Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 22

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

22 November 2006

Group-Office

Group-Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

One of the first office suites to be run entirely off the web. Notable for this alone. I'm not sure where the original deletion proposal was advertised other than the page itself. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, why does that alone make it notable? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Another case of policy vs WP:ILIKEIT. Endorse. Chris talk back 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• The article did not make much of a case; if you can produced a sourced article which establishes significance I'm sure it would be fine. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • Sources were produced below. pschemp | talk 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's start with the argument that this precedes other online office suites of note, such as ThinkFree Office and Google Docs & Spreadsheets. Group-Office has been listed on Freshmeat since March 2003. Unfortunately, the early releases have been removed from sourceforge. The domain was registered 7 October of that year. I have yet to find a reliable source for when thinkfree started. The domain was registered by godaddy on 27 Dec 1998, but thinkfree.com had a desktop product before they released the web-based office suite. Writely.com only goes back to 2005, zoho.com to 2004. If anyone would like to suggest other candidates for the first web-based office suite, feel free to do so. I'm confident the traces of origination of ThinkFree's web-based version can be found in reviews. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Read no original research --pgk 07:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • All of that data is accessible to the general public. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I guess that means you didn't read WP:NOR availability of a set of facts to the public does not mean it isn't original research. (From the i a nutshell box "..or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." --pgk 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Yadda, yadda. So what do you think I'm violating? Have you asked yourself whether NOR is even applicable in this namespace? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
            • You were using your OR to backup your claim of notability, something which cannot be done in the article. If you believe it or not I am actually trying to point you in the direction of what is lacking which you can then address. For example needing third party sources rather than just saying "it's notable" or it has "technical merit", when some were found people were willing to support undeletion which you can then put right. Sorry for wasting my and your time, in future I won't bother I'll just endorse the deletion and move on. --pgk 14:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
              • You clearly haven't been following proceedings very well. See below. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Huh? So when I say "when some were found people were willing to support undeletion which you can then put right", I'm not following it very well? The fact that I made the above comment about WP:NOR before those additional sources were revealed and before the "undelete"s came along. You seem to be supporting exactly my point rather than just diving in at the start and saying "Endorse deletion", trying to get some backup for the claims has actually worked. Whatever --pgk 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Once again, I can't quite decipher what you're trying to say. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't see the harm in keeping it besides, I personally could imagine someone being curious about something like this.Mike92591 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm relatively sure that "There's no harm in it" is officialy mentioned somewhere, but regardless, it is not a good argument to use. Telephone directories are not harmful, but they sure don't belong. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But the deletion argument was lack of notability. Please keep the debate focused. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But I'm responding to "There's no harm in keeping it", and the best way to do that is to provide an example of something which is not harmful, yet still obviously does not belong. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But "directoriness" is a specific AfD reason that does not apply here. So I'm pointing out that your example is badly chosen and will lead to the discussion trailing off in a useless direction. The question here is about notability. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. The question here is about whether or not the deletion was proper, given the debate that ensued at the time. Chris talk back 03:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Then let me lay it out for you. The debate was closed 3/2 or 4/2 if you count the nominator. That's not a very clear consensus, especially with only six people participating (I hope you are familiar with the binomial distribution). The AfD does not seem to have been advertised anywhere other than the article. The reason given by all who voted for deletion was "not notable". The final two votes were "keep". I therefore contend that it was a very shaky decision, and I claim that it was wrong. A lot of software has been influential in spite of not generating significant revenue or capturing significant market share (and it's not clear whether either is the case here, as no figures have been found to show either way) - take BeOS as a better-known example. Group-Office is notable due to its technical merit. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The article was listed properly at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_22#Group-Office, and followed the same standard as all deletion discussions do. AFD isn't a vote. It may or maynot have technical merit, but per WP:V it is verifiability which is important not truth, do you have independant third party reliable sources which enable notability to be asserted? --pgk 15:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I know this may sound stupid but, I think we're suppose to take WP:V more liberally. I mean for example there's no research that gives Google Docs & Spreadsheets importants other than the fact that it's made by Google.Mike92591 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I disagree we should be holding it to the same standards. Notability by association sucks. In that case I've no doubt there are other sources for it which make it verifiable. --pgk 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Can you disassemble that comment for me? You used an ambiguous "it" three times. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • In response to the sourcing of Google Docs & Spreadsheets "it" would be refering to Google Docs & Spreadsheets --pgk 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The debate was closed 3/2 or 4/2 if you count the nominator. You seem to be misunderstanding AfD too - it is about weighing up arguments, not counting votes. It could be closed a delete with 50 keeps if their arguments carry no weight. Chris cheese whine 22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
            • LOL. Chris, come on, check out my userpage or contribs and learn that I've been around the block a few times. That kind of discussion just bores me now. You'd have some very upset people on your doorstep if you closed an AfD against the majority opinion. So let's cut that out, please, and focus on the arguments. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Upset people or not, numbers are irrelevant - it's all about reasoning. The nomination is on the basis of non-notability, a corollary to WP:V, which is non-negotiable überpolicy, and therefore the argument carries a bit of clout. One keep is by the author claiming WP:ILIKEIT, and therefore carries zero weight whatsoever; therefore (if you still want to talk in numbers) it comes down to 4/1. Put better, one strong argument for deletion with third-party support against a weak argument for retention with no third-party support. For this reason, the closing administrator exercised their discretion appropriately, and the deletion should be endorsed. Chris cheese whine 23:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I give up. You're right, and yet you've told me absolutely nothing new. Or any of the rest of us, for that matter. Congratulations. You're right. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • I resent your tone here. The reason I've probably told everyone else nothing new is that, unlike you, they already had the whole AfD-is-not-a-vote thing right in the first place. Chris cheese whine 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am completely confused about the problem here. I often come to Wikipedia to get some insight of a software package or approach. I often appreciate the review or links to reviews of the software provided by Wikipedia. It is one of the most useful parts of Wikipedia. Granted, it is not what you would find in Encyclopedia Britannica, but that is one of the huge strengths of Wikipedia. How can this not be notable? MS Office is everyplace. And documents produced in MS Office are everywhere. So software that can be used to manipulate these documents is of intense interest by everyone. Particularly non-MS software, or more portable software, free software, software with better features than MS, etc. How on earth can this not be important and notable and interesting to many? Help me out here.--Filll 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The last part of your argument doesn't quite fit with WP:NPOV, but either way, the answer to your question is mu. That is not what DRv decides. In this case, we have new information coming to light not only after the AfD was closed, but even a good while after the DRv started, hence the result here should be a relisting, so that AfD can do its job of evaluating the evidence (rather than DRv doing it). Chris cheese whine 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • And the purpose of DRV is to decide whether to undelete, not relist. Nice try to wiggle back to your POV now that references have been produced. pschemp | talk 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • No it isn't. If it were, then it would have to be essentially AfD round two, which it is explicitly not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • If you don't think so, then please change Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted or delete pages which were closed as 'keep' by a prior discussion. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
            • What I see here is you disputing the decision made in the deletion-related forum that is AfD. A decision to unilaterally undelete without further consideration is equivalent to a "keep" decision on AfD. It has already been pointed out to you that this is not what DRv does. It decides whether or not AfD's decisions are correct. Undeletion is for "No, the decision was patently wrong." Here, the case is "Yes, the decision was correct at that time, but things have changed." New information has come to light, which needs to be considered. Considering it is the job of AfD, which is explicitly what DRv is not. DRv does not give more than a cursory judgement of the information at hand. Chris cheese whine 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Chris, this is utter nonsense. I've just pointed out the text passage to you that contradicts your argument. And you are ignoring it. Secondly, the "new evidence" has been presented during the course of this DRV, so your argument has no basis whatever. It really looks like you're arguing for argument's sake. There's no point. If this is about you winning, you've already rejected that, so what are you here for? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I am ignoring nothing. You are ignoring the whole DRV IS NOT AFD ROUND 2 thing. Chris cheese whine 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

                  • ) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

              • Ok Chris, you already argued that the AFD was closed properly, so "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora" doesn't apply. That leaves "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted or delete pages which were closed as 'keep' by a prior discussion." which this is a case of. Its simple. Unless you are going to change your mind and claim the AFD wasn't closed properly, this is a case of we have sources now, so lets undelete and fix the article. Twisting this around to a relisting isn't logical, nor it is the purpose of DRV. Oh btw, you can't AFD something that hasn't changed at all. First you have to undelete it. Undelete is what gets done here. pschemp | talk 19:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Note the difference between "restore" and "undelete without review", which is what is now being proposed here. Who said you can't AfD something that hasn't changed? It's also dishonest to say it hasn't changed - there is new information, so the circumstances have clearly changed. This information needs to be evaluated, something that DRv explicitly does not do. Chris cheese whine 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Undelete without review? WTF you think this is? Kindergarten? Looks like a bleeping review to me. Read the URL. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • We're reviewing deletions. Unless the original deletion was clear-cut wrong (e.g. deleting George W. Bush, as has been proposed many times), someone needs to review the undeletion, hence "relist".  :) Chris cheese whine 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • • Don't know where you got the "we". Most of the people commenting here said "undlete" not relist. 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Undeletion is equivalent to relisting, as if this is undeleted, I will most definitely start an AfD, whether or not it was part of this discussion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That's a pretty bad faith action if you don't give people a chance to rewrite. pschemp | talk 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing with me, seeing as I'm agreeing with you. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Since it seems we can't clarify what you are disagreeing with ("No it isn't.") or agreeing with ("I'm agreeing with you."), or who you are even replying to in those two examples, I'll just have to ignore you from henceforth. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Independent review of software: [1] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Considering the above independant review (by a reputable site), there is a prospective future for the article. Deletion is not the answer in this case - maybe some work would be needed on the article but not deletion.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Localzuk. That's an independent review, it is not OR and is a good source. Since a source has been produced, the arguments for deletion here are invalid. (and that's based on reasoning, not numbers.) pschemp | talk 00:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Why don't we just recreate this article now then? Add the source (the review cited, which is not OR), which clearly confers historic notability (it was from 2004 after all), and not worry about whether this article was or wasn't correctly deletd the first time ...overturn, Undelete and fix ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• In light of new evidence, relist original or create new article. Chris cheese whine 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked closely and won't until later, but the source may not be that reliable since it seems to consist at least in part of user submitted reviews etc. [2], which it looks like that maybe (Indeed the email address for the authour is a yahoo.com address) --pgk 07:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Author has written 28 reviews for OSNews. Whether or how much he is getting paid is irrelevant. In fact, the page you have unearthed there has instructions just like those of peer-reviewed journals, further emphasising the reliability of this source. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete – in May 2004 the online suite was described as "Group-Office 2.2 is such a software entity that is accessible through a web browser and strives to take all of the independent "business office" applications (email, calendars, etc) off the desktop and onto a central location." on Open Source Industry Australia and as "Group-Office 2.2 Pro uses your web browser for the client software." on librenix which links to the previously cited source. Article needs expanding with clarification of the nature of the software and links to similar suites with their dates of introduction. .. dave souza, talk 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Over 120,000 downloads [3] (that's huge for a server-side software). To compare: mediawiki has had narrowly over 1 million. [4] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete notable forerunner of Docs. JPotter 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, definitely--Filll 19:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, seems to be enough there to make a reasonable article. - xiliquiern^Talk 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is ridiculous. You are agreeing, and still arguing. Chris, you have two conflicting votes here, would you like to strike one out please? --liquidGhoul 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Just undelete and rewrite and enough with all this nonsense. The ratio of the character count of the article to that of this discussion is approaching zero. Opabinia regalis 02:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wil Harris

Wil Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had a request from MartinBrook (talk · contribs) to restore the history of this article. Martin had created a new and then became aware of the previous deletions. Since this was a reasonable request I have done that, but you might want to have a think about whether we are content to simply allow re-creation. It looks to me to be somewhat above the usual crap-off-teh-Internets cruft, but I can't say I'm familiar with Harris or his work. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Previous afd seems fine. Bwithh. New article version is less substantive that one considered by afd. 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I created the new article. Having looked at WP:BIO I have to reluctantly concede that the subject probably doesn't pass. However it is worth pointing out that Harris is the only member of the current regular This WEEK in TECH panelists who does not have an entry - this was what led me to create the article, and was not the case when the old article was deleted (as he was not a regular panelist at the time). MartinBrook t 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Films

The Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (AfD)

Proto (talk · contribs) closed this as delete. Every single recommendation to delete was based off of WP:MUSIC, claiming the band didn't meet it. My recommendation to keep was based on the fact that the band does meet WP:MUSIC, specifically the touring requirement, which states "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2]" How did I get this information? Their official Myspace page (which is essentially a mirror of their official site, which lists the international tour they're on. According to WP:V, which would be what would govern a "verifiable source," as it's our policy on verifiability, "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as...it is relevant to their notability...it is not contentious...there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." This obviously meets the standard, and the recommendations obviously didn't read the guideline they were sourcing (many pointed to the album requirement, which is only one of many ways a band can be "notable"). This should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like they are touring as support to the The Kooks, not in their own right. Released catalogue to date is stated as one EP. Already speedied once before as A7. See User:JzG/And the band played on... - why not wait until the claimed Warner album is released, rather than try to scoop everyone by being the very first to cover this apparently up-coming band? Guy (Help!)
  • Not that the touring requirement insists that they headline, and not that the amount of releases means a thing if they reach the other parts. Being improperly speedied once means little, too. If we're not going to use the guidelines, let's dump 'em, y'know? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So all you need to do is cite multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and you're away. It is inconceivable that a notable band would not have such coverage, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• A little iffy, this one. But, Endorse close unless someone can point me to a non-trivial reliable source that refers to this band besides their own page, and another one that refers to them in conjunction with the tour. I understand where Jeff's coming from with his concerns, but it must be recognized that sometimes opening acts for more notable bands (The Kooks appear to fit that bill) aren't as notable as the ones they appear for. I recently was at a show by a very popular and notable band that was opened by a guy with an acoustic guitar and some CDs for sale on the table at the back of the venue, for example. I'd be more comfortable waiting for notability to be achieved on this one; we just plain don't know how this band is going to do, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I do hate to badger, but if the article meets the standards at the guideline, as noted by a verifiable source per the policy, what's the issue? You're right - opening acts aren't typically as notable as who they're opening for, that's why they're opening. In one of the few intelligent parts of WP:MUSIC, the touring requirement does not differentiate between points on the bill. If we judge notability by WP:MUSIC, I don't understand the endorsement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no reliable sources for this stuff. I can't personally deal with their Myspace page as a source for the tour, and I can't accept a club listing, if there is one, as a source indicating that this band has some notability. Show me some press reports about this band, and I'll be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I guess our policies on verifiable sources aren't enough? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Their website could be considered promotional and, as Zoe points out below, is self-published and fails WP:RS. Multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • So the answer is "no, our policies aren't enough?" Keep in mind that Zoe is wrong on this one regarding self-published sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Myspace as a source? You are joking, right? Other than that, concur with previous comments. Unless some independent sources turn up, endorse. Chris talk back 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then substitute their official site. both meet the letter of WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The tour is also verifiable by checking the venue sites, which can be done from their official website. Most of the gigs are opneing slots, although I think they headline in Dublin. ~ trialsanderrors 19:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I would say endorse deletion even though I find those "Delete fails WP:MUSIC" !!votes pretty iffy. Notability guidelines allow for a wide range of interpretation, and if people think a band going on a club tour opening for another band (and nobody reporting about it) is against the spirit of WP:MUSIC this seems an acceptable interpretation. Also in general an article offering no outside sources can always be the deciding factor in a delete decision. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Articles that meet specialized notability criteria don't get a free pass on WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor should they. Seeing as they meet WP:V, I don't understand this comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • One source does not count, especially not when the one source is themselves. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • According to...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • (badly worded comment removed)
    • Oops, that sounded really personal attacky. But I really don't believe that one autobiographical source is enough to justify an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Original comment was along the lines of "According to me". You, as well as WP:RS. Sourcing the article from myspace fails the "uncontroversial" bit. Chris talk back 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Then replace the MySpace bit with the official site bit. Unless you think that the assertion that they're touring internationally is controversial, of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • A band's own official website also fails WP:RS#Self-published sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
            • So WP:RS, as a guideline, needs to match the policy WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO, footnote 3, is pertinent here: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." I've always read that bit in WP:V as "It's ok to draw from self-published sources to fill in uncontested parts of the bio, but it shouldn't be the sole source", but I've seen various comments along the line of "we just took it from XYZ's website which is ok according to WP:V", so I think this needs to be clarified. In any case there is a clear theme throughout our guidelines that purely self-sourced articles aren't acceptable. ~ trialsanderrors 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, its simpler than that. WP:V#Burden of evidence states, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This follows from the requirement of NPOV. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's fascinating, then, that WP:V contradicts itself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Not in the slightest. It is quite consistent. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
          • So it says at the same time "we shouldn't have an article without third party sources" and then says (paraphrasing) "primary sources can be used for notability." seems rather contradictory to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
            • But, of course, your paraphrase is inaccurate. WP:V does not address at all how notability is established, nor even if it is needed. The only thing it says is that, once we know why X is notable, we can use X's self-published materials to talk about those issues, precisely because X's own take on them is of obvious interest. On the other hand, X's take on some completely unrelated matter is probably neither that important nor a reliable source. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
            • And, I trust that we agree that it would be thunderingly stupid to use someone's own claims to establish their own notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, while I did let Jeff talk me down from "delete' to "weak delete" in the AfD discussion, I tend to think that this is a case where he has, at most, found an unintended loophole in the guidelines, and that the intent of the guidelines should rule. I have proposed that the touring criteria for WP:BAND be tightened up slightly, to avoid any arbitrary claims made on a band's website from being accepted as gospel without any supporting evidence, but of course, it's inappropriate to rule retroactively on this. Nevertheless, I feel that the closing admin read the discussion well enough. Xtifr _tälk 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, despite an impressive job of wikilawyering. WP:MUSIC -- which of course is not binding, but that's neither here nor there -- requires that the sources be *notable* as well as reliable. Even if the band's site is a reliable source for the claim that the tour is real, it cannot be regarded as a notable source, nor as evidence that the tour was considered notable by anyone outside the band. -- Visviva 08:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That sort of accusation isn't warranted. You can certainly make your case without assuming bad faith on my end. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Relakks

Relakks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

I'm representing the Relakks Crew. We realized what was wrong in the article and want to correct it in order for et to be re-listed. As I understood it from cholmes75 who deleted the article it was the prize list in the article that was inappropriate. Of course we agree and would like the article to be re-listed with the modification that the prize list is removed. Martin 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Notability is not asserted, no outside coverage, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't quite understand the motivation. Would you mind explaining it again? Martin 14:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages users to write about subjects in which they "are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ... If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." Wikipedia:Conflict of interest further elaborates this situation where "editors ... are involved with the subject of an article."

The subjects of wikipedia articles also have to be notable (in the case of Relakks per WP:WEB and WP:CORP). This notability has to be asserted in the article itself, for instance by means of independent, verifiable, third-party coverage in reliable sources. Hope this helps, Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• With or without the price list? Endorse either way. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It would be very improper to delete the article instead of just removing the section if what you are saying is true. Thus, it's the subject matter that was the problem. WP:COI doesn't help. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse based on first sentence of appeal. Chris talk back 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4798059.stm, lots of google hits. Quite notable in its field and seems to be much talked about in the whole piracy milieu. Should have been fixed, not deleted. Especially not speedily. Can't access the logs now but remember a pretty decent stub existing at some point. Preisler 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)