Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 13

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

13 November 2006

Wall-E (film)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall-E (film)

Wall-E (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This film, less than 2 years in the future, appears to have gotten its article deleted so quickly as if it were indeed just a rumor. Study various Disney/Pixar web sites and how many will mention this film?? Georgia guy 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for the time being. Feel free to write a new article when more is known about the film. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing was out of proccess in that AfD, the consensus found it was not verifiable yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain. Do people who write info in blogs often lie?? Georgia guy 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is explained in the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite honestly, it's impossible to verify if they lie or not (more likely, they repeat stuff they hear from "around" which isn't a reliable source of information either). So they're not reliable enough. ColourBurst 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: People who write in blogs do often lie, but they even more often repeat rumors found in other blogs. There is no thing to discuss until someone else, with accountability, writes about it. Geogre 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Too far into the future. No guarantee that this film will be released at this point. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Less than two years into the future? And there was I thinking we were an encyclopaedia, not a crystal ball. Guy 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean less than 2, or 5?? How many articles on upcoming films does Wikipedia have?? Georgia guy 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Too many, most with more rumors than facts. Fan-1967 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the AFD I closed on this movie. No confirmed information, and we're not in the crystal ball business. --Coredesat 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Mario series items

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario series items

List of Mario series items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently got this page restored, but it seems to have been deleted again. Again I must explain the reason we need to keep this article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. An encyclopedia cannot think, so it is immune from bias and prejudice. Deleting this article is a bias, who says that we can't keep things about video games. One person said, "Wikipedia is not an instructions manual." Who are you to judge? Wikipedia is a free encylopedia. You are being bias about not letting an article in, because it informs you about the items in a video game series. Mario is now a pop icon, you can see 1-Up mushrooms on, shirts, cars, tattoos. It is recognizable and should be restored.

• Endorse deletion. Yup, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. WP:NOT is where you find the bit about not being an instruction manual (or indeed an indiscriminate collection of information). Accusations of bias are offensive and unnecessary, try taking the comments at face value rather than imputing motives. We have an enormous number of articles on video game topics, it is fatuous to suggest that this was deleted because it's about Mario, rather than because it's a random list. Guy 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Procedurally sound and only one Keep. Accusations of bias are also used mainly when an article clearly does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as this one doesn't. JChap2007 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, this is not negotiable. WP:NOT explains the fundamental policy. ColourBurst 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wiki is not an instruction manual, as stated numerous times. If certain Mario items have cultural significance, then add them to [[1]] The Kinslayer 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Good judgment is part of keeping the project on-track. Suggestions that we should not use any judgment at all in order to avoid bias misunderstand what an encyclopedia is and what is needed to give it quality. --Improv 15:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yehuda Zisapel

• Yehuda Zisapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehuda Zisapel

How can you have an article about Paul McCartney without having an article about John Lennon? I was in the process of massively revisioning the Yehuda Zisapel article, but it was deleted before I could say a beep! This kind of behaviour is like a thug behaviour. If Zohar Zisapel was accepted, there is no reason for not having one for Yehuda Zisapel. Indeed, the initial article was badly written, but as I CLEARLY stated, I deleted the bad text and started to create an encyclopedic entry!!! User:Ixfd64 behaved like a bully in my view, having no real knowledge on the subject and without paying attention to my notes on the article's discussion page. I recommend revoking that user's Admin ("Ixfd64") status. —comment added by John Hyams^(t/c) 17:54, 1 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

I've added a link to the article and to the AfD. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Having one thing is no reason for having another. And neither are McCartney or Lennon... Endorse deletion. If you can write a well sourced article which states the notability then please do so - AFD isn't salt the earth. Thanks/wangi 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh really?? You would have a Bill Gates article but not a Steve Balmer article? Anyway, your answer is not to the point, because, as I said, and I will say it again, the article was indeed bad, and today I started to totally revise it, but they didn't give me time to breath, and it was deleted before I could even make the required changes and additions. Again, if someone says he/she is working to amend a bad article, you do not delete the article before he/she posts the revision. And this was done on the same day. Undelete - I need to post that corrcted article!!
    • Please stop making wild assertions and address the issues raised at the articles for deletion debate and by Wangi above. If you genuinely believe the two are indivisible, why not expand the existing article to include both? Guy 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't quite get it Guy, since I addressed a very important issue: I was disturbed while I was in the process of revising a to-be-deleted article, which is basically an essential one. Your comment above appears to be patronizing. Please talk to the point —comment added by John Hyams^(t/c) 17:54, 1 November 2024 UTC [refresh]
      • I suggest you write the article in your userspace, for instance at User:John Hyams/Yehuda Zisapel. That way you can rewrite the article in peace and quiet, and when you're done we will have something substantial to judge. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • An essential article? You don't think you might perhaps be overstating just the tiniest fraction? Coming along invoking Paul McCartney, describing articles as "essential" and calling for the desysopping of admin who called a perfectly proper close on the basis of the deletion debate, bears all the hallmarks of excessive involvement with the subject. I think you might need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down before you consider climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. In a word, chill. There is no deadline, after all. Guy 12:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse until reliable sources are found. If X has an article, so should Y is not a valid keep reason. We're all humans - does that mean every single human should have an article even if the vast majority of them don't have enough sourced information to fill a thimble? John Hyams, the problem was not with the tone of the article (which could be fixed), but lack of reliable sources, and the fact that when it was challenged, it still could not come up with them. ColourBurst 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost (2nd nomination)

Actuarial Outpost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The fact that three people who voted keep are members of the forum is irrelevant. No sockpuppetry occurred, and as mentioned at length, the niche that actuaries as a whole occupy makes the standard Alexa/Google ranking inapplicable. Further, there were 7 votes for Keep and 4 for delete. Even if you completely discount the three of us who are members of the AO (which I maintain is both inappropriate and insulting), it is still 4v4 which is no consensus. I would have closd this as keep (7-4) but felt although a sysop, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I am afraid that W.marsh went too far the other way, and am requesting review for undeletion as keep, and at the very least, no consensus. Thank you Avi 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the second AfD, as that AfD led to the deletion of the article. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- Avi 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, for one thing a conflict of interest is a valid consideration. However it appears their opinions were not regarded with as much weight due to their lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. I see nothing out of line with the closing of this nomination. I see you used the word vote, we don't vote we discuss. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are pages and pages in the RfA talk archive about that But the term "vote" was used by the closing admin; perhaps you should let him know that too ;) Ya think there was an abuse of process, for someone to use the term vote and close an AfD?!?! (JUST KIDDING) -- Avi 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin said Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums, in fairness some people were voting, instead of discussing(Not pointing to anyone specific). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I said "vote" in somewhat an ironic sense, since I was rather sure it would be coming to DRV because I wasn't closing it like a vote. I may use the word vote because it's grammatically convenient, but it would be pure semantics to argue that I actually think we "don't vote we discuss" just because I said the word vote. --W.marsh 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• As HighInBC said, there was a clear conflict of interest. At any rate, as I've said before, if WP:WEB (and to some degree, WP:V) are to mean anything, we have to actually enforce them, even if it's a site we've heard of that's being considered. Actually, especially then. The nomination above contains nothing about reliable sources, and everything about letting us vote to include stuff sourced to forum postings. --W.marsh 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, it doesn't matter how many people come along and assert how great the subject is, without non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources we can't have an article without violating fundamental policies. Guy 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am extremely displeased that my "vote" was completely disregarded without comment. I am sure anything I say here will be disregarded as well. I have seen debates with much stronger consensus to delete closed as "no consensus", but a WP celebrity closed the debate and WP celebrities are endorsing it, so this DRV amounts to pointless wheel spinning. At this point my disillusionment with AfD could not be greater. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is regretable you feal that way, but if you think of AfD as a democracy where every vote counts then you will be dissapointed. Each point a person makes is weighed based on it's merits. Even a strong consensus cannot go against wikipedia policy, and those who argue with policy in mind will do better than those who argue in a fashion incompatable with policy. Sorry if you are disillusioned. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The clue here is in the word "vote". AfD is not a vote. All valid arguments will have been weighed in the balance, but in the end WP:ILIKEIT is not policy whereas WP:V is. Guy 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I endorsed deletion in the Afd debate (I believe I originally brought up the WP:WEB concern in a prod). I did not look anymore at the article after that, but if the references from multiple third-party authorities in the actuarial industry were indeed added, I would lean towards undeleting it. --- RockMFR 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They each ammounted to a casual mention of the site, just using information from those sources, the article would be lucky to be a paragraph long. --W.marsh 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The references from the two main United States actuarial professional organisations were sufficient for the article to be kept in my opinion. I have concerns with the attention to detail of the closing admin, his responses here and in his closure of the AfD appear to be hurried and contain typos. Catchpole 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

However slowly I type, I tend to produce typos. This is the result of bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand (hurrah for Firefox 2 and html form spell-checking!). Does that mean I should never close an AfD? I have no problem with debating the merits of the closure as a closure, with reference to the weight of arguments, but can we please leave personalities out of it? Thanks. Guy 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm dyslexic? I dunno. I've never been attacked for my typos, except on Wikipedia Review once. What's next, the closure was invalid because I made a formatting mistake? I'm good at those too. Anyway, like I said, if the article was written from what can be attributed to reliable sources, it couldn't be more than a paragraph long, based on the 3 references given. This is why WP:WEB wants more than just passing mentions. --W.marsh 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep The criteria for notability shouldn't be "is this famous", because if it were world famous it would already be in a regular encyclopedia. Wikipedia is better than a regular encyclopedia, because it has answers that regular ones don't. The criteria for notability should be "can I imagine someone looking this up on Wikipedia to find out what it is?" And the answer is: yes. Because frankly, if I saw "Actuarial Outpost" anywhere else on the web, my first instinct would be "What is that?" and I would turn to Wikipedia for the answer. Wikipedia begins to loose its purpose if it deletes unusual articles, because Wikipedia is all about tapping into the knowledge of the world, to write articles not just about famous things, but also not so famous and infamous and niche things too. *jb 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No one said the question is "is this famous", the point is that nothing non-trivial has been written about this by reliable sources. They often write about decidedly non-famous and downright obscure things. --W.marsh 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Those references are listed below. Enjoy. -- TheActuary 15 November 2006
    • == References ==

• "A Guide to Working Abroad with Actuarial Outpost references". The Future Actuary from the USA Society of Actuaries. June 5, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-06.

• "Outpost as a source of life insurance principle-based reserves, risk-based capital and meeting reports discussions". MIB Group, Inc., an association of over 500 U.S. and Canadian life insurance companies. January 30, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-06.

• "Candidate Liaison Committee". Alphabetical List of Committee Descriptions. Casualty Actuarial Society. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-07. The committee monitors the Student Discussion Forum on the CAS Web Site and the Actuarial Outpost to help identify student concerns.

• Marler, Carol (November 16, 2001). "One other item Steve omitted (Why the Outpost was created #1)". Actuarial Outpost forums. Retrieved 2006-06-25.

• White, Steve (November 16, 2001). "Have we dropped our history from the syllabus? (Why the Outpost was created #2)". Actuarial Outpost forums. Retrieved 2006-06-09.

• ""Lucy"'s response to "Brad" (Why the Outpost was created #3)". Actuarial Outpost forums. February 16, 2004. Retrieved 2006-06-09.

• Endorse Keep - Consensus was reached in the discussion, and that consensus was keep. It shouldn't have been overturned. Notability in general may not be a good guide here, because the field itself is rather obscure, and because Wikipedia is striving to become a comprehensive source of knowledge. How obscure does a field have to be before notability within the field does not apply? I'd venture to guess that if the field was notable enough to include in Wikipedia, that anything notable within that field to the community of members of that field is also notable enough to be included in Wikipedia (in some form - if not in an article of its own, in a more general article). Therefore, the article should be retained, and if some editors still feel that the topic is too obscure to have its own article, they can propose a merge. Template:Smi  The Transhumanist   10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be discounted the conflict of interest involved in this consensus, most of the people stating keep were saying so due to their personal enjoyment, wheras notability is established through independent sources, not personal preference. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the people in the consensus stating 'keep' had no 'personal enjoyment' as they were unrelated to the Outpost. Many of those people are speaking out above. You yourself weren't even sure of whether to keep or remove, as you deleted your first vote. Deleting this was the wrong decision, as the Actuarial Outpost is *the* meeting place internationally for actuaries, with several international actuarial societies acknowledging that fact. TheActuary 15 November 2006
• Endorse deletion - W.Marsh's closing statement said, "...no evidence was presented that this meets WP:WEB, non-trivial third-party coverage". It is well within admin discretion to close as delete for such a reason. The arguments for notability didn't consist of anything more than vague personal statements and none of them was backed up with anything close to a non-trivial reliable source. Wickethewok 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Like I pointed out last time, "references" which are links to parts of the forum just don't cut it when it comes to verifiability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The first three references are *not* from the forum. They're from outside sources. So you were wrong before and you're wrong again. TheActuary - TheActuary 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There are more references, but they're extremely trivial, simply quick mentions of it in longer articles about other things. None of the other references are about actuarial outpost, they just mention it in passing. This is why WP:WEB (and other policies) state that media coverage must be non-trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actuaries rarely get media coverage. This experience has been like talking to a fungo, none of you 'Wikipedia celebrities' have heard a word, you're so busy defending your unexamined positions. TheActuary - TheActuary 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Actuaries rarely get media coverage? However do they manage to fill the pages of the numerous actuarial magazines, then? Muffin recipes? Gardening tips? I think it would be closer to the truth to say that internet forums rarely get media coverage. No media coverage means no reliable sources, and that means forum articles up for deletion very very rarely get kept. It's even in our Deletion Precedents page: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable.". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Get a job. TheActuary 18 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Please be reminded not to make personal attacks on other wikipedians. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Uniquehomestore.com

This page was deleted today by Cholmes75 for reason g11. The page was deleted in the past for reason g11. We followed the same guidelines that all other businesses have used to create our Wikipedia page. We would be willing to make changes and discuss but the page was just deleted. We are a valid U.S. corporation, with multiple retail stores. Last night we created the page and listed it under Massachusetts businesses. We would like to start the process of having our page restored. Finally, any business page could be deleted for reason g11 why is ours being singled out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaveRunr (talk • contribs)

• The article was probably deleted because of some advertising lingo in the article. The nomination otoh seems to have been based on the Alexa ranking (594,883). This doesn't meet the notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Endorse deletion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per AECIS. ccwaters 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The use of first person pronouns is, I'm afraid, all we need to know here. WaveRunr, there is strong resistance to autobiography, including corporate autobiography. It's very difficult to be adequately dispassionate about your own company, even if you do pass our guidelines for companies. Guy 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not every business could be deleted under G11, as volunteer, third-party editors write neutral articles about businesses in which they are not involved. See the fine article on Starbucks, for example. JChap2007 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Or the featured article Bank of China (Hong Kong). Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful languages

This page was nominated for deletion by Crzrussian, and speedily deleted on the same day by Chairboy.

I am not sure that the article ever qualified as a speedy candidate. The grounds suggested in the nomination, that it was "inherently POV", are not grounds for speedy deletion last time I checked.

I am also not convinced that the subject is entirely valueless - Jacques Barzun opined that the most beautiful English word was cellardoor - or that the last contents were so worthless as to be unusable. It mentioned a poll taken that claimed that Norwegian was the most beautiful European language, which suggests a sourceable statement. Some notice could also be taken of the cultivation of some languages, notably Italian, for music outside of the areas where they are spoken as native tongues. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. Bad-process deletion, but in its current form, totally useless and no chance of surviving an AfD. Let whoever really wants to have an article there just write a better one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not certain what part of the process was "bad" per Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk •  contribs)'s comment above (please elaborate), I speedied it under WP:CSD A1 with an uncited modifier, which is reflected by the deletion log. Ihoyc's comment that I speedied it because it was inherently POV is simply not true, but I happen to agree that there's absolutely no way to make an article on 'beautiful sounding languages' recoverable. That wasn't the criteria I applied, though. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that - wasn't sure I understood the very brief comment left when you deleted it. (The letters CSD might have helped :-). At any rate, the last version of the article had three paragraphs, and was reasonably clear what it was trying to be about, ao I'm not sure that it qualifies under WP:CSD A1 either. I will have to sit down with Mario Pei's One Language For the World one of these evenings; Pei did a great deal of editorialising about the aesthetics of both natural and artificial languages as they existed in the late 1950s. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless we have a valid objective definition of beautiful. Which of course we don't because it's inherently subjective. Guy 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence with this: "Inherently POV" in this instance means "essay" or "original research." Essays that are direct confessions of an author's point of view can be awfully like tests. However, it was an improper deletion. That said, the article pretty much has to fail the deletion policy, and I'd rather see the linguistics interest expressed in a more mediated, cited, and cooperative, and far less idiosyncratic form and don't know that going to AfD will accomplish that. Geogre 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion An article on this subject is probably impossible and should certainly be at a less POV title like Phonoasthetics of language or something. Eluchil404 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not having seen what was deleted, can whatever was trying to reference this article be sent to the rather impressive cellar door article instead? -- nae'blis 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion it's not a speedy, but it's certainly not a valid article. Danny Lilithborne 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)