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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 2 December 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

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[1], 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]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' - [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory|Wikipedia is not a directory]]. It's clear cut. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''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)
-====[[Anna Marek]]====
-:{{la|Anna Marek}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Marek| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Marek|AfD]])|}}
-Notable European porn actress. I disagree with the deletion decision and would like it to be reviewed.  [[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*I notice one of the deletion logs says "Failed AfD."  Where is the AfD? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-** I saw nothing at all except 'db-bio'. Doesn't seem to even gone through AfD. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-***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. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-****I could have sworn there was one. This was recreated multiple times under different names (including {{la|Anuschka Marek}} and {{la|Anushka Marek}}), mainly by one really obsessed fan, but I can't find an AFD under any name. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*****I also found a link to a now-deleted discussion at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Anna Marek]] [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*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. [[User:MadMaxDog|MadMaxDog]] 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''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. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''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]]. [[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-** The notability standard is the same, I assume you mean finding [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to aid [[WP:V|verifiability]] is more difficult? Written sources are every bit as valid as internet sources. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-***Yes you're right on that. But also: if I take for instance [[WP:PORN BIO]], criterion 1, all awards which are listed are adressing the American market, so you can say that most non-American actress who only perform in their geographical area don't have access, I could say, to this criterion. Same for criterion 2. So there are fewer criterion "available" to a non-American pre-Internet actress. I think personnally that Anna Marek fulfills Criteria 3 and 6 by being iconic of the pre-Internet Lolita genre through printed media and BBS. But proving that is difficult. [[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''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, [[User:Bulbus666|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. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Write a new article, then AFD''' I don't find any evidence of the AFD under any of the names.  To be a valid speedy deletion of previously deleted material, we need to hold an AFD.  However, based on [[User:pgk|pgk]]'s statement above, it seems that any past version would fail an AFD.  So we shouldn't hold one until someone writes a version that they think can be kept under [[WP:PORN BIO]] based on the sources used in the new article.  The best sources, as always meet the standards described at [[WP:INDY]].  The author should follow the process described at [[Wikipedia:Amnesia test]].  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)