, but I have no idea if Dancing with the Stars compares with that. She appears to be a successful professional sportsperson, and if we have poker players and video gamers, I don't see why dancers shouldn't have a look in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I believe she is notable. She has been on all 3 seasons of the US Dancing with the Stars (more relevant link). DWTS is doing well in the US, and she finished third in this season just this Wednesday. And related to DTWS, she is going on tour across the US. She also placed first in a few dance competitions. Here is her current bio page on ABC and here is her official website. Tinlinkin 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunnel Rats

This article was speedy deleted by User:Vegaswikian claiming the page's content was NN. I discovered it missing whilst carrying out a research program on fringe sports in Australia. In brief, as discussed with the person in question on their talk page [3] I outlined that the group consists of 2,000+ members and is thus a very large organisation. The group is the largest urban exploration group in Australia and possibly the most centralised group in the world. The group has a large web presense and is number one ranked in many searches in relation to urban exploration, urban spelunking and sub-terrainian exploration. The group has made front page news in Australia and had much media coverage promoting the sport of urbex. Many websites link to the wikipedia entry, which is how I stumbled here in my research, furthermore many pages ON wikipedia rely on the article as a 'see also' or a reference. The group is also the fastest growing social network of urban explorers in the southern hemisphere per my research. I would like to see the article deleted due to the fact I wish to use it as a resource in my research and further may be able to add to the article. 211.30.71.59 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist / undelete as above, obviously. 211.30.71.59 06:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support listing on AfD if there were some evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will userfy to allow addition of said sources if anyone wants me to. Guy 12:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, another issue I touched on with Vegaswikian was that there are numerous other organisations of the same type, from varying countries, that have Wiki entries. Many of which are insignificant small groups. So we need some consistancy, it'd be like having a heap of small political parties listed in wiki but dropping the largest party in the country as not-notable. 211.30.71.59 02:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existance of other articles isn't evidence that one should be kept; we just haven't gotten around to deleting them yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who tagged this one for notability originally, because the group seemed to actually be nothing more than a web forum inaccessible to unregistered members. I couldn't find any evidence that they actually had any real world activities involving the thousands of people claimed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the extensive photo archives? The reason the forum was taken down and the site was locked to members only was due to them being front page news for a week or so as being arrested and mislabelled as 'terrorists' because the Australian government can't tell the difference between combat webbing and abseiling gear. :) Something I was looking forward to adding to the article, too. 211.30.71.59 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 21,680 hits from Google, the group is on the first search page for the keywords 'urbex', 'urban exploration', 'subex' and other keywords for the sport of urban exploration. I'd say apart from infiltration.org, this group is the possibly most significant urban exploratory group (and advocates thereof) in the world. Jachin 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Tunnel Rats do seem to be a notable group in the urbex community. While one must register to veiw the groups webpage (which I did not bother to do), in searching several other urbex groups' pages, I found that most linked to the tunnel rats' page. They have also gained some newspaper notoriety for having a member recently arrested (on charges that are unrelated to the groups activities, or so it seems). Blueboar 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth reviewing, there are instances here in the UK of the group being discussed by similar organisations here.ALR 08:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The group seems notable, but the article is nonexistent to and therefore can't be viewed by non-admins. AFAIK, there's nothing preventing simple recreation (as opposed to relisting via debate), so maybe it should simply be recreated, and not actually put into an article namespace until the sourcing is solid, as it seems that the original deletion was based on a lack of secondary material. MSJapan 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Duck

Cyde deleted this right in the middle of an ongoing AfD. I suggest that the article should be undeleted so that editors can examine the contents and find alternate sources. For example I listed mentions of him, none of which were from the sources cited in the article. Lastly, "sourcing problems" are in themselves not a criteria for speedy deletion. Kavadi carrier 02:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion and recreate from better sources. Naconkantari 02:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. This is another Nash-sourced article, I think we've established that the source is unacceptable due to inclusion of deliberate misinformation (to say nothing of copyright issues). Guy 12:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy-deletion and re-open the AFD. No speedy-deletion criterion was cited nor is any applicable criterion obvious to me. While there may be significant problems with the article, the speedy-deletion criteria are deliberately narrow. If the Nash sourcing problems were all that was wrong with the article, it should have been reverted back to the version as of 15:15 2 Oct 2006 which predated the addition of material cited to Nash's books. Deletion of the non-problematic material does not appear to have been justified. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 *'''Overturn''' I believe she is notable. She has been on all 3 seasons of the US [[Dancing with the Stars (US TV series)|Dancing with the Stars]] (more relevant link). DWTS is doing well in the US, and she finished third in this season just this Wednesday. And related to DTWS, she is going on tour across the US. She also placed first in a few dance competitions. [http://abc.go.com/primetime/dancing/bios/3/edyta_sliwinska.html Here] is her current bio page on ABC and [http://edytaonline.net/ here] is her official website. [[User:Tinlinkin|Tinlinkin]] 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Ultimate Baseball Online]]====
-{{la|Ultimate Baseball Online}} /
-[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Baseball Online|Original AFD]]
-This article was posted to the new article announcements at [[WP:CVG]] and after glancing at it, it looked legit, but it turns out that it was deleted under g4.  I'm quite liberal with G4, I know some think its for absolutely identical text reposts only, but I think if something has shown how incredibly non-notable something is, then you can just kill it no matter how its phrased.  However, in this case, the original article was deleted with votes such as "Delete the current version, without any prejudice towards later recreation" and "Delete advert".  I assume that the original article was a crock of shit, however from what I remember of the newer article this was not the case, [[User:PresN]] may also agree with me, having added the article onto the CVG new article announcements himself and notifying the author at [[User talk:Eacamacho]]. '''Undelete''', and relist if you must, but just a quick [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22ultimate+baseball+online%22 Google search] and [http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=%22ultimate%20baseball%20online%22 Google News] shows that it probably smashes something like [[#Girly]] out of the water in terms of sources and notability. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-:'''Relist''' - Chiming in here, the new version was not an advert, and while I don't have much of an opinion on the notability of the article, and only added it as a new cvg article because it was filling a cvg article creation request, I think that since the original article was not the same as the new one, it should not have been G4'd and should have been AfD'd instead, at least.  I do think that G4 is for similar text reposts only- just because someone made a shitty advert article once doesn't poison the article subject forever. --[[User:PresN|PresN]] 05:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-* Obvious '''relist''', content is substantially different and can now be judged on its merits as a subject rather than nuked as an advert.  I have done the needful, this can be closed. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 ==== [[The Tunnel Rats]] ====