Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 23: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:17, 23 April 2007

< April 22	Deletion review archives: 2007 April	April 24 >

23 April 2007

Blabbermouth.net

What is Blabbermouth.net? it is a news source for information on heavy metal bands, such as album dates, sales, interviews, touring information visited by thousands each and everyday. Who owns Blabbermouth? the record company Roadrunner Records. It was deleted because apparently "no notability asserted (a7)" yet musicians from bands such as Slayer, KISS, The Haunted, Kittie have commented on the website and was mentioned on The Howard Stern Show. The article did not go through a AFD nor had any clean-up tags. It also features CD and DVD reviews by the staff at Roadrunner Records and it's linked on many album pages, i don't see any cause for a speedy deletion M3tal H3ad 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In these cases, providing actual citations in this discussion can help inform the discussion immensely. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources below and [1]. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Leuko under CSD A7. And in the text, there was no notability asserted. The article makes no mention of the userbase that it has (except for "fans can post comments on selected articles") and no reference to show that it was the subject of an article by reliable sources were put up. The article was largely unsourced, and written in a totally unencyclopedic (and not always NPOV) manner. On a google search, most of the hits are either blogs or forums. Thats what prompted me to do a hit the delete button, and my rationale stands even now as I endorse deletion. --soum (0_o) 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read it before you deleted it? Did you read any of the links from interview excerpts with musicians commenting about the site? Did you read the interview with the creator who created it? The source is the website itself. You didn't add any clean-up tags, although i can clean it up if it is restored. M3tal H3ad 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. And comments like "Most recently was the tendency for Disturbed/David Draiman and KISS/Gene Simmons-related articles to be posted. These articles receive numerous scathing comments from Blabbermouth's users, who almost all have a strong dislike for Disturbed and KISS. This is very similar to the frequent articles on Fred Durst that would appear in 2003, which the users would often reply to in disgust", "These are a big draw for many of Blabbermouth's visitors, as many Blabbermouth users regard these articles and the comments that follow them as amusing", "The popularity of Blabbermouth.net is thought to be sending a bad image about metal and rock fans, but it is a select online community, so others advise not to take it seriously. Some of Blabbermouth.net's users have taken it so far as to criticize specific Blabbermouth.net users en masse" in absense of a reference smell original research to me. As for interviews, I read a few of them, but could not find links to their original source to verify them.

As for cleanup, you can anytime create a cleaned up version of the article. If you want the old text, any admin would retrieve the text and move it to userspace for you to work on.

Anyways, I have put forth my rationale. I would wait for others to comment now. --soum (0_o) 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it had a lot of crap in it, but some warning would be nice so these things can be fixed... Rather then delete it. As for original sources many are magazine excerpts [2] or from Myspace [3] . M3tal H3ad 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source said here [4] source here [5] source here with Metallica [6] source here [7] heres the interview the creator mentioning Howard Stern [8] It's notable - it just needs cleanup. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. Of course the notability of the site may be put in doubt, but I believe a speedy-deletion is too excessive — especially since some notability was asserted. I strongly advice properly listing this at AfD. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeopards

The Jeopards (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Jeopards (German band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also The Jeopards (band) and The Jeopards (German band). Deleted and, in some places, salted repeatedly as an A7 although most versions had clear assertions of notability. Improper to speedy them per A7, should have gone to AfD. Overturn and list. badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Four deletions at three separate titles by three separate admins, and guess what? All were created by the same user, Cruzenstern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And this addresses what, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That several others concur with calling it an A7. Some sources and/or published albums would help. Endorse. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Brass tacks. My googling didn't find verifiable links. Many many listings on clearinghouses, many not English-language (so difficult for me, at least, to read), several myspace hits, some non-English forums, some tour date listings. No reviews. Got any, Jeff? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, appears to be a valid A7. --Core desat 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The version of The Jeopards Radiant deleted on March 20 is as clear an A7 as a band article can possibly be. The three versions (one per title) deleted by JzG and Irishguy are very different from that but are nearly identical to each other; they mention tv appearances, which is enough that I'd've prodded it instead. (Which clearly would have been a complete waste of time, given that the article's creator continued to repost it despite the title being salted.) There's nothing to suggest they'd pass WP:MUSIC, though, and the only sources given in the article are the band's myspace page and this, which has all of two sentences. While I don't speak Czech, that's not a whole lot to build an article out of. Vaguely endorse unless someone comes up with a reason to overturn that isn't just process for process's sake. —Cryptic 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears

Believe it or not, this is a real game for the Game Boy Color. That aside, the article deletion is odd, the log says "{{db-empty}}", but then goes on to list the content (and what at least looks to be a good start). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time. Contents of the article was: Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time. This debate is already longer than that. Feel free to create a genuine article on this, which establishes notability by reference to multiple independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Obviously a poor speedy. If it's such a "waste of time," simply undelete it instead of endorsing a misuse of speedy deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, instead of wasting everyone's time, just get on and make an article which contains an assertion of notability, which the deleted article did not. The deleted text is of no value in creating an encyclopaedia article. Just get on and do it. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a game for one of the most popular gaming systems ever is an assertion, not that A7 would apply to games anyway. Just go on and undelete it if you feel this review is a waste of time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, Guy, you and other admins who make a habit of speedying in contravention of stated policy might wish to change the policy and see if you get consensus, or failing that, maybe consider actually following consensus (i.e. the de facto consensus of the policies as they actually stand)? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted by A7. It was deleted by A3. Please recheck WP:CSD. --Core desat 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as valid A3 deletion, without prejudice. Redirected for now. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a valid A3. A3 has nothing to do with notability. --Core desat 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This seemed like a fine substub and I disagree it contained "no content whatsoever" (A3). Saying that it is a game for Game Boy Color and that it placed on a notable publication's list of worst games are both clearly content. — brighterorange (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it was deleted for being empty, and those two things were the only things in the article, what's the problem with just recreating the article with sources? The redirect isn't protected. --Core desat 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Notable enough for an article per this. I would like the history restored, but the content improved, since I found reliablke sources. Rllemsheep 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the deletion. This is getting more notable. That list came from September 2006, I'm sure it's been mentioned in news sources even more since then. Mynglestine 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ====[[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]====
 Notable enough for an article per [[User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1|this]]. I would like the history restored, but the content improved, since I found reliablke sources. [[User:Rllemsheep|Rllemsheep]] 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Overturn''' the deletion. This is getting more notable. That list came from September 2006, I'm sure it's been mentioned in news sources even more since then. [[User:Mynglestine|Mynglestine]] 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)