Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:32, 23 November 2006

< November 17	November 19 >

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

18 November 2006

DOPAMINE

This is an m-flo single, but it was speedy deleted as "No label, no distribution, no verification: A7". I know that m-flo is notable; they certainly meet the WP:MUSIC criteria by having gone on a tour of Japan (one of their albums is a live one from that tour). According to that page, consensus is that albums for notable musicians are fine. There was also a redirect at DOPAMINE (m-flo); that might actually be a better title. --NE2 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. They meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. That means that their PUBLISHED albums are NOTABLE. That does not mean that every piece of music they have ever made is VERIFIABLE. Notability does not automatically mean inclusion, inclusion also requires multiple verifiable sources. And given that you have not addressed the "No distribution" comment, I assume there was none. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know enough about m-flo, but I would assume there was distribution. I know it was a popular single/EP, but I don't know how to find sources for that. Is [1] enough? --NE2 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, possibly send to AfD. No label + no distribution doesn't necessarily mean no verification - look at Clap Your Hands Say Yeah for an example. This should have never been speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the indended meaning was "A, B and C", rather than "A + B = C". Chris talk back 04:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but A and B are irrelevant here, and C, while potentially problematic, could have been dealt with much differently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - not only was there no assertion of ability, there was a compelling assertion of non-notability. Subject fails policy, as above. No prejudice against creating a new, sourced, verifiable article. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get very verbose with the deletion comment, but here is why I stand by my deletion: I noticed that we have an "loves mflo" scattered all across Wikipedia, that someone had been pretty seriously putting in everything about a supposed J-pop/rap act that simply couldn't be verified, much less shown to be a towering figure, on non-Japanese sources. Of all of these, and I left most of them alone, this one was the most egregious example of something that Wikipedia is not. Here is the article, as it was:
"an EP by m-flo on February 23, 2005. It features rapper Diggy-MO' and J-Pop singer EMYLI on the title track, as well as YOSHIKA on "tO yOUR bEAT" and 坂本龍一 on "I WANNA BE DOWN (The Scumfrog Remix)". A music video was also released for the title track."
It was an ep! Albums are barely included, ep's are not, unless they're just plain staggering. I can imagine that the "Atmosphere" ep by Joy Division might be included or Love Will Tear Us Apart, since those were Song of the Year winners that were not available in any other form, but yet another ep? Yet another ep article written in such a way that yo yo yo fanz can understand and no one else can? No. Just plain no. If "m-flo" is as important to Japanese rap as the Beatles to rock and roll, then fold all the danged mini-play entities into the main article. Otherwise, this is an attempt at multiplying mentions of the name (and only one more instance of it, since someone has been really hard at work getting the name mentioned in multiple articles, which looked like page rank boosting to me). Geogre 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Albums are "barely included?" I don't know how you come to that conclusion at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We should not have an article on every album by every artist. Even the largest sites on the web that take music as their sole concern, like AllMusicGuide, don't do that. For a long time, we rejected all articles on all albums. Then we allowed in the few landmark records, like Elvis! We have slowly eroded some of our barriers and begun allowing those with very definite sales. There is no "we must take an album," no "we must take every album from every major artist," and no "we must take any e.p." Common sense and the deletion policy still apply: it has to be significant, verifiable, and well delimited. Most records are not. Geogre 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I disagree with that, and common practice definitely does as well. We don't leave off movies by notable directors or most books by notable authors, so I see no reason to consider disrupting a workable status quo on this one. In my mind, common sense demands it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "loves m-flo" what they use instead of "featuring". --NE2 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion -- WP:MUSIC is pretty clear. Band notable, an EP is not. Should we also have articles over every single song and what they wear?--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge

The MfD was closed only a day after nomination, potentially shutting out voters. Al e thiophile¹2₃ 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed MfD link, Chris talk back 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no voters, because XfD are not votes. That said, the discussion was closed rather quickly, after only 6 hours. The reasoning in the debate appears cogent, though. Chris talk back 00:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The arguments were sound, and there was indeed an overwhelming consensus to delete. Process isn't there so large consensuses can be filibustered due to masses of "Keep because I like it!" votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid MfD. Naconkantari 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be patronizing, but don't you think that an MfD closed after 6 hours deserves a little more explanation for endorsement than "valid MfD"? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out Esperanza has an IRC channel; they remain free to talk about beverages there. —Centrx→talk • 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Overwhelming consensus on both the Overhaul and MFD. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?)} 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I believe Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge counts as substantial support for deletion from the people who use it. (Radiant) 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

&Endorse. I may not have closed it that quickly, but there's no reason to have another 250K MfD page with no cogent arguments in favor of keeping. The fact that there appears to be a concensus at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge for deletion provides an added reason for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - a case of common sense over pedantry. Per the arguments above, and also WP:IAR. Moreschi 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, though not early close as it was pointless. However, the nominator has not given us any reason to think that it would have ended differently had it continued. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - closure after 6 hours? Good grief! I fully support getting rid of the thing, but you can't just close an MFD after six hours. Plenty of users don't edit over the weekend. Anyone who didn't just so happen to check MFD during that 6-hour period was shut out of the process. BigDT 03:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
overturn. 6 Hours obviously isn't long enough, you can't judge an "overwhelming consensus" that quickly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the "not available on the weekend" argument holds no water. It doesn't mean that the entirety of Esperanza wasn't available. The Coffee Lounge is a waste of space on WikiPedia. It's not a chat room.--WaltCip 05:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, common sense should be applied here (for once!) Proto::type 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, prepare for the Esperanza cavalry to come here and apply 20 "overturns" in 20 minutes...--WaltCip 14:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. If the Esperanza cavalry makes an appearance they'll have to contend with the Cabal's Own Pikemen, by gad! Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Don't they have an IRC channel (if not, why not)? Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It was going to be deleted anyway, by Esperanzans. Cabalist calvary ready for any charges by Esperanzans. And if anyone was shut out of the process, they should be here....and I don't see anyone but badlydrawnjeff. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge was factored in to the early close and WP:SNOW probably applies by its terms (though I think it makes a better speedy keep than a speedy delete argument). Per WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, Arthur Rubin, and others above nothing would be gained by reopening the discussion so it should remain closed. That said, I would encourages closers to let these discussions run longer, at least 24 hors if not the full five days, unless an explict sppedy criterion at least arguably applies. Eluchil404 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, it was deleted per the overhaul by Esperanzians. If you really want this back go try talking with them; don't take it to Wikipedia in general just yet. --Cyde Weys 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in comics

deletion discussion on CfD

This was deleted for failing to meet Wikipedia's gender neutrality policies. These policies state "Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise." The problem is that there is a very distinct reason to not have a gender-neutral category name here. Comics are, historically, a very male dominated industry. Much has been written about male misogynism in comis stories, and the critiques reach from mainstream superhero comics to underground artists like R. Crumb. Books and articles are published on the topic, it's a frequent issue at academic comics conferences, and industry figures like Gail Simone and Trina Robbins have spoken out quite loudly about the issue of women in comics.

As an example, out of DC's superhero titles being published in February, only two have a woman as the main writer. A third has a woman as one of three co-writers, and there are two female inkers. That's it.

The category renaming issue could also probably be fixed with "Women working in comics" or something similar. Alternatively, the category could be broadeend to include important female characters - Wonder Woman, Blondie Boopadoop, etc. These are issues to sort out at WikiProject Comics. But there is definitely one or more categories to be done on this topic, as the topic of women in comics exists in academic study of comics, and is thus a sensible way to navigate the articles.

I therefore ask permission to recreate a similar category. Phil Sandifer 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, as your arguments were never brought up. Keep in mind that, had they been, I would endorse deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted The reasons put forward for breaching the guideline are rather thin. Sumahoy 22:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist As an important argument on the matter was not discussed. JoshuaZ 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Agree that this argument should be addressed. Shimeru 10:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to recreation, but isn't this somewhat redundant with List of women in comics? (Radiant) 09:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 *No objection to recreation, but isn't this somewhat redundant with [[List of women in comics]]? ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 09:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Relist''' per above. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Sven Co-op]]====
-:{{la|Sven Co-op}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sven Co-op|AfD]])
-Edit: I wish to '''withdraw''' this deletion review as, as was recommended below, a new article can be recreated in its place with proper sources.
-Sven Co-op is one of the most notable and well-established (dating back to [http://www.svencoop.com/nostalgia/sc/ 1999]) ''Half-Life'' mods currently in existence. The mod is continuously in the top 10-15 ranking of all Steam multiplayer games and mods being played at any time (see [http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=stats Official Steam Stats]) and it was hand picked by Valve Software themselves to be listed in Steam's store, both on the official Steampowered site and through the program itself, as a free mod to download (See its listing at the [http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=90005& Steam store], also note that ''only'' 26 mods, out of the hundreds and hundreds available, are listed). A Google search for "Sven Co-op" elicits [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Sven+Co-op%22 230,000 results] (or [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Sven+Co-op%22+OR+%22Sven+Coop%22+OR+%22Svencoop%22+OR+%22SvenCo-op%22 323,000 results] if you count the all common variations of the mod name). A check of the three most common download mirrors ([http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=4324 FileShack], [http://files.filefront.com/Sven_Co_op_v30_Final/;1649057;;/fileinfo.html FileFront], [http://www.fileplanet.com/53475/50000/fileinfo/Sven-Co-op-v3.0 FilePlanet]) indicates over 450,000 total downloads (Of course there are tens of thousands more elsewhere). According to [http://features.moddb.com/1/half-life-mod-expo-interviews/?fpage=3 this interview], the creators of Sven Co-op were chosen by Valve to be flown to Dallas to be at the Valve 2002 Mod Expo. Sven Co-op was also chosen on Mod DB as the one of the Best Mods Overall for [http://features.moddb.com/21/mods-of-2002/?fpage=7 2002], [http://features.moddb.com/66/mods-of-2003/?fpage=2 2003], [http://features.moddb.com/111/mods-of-2004/?fpage=16 2004], and [http://features.moddb.com/218/mods-of-2005/?fpage=3 2005], just about always in the top 5. As mentioned in the AfD discussion, there is print material covering the mod, specifically its sequel Sven Co-op 2 (See PC Zone articles: [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=112826][http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=123937][http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=93495]). As for the AfD itself, four delete versus three keep is not a very wide consensus. I believe that Sven Co-op meets all the necessary notability requirements quite nicely, and then some. [[User:MarphyBlack|MarphyBlack]] 02:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist'''. You've only really cited one source, but considering that the decision was made based on no sources, it should be relisted. The numbers are irrelevant, though, "Notable to Half-life fans" shouldn't be counted. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-**'''Comment''': I was trying to cite three separate sources, so I apologize if I wasn't clear. [http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=90005& Steampowered.com] is [[Valve Corporation|Valve Software]]'s official website. [[Mod DB]] is, well, just Mod DB, and quite significant when it comes to mods for any games. There are also the [[PC Zone]] articles that [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnchen]] pointed out in the original AfD, which I believe is an example of the mod being the subject of an independent and published third party source. Also, Sven Co-op isn't just notable to Half-Life fans. As I pointed out, the mod has become popular and well-known enough to have been picked by Valve to be listed on their official site as well as through their program [[Steam (content delivery)|Steam]]. To be chosen by the actual game developers themselves for this honor is a very considerable feat, and it shows that the mod is notable to more than just the players (Although the size of the Half-Life fanbase is nothing to belittle, really). [[User:MarphyBlack|MarphyBlack]]
-***'''Comment''' (Neutral, leaning towards relist though I'm not sure the outcome won't be the same) the PC Zone source is fine (I'm not sure if it counts as one mention or three), but having a product listed at steampowered, while impressive, isn't really a source.  You have mistaken notability for popularity though (youtube fads, for example, get deleted all the time without sources, even though they can be popular).  It isn't, it's about people (specifically reliable sources, since we shouldn't rely on any other sources on WP) noting (hence notability) the subject by writing articles specifically about the subject.  Because of this the Mod DB prizes can't be used as sources for notability (they're just a short blurb).  The other one is an interview, and my understanding is that we treat interview material (that is, if the interviewers don't write an article on top of that) as primary source material.  [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 06:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' if abovementioned sources were to be added I think the AfD discussion would have a different outcome. [[User:CharonX|Charon]][[User:CharonX/Userboxes|<font color="Black"><b>X</b></font>'']]/[[User talk:CharonX|<i>talk</i>'']] 09:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' - as original closing admin - I don't have a problem with relisting it based on the above sources, though I think it may meet the same fate. Perhaps a better idea would have been to recreate the article using the sources now uncovered, rather than requesting undeletion of an uncited article. [[User:Yomangani|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangani|<sup>talk</sup>]] 09:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-:*'''Comment''': I wasn't aware that recreating the article was a possibility (Although from scratch? Is there something wrong with integrating these sources into the old article?). In this case, I suppose I'll just mull over a new article for Sven Co-op for the time being. May I withdraw this deletion review? [[User:MarphyBlack|MarphyBlack]] 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-:**'''Comment''' - Just creating a new article would be fine.  I've done it a few times with deleted subjects without bothering to fuss about in DRV.  As long as the article is sourced, it'll normally be OK.  It's why I never bothered with a DRV for this article, the original article wasn't all that great anyway. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' prior deletion, '''recreate''' new article from sources.  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new talk back]</small> 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' - It would meet standards of notability, and I could probably write a semi-decent article on it.  I however, don't have the time/effort.  It'd be really nice if the mod team could just publish some media mentions (there's bound to be some), it'd make it so much easier like in the [[Science and Industry]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Industry|AFD]]. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)