Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:42, 7 March 2007

< March 6	Deletion review archives: 2007 March	March 8 >

7 March 2007

Simpleton (Oklahoma band)

established notability for a local preformer Crazychris2704 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This artilce was deleted by NawlinWiki on March 7, 2007. I believe the musical group, Simpleton, has established notability through local media coverage. They are a rising music group based out of Central Oklahoma. Listed on the wikipedia page were several newspaper and magazine articles ranging from July 2003 to March 2007.

William_Sledd

Notable and consistancy Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The William Sledd article was deleted without any real consensus and the reason "absolutely nothing appears to suggest that the subject has become notable outside the Youtube community/geek subculture" is dubious. The discussion linked to Television programs and magazine articles which mentioned Mr. Sledd. Moreover, the bar seems to be MUCH lower for other YouTube-celebrities: Geriatric1927, Esmée Denters, Chad Vader all linked from the YouTube article itself. Reboot 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are woefully inconsistent on YouTube people. Could you provide even a couple sources that you speak of? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

myg0t

4, count em' 4 notable mentions, in notable articles... are we notable yet??? Myg0tlefty 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://myg0t.com/?rage=articles
Nope. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution now can I get some words from an unbiased administrator. Myg0tlefty 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "mention" is not enough to write an article about. An article should only be written on a topic if a non-stub article can be written solely consisting of facts from verifiable publications. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even taken a look at the homepage with all sorts of information on myg0t? Myg0tlefty 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionWe need third party sources. Can you supply any of these? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL on Christmas Day

Relist for further debate, most voters for delete did so before the arguements to keep was expressed Nitsansh 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: I deleted the article because there isn't really anything significant about NFL games being scheduled on Christmas Day. Why not create NFL on Christmas Eve or NFL during Hannukah? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid AFD. Not having enough time to argue to keep the article is not a reason for undeletion, because the AFD ran the full five days. Even then, King of Hearts' justification makes perfect sense. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hossain

This article was deleted due to non significance of the person, however he was a candidate who ran for Memember of Parliament in two seperate elections, and is mentioned in at least two seperate articles on wikipedia. Admittedly, I only had a brief paragraph but I mentioned his candidacy as well as his party affillations. --GNU4eva 12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)

Lackadaisy

The comic's showing at 2007 WCCA makes it appear notable SanfordAbernethy 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) — SanfordAbernethy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy endorse - proper AFD close. DRV is not AFD take two. – Chacor 09:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion, this isn't AFD part 2, and the close was valid, since none of the keep arguments was really valid (one criticized Wikipedia for the current state of its inclusion guidelines, the other admitted non-notability and unverifiability). --Core desat 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that since the deletion, it's won four awards and its forum community has increased significantly in size doesn't mean that its non-notability should be reconsidered? Because to me, it sort of seems like it might. SanfordAbernethy 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdar

First off, the word/concept has had an article in Wiktionary for a long time, but no one has objected to that. I also found a few new links that use the word and refer to the concept, including some sources from the Jewish Heeb magazine and others (also note that the original sources include the Washington Post, Salon.com, the Weekly Standard, the NY Press, the American Dialect Society, and others). Someone also told me once that "Jewdar" is also a Jewish dating service of some sort (maybe it is local somewhere?), yet I haven't found it on the web (remember: not EVERYTHING is found on the web). Also, just glancing at "Category:Neologisms" shows that there are dozens of other words that are 'allowed' to have articles here on Wikipedia, even though "Jewdar" is more notable, widespread, and more widely known than most of the words in that category. I also believe that, for whatever reason, the article was unfairly targeted by a group of tight-knit editors that ganged up on the article and unjustly forcing its deletion. The article was and is more well sourced that 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and yet it was still deleted. I'd like to know why. --WassermannNYC 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There was a strong consensus that there were still no reliable sources, to the point where even some of the people that said to keep agreed. This isn't the place to say "But I disagree with the consensus!". And conspiracy theories of people wanting to delete the article are unconvincing, without any sort of evidence. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - Article already deleted? Corpx 06:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (my) deletion. Note article was deleted two months ago following the AFD. If there are other articles that are unsourced neologisms, then the solution is not to have more of them ... can you guess what it is? Neil (not Proto ►) 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no new evidence. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds for overturning. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion deletion process was fine, consensus on this pretty clear cut, failure to meet the required standard also pretty clear cut. --pgk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in the UTC timezone

This is a coup from all sides with a total lack of respect for wikipedia's deletion process. The sub-categories are being deleted but they are also all auto-generated via {{Template:Infobox city}}. This template was recently changed removing the list of 5000+ cities. The template was tampered with several times prior to the closing of the CfD to only support deletion. Furthermore the CfD is not even closed and appears to be far from a discussion and closer to a big nasty poll. Finally the category's explanatory FAQ, which could be found on the CAT was removed. Again this is a masacre from all ends without any discussion. Deleting admin did not follow the correct procedures. He is trying to sneek this one by via violating WP:CIV in failling to notify interested users, failling to have a conversation, and failing to notify interested paries. This CfD gives other reasons on why it should be kept. --CyclePat 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per (nearly unanimous) discussions on

(Note that the most recent discussions are not even closed yet; but there is no doubt that the cat's will be deleted; I have no objection to early deletion of the cat's because of re-creation of deleted content.) -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - This is overcategorization. If you want to create it again, get a consensus _before_ doing so. The argument about depopulation and the FAQ are specious - everyone by now knows exactly what you're trying to do with these categories, they just don't agree with it. --Random832 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pligg

I do not understand the deletion of the article. I came accross this usefull piece of software by googling to its now deleted wikipedia page. I've not written the original article. And I'm not involved in the development of this software. The article was not perfect and certainly needed "Wikify" but was useful. Before deletion I added external sources, and a simple search on Google for "pligg" returns 2.090.000 results, thus I don't understand the "not notable" (WP:WEB and WP:ORG) argument. The deletion process was initiated by a false argument (User:Mattarata) saying that Pligg is a copycat of Digg: this is a mistake, one is a service the other is a software to create easily multiple services of the same kind. Benoit rigaut 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the closing admin; the original AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pligg. The point I guess I was trying to make to this editor on my talk page was that notability on Wikipedia is generally based on reliable sources, not google hits. Grand master ka 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am having trouble finding reliable sources; can someone provide them if they have any? -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Digg posting "Pligg Beta 9 Released, Celebrating One Year" with 564 "diggs", one out of numerous installation walk through, some of them as screen casts, an article about pligg's template files, one out of many blog articles talking about Pligg, a seomoz.org article, a company selling digg templates, another random article, and most of all concerning the notability of a software there's a large base of sites (as cited in 10 pligg sites worth visiting) using this technology as their main CMS (which explains the 2.090.000 results in google for a "pligg" search). Benoit rigaut 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noob

Nearsourcing

company's concept based on its own experience - please revise for not deleting Nevalex 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted per request above. It was tagged for speedy by me. The article was an unsourced & unverfied contention that Itransition created the concept of "Nearsourcing". Ignoring for a moment that the term appears to be something of a neologism, there are no reliable 3rd party sources that support this claim. Indeed, many companies appear to be advancing this concept and term, which would suggest it is not the intellectual property of the company that was claiming it in the article. Also note that the person who created the article and initiated this review would appear to have a conflict of interest.--Isotope23 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are other companies which are using this concept and term, doesn't that imply that it is a well-used term and therefore an acceptable article can be made of it? Assuming there are reliable sources, of course. Corvus cornix 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some companies are using the term and it's occasionally popping up in business press. It can still be a neologism and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. This particular term doesn't even rise to the level of neologism yet - it would be categorized as a protologism - definitely not appropriate here. It may be appropriate in Wiktionary, though. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was relisted, perhaps I should clarify my comment above. Endorse deletion from Wikipedia but permit a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwiki to Wiktionary if requested. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Element td

The first version of the article was deleted for not beeing notable, but the second version was not a recreation of the original version but an entirely new one. The second version was deleted by FayssalF in a speedy deletion and he messaged me: "Please do not recreate Element td article. If you want it recreated you must go through Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks. -- FayssalF", but I disgree with this, since this is not a recreation of the original version, and I claim that the notability has been achieved by me and this new article should be at least discussed before beeing deleted. It would be great if FayssalF, or anybody else, could point out what exactly is missing, so I can provide additional material/sources. Cisz Helion 13:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure to how the article can be reviewed, as there seems to be no trace of it left, so I made it temporarily available on my user page. Cisz Helion 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and list if true, out-of-process G4. Deletion review is NOT for permission to create an article, unless it is the same content that was deleted in an XfD. --Random832 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) However, the most serious problem with your userfied version is that it lacks independent references. I cannot support the article in this form.[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I really apreciate it. Let me ask for further assistance. Are the battle.net map vault, the maps webpage, the epic war entry and the flash page not what you consider "independant references"? Or do you mean that these are valid references for parts of the text, but too much of the article lacks such sources? Cisz Helion 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about like an actual news article about it. or something in IGN, wired, gamespy, etc. --Random832 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some (small) changes to the version. I would consider the news section of battle.net a valid source, do you disagree? Cisz Helion 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was voted upon weeks ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Element TD) and the result was to delete it. It was recreated yesterday by User:Cisz Helion, who is a new user and i don't blame him for recreating it. User:Shenme reported the incident on March 1 before i deleted it. I don't have any problem with recreating it again if people agree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In two details I have a different view of what happened. A totally different article got voted on and deleted weeks ago. I was planning to edit that one to get it into shape, but never did. So I have nothing to do with the old version. My new version of the article was never voted upon. And I feel uncomfortable with the term "recreation", as it carries the connotation of "the same text", which is not the case. I suggest that we discuss the latest version. I have hope that this is meeting wikipedias requirements, or can be brought to meet them by me. Since I'm new to wikipedia, and english isn't my first language, I'm gratefull for any tips or help I can get. Cisz Helion 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize what we have got so far. An article about Element TD got deleted, recreated, deleted again. After that I created another acrticle about Element TD, but I wouldn't call this a recreation, because my version is totally different. FayssalF disagrees with my view, he calls what I did a recreation. This bothers me a bit, as it seems to me, I am held reliable for the bad work of other contributors, and I am concerned that my version might be kept deleted without ever beeing evaluated or looked at. I came up with what I call several independant external sources about eletd. The old version didn't have such references. I claim that at least the battle.net news section is a good source, and even if the maps homepage, the Epic War entry, and two independent flash games inspired by the map (this and this) are not meeting wikipedias standards for good sources, overall notability should be achieved. Random832 seems to disagree with this, although he seems to have missed some small changes I did to the latest version. All in all the question seems to be, if the number and quality of the references I provided is enough to establish notability. Cisz Helion 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse valid AfD, no new evidence. "Element Tower Defense (Element TD) is a Warcraft 3 custom map mod" - mods have a big hill to climb to establish notability, and this one did not get past base camp. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casa By The Sea

I agree (based on my recollection of the article) that this was highly POV, and I can easily imagine that there was no good version to revert to. The underlying problem is that the institution discussed in the article was and is highly controversial, together with its parent organization, WWASPS. Unfortunately, deleting a subject because it is controversial does not make the controversy go away; it merely makes it appear that Wikipedia is suppressing free speech. I think a reasonable neutral article could be written from the various scraps of material that have been contributed at various times. orlady 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could we compromise by giving you a list of the sources in the deleted versions, to write an article afresh with. Having been involved with some of the discussion at WP:ANI that preceeded the deletion of this article, I'm also fairly sure there wasn't a good version available. And I know that some of the supposed sources used weren't reliable. (E.g. "copies" of newspaper articles on partisan sites, for some of which we couldn't prove that the newspaper ever ran the article, and if the copy had been 100% accurate then it would have been a copyright violation.) I think starting afresh is the best way to move forward, but there might be some useful sources in the history. GRBerry 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the discussions at WP:ANI? I have had the WWASPS article and most of their schools/institutions on my watchlist, but I was not aware that there had been a discussion on the noticeboard (although the sudden appearance of PROD notices led me to believe there had been a notification about the NPOV problems with the articles). I have been aware of the WWASPS organization and the myriad controversies surrounding it for several years. I don't have time right now to write articles (nor am I especially interested in the individual schools). However, I believe that the anti-WWASPS organizations provide reliable copies of the articles that appeared in newspapers; I read some of those articles in the paper or online editions of the newspapers when the articles were new, and the versions I see now look OK. --orlady 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the WP:ANI discussion...--orlady 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone else, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#OTRS related assistance needed. GRBerry 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Given good sources, writing a new stub from scratch takes about half an hour. If necessary, history can be undeleted afterwards, although in this case it doesn't seem to be judicial to do so. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Good sources" can be difficult to find in this case. Objective information about WWASPS and its subsidiaries is hard to come by, and any information has a habit of disappearing (WWASPS is rumored to strong-arm the publishers of negative information, and when WWASPS facilities get a lot of negative publicity their names tend to suddenly change). If anyone is going to try to recreate the article, a list of the sources of the deleted article would be helpful. --orlady 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.-->
+====[[Simpleton (Oklahoma band)]]====
+:{{la|Simpleton (Oklahoma band)}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Simpleton (Oklahoma band)|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpleton (Oklahoma band)|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
+established notability for a local preformer [[User:Crazychris2704|Crazychris2704]] 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
+This artilce was deleted by NawlinWiki on March 7, 2007.  I believe the musical group, Simpleton, has established notability through local media coverage.  They are a rising music group based out of Central Oklahoma.  Listed on the wikipedia page were several newspaper and magazine articles ranging from July 2003 to March 2007.
 ====[[William_Sledd]]====