Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:11, 28 November 2006

< November 26	November 28 >

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

27 November 2006

Daniel Morcombe

Famous Australian kidnapping case

"Joyous!" deleted my new article on Daniel Morcombe, an Australian teenager who went missing from a Sunshine Coast bus stop in 2003. His case is big in Australia, but massive in Queensland. Searching for his name on Google news reveals 10 articles about him in the last month alone, despite his case now being 3 years old.

Endorse deletion, you haven't said why it wasn't a valid speedy. Just recreate the article with better sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you rewrote the article to actually assert some of that news coverage it almost certainly wouldn't be speedy deleted. What was deleted didn't really assert importance. --W.marsh 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NaSTA

This was closed by Yamamoto_Ichiro (talk • contribs) as a keep, however there was a dearth of real discussion and it appears that nose-counting may have been performed. I left a note at User_talk:Yamamoto_Ichiro#Your_recent_closes suggesting that he re-open this to let an admin close it, or perhaps bring it here. There were arguments made that this did not have non-trivial third party sources and did not meet the (proposed) inclusion guideline for organisations. These arguments were not seriously rebutted, and since this is not a vote...
152.91.9.144 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a no-consensus close, but failure of WP:V should overrule that Bwithh 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ~~deletion~~keep. I don't like the decision, either, but arguments for meeting WP:RS were seriously given. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, can you clarify your opinion? Not sure which way you're leaning. Bwithh 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards endorsing the deletion? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 'overturn and delete'. The decision was to 'keep - no consensus', which I gather you don't want to endorse. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I meant to support the keep decision. Sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The main keep arguer in the afd wrote this: "Utterly shocking that this is up for deletion. This is ENTIRELY AGAINST WP:ORG, because NaSTA is a national organisation (the clue is in the acronym), and has been discussed countless times in the national press (if proof is needed, I can provide it)."" But no solid proof through verifiable, reliable independent sources was provided, and none exist in the article even after the afd closed. It was argued that the National Union of Students website mention was sufficient - though this page appears to be an external link page buffed up with a blurb text written by people at NaSTA[1]. Furthermore, recognition by the NUS does not automatically confer encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a campus info directory Bwithh 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a complete summary of the arguments to keep. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the salient argument, as it brings up core policy WP:V in relation to WP:ORG. And the commentator is certainly the most passionate one, and the most confident that substantive proof could be provided. Bwithh 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decision made as a correct summary of the quality of the arguements made on both sides; the discussion does not convince either way. Do not delete, at least not without a relist for futher comment. Regards, Ben Aveling
Overturn and relist Closer seems to have ignored the meatpuppeteering. ~ trialsanderrors 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave for now, revisit in a month. To those arguing for the article, I would say: source it or lose it. Right now this looks like a directory and a repository for vanity, so we need substantive critique of the organisation in secondary sources of some objectively provable authority. If they have been written up in Television, for example, then that is a reaonsable statr for an article. Proof of existence is insufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall at Steamtown

This page was speedy deleted by Guy, who cited G11 and said that it qualified as spam. This particular shopping center is significant because of its ties to the Steamtown National Historic Site, as well as its status locally as the centerpiece of Scranton's revitalization efforts. In its initial state, it read like an advertisement, but I performed extensive rewrites to steer it back to NPOV and introduce a more encyclopedic tone. The article provided useful content on the mall's ties to the Steamtown NHS, and was more than simply a mall directory. From the discussions I've read, Guy deleted a number of spammish mall entries legitimately, but this one may have gotten caught in the wave. I have no doubt that the deletion was performed in good faith, but I disagree with it. Brad E. Williams 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete JzG has triggered an unintentioned mall article improvement program. Most such articles, including this on, could benefit from rewriting and improvement, but there is no reason to believe that it was irredeemable spam in compliance with CSD G11. If the article can't be improved it should be submitted for AfD. Alansohn 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has a certain amount of advert in it, though not that bad, but lacks independant sourcing, of the three sources one is brief (a paragraph) whilst the other two are the Malls own website and the other is of the company who manages the mall. Have with any more sources? --pgk 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response As I did with another page, I can get more independent sourcing from the Scranton Times-Tribune and possibly from other local papers. I used the mall's homepage as the primary source for its history, as that was the most complete single location. I can do some digging and probably get some more info from the Times-Trib. Brad E. Williams 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. When a user goes through a list of malls adding dozens in alphabetical order, that says directory to me. When they are operated by the same firm, that says spam. As I said on the admin noticeboard, a few valid subjects may have been swept up in the mess, and I apologise for that, but malls are not "inherently" notable, and without non-trivial secondary sources (the primary notability criterion), then directory entries is what they are, and spam is what they may well be. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response The lack of secondary sources is something that should be corrected, but there wasn't a single mention of that on the page (at least that I saw) before it was deleted. As I said, I have no doubt that the deletion was performed in good faith, but I feel it should not have happened without even an opportunity to correct any issues present. A tagging would've been more appropriate, or AfD at worst. This deletion appears to be collateral damage. Was this one of the pages added by that single user? Brad E. Williams 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also had two articles on malls speedy deleted by the above admin, that I submitted to this DRV. I can understand the admin's reasoning but feel that many of the affected articles have genuine merit and relevance for Wikipedia and can be improved and brought up to standard. If "reliable secondary sources" of a non-trivial nature, which from the definition I have read do include newspaper articles, can be found and cited, would that be enough to make the article appropriate? (I would further argue that several articles discussing architecture, economic impact, etc., of any specific mall, written and presented in a comprehensive manner, do not fall under the "trivial" banner.) And this in light of the specific significance and relevance of this project to the Scranton area as noted by the editor? Reading the editor's comments makes me think that this may even be a stronger candidate for reinstatement than at least one of mine.--Msr69er 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention that the mall is sometimes mentioned on the popular NBC sitcom The Office. They've mentioned an existing store at least once - a coffee shop called "Jitterz." Brad E. Williams 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Looking at the googlecached version of the article[2], there doesn't seem to be any claim of encyclopedic notability (no, gratuitous demolition footage for a filler story on CNN doesn't count) and it's a not a good sign that most of the article appears to been copied and pasted from the official mall history page. There seem to be reasonable grounds for spam CSD. As for the NHS, I think that the current mention at Steamtown_National_Historic_Site#Nearby_attractions is more than sufficient. I suppose you could add a line to the trivia section in The Office article too. Bwithh 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did no cutting and pasting from the history page. Summarize/paraphrase yes, cut/paste no. Brad E. Williams 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion no real content so CSD applied. Note that changing a few words is not the same as summarising or paraphraing, and so it could have gone as a copy vio, anyway. If it could be recreated as a valid article, no problem with that, but what was there was not valid. Proto::type 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a directory. It's clear cut. Eusebeus 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for many of the reasons given above. It sounds like what might be encyclopedic is the Steamtown National Historic Site. If so, the mall can be mentioned in such an article, if relevant. Likewise, if the mall is a part of Scranton's revitalization efforts, then it can be mentioned as a part of the Scranton article, if relevant. Agent 86 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Marek

Notable European porn actress. I disagree with the deletion decision and would like it to be reviewed. Hektor 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice one of the deletion logs says "Failed AfD." Where is the AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw nothing at all except 'db-bio'. Doesn't seem to even gone through AfD. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was going off of "14:16, 10 October 2006 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs) protected Anna Marek (Chronic reposting of NN porn actress; failed AfD [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])" I say Overturn barring an obvious AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could have sworn there was one. This was recreated multiple times under different names (including Anuschka Marek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anushka Marek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), mainly by one really obsessed fan, but I can't find an AFD under any name. Fan-1967 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also found a link to a now-deleted discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Anna Marek Fan-1967 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the article to be reestablished. She certainly was notable at the time - however, her main fame was before the net, so getting references on her will be a bit more complicated. MadMaxDog 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment quite prepared to believe there is notability here (or as much as porn actresses in general), but this certainly needs better sourcing if it is to survive. The single source with a header banner saying "Anna Marek is gorgeous - OFFICIAL", might be considered somewhat partisan. --pgk 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is generally an issue with pre-Internet, non American porn actresses. The notability threshold is much higher for them, so we get only the most famous ones such as Claudine Beccarie (and even she was challenged once) or Marie Forså. Hektor 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability standard is the same, I assume you mean finding reliable sources to aid verifiability is more difficult? Written sources are every bit as valid as internet sources. --pgk 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - note that the content of the Mediation Cabal page (mentioned above) was "Admin Keep deleting the Anna Marek page, they are gonna get sued if they keep censoring it.", so deletion was understandable (as was the permablocking of the user, Bulbus666)). The article has been, at various times, at Anna Marek, Anuschka Marek, and Anushka Marek. There's no AFD discussion (or even a VFD one). Probably worth creating and thrashing out through an AFD. Proto::type 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Joslin

G1 (patent nonsense), G2 (test pages), G3 (pure vandalism), G4 (recreation of deleted content), and cross-namespace redirect

- Comment- I'm not sure why the page was deleted, all the information was sourced and everything was fine. - P-Dub2
It was deleted originally for copyvio, but it's back, so why is this here? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Sorry. My bad. - P-Dub2

File:Basshunter dota.JPG

Freakofnurture deleted this image citing no fair use rationale. I uploaded it a few months ago so I'm not sure of the description I put, but the image is fair use under {{Musicpromo-screenshot}}. Please undelete the image and I'll be sure to add the template. DarkProdigy 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. You have to provide something such as "I, DarkProdigy, believe this image is fair use on page X because of these reasons", for every time it is used. You can't just slap on a template. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Should the image be undeleted, I will do this for the article Basshunter, as a photograph is requested for this biography. DarkProdigy 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you just upload it again? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: content at the time of the deletion was:

'''== Summary ==''' The screenshot was taken from the videos section of Basshunter's webpage, and is a screenshot of Basshunter's song "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA".== Licensing =={{musicpromo-screenshot}}{{no rationale|month=November|day=13|year=2006}}

if this helps. —freak(talk) 05:25, Nov. 27, 2006 (UTC)

Comment. So then it just needs the statement Amarkov mentioned, correct?
Comment There are problems with this image even if the fair use rationale were provided. (1) The tag used quite clearly states "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question", this is not the cast in the Basshunter article, you cannot use it just to show the person. (2) Even if (1) were not true, if would fail replaceable fair use so would be redeleted. --pgk 07:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Oh, sorry, I didn't notice this. DarkProdigy 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' for many of the reasons given above. It sounds like what ''might'' be encyclopedic is the Steamtown National Historic Site. If so, the mall can be mentioned in such an article, if relevant. Likewise, if the mall is a part of Scranton's revitalization efforts, then it can be mentioned as a part of the Scranton article, if relevant. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Eleanor Walker]]====
-:{{la|Eleanor Walker}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Walker| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Walker|AfD]])|}}
-The first deletion is the one I am referring to. The article was wrongly speedy deleted and has useful content. The picture should also be restored. [[User:PopoHed|PopoHed]] 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Do we really need to discuss undeletion of an article whose entire contents were "Sexy, isn't she?"?  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion and suggest speedy close'''. The article has never had more content than what Zoe has described above. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 18:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion with as much certainty as is humanly possible [or otherwise!]''' *bangs head on desk*. Of course this needs to remain deleted! ><<span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Richard0612|<span style="color:purple">'''Richard'''</span>]][[User talk:Richard0612|<span style="color:blue">'''Ω6'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Richard0612|<span style="color:green">'''12'''</span>]] <sup><u>'''[[WP:UW|UW]]</u></sup></span> 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-**None of the above are '''reasons''' for it staying deleted! And an article not having much content is not the same as con''text''. [[User:PopoHed|PopoHed]] 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-***Does it really need a reason? Even so, the article fails WP:BIO miserably, and could be considered [loosely] CSD A3 [empty, attempt to contact, rephrasing of title] ><<span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Richard0612|<span style="color:purple">'''Richard'''</span>]][[User talk:Richard0612|<span style="color:blue">'''Ω6'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Richard0612|<span style="color:green">'''12'''</span>]] <sup><u>'''[[WP:UW|UW]]</u></sup></span> 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-***Listen, if you can write an article about a [[WP:BIO|notable]] Eleanor Walker, you are welcome to do so. But there is nothing in the deleted versions that comes close to being encyclopedic. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' And then AFD it again. [[User:Snuogo|Snuogo]] 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse and salt''' It's been deleted four times now. *sigh* [[User:Whispering|Whisp]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Whispering|<font color="red">e</font>]][[User talk:Whispering|ring]] 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' Is the requester somehow under the impression that we would ever, under any circumstances, keep an article that just says that a girl is sexy? [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' duh. [[User:Danny Lilithborne|Danny Lilithborne]] 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Anna Marek]]====