Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FocusFanatics - Deletion endorsed.
Line 184: Line 184:
*Please don't merge until valid sources are provided, or the merged portions will just get deleted again. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Please don't merge until valid sources are provided, or the merged portions will just get deleted again. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Meh, you're right. what was i thinking?? [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:Meh, you're right. what was i thinking?? [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

====[[FocusFanatics]]====
:{{la|FocusFanatics}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FocusFanatics| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FocusFanatics|AfD]])|}}

Please pardon any improper procedures as I'm doing this for the first time. I recently added an article labeled FocusFanatics with listings to various Do-it-yourself Guides for the Ford Focus owners. These guides range from simple oil changes to swapping out engine parts. I believe these links would be very beneficial to thousands of other Focus owners around the world. Additionally I felt that my article was prematurely deleted and I was never given the opportunity to complete my revisions before it was deleted. The articles do not sell or promote any products so I can't see why it would be considered spam. [[User:Pavelushakov|Pavel]] 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Sorry, but Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] an indiscriminate collection of links. It's an encyclopedia. Those are cool links, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The only reason why I'm contesting the decision is because there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies as to what articles are allowed and what aren't. If you expect people to contribute to an open Encyclopedia then at least make it consistent and take into consideration that it's always easier to delete something than creating it.

Take these links for example (I've seen many more). These articles do not offer any informative information yet they are allowed to remain open:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/roadfly
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VWvortex
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/focaljet
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda-Tech
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/clubsi
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoCalEuro ([[User_talk:Pavelushakov]])

:I've only looked at a couple of these links, but most of them seem to be articles about established companies. Some of them are borderline and may well be deleted in future. As I understand it, the article you created wasn't, but was a collection of links you had put together. See [[WP:NOTABILITY]] for information about how we decide whether such an article should be kept.
:As an aside, I can see why this article has been deleted, but is there a good reason it should be protected from recreation? I can well see that we might want to include an article at some point about the web site at [http://www.focusfanatics.com] at some point. It doesn't currently meet the requirements at [[WP:WEB]], but it seems to be a popular site nonetheless and may well meet them at some point in the future. [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
* Existence of other articles is not, I'm afraid, a valid reason for including or indeed not including a particular subject. See [[WP:WEB]] for the kind of tings people are looking for here. Top of the list is that it should have been the primary subject of nultiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Chairboy. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Guy/JzG and Chairboy. [[User:Veinor|Veinor]] ([[User_talk:Veinor|ヴエノル<sup>(talk)</sup>]]) 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:27, 30 November 2006

< November 24 November 26 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

25 November 2006

DM_Ashura

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

This article was deleted claiming: "Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, see notability guidelines." DM Ashura is a well known independent electronic artist. His music is featured in such games as Flash Flash Revolution, O2Jam, and StepMania. Most of his music is available on his website for free and he is currently working on a CD as well. DarkProdigy 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it in accordance with WP:PROD. Had you protested the deletion then by removing the template, that was all that needed to be done. You are welcome to recreate it provided it complies with WP:BIO, and the new article is actually good, rather than just another stub to worry about. You should read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.--HereToHelp 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: get rid of the underscore (far more Google results came up without it). Follow this link: DM Ashura to get to the new article.--HereToHelp 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HTH, you know full well that's not how prod works. This should be speedily undeleted and, if necessary, sent to AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Had I visited the article while the template was there I would have. Apologies, the underscore in this listing was a mistake. The original article had a space in its place. Please speedily undelete the article, as suggested in the comment above by Badlydrawnjeff and I will make sure it is contributed to further. DarkProdigy 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Jeff says, contesting a prod after the deletion still counts as a contested prod, which requires undeletion and possibly AfD. So speedy undelete this article, potentially sending it to AfD. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, since this was a PROD and is now being contested, granted DarkProdigy was too late, but the principle holds. Send to AfD if desired. Herostratus

Martin Randall Travel

Martin Randall Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

I carefully researched this article, wrote it in an unbiased way, cited my sources, linked relevant pages to it and explained why it was an important article: MRT has won a large number of awards and much lesser articles live on. It was fairly long, had headings and was a fine article in my opinion: my best. At this point I moved school (yes, I'm at school, but don't hold that against me) and left the page alone for a week. In this time an admin deleted it. Please look into this. Fuzzibloke 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the history of this is such that it was deleted via prod, restored on request and sent to WP:AFD. After three days the article was then Speedy Deleted as Spam in line with the AFD comments up to that point. --pgk 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't really recommend undeletion without seeing the text of the deleted article, but I would point out this company does get independent press coverage (e.g. [1][2]), so probably falls within the usual notability criteria for corporations. We should have an article about it; whether the one that was deleted is a good base to work from, I don't know. JulesH 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two don't seem to be "non-trivial" as required by WP:CORP --pgk 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That raises an interesting point: are supplements to non-trivial sources non-trivial as well? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That wasn't really what I was getting at. "or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" for those articles the company is certainly not the subject, the coverage of the company itelf is trivial. This I would suggest falls under the exceptions "Works carrying merely trivial coverage..." --pgk 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Umm, what's the issue here? The article was moved to AfD where consensus was overwhelmingly to delete. Nothing was out of process and the arguments raised there were germane. Eusebeus 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, article was advertorial in tone, so deletion is entirely proper. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist for a full discussion about the merits of the subject. Spam can be edited out just as easily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentLook, I don't know how it was deleted, just by the time I arrived it was gone. It was not spam, I can't beleive it was listed as such. Categories included inroduction, history, directors, standards, trivia. I spent hours researching. If there is an article on the subject, use mine as a base! Fuzzibloke 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gin-Sung

Gin-Sung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

User:Jaranda deleted this page saying that it was unsourced and probaly a hoax. The article was sourced and was not a hoax. If he didn't think the sources were reliable enough many other articles on Wikipedia use it as a source. Also the reasons he said he deleted it for are not proper criteria to speedy delete an article. The article was also deleted instantly within hours of its creation not giving enough time to properly source it and edit it. The article was not a good canidate for speedy deletion and should of been a normal AfD.Zalgt 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stanford

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

User:Naconkantari deleted this page claiming criterion A7 of WP:CSD. This states: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." An assertion of notability was made in the article. The subject has been the editor of a newspaper and has had books published. This was stated in the article, and citations to the books were given. Criterion A7 goes on to state: "If the assertion is controversial...the article should be nominated for AfD instead". I contested speedy deletion because I believe it meets a relevant WP:BIO guideline, namely: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Another editor also contested speedy deletion using the "Search engine test" of WP:BIO. AfD was the correct procedure here. Alan Pascoe 13:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZENN

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

Article deleted by user:Naconkantari, reasoning: deleted "ZENN" (G11). Article was created by a third party and should not have been considered spam. The only 'spam' like attribute was the externa link to companies specifications. I, not the origional creator, placed a hangon and proceeded to add links providing notability. Article was quickly deleted without any debate. RichMac (Talk) 09:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the talk page is still intact with notice fo my intentions. RichMac (Talk) 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When you say third party you mean third party to you and Naconkantari? If you mean someone other than the company/person involved I don't see how you can be so certain. The article itself was a very brief stub, if you have reasonable sources why don't you just recreate the article with those reasonable source, it would have probably have been quicker than listing it here. Speedy deletion does not mean that anything under that article will forever be considered spam, just address the issue and it shouldn't be a problem. (I can see why you might want the text restored if it were something more substantial). If you want the text let me know and I'll retrieve it for you into your userspace, you can work on adding some links etc. and then move it back --pgk 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Pgk said. This one sits on the border between valid stub and spam, so I'm sure that with a bit of work and some sources it can be made to comply with policy. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I placed the speedy deletion template on ZENN. At that point, the page had one external link, to the product's manufacturer's website, and some text that could very easily have been written by the public relations department of the company. Neutral point of view was nowhere in sight. Simple solution per Pgk; write a neutral article, repost, you're good to go, probably with zero emissions. Darkspots 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Samsa (band)

Gregor Samsa (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Noteworthy Band

Page was speedy deleted and immediately protected by Lucky 6.9 due to ("Chronic recreation of NN band [edit=sysop:move=sysop]" while I was in the process of adding further noteworthy detail. This is the first time I have attempted to create this article and I was unaware of previous attempts

In my view this is definitely a noteworthy band. Please see Last.fm (a link I was in the process of adding while the sudden speed delete was carried out) - they've logged 5,808 individual listeners in a week alone. They've made three releases of high quality in their genre by followers of the genre (please see comments on afterthepostrock.com). I myself, as a British Student in Lancaster, UK am keen fan of them despite them being based in Virginia, US. Personally, I think that makes them noteworthy.

Without typing it out here I am sure that myself and others can create an article of sufficient merit on this band - unfortunately due to Lucky 6.9 haste in action (a matter of minutes after I started work on the article) I wasn't given a chance to do it and so the text he quoted was incomplete.

Apologies for my delay in requesting a review is due to me incorrectly going via "The requests for unprotection" channel due to my unfamiliarity with Wiki bureaucracy) -- Earl_CG 11:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again apologies my lack of time spent reading Wiki standards - However here is the band covered on the allmusic.com & discogs.com sites cited in that standard. Earl_CG 14:02 & 14.12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC doesn't say inclusion on allmusic.com makes them notable it is mentioned as a resource for determining if they meet the criteria. --pgk 14:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Criteria 5 I believe these reviews of their LP at Popmatters.com, allmusic.com & Stylus Magazine constitutes inclusion in "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". I can provide more if required. Earl_CG 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I was never claiming that. However in terms of the niche appeal/low profile Post-Rock genre they are a noteworthy group. Many bands of a similar standing have articles on wikipedia and rightly so - when I stumble across a band the first thing I do is look to wiki for a biography (which I find most useful) and I was surprised to find that this one didn't possess one and so wished to contribute. Earl_CG 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarchasm, n: the gulf in understanding between the person making a satirical comment and the person hearing it. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tired. n: zzzzzzzzzzz.... - Earl_CG 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supertall skyscraper stubs

Zotino1 (talk · contribs), Pigton100 (talk · contribs) and Zonk43 (talk · contribs) (possibly all alternate accounts of the same newcomer editor) have created a large series of stubs on supertall skyscrapers, all sourced from an external website scyscraperpage.com [4] and all following the same format. All of them were tagged as db-empty by Calton (talk · contribs). In several cases speedy tags were removed by admins (Jaranda, SCZenz, Robdurbar and myself); in other cases articles were deleted (by Robdurbar and Naconkantari). In several cases speedy-tagging, tag-removal, re-tagging, deletion, re-creation, undeletion went through several repeated cycles.

Currently, most of the pages have been restored, but as there has been substantial disagreement over whether WP:CSD A1 applies to these stubs, I guess a summary review for the whole group is appropriate. For me, these are a world apart from A1, they are in fact near-perfect WP:STUBs: notable topic, properly define the topic in context, offer a reasonable amount of basic encyclopedic information in addition to the definition (dates and figures about construction, costs, future use), and are sourced (though admittedly not a first-rate "reliable source", but adequate to establish a stub topic).

(Note, however, that I have proposed the accompanying template Template:Supertall skyscrapers for deletion at TfD [5].) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that these were very borderline (and as a result, probably not speedyable). See the discussion at User talk:Calton#Skyscrapers and User talk:Robdurbar#Skyscrapers for how indecisive I was. For me, the issue that stopped me going all out against removing the speedy tags was that the source used is quite questionable.
I deleted a handful that seemed paticularly poorly sourced, unempty, and were not incldued on the template - see my deletion log. To be honest, my indecision and the fact that others have felt similar to means that I cannot endorse a speedy deletion. With a few exceptions, which I felt were empty, undelete. Robdurbar 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, if they weren't all recreated already. WP:CSD#A1 was badly stretched for some of these. If there's enough context to expand the stub, some basic information, and a source, I simply can't comprehend how a stub could be judged empty no matter how short. I wonder if a feeling that the articles are non-notable has been biasing everyone towards deletion; that's understandable, but non-notability doesn't actually make an article emptier or more contextless. If these are articles we shouldn't have, AfD them—preferably centrally, so we can have a coherent discussion. -- SCZenz 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty link farms unless and until there is actual content, not just templates with numbers lifted from one website [6] and plugged into them. Exhibit A: World Lamp King Museum, which turned up exactly two Google hits, one of which is the website that ALL of these directory-listings-disguised-as-articles include, leading me to the conclusion that the website is both the sole source AND purpose for all of these. This is no different, really, than that slew of directory-listings-disguised-as-articles that were the Australian politician articles, with the added bonus of linkfarming. The slew of apparent single-purpose accounts doesn't give me a lot of faith in the motives of the creator(s), either. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
World Lamp King Museum is a hoax, has been tagged as a hoax and prodded. Apparently Skyscraperpage is sort of a Wiki and users can contribute their own drawings and one of their users submitted it to them, or it may be a copyright trap. Tubezone 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Them being "link farms" is irrelevant to weather or not they're empty, Calton; many (if not most) of the articles you wanted deleted were by no means empty. You are stretching the CSD to fit your personal view on what the content of Wikipedia should be; please don't do that anymore. -- SCZenz 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Music Hall of Fame

Long Island Music Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

Speedied by Naconkantari as CSD G11 (spam); however looking at the deleted versions there is potential for cleanup, and the tagging was quietly done by an IP which might be suspicious. Kimchi.sg 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the talk page (which isn't currently deleted) contains a comment by the anon, apparently the organisation (or someone anyway) has been putting external links on a number of musician pages as well. --pgk 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Article has existed for sometime, has no external references, and no assertion of notability (I'd probably have deleted as A7 rather than G11). The brief blurb does seem advertish and the vast bulk of the article was a long list of names. I can't see anyone wanting to write a "real" article would use much if anything from the existing article. --pgk 09:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete There are references to the LIMHOF in mainstream sources. Mentions in Newsday (Google News), Daily News, Long Island Business News, Baltimore Sun, Stony Brook University, websites of notable performers inducted which mention LIMHoF: DMC, Leslie West, Harry Chapin. I stopped searching there, but certain I could find more. It has participation of mainstream celebrities and it's no different from any other Hall of Fame article. Keep in mind many of the artists that were inducted and other notable musicians were at the ceremony, including Billy Joel, Peter Criss, Joan Jett, Paul Shaffer, Alec Baldwin, Leslie West, Twisted Sister, Gary US Bonds, Peter Tork, C.J. Ramone, Jimmy Webb. I fail to see how a link to this page from the artist's page is an insult when notable artists show up to participate in the induction ceremonies. Yes, the article needs links, but a references tag should have been placed. A speedy delete is the wrong move (not to mention the request by an anon seems odd). *Spark* 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete. The article text looks pretty neutral to me, which means it doesn't fit the requirements for G11. Arguments that lack of sourcing justifies the deletion fall flat when a) nobody tagged it requesting sources and b) as Spark said, the external sources exist. -- SCZenz 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Not a speedy. If considered unworthy, it deserves an AfD. Herostratus 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and send to AFD if it's felt necessary. I believe I was one of the first editors to come across this after it was first created, and took a good long time to decide that it needed tagged for sourcing and cleanup instead of deletion due to enough potential notability for a good article. I'd suggest restoring and, if it's necessary, AfD - but I suspect that would generate plenty of sources (as above) to keep it around. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Yet another example of why G11 is destroying Wikipedia and driving away new contributors. Silensor 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Shave November

No Shave November (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

The No Shave November article that has been previously deleted does, infact, merit an article on Wikipedia. From my research, this event/ritual mainly happens at university and college campuses from around North America; most of the sources gathered have been from the United States though. I have discussed the merits for this article on its discussion board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_Shave_November), this is also where I have provided the sources and a short description on them but I will re-post them here.

http://chips.luther.edu/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4826
http://www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2006/11/15/News/No.Shave.Ritual.To.Raise.Cash-2459778.shtml?norewrite200611232205&sourcedomain=www.collegian.com
http://fp.uni.edu/northia/archives3.asp?ID=4234
http://www.lcu.edu/LCU/Duster/story.htm?ID=554


If any of these links are broken please let me know, also there are many references to No Shave November in blogs; I do not really consider these to be valuable resources of information.JLEG 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Archive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Shave_November

Note: According to WP:CSD#Non-criteria, hoax isn't even a valid CSD. I have to admit that surprises me somewhat. TacoDeposit 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, you're right. what was i thinking?? Bwithh 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_25&oldid=91120645"