Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pan Dan (talk | contribs)
8,093 edits
→[[:Barnraisers]]: what I mean by "drive-by" (again)
Pan Dan (talk | contribs)
8,093 edits
Line 89: Line 89:
::::::*Oh, I wasn't commenting on this particular article, but on your comment on how to assess consensus (which has now gone all-meta and should probably be kept off this DRV). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Oh, I wasn't commenting on this particular article, but on your comment on how to assess consensus (which has now gone all-meta and should probably be kept off this DRV). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*You said that AfD participants should judge an article on its current merits. The gist of my response was that some delete opiners in this AfD failed to measure up even to that (relatively low) standard. (How is that not relevant to this DRV?) [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*You said that AfD participants should judge an article on its current merits. The gist of my response was that some delete opiners in this AfD failed to measure up even to that (relatively low) standard. (How is that not relevant to this DRV?) [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I am slightly disturbed by the assertion that un-interested parties should not be involved in an AfD, after all if I happen on an article and think it has no merits then I would PROD it, if that PROD were removed then I would AfD it, and I regularly scan AfD to check to see if any articles up for deletion merit keeping. SPAs are almost always interested parties, whether it be to delete or keep, if a number of people look at an article and, having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject, decide it is not worth keeping then surely this is consensus, and those who seem to have a vested interest in the article (like the creator) need to accept the majority. But saying that "drive-by" editor's opinions should be disregarded leaves all AfDs open to being stacked by single interest SPAs. This article was correctly deleted, and should return to that state. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*I am slightly disturbed by the assertion that un-interested parties should not be involved in an AfD, after all if I happen on an article and think it has no merits then I would PROD it, if that PROD were removed then I would AfD it, and I regularly scan AfD to check to see if any articles up for deletion merit keeping. SPAs are almost always interested parties, whether it be to delete or keep, if a number of people look at an article and, having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject, decide it is not worth keeping then surely this is consensus, and those who seem to have a vested interest in the article (like the creator) need to accept the majority. But saying that "drive-by" editor's opinions should be disregarded leaves all AfDs open to being stacked by single interest SPAs. This article was correctly deleted, and should return to that state. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You are arguing against a straw man. Please, please, please read the above comments more carefully, especially this one: {{quote|:::*I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." ('''I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors [like me] should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources'''. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)}}. As an example, note that I consider myself an "uninterested, uninvolved" participant but certainly not a "drive-by" one, because I did examine the sources. I hope this clarifies things. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*You are arguing against a straw man. Please, please, please read the above comments more carefully, especially this one: {{quote|:::*I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." ('''I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors [like me] should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources'''. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)}}. As an example, note that I consider myself an "uninterested, uninvolved" participant but certainly not a "drive-by" one, because I did examine the sources. I hope this clarifies things. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Are we all looking at the same article!?! Every statement in the article is referenced and each reference leads directly to the newspaper or magazine article that was cited. There are also several links to other Wikipedia entries. Plus my point wasn't that other flimsy articles exist so why not this well-documented one, it was that other flimsy articles are protected by stub labels because they were made by editors. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the reasons for deletion. I am beginning to think logic and truth are useless in the "Through the Looking Glass" world of Wikipedia. [[User:Emerson1975|Emerson1975]] 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Are we all looking at the same article!?! Every statement in the article is referenced and each reference leads directly to the newspaper or magazine article that was cited. There are also several links to other Wikipedia entries. Plus my point wasn't that other flimsy articles exist so why not this well-documented one, it was that other flimsy articles are protected by stub labels because they were made by editors. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the reasons for deletion. I am beginning to think logic and truth are useless in the "Through the Looking Glass" world of Wikipedia. [[User:Emerson1975|Emerson1975]] 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Revision as of 20:34, 15 July 2007

< July 12 Deletion review archives: 2007 July July 14 >

13 July 2007

Pownce

Pownce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This has been deleted by AfD, has had a DRV which clearly indicated the consensus was to endorse deletion, but it got undeleted anyway. The article has three references: one is to the site's website itself and two are just passing mentions of the site. And based on the Wired article, Pownce appears to be in a closed beta (at least as of less than three weeks ago). There is nothing in this article that even implies notability save for the person who started it. Undeletion was improper, it should be deleted again. Corvus cornix 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a redirect to the social networking websites "# (cur) (last) 13:01, 10 July 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs | block) (36 bytes) (for now #REDIRECT Social network service; it is a social network site that I am seeing on the news, but I agree we should wait and see if the site does much once it goes "alpha live")." The restoration was done by someone else, listed at here: "14:20, 10 July 2007 Fuzheado (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Pownce" (38 revisions restored: obviously notable, article in BusinessWeek)." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Zscout, I misread the history. Corvus cornix 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, it happens. Anyways, relist due to the new information presented. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist. This article has never actually gone through a full afd; it should. No reason for a second DRV. Chick Bowen 01:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This has new info: the Buisness week citation, now in the article, which is non-trivial. List it on AfD if you like, it shouldn't be deleted as a recreation. Also, the AfD should not be clsoed early on this one. DES (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no need to relist -- have you all lost all common sense? A web site mentioned prominently in Business Week and Silicon Valley publications is a speedy keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, we're not a magazine or newspaper, "mentioned in Business Week" is a good reason to consider again, but by no means a reason to speedy keep. And the fame or not of the founder has absolutely no bearing on whether we should keep the article or not, I'm not getting that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as the books of a notable author, or the albums of a notable band, are normally themselves notable, the buisness projects of a highly notable investor are more likely to be notable than those of an unknown. And it was more than a mentuion, it was the focus of a multi-page article in BW, I think that counts as "non-trivial coverage by an independant source" DES (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting is optional by definition... you don't need a DRV for that. But as much fun as it is to delete an article on some website, there seems to be way more than just the Business Week source [1]. --W.marsh 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, Fuzheado's undeletion was perfectly proper. Don't relist and don't redelete. Picaroon (Talk) 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted per common sense.  Grue  13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is (was) an article about a child, now 3 years old, who developed meningococcal septicaemia aged six months, which led to her having all four limbs amputated, and who was not expected to survive, yet she did. The article was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow and again by User:Swatjester with the comments "WP:BLP and WP:NOT", by which, I believe, they meant that the publicity from having such an article in our encyclopedia would be painful or harmful to the child, her parents, and other living persons mentioned in the article. However, I believe those two fine administrators were either unaware of or did not have the time to look at (SJ says he doesn't even now), http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/, the public web page maintained and regularly updated by the baby's parents which tells the child's story, with photos and videos, including a television appearance, provides a specific link to search Google for others, maintains a trust raising funds for the child, asks companies to sponsor specific projects, and thanks contributors, so apparently the trust is successful. In short, it seems that the parents believe that additional publicity for the child isn't a bad thing, but a good thing, in fact it helps them provide for the child's non-negligible expenses. They aren't ashamed of their daughter's handicap, as much as they are proud of the child's achievements in overcoming it. I don't think the intent of WP:BLP is for us to think we are wiser than they and protect them from publicity in spite of themselves. For what it's worth, I do believe the child is sufficiently notable to have an article due to multiple independent and continuing news and documentary coverage (see that Google link for example), but that part can be discussed at a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if people like, I am merely addressing the WP:BLP speedy deletion reason here. BTW, this was mentioned in a certain larger arbitration case which got somewhat heated, but I hope can be avoided here, so this discussion not be equally heated. Let's talk about the article, not the editors involved. Could everyone try really hard? AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion The grounds by which this is speediable under WP:BLP seems somewhat questionable, but I'd say it's a reasonably valid A7. It's a sad case and it's wonderful that she didn't die, but making a medical recovery against the odds and at a young age doesn't necessarily mean an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I went on too long about the BLP then, and not enough about the notability, sorry. Did you miss the part where I wrote she has been covered by newspapers [2], television [3], and a documentary [4], over the course of all three years of her life? "public face of the meningococcal campaign - 2006" "fourth set of new limbs - 2005" "disease ravages angel - 2004" Her story is a big deal in the NZ medical community.[5] There were 4 references in the deleted article, dated 2004-2006. AFD debate or BLP deletion perhaps, but I can't imagine this as a speedy deletion for no assertion of notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge, it looks like a news story to me, and those only go as full articles over here, but it could serve as great material in the article about the disease, and perhaps in articles about child surgery. I really don't see the BLP concern, though, there's no indication whatsoever that the family is averse to or hurt by publicity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and discuss at afd. it does not meetthe conditions for speedy as non-notable A7 because it asserts notable, nor for BLp, per Seraohimblade. Therefore it should be discussed at Afd where the questions raised above can be decided by the community. this is not the place for the discussion- DR is not a substitute for AFD. DGG (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per DGG. DES (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this is not a biography it's a case history, mention it at the article for the disease if you like but this is really just another tabloid piece. Guy (Help!) 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP is clear that individuals only notable for a particular incident are unlikely to be notable enough for their own article. This person is only notable because of a childhood illness.... The biographic article should stay deleted. As adding material to the disease article is independent of the existence of this article, there's no need to worry about merging in this discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnraisers

Barnraisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After the AFD this was recreated twice. The authors appear to be attempting a DRV given the tag at the top of the article but failed to list it, so I’m doing it for them. But don’t worry, this is not one of those “procedural listings.” I do think the administrator who closed the AFD came to the wrong conclusion.

First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight.

I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as closer. Following the additional sources, the opining was actually 3 to 1 in favour of deletion per failing WP:BAND. There were a total of two editors plus the creator of the article who argued for retention. There were many many more who argued in favour of deletion. The "multiple reliable 3rd party sources" cited by the few "keep"ers were pretty sketchy, and the band has had no releases to support passing WP:BAND. Neil ╦ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank Neil ╦ for his comments but perhaps he should re-read category WP:Band which clearly states that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria listed. As stated on multiple occassions, The Barnraisers clearly meet points 1 and 7, therefore the fact that this band has yet to release any material is irrelevant. Also with regard to the 3rd party sources not being reliable please refer to User:Emerson1975's comments on Talk:Barnraisers regarding the credibility of the references cited. Also, the so called 'many, many more who argued in favour of deletion' failed to cite adequate reasons for doing so. See Pan Dan's comment above.Dajbow 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Pretty close call given that there are a couple of sources, but the sources are both local. This just doesn't seem like a noteworthy band to me at this point. NawlinWiki 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again. Nothing in WP:Band states that sources can't be from well established local sources. This just stresses further that the band does in fact meet criteria number 7 in WP:Band. Also, please note that there are multiple sources, not just a couple as mentioned by NawlinWiki, including a live radio interview and further review articles.Dajbow 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:BAND states that a band is notable if it meets "any one" of the listed criteria. The band has indeed "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" such as "newspaper articles" and "magazine articles". And as those cited articles demonstrate the band has met criterion 7 which states the band "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". It seems reasonable that if becoming representative of a "local scene of a city" is grounds for notability then a newspaper (The Wilmington Star-News) or magazine (Encore Magazine) serving the readership of that city and the surrounding eight counties would demonstrate a legitimate claim to reliability. Emerson1975 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum Newspaper states "Most nations have at least one newspaper that circulates throughout the whole country: a national newspaper, as contrasted with a local newspaper serving a city or region. In the United States and Canada, there are few truly national newspapers". Is it to be assumed that all Wikipedia articles must rely solely on the "few truly national newspapers" that circulate in the United States? Also, I would suggest NawlinWiki take a look at Chalkdust which lists as its only two sources The Anguillian which even if it were read by everyone in Anguilla would reach only 13,500 people and Caribbean Beat for which no distribution numbers could be found and has been in print since 1992, seven years less than Encore Magazine. Emerson1975 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this is not AfD redux. The article is mainly trivia, and then a list of In The Press which seems like trying to justify the article. The Bluegrass wikilink at the top takes you to a disambig page rather than the correct topic, the external links include a myspace page and there is a youtube video listed. The AfD was a majority to 6 to 3, and I see no reason to overturn the closing admins descision. Darrenhusted 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've trimmed it down to make it conform to the correct format for bands, but the In The Press section still need to be integrated in to the article rather than forming a list. Darrenhusted 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and remove them, no page should list Myspace or Youtube as they are not reliable sources. I always delete them. Darrenhusted 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from removing external links. You are in no position to do so or comment on the reliability of myspace or YouTube. External links offer the reader alternative sites to find out more about a particular subject and are not used as references or indeed sources. I feel you fail to understand the basic difference between references and external links.Dajbow 23:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that youtube is a copyright violation, and that myspace is not a RS. No pages should have myspace links, and unless you can show you own and waive the copyright for the youtube clip then you should leave them off. I would work on improving the main body of the article rather then fighting a war over youtube and myspace, both of which are no more than linkspam, and the only place they should be listed as external links is on the articles for youtube and myspace. And this is really not the place for this discussion. Darrenhusted 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "desire" to keep the article, Steve (Stephen) , is an attempt to battle the hypocrisy that has come to light in the process of its deletion. As I have stated several times, WP:BAND states that an article about a band must meet any one of the listed criteria. And I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending that it doesn't say that. The band indisputably satisfies criteria 1 and 7, at least. I am also shocked that the users who endorse deletion are doing so based on arguments that they have ignored in articles that they have created, and then have applied a "stub" notice to protect their articles from scrutiny. In short, Steve (Stephen) , it's the principle of the thing. Emerson1975 15:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete, the close was proper on its face, and consensus was unarguable regardless of how well or not the band actually meets WP:BAND. This is not AfD part deux. — Coren (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? I can see why you'd want to discount SPA or socks, but most AfD discussion is borne out of "drive-by" editor. You actually want uninvolved editors chiming in: if the only people who contribute are those who followed the link from the article, then you will unfailingly get a very biased discussion. — Coren (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." (I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes and no. There is an argument to be made that an article should be clearly notable enough that a cursory glance to the article and sources is sufficient to establish it. If I stumble on an AfD for an author, for instance, whose article talks only about an "upcoming" book, and which only has a blog and a press release as sources, I don't think there's a reason for me to start doing in-depth research beyond a quick google. The article should have had better sources/claims in the first place, or at the very least the contributors should vigorously defend the article in the AfD (and with better rationales than WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT). I've never hesitated to switch a !vote around when someone brings in new information, but as a rule the article should be judged on its current merits, not on what it could hypothetically be. — Coren (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD participants didn't have to look for sources themselves in this case. The article already cited two articles in 3rd party publications whose subject was the band. It was possible to reach the conclusion, as 17Drew did, that those sources are not enough for a neutral Wikipedia article. But 17Drew was the only delete opiner (after the 2nd source was added to the article) who gave any indication at all that he looked at these sources. Pan Dan 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I wasn't commenting on this particular article, but on your comment on how to assess consensus (which has now gone all-meta and should probably be kept off this DRV). — Coren (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that AfD participants should judge an article on its current merits. The gist of my response was that some delete opiners in this AfD failed to measure up even to that (relatively low) standard. (How is that not relevant to this DRV?) Pan Dan 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am slightly disturbed by the assertion that un-interested parties should not be involved in an AfD, after all if I happen on an article and think it has no merits then I would PROD it, if that PROD were removed then I would AfD it, and I regularly scan AfD to check to see if any articles up for deletion merit keeping. SPAs are almost always interested parties, whether it be to delete or keep, if a number of people look at an article and, having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject, decide it is not worth keeping then surely this is consensus, and those who seem to have a vested interest in the article (like the creator) need to accept the majority. But saying that "drive-by" editor's opinions should be disregarded leaves all AfDs open to being stacked by single interest SPAs. This article was correctly deleted, and should return to that state. Darrenhusted 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are arguing against a straw man. Please, please, please read the above comments more carefully, especially this one:

    :::*I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." (I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors [like me] should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    . As an example, note that I consider myself an "uninterested, uninvolved" participant but certainly not a "drive-by" one, because I did examine the sources. I hope this clarifies things. Pan Dan 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we all looking at the same article!?! Every statement in the article is referenced and each reference leads directly to the newspaper or magazine article that was cited. There are also several links to other Wikipedia entries. Plus my point wasn't that other flimsy articles exist so why not this well-documented one, it was that other flimsy articles are protected by stub labels because they were made by editors. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the reasons for deletion. I am beginning to think logic and truth are useless in the "Through the Looking Glass" world of Wikipedia. Emerson1975 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obesanes

Obesanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion unless you actually have any evidence this isn't a hoax. I see none: [6]. --W.marsh 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion When a town has has no Google hits and doesn't show up on maps of the area, it's almost certainly a hoax. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion was in-process, reasonable, and supported by policy. An opposite conclusion might also have been reasonable, and i might have opted for a keep had I noticed the AfD, but this isn't supposed to be AfD part 2, and I see no errors of process here. One sentence is hardly a major loss. If additional information can be found, preferably with sources, this could be recreated -- it has not been salted. DES (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the onus of verifiability lies squarely on the editors of the article, not the closing admin (or AfD contributors). — Coren (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor

Crimson Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 3 actually, including the nominator. In my opinion, three unopposed delete votes is pretty much consensus to delete. If this fails, I will happily restore everything and start a third AfD to gain better consensus. —Anas talk? 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The nom would have us restore a non-notable article on a technicality and the idea that there's a quorum at AFD. We're not a bureaucracy. Is there any evidence to contradict the strong 2nd AFD nomination? I note that strong AFD noms tend to result in less participation, as no one really can refute them, and if the nom says it all a lot of people don't want to just say "delete per nom". --W.marsh 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per lack of reasoning. AfD has no quorum, and 2 votes (3 counting the nom) counts as consensus. Besides, while their votes may have been weak, their reasoning was strong and grounded in policy (non-notability and lack of reliable sources). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; "unopposed" is about as strong a consensus as you can get! I might have chosen to relist to garner stronger numbers, but the closure was correct. — Coren (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story

Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime_South

Anime_South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since the article the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

  1. ^ Sherman, Fraser (November 16, 2005), "Emerald Coast's first "anime" festival begins Friday" (PDF), The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ Delahanty, Patrick (2007-07-09), AnimeCons.com: Convention Schedule, retrieved 2007-07-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ Fandino, Daniel (2005-11-03), An Interview with the chairman of Anime South, retrieved 2007-07-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. ^ ""The Anime South Show Part One"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. November 13, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); Check |serieslink= value (help); Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |episodelink= and |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ ""Finally, The Other Anime South Show!!!"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. December 3, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); Check |serieslink= value (help); Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |episodelink= and |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ "NexTag". “Hilton Sandestin Beach, Golf Resort & Spa in Destin, FL”. NexTag.com. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  7. ^ Maboroshi (2005-11-19). "Anime South 2005". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ Tomecek, Nick (November 5, 2006), "Animenia", Northwest Florida Daily News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  9. ^ Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Anime draws hundreds to Sandestin", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  10. ^ "Things to do", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 2, 2006 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  11. ^ Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Cartoon voices step into the spotlight", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  12. ^ Holt, Keri (November 15, 2006), "Anime fans up to speed on dating scene", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  13. ^ Maboroshi (2006-11-04). "Anime South 2006". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ "Weekend Guide", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 3, 2006 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  15. ^ "Anime South 2007". AnimeSouth.com. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

-Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - sources seem to be trivial mentions that do not establish non-local interest in the event. Furthermore, there are WP:COI issues (as noted) - and also be wary of the fact that you seem to be a good-faith single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a public relations service; there are other ways to promote your event. - Chardish 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People really need to tone down the COI stuff. We get it, it's there, but the guy still has a right to contribute. COI is something to keep in mind, not to beat someone to death about. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. We need to take COI seriously now rather than later: WP must be, firstly, a source of reliable and unbiased information, a mission obviously compromised if editsors write on subjects with which they have COI. We're now having some problems with coprorate COI as well, even from some fairly large companies one would expect to be above that sort of thing. As WP continues to become popular and attract press attention, COI is a problem which will only get worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having a tough time swallowing the method of thought that says the only way a directly related party in an article can contribute to Wikipedia is through issuing a press release, or somesuch. Original research is one thing...RCHM 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Nothing out procedure here. Eusebeus 15:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that this article meets all WP:COI guidelines. It is a very neutral article, and it is newsworthy, as seen by the sources given. There are 5 verified separate published news articles on this event. No other anime convention article on Wikipedia is as well-sourced. -Animesouth 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn

- I'm concerned the veracity of this article's existance is being at least partly clouded by past interpersonal issues between users shown in various comments left, and would request more parties look at the picture in here. I see lots of badfaith presumptions executing here when I lurk around other articles' history sections and edit summaries, both by Animesouth(which I've openly criticised the behavior myself) and many other users as well. This seems like it's still leftover remnants from wether or not Anime_South was to be included in the List of anime conventions.

-This deletion seems peculiar in the face of some other anime conventions that still have articles and are strikingly similar. Some other users, such as Monocrat voiced similar concerns during the FIRST deletion back in January. Since then, similarly written articles for anime conventions continue to exist.

-If there's COI in the edits made by Animesouth, fine, revert them if so necessary. But I don't see a COI in the article's original creation. And (with respect to other anime convention articles) comparatively speaking, I see no notability problems with the last iteration of the article. The only thing I saw that should be removed is some things edited by Animesouth which are just too far into original research, and weak citations like blogs. Lets actually get into specifics. Below I shall state what I think needs to go as of last entry before deletion:

  1. 15 self referenced to the subject of the article, not the best source for a cite which should ideally be 3rd parties.
  2. 13 is a photo gallery, NOT an article or a reference.
  3. 8 is just a HORRIBLE image, but also is a footnote, not an article.
  4. 6 is nothing more than a link advertising services, and the section that references it Partnerships should be trimmed accordingly.
  5. 5 and #4 should go being only blog entries.
  6. 1 also should go as its nothing more than a pdf file of locked text, not an image record of some kind.

-Also, all remaining references being used as citations that are being hosted by Anime_South itself on their domain lack any kind of link on their own webpage which hampers the veracity of using them as citations. There isn't any information or linking in the NEWS section that discusses these on their webpage, or an IN THE PRESS section, which leads one to think those citations are only being hosted for Wikipedia's benefit. That narrows the scope of the cites usability significantly.

-Let me reiterate, I see no reason this article should be deleted especially considering the establishment of OTHER anime convention articles which have not or never been nominated for deletion in line with the reasons listed on Anime_South's first deletion. But I have no problem recognising that Animesouth's edits and contributions should be held with the highest of scrutiny to WP:COI. RCHM 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loserz

Loserz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question.

The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:

In this page's defense, I'd like to point to the fact that there is a webcomic section. This is a popular comic and it deserves a page to explain about it's origins, characters, plot and creator. It is no less than comics like Control Alt Delete, VG cats and Penny Arcade who still have pages on Wikipedia.

This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:

a7 nonnotable webcomic, no sources

As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Loriendark also posted this on the talk page of the aforementioned article:

This page was posted for speedy deletion by someone who clearly does not understand the Webcomic section, is infact.. for webcomics. He did not give reason for its deletion. Could not backup why it was deleted and why other comic pages still exist. This is not about destroying an entire section, it is about improving Wikipedia as a whole. Not taking from it. This is utterly a disgrace.

—Kurykh 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Loserz comics themselves are hosted here after an issue with site host:http://loserzcomic.comicgenesis.com/
  • Loserz is recognised by:
  • Endorse deletion no new information to overturn AfD, article was unreferenced and would be deletable under A7. Also, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was under construction and will have references. As I posted above. It is not an advertisement for Loserz, simply reference for all those who want to know more about the characters and plotline as well as the creator. I'm sorry, I don't believe you're looking at the precedent here. Loriendark 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lori[reply]
  • Boy, the history here was convoluted at first glance, so I broke it down:
    • 2005-September 2006: Article created and grew organically
    • 2 September 2006: 1st AFD closed as "no consensus" by Xyrael
    • 10 September 2006: DRV sends it back to AFD
    • 15 September 2006: Second AFD closed as "delete" by Xoloz
    • 20 September 2006: Article recreated, then speedy deleted and WP:SALTed by Lucky 6:9
    • 12 July 2007: Article \recreated and speedy deleted by NawlinWiki.
  • So what deletion is actually being challenged here? The DRV Nom, such as it is, presents no real argument. The article needs sources towards meeting WP:WEB, not obviously invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. So endorse deletion for now pending actual arguments/evidence. No offense, Kurykh, but couldn't you have looked into this before bringing it into DRV? It's convoluted at first but once you figure out the essence of the complaint, there's really no credible argument for undeletion yet... this could have been told to the petitioner without the time of a DRV. --W.marsh 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, what would be needed for an article are real, reliable sources, not Comixpedia or the like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion decision, but there's an article that could exist here in future; if the article was under construction then construct it in your namespace before bringing it here and asking for the okay to move it back into articlespace. Neil ╦ 08:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, I'm new here, but I've done a bit of research both before and after putting the article back up- I think that the fan base, the number of other artists (Josh Lesnick of Go Girly and CuteWendy, notably) who respect and refer to Mr. Schoenek, the 25th best Webcomic of All Time rating, and the generally well-known nature of Loserz in the Webcomic community justifies leaving it up in its current incarnation including several references and external links, including the link to its rating at 25th best webcomic of all time- while Loserz may have more of a cult following than the mass appeal of some other webcomics, you will find few people who have been webcomic readers for a long time and have not come across Erik Schoenek's work. Article's previous incarnation lacked sources, but my version includes verifiable sources and references for notability. Saydrah 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems as though Wiki has it in for "Cult" status comics. Yet the comic "Something Positive" has just as cult a following and has a page here. Why axe the Loserz wiki page? It's being brought up to the standards of the rules, it's just taking a little time, I mean the page was only put up two freaking days ago, since then it's been given references and source links. Honestly now, why rush to delete? Give it two months. If it still doesn't meet the rules word for word as they've been laid out in the wiki rule book then delete it. I mean christ, even in the didgital age this stuff takes time. We're not all Wiki-editing masters you know.

Foomartini 07:59, 14 July 2007

  • Endorse deletion and salt, the first AfD was stacked with SPAs, the second AfD was conclusive, the two speedy deletes were correct, this second DRV should not be happening for an article already deleted three times. And once again we are in a situation where the Keep editors are treating this like AfDx3, ther has been nothing wrong with the deletions, this is not the second bite of the apple. And the "something positive" argument is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and has no place in a DRV. Darrenhusted 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_13&oldid=144856201"