Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:10, 8 January 2007

< January 7	Deletion review archives: 2007 January	January 9 >

8 January 2007

Lincolnshire Pallets

I asked for Phil Dukes article to be deleted and it was deleted with the Lincolnshire Pallets article! I have no problem whatsoever with the Lincolnshire Pallets article so please can it be re-made or recovered? Regards (Jamesbourne11 20:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I've linked in the AFD for which it could be viewed as a WP:CSD#G4 deletion, the prior article was at Lincolnshire Pallet Services. GRBerry 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion although I wish that the basis had been a G4. New article does not substantially improve on the old. While it might be possible to do so, at the very least that would require the citation of some independent, reliable, and published sources. GRBerry 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I was the article's deleter). I have no comment on the Phil Dukes article, I don't recall even having seen it. I deleted the Lincolnshire Pallets article independtly, since it was strictly advertising with no claims of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted twice today. This deletion review was opened in between the deletions, challenging Pilotguy's deletion, which was also an A7. GRBerry 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I and Pilotguy both deleted it yesterday. This DRV was started after I suggested to Jamesbourne11 that he bring it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh I forgot that the log is local time but the timestamp here is UTC. Silly me. GRBerry

Mindstar Productions

references available Requesting undeletion of the following articles
Mindstar Productions
Mindstar Aviation
Cinergy Motion Picture Production System
Cinergy MPPS
Cinergy Script Editor
Per the following note from an admin, sufficient references were provided, but weren't listed in the article at the time of deletion. The notice I received from the admin is listed below:

The references you gave are fine, and there are others. You may be able to get your article undeleted, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review. For now, I created a temporary page under your userspace: *****. This shows the proper way of referencing. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) IGuy 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a conflict of interest to me. Articles failed to assert notability (e.g. "The Cinergy Script Editor is a free Windows-based word processing software package that allows the user to write a screenplay in the most commonly accepted format."). Guy (Help!) 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflict of interest?? It's a guideline, just like WP:AGF... --ElectricEye (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Guideline" doesn't mean "can be ignored whenever we feel like it". -- Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not ignoring anything. WP:AGF. There's no conflict of interest on my part. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin: This DRV is very premature. I deleted a few articles on a CSD run, and ask for sources when someone contests said deletions. I then leave my computer to make dinner, and on my return find that someone has recommended a DRV. The first port of call for contested speedies should not be DRV. -- Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If DRV is not the first port of call for contested speedies, then what is the first port of call. Please tell the new user here, User:IGuy, who wants help. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably the deleting admin's talk page. --W.marsh 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Instruction creep. More important is a discussion about notability. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrating the notability of Mindstar Productions is easy. Almost all of Cessna's aircraft are shipped with one of Mindstar's products: Garmin G1000.[1] --ElectricEye (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight clarification: Mindstar Productions is the publisher of Garmin G1000. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about the product does not indicate that the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. To warrant an article, rather than the simple mention as the manufacturer in Garmin G1000 that it has now, the company has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Uncle G 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - IGuy has some references on his talk page. --ElectricEye (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the midst of this discussion, someone presumably involved in this discussion has gone into the article for Garmin G1000 and tried to edit it to assert that Mindstar is the publisher of THE Garmin G1000, when in fact, Mindstar is the publisher of a SIMULATION of the Garmin G1000 for Microsoft Flight Simulator. If my postings here about the stated products are not worthy of Wikipedia in some way, that's fine, but now it appears someone had, on my behalf, edited the wiki for Garmin and asserts information about Mindstar that isn't accurate. The problem is becoming compounded. I have corrected the Garmin wiki to remove the incorrect information, and I will refrain from any further postings until we hear a final resolution to the discussion about my deleted postings. IGuy 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Franklin

Suggesting an overturn of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Franklin. All of the keep arguments were based on a flawed assessment of PORNBIO criterion #7 ("There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer"). Franklin's filmography includes a compilation titled A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin, which was probably thrown together by the production company to squeeze more money out of stock scenes. There were no substantive arguments brought up by the keep votes, just a chorus of "she passes PORNBIO #7". However Kimberly Franklin fails every other inclusion criterion under the sun, she has made some thirty films, well beneath the one hundred film standard proposed by PORNBIO. The article on her is poorly written, uninformative, and not just a little creepy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently neutral on this DRV, but #7 is a terrible criterion in general. -- Kicking222 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above - that criterion sucks royally, and the invocation of it in this case sucks even worse. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pornbio is really a terrible so-called guideline altogether... it's totally contrary to WP:N. Delete this article unless meaningful published sources can be found... article right now just cites the IMDB page, which confirms very little of the info in the article. Article is also a shining example of comedically bad wikipedia pornstar article writing... but that's not a reason to delete, the lack of references is. --W.marsh 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Blue

I'm trying to improve the article but everytime I do someone deletes it. At least let me finish before it gets removed, yeah?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MeWiseMagic (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse Deletion, but do not object to recreation if reliable sources are forthcoming. To MeWiseMagic: Your article has been repeatedly deleted because you have not provided any third party sources which explain the band's notability. Are there any magazine articles, any reliable websites (not blogs, etc.) in which the band is a major focus of the discussion? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, per Zoe. Article made some claims but needs to cite sources. --W.marsh 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources is not grounds for a speedy. Lack or content that, if sourced, would make the subject notable is. ~ trialsanderrors 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what the CSDs are... but it's an academic point... I don't really like undeleting an article just so it can be deleted again. If the sources exist, undelete... otherwise it's a waste of time. --W.marsh 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Article now deleted is more expansive than that deleted by AFD, but is itself almost eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. A "minor MTV hit" and "selling out LA bars and clubs" are about the weakest of all possible clams of notability. As notability is about having independent, reliable, published sources featuring the content of the article, Zoe's and W.marsh's advice is the right path forward. GRBerry 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The way the protected page is set up the only people who can get enough information to vote on this case are admins. Please set up a normal protected page with history access for all. TonyTheTiger 18:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Valid A7. History restored for DRV purposes. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'd recommend userfying to let him work on it and get it up to standards, if that's the issue here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary's Catholic School

Here we go again. This article does not assert any notability for the school aside from being old (which, in and of itself, is not necessarily a criteria for keeping an article using WP:SCHOOLS any longer), and this claim of age is not cited; in fact, it is not even supported by the school's web site, which makes no mention of the school before the 1880s. The article cites no non-trivial reliable sources, just the school's web site and an Ofsted report. The AfD, closed by User:Doc glasgow without any rationale given, was closed as a keep. The only rationale given by the three keep !voters is that the school meets WP:SCHOOLS by being old. Meanwhile, six people !voted for delete, in addition to one !vote for redirect (thereby noting that the school does not stand up on its own) and the nominator. This gives an 8-to-3, or 72.7%, consensus going against the closer's decision (which, again, was given without any reasoning). Overturn and delete or redirect. Kicking222 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's rationale I hate School articles and would delete the lot. But there is no consensus to do so, as hundreds of AfDs have shown. If you want something deleted you needs a clear consensus for deletion, all other option (retain as is, merge, redirect) are editorial decisions that have nothing to do with AfD. There is no consensus to delete in this debate, which means a 'default keep' closure. If numbers matter we had 6 straight delete !votes verse 4 verses votes otherwise (3 keep and 1 redirect). (1 vote I discounted since it said 'delete or merge/redirect' - it isn't clear whether that person wishes the article deleted or not). That means 6:4, and 60% is not a consensus. Beyond arithmetic there is no policy reason to override the lack of consensus. WP:SCHOOL is not policy, and no-one was suggesting the article was unverifiable. I stand by my closure. Sure, another admin may have called it differently, but this was within reasonable judgement. Editors are welcome to merge or redirect this if they wish.--Doc^g 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~First, in your 6/4 count, you did not count the nominator, who obviously should be taken into account, as the nominator (by the very nature of the position) feels that the article should be deleted.~~ Second, a redirect should not count as an "otherwise" !vote. Someone urging for redirection is noting that 1) they do not feel the article can stand on its own, and 2) there is nothing in the article that is important enough (or sufficiently verified) to be placed in another article. If there were 8 delete !votes, 1 keep !vote, and 3 redirect !votes, you surely wouldn't keep the article as no consensus even though 11 of the 12 !voters do not feel the article should exist. -- Kicking222 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) The nominator was counted. I apologize. -- Kicking222 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
My, I certainly didn't realize that !voting "delete or redirect" would get me ignored by closing admins; I do so based on proposed guidelines at WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3, and thought it would be obvious that my feeling was that the article should not be kept as a stand-alone article. In the future, I will simply say "delete" to avoid this kind of thing. Shimeru 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't vote 'delete or redirect', you voted 'delete or merge/redirect'. Merge means retain the information elsewhere with a redirect, that's very different from deleting. Since if in doubt we keep, I could not read your vote as a straight delete vote. I discounted it, I didn't ignore it.--Doc^g 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that on the closing admin's talkpage, there are complaints from multiple other users about his closing of AfDs as keeps when there is either a consensus to delete or no consensus. -- Kicking222 15:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather irrelevant, I get complaints when I close as delete too. I don't recall my closures ever having been successfully overturned on DRV - so whilst I'm not infallible, I think my judgement is normally reasonable.--Doc^g 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely more published sources must have written about a school that's 125 years old? Keep voters should have beefed up the article, really. --W.marsh 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not raised in the debate.--Doc^g 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that it has to be pointed out specifically that improving articles sourcing is a better way to get them kept than just arguing in the AfD... --W.marsh 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, with no independent non-trivial coverage in the article or cited by those arguing to keep, consensus and policy both point towards deletion. AfD is not a vote and consensus is not a percentage value - not 70%, not 60%, not 99% - but with such a weight of opinion backed up by policy and no strong arguments coming the other way that make them void, there's clearly a consensus here, and not to keep. "It's old, there must be sources somewhere" is not good enough. The burden of proof is on those adding material or supporting its inclusion, this is non-negotiable policy. If there must be sources, find them - they should have been found before the article was created. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is indeed non-negotiable. If something is unverifiABLE then we delete it. But, currently not being sourced != unverifiable. If it did, we'd be deleting half of wikipedia. Further, no-one raised the issue of verifiability in the debate. If the article is unverifiABLE it should indeed be deleted. Is it?--Doc^g 18:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with verifiability is raised the moment someone says "non-notable", "nn" or any variation thereof, as verifiability is the cornerstone of the concept as it applies to inclusion in an encyclopaedia. And it doesn't get more unverifiable than no non-trivial sources in the article or the AfD. What else is verifiability? The burden of proof, as it says in WP:V, is on those including information, and by extension those arguing for its continued inclusion.

The "it's old/a school/big/important so there must be sources somewhere" argument, sans any actual sources, is rather like saying

"Look! A 200 foot high invisible dinosaur! Can't you see it?"
"What? How am I supposed to see something invisible?"
"Because it's 200 foot high!"

And half of Wikipedia either needs to be deleted or sourced/cleaned up. We're fixing as much as we can, and in the meantime, bad articles do not justify further bad articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and redirecting remains an editorial option even if an AFD is closed as a keep. I don't evaluate the strength of arguments actually made as strongly favoring one camp - the strength difference comes from those citing WP:SCHOOLS failing to remember that the criteria they referred to says "distinctive in any one of the following areas, or in any other areas for which it has received press or other coverage" [emphasis added], and not showing any evidence of such coverage. The strongest I'd be prepared to go would be overturn and close as no consensus, which I expect was what the closing admin actually meant anyway. Since the net effect of that is not to change the status quo ante, I endorse closure. GRBerry 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even after the closure, a user attempted to turn the page into a redirect, but this was reverted as failure to adhere to the AfD closure. -- Kicking222 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete when both policy (WP:V) and numbers point in the same direction, consensus is clear. Eluchil404 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the debate had shown the article as unverifiABLE, I would have certainly closed it as delete, irrespective of numbers. However, in fact the question was never raised in the debate. Is the article unverifiABLE? --Doc^g 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete or relist. Although there was little in the way of argumentation (including by me), whatever this was, it was certainly no "keep" consensus. I'd probably have closed it as a narrow "delete", although a "no consensus" would also be defensible. Sandstein 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a 'keep' consensus. If there isn't a delete one, we keep.--Doc^g 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. No third-party sources. Generic Victorian primary school, some towns have dozens like this. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I saw the closure of this AfD but really didn't care enough about it as it wasn't a big deal. However, as this has now been nominated for DRV, I'll add in my $0.02. In short, I didn't think that the reasoning in the discussion resulted in a lack of consensus. For the most part, I agree with those who have also endorsed overturning (except the number crunching, given that an AfD really isn't a vote). Agent 86 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, obviously. Mind you, I dislike schools and try to delete them all the time. However, there's obviously no grounds to delete. It is verifiable, it has at least local notability, and going strictly by the numbers people were divided. Most delete !voters lined up behind the assertion that lack of notability was grounds for deletion. That's a weak rationale and does not stand alone. Again, there's no consensus here. Mackensen (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure it passes WP:SCHOOLS, its had governmental documents reference it, its verifiably almost 200 years old See page 4 of the prospectus. Lacking additional content and sources is not a valid reason to overturn a validly closed afd. I too agree it was probably more of a no consensus close than an actual keep, but in either case we default to retaining the article. We should stop wasting time better spent elsewhere. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasoning such as that are why I'm going to simply shy away from school discussions from now on. The above opinion, presented by someone who !voted to keep the article, first claims that the article passes WP:SCHOOLS- which it does not, as there is no non-trivial, third-party coverage- and then claims that "it was probably more of a no consensus" when there was a consensus, before noting that "we should stop wasting our time," thereby claiming that the eight or so people who have already commented should be told how to spend their time on Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Deletion nominations in which nobody presents a policy-based reason for deletion should always be closed as keep. AFD is not a vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is that the information is not verified through reliable sources- which it's not. -- Kicking222 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which policy is that? And where was it raised in the debate? We don't delete things for currently lacking sources, only if they prove to be unverifi-able. But, as I say, no deletion !voter ever asserted that the article was unverifiable.--Doc^g 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Guidelines, too, are a basis for deletion, though not as strong as policy; otherwise, we wouldn't delete the hundreds upon hundreds of non-noteworthy but verifiable companies and biography articles we do. This article does not meet the guidelines WP:N or either proposed school-specific guideline. It arguably does not meet WP:RS or WP:NOR, because it draws its information from primary sources. It offers no clear claim of notability, and any claim that might be constructed centers on the first paragraph of its 'history' section, which is completely uncited. Do not particularly care whether it's deleted outright or relisted for further consensus, but the article should not be kept as a separate article as long as no reliable secondary sources have been found for it. Shimeru 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not 'a basis for deletion', they are merely an indication of what the community tends to do, and are there to inform participants. If it doesn't meet WP:RS, then find some - if you can't then it does get deleted under WP:V. Have you tried? Is the article unverifi-able. If it is, I'll delete it right now.--Doc^g 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines can be a basis for deletion, because they are actionable, and they can call for deletion as one of those actions. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. says "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability and all the subject-specific notability guidelines operate to explain how the policies WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V jointly interact to determine whether a policy compliant article is reasonably believed possible on a given topic. GRBerry 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure. Why are you picking on a Catholic school? What is everybody's problem with schools, especially religious ones? There are plenty of public schools with lower quality of work then this. Time and time again schools have shown to be notable so why is this one not? No one is even trying to delete Florida State Road 922 as well as many other roads in Wikipedia and a lot of them do not even have sources. The minority should be able to keep this article from deletion as we should lean on the side of keeping aricles instead of deletion, proceed with caution when deleting, and give articles the benefit of the doubt. The five day AFD does not always reflect consensus so it is entirely fair for DOC to close it with a keep.--JEF 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Boudoir

Chris Sullo

The other related articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seifert, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Security Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufeeq Hussain in this series have been closed as delete or are clearly going towards a delete. But this one was closed as "no consensus". I believe that closing admin User:Cbrown1023 failed to notice that none of the two users who voted keep had a valid argument. One of them cited "Desperate wish" as the reason to keep the article, the another one cited what he called "notable references" -- but I clearly pointed out that none of these references are notable. Out of four links provided, one says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, second mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, third mentions he is author of a web scanner tool, fourth one has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much to establish notability. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to face the typical problems of autobiographies on Wikipedia... see WP:N and WP:AUTO. In short, the article should be written based on published articles about you, not your own personal knowledge specifically. No published articles would mean no article on Wikipedia either. --W.marsh 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. First off, conflict of interest makes me really hesitant to want it overturned. Second, you need sources, not just your personal knowledge. And third, being linked to is most certainly not a guarantee that you need an article; I can add a link to wherever I please on whatever page I please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per comments about reliable sources, autobiographical articles and a conflict of interest. (aeropagitica) 06:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion rather textbook WP:COI case. JuJube 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 ::Guidelines are not 'a basis for deletion', they are merely an indication of what the community tends to do, and are there to inform participants. If it doesn't meet [[WP:RS]], then find some - if you can't then it does get deleted under [[WP:V]]. Have you tried? Is the article unverifi-able. If it is, I'll delete it right now.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 :::Guidelines can be a basis for deletion, because they are actionable, and they can call for deletion as one of those actions.  [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.]] says "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  Additionally, [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and all the subject-specific notability guidelines operate to explain how the policies [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] jointly interact to determine whether a policy compliant article is reasonably believed possible on a given topic.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse Closure'''. Why are you picking on a Catholic school? What is everybody's problem with schools, especially religious ones? There are plenty of public schools with lower quality of work then this. Time and time again schools have shown to be notable so why is this one not? No one is even trying to delete [[Florida State Road 922]] as well as many other roads in Wikipedia and a lot of them do not even have sources. The minority should be able to keep this article from deletion as we should lean on the side of keeping aricles instead of deletion, proceed with caution when deleting, and give articles the benefit of the doubt. The five day AFD does not always reflect consensus so it is entirely fair for DOC to close it with a '''keep'''.--JEF 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[Boudoir]]====