Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dfrench (talk | contribs)
116 edits
Line 202: Line 202:


:By the way (responding to the comment about COI), this user also edits as two different anon-IPs: [[Special:Contributions/12.171.225.24|12.171.225.24]] and [[Special:Contributions/65.203.91.35|65.203.91.35]] [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
:By the way (responding to the comment about COI), this user also edits as two different anon-IPs: [[Special:Contributions/12.171.225.24|12.171.225.24]] and [[Special:Contributions/65.203.91.35|65.203.91.35]] [[User:Tedickey|Tedickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]]) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the comment made by [[User talk:Carlossuarez46]], perhaps there is a technical problem. The first line of the updated article contains the birthyear and birthplace. So either he is not viewing the latest version of the article, or there is a technical problem where he cannot see the latest version.

Revision as of 13:46, 13 March 2009

< 2009 March 10
2009 March 12 >

11 March 2009

Yvonne Bradley

Yvonne Bradley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

A deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley has been requested for the following reason(s):

  1. the closing admin Fritzpoll might have closed the discussion a little prematurely;
  2. there was not a clear consensus to delete and redirect; and,
  3. additional evidence is available on Yvonne Bradley's notability (eg the article she wrote for New Statesman magazine and Bradley's role in uncovering telegrams which point to MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed).

Also, Yvonne Bradley was mentioned in today's Prime Minister's Questions when Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, called for a judicial inquiry into her revelations of MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed.

Bradley might not be especially notable in the States but on this side of the pond she's a star!---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that the discussion was closed prematurely, in that there were insufficient opinions expressed to establish consensus? Since you are the creator of this article, I understand that you might be unhappy at the outcome. The evaluation of consensus by an administrator is not a head-counting exercise, it is also an evaluation of the relative strength of the arguments. The arguments in the discussion by those who favoured retention largely fell into the category of WP:ITSNOTABLE - no justification was given as to how the individual satisfied WP:BIO in light of the WP:ONEEVENT clause of our living persons policy, that the deletion guidelines for administrators require me to evaluate in cases like these. Given this, there was suggestion of recourse to the general notability guidelines for notability, but such arguments did not indicate how this article was able to overrule the notability exemptions within the general guideline. This is not my opinion - I do not apply my opinions to closes - but was the valid point suggested by those favouring deletion. On the balance of arguments, therefore, there was (in my analysis) a consensus for deletion. The redirect was a courtesy for usability.
As regards undeletion, there is a small problem. I have moved the entire deleted history of the article to Geo Swan's subpage. He assured me that he could make an unambiguously notable entry, which can then be returned to article space. My strong suggestion to you is to focus your efforts on improving this userspace article to the point where it demonstrates her notability beyond this single event. Provided it is not substantially similar to the deleted copy, you can then safely overwrite the redirect at the article page - but you'll need an admin to do it for WP:GFDL reasons. If there are additional sources, then the article may be able to demonstrate notability, in which case there is nothing for a deletion review to do.
Finally, in the interests of disclosure, and not that it matters, but I am a British citizen, and I live in England - I have no systematic bias, as I fear you may believe from your latter statement. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your essay is wrong. According to WP:DGFA: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.. It isn't just about discounting sockpuppets and the like - there is a judgement call to be made. Otherwise we'd just count up the votes - the community is meant to appoint admins on the basis that they trust their judgement - if you want this changed, this is the wrong forum Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My essay is perfectly correct: closers are supposed to implement the consensus, or if there's no consensus, close it as no consensus. The only judgment involved is deciding what the consensus is. In this case, the closer has mistakenly assessed as "delete" a discussion that was clearly not a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I closed according to what I percieved was a consensus. Can you be more explicit as to how you feel I made a mistake, based on my commentary at the top of this AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but it looks like I'm wasting my time, so I won't bother.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse closure. The decision was correct. No one has presented a single policy-based reason for keeping the article, and no one has presented a single policy-based reason for overturning the deletion. AFD closures are not supposed to count noses or the WP:ILIKEIT votes. There were no sources about Yvonne Bradley, who was one of several underling lawyers on a case, and whose role in the case was covered by half of a sentence in her client's article. Haseldine continues to WP:PUFF this subject; he hasn't shown anything that changes Bradley's lack of notability: he cites to one primary source written by the subject (and even there the host's URL title is telling: "Binyam Mohamed's lawyer" rather than "Yvonne Bradley"); and half of a sentence in a BBC article that does not support any claim that Bradley had any role in the revelation of MI5 telegrams, contrary to Haseldine's false claim to the contrary. How does adding the sentences "According to Mohamed's current lawyers, Bradley showed him some telegrams" and "Bradley wrote a 750-word article about her client" improve the article from Delete to Keep? I further note that Haseldine has already been disruptive with this article, including trying to overturn the deletion surreptitiously with edits like: [1] and [2]. THF (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to repeat a fundamental flaw I noticed in your original nomination, which you repeat here in this DRV. Nominating articles on notable topics due to perceived weaknesses in the current state of the article is counter-policy. If the topic itself merits coverage, but the article has problems, the recommended procedure is to state your concerns: state them on the talk page; apply a tag; or contact the contributor whose contributions triggered your concern. Policy recommends those with a concern over the article, rather than the topic, take these steps first, and reserve {{afd}} for a last resort, when these steps fail to bring an improvement. Most of your stated concerns are about the current state of the article. Maybe you did a good faith web search, so you could independently reach a conclusion as to the merits of the topic. But there is nothing in what you have written to indicate you did so. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I resent this repeated allegation of bad-faith nomination, which you know damn well not to be true. I systematically researched over 25 articles in the category that were alphabetized (often incorrectly) in the A-through-E range, nominated about half of them where there was nothing beyond the occasional passing quote or primary source available to every lawyer, tagged another eight or nine that looked like they could be salvaged, and left the others alone because they were passable. I even held off looking at other articles at your request so you could "userfy" and improve them, but if we're going to have bad-faith DRV lobbying and bad-faith accusations of bad faith instead of efforts to get articles up to par, I'm not sure why I am doing you the favor of avoiding nominating the other four dozen or so articles that flunk WP:BIO. THF (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not for the first time THF completely misrepresents Yvonne Bradley's role. The cited BBC article actually states: "The legal organisation Reprieve, which represents Mr Mohamed, said its client was shown the telegrams in Guantanamo Bay by his military lawyer Lieutenant Col Yvonne Bradley." It is clear from the BBC article that her role in uncovering the alleged MI5 collusion in the interrogation of Mohamed has been crucial. And her revelation has not only prompted calls by Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve for a judicial inquiry into the allegations and by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty for the matter to be referred to the police but, as stated above, she was mentioned at yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time. You can't get more notable than that!---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read the language you just copied and pasted before making a false accusation against me? How is "The legal organisation Reprieve, which represents Mr Mohamed, said its client was shown the telegrams in Guantanamo Bay by his military lawyer Lieutenant Col Yvonne Bradley." substantively different from "According to Mohamed's current lawyers, Bradley showed him some telegrams"? How is that a "critical role"? As for "You can't get more notable than that", well that's self-parody. THF (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious difference is that the BBC specified that these telegrams had revealed MI5 'collusion' and were not just "some" telegrams.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article doesn't say that Bradley had any role in the telegrams (which don't actually appear to show any wrongdoing, but WP:NOT#CHAT) beyond showing them to her client. THF (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but. No, but. It's OK, THF, you can have the last word.---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (1) Let's not split hairs about a close that is around 1.5 hours early. That could simply be the result of a time zone difference. (2) If I had closed I would've discounted the votes by JRP and Unionsoap for using invalid arguments. PJHaseldine's comments are borderline, since they assume meeting notable people confers notability and that being interviewed does as well (without going into the details of why they were interviewed. The combined assessments of TJRC and Freerangefrog and THF all supported coverage in context and in part this also supported keep arguments since it allows for her to still be covered. So I see no reason for the closing admin to do it any different than I would do it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn After the checking the page logs, it appears the closing admin first closed the debate as a redirect and later speedied the redirect as a G6. This meant that any history for a future merge of more material was lost (before he finally decided to userfy the history). Closing something as a redirect to an article where the subject is discussed in context so readers can find it is a fine close; deleting the resulting redirect outside your own decided close of a debate isn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the redirect took place because I was moving the material to a user-subpage for Geo Swan to work on per a request to my talk page. To preserve the history, and given his promise to bring it up to scratch, I thought this was the best way round. The redirect had to be deleted for me to get at the history - you'll notice I restored the redirect shortly afterwards Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for doing so. My preference remains to take further time to make the enhancements we discussed, and then ask you if you agree that the article can be restored to article space. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll shut up. I'm not awake enough to properly address this without messing up again. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD lasted the required time and close was a compromise close within discretion. History can be restored on request under the redirect as per the usual protocol. MBisanz talk 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD closed after reasonable time with a reasonable conclusion by the admin. The WP:BLP1E concern was never refuted and keep claims were based in "you are wrong" and "is notable" mentality. While I acknowledge that "not inherited" is an arguement to avoid, it is worthwhile to note that the subjects notability is entirely dependent on Benyam Mohammed and the associated trial. When the discussion on the subject in that article either strays from associated context or becomes a weight problem, this article should be recreated. "She's a star" is not an inclusion criteria in wikipedia, if it was, my niece would totally have an article. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. "Inherited" is an argument to avoid. "Not inherited" is a legitimate interpretation of the guideline. THF (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you're right. The phrasing confused me on AADD (not notable is not inherited either). My bad. I still don't really like it because notability can, of course, be inherited. It just doesn't confer notability in its own right. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Two 'noes' also now notified.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Redirect: Article seems like a rather thin coat to me; individual, out-of-context notability wasn't asserted. AFD process was followed well and redirect was mentioned as nom's original intention. Only one Keep !vote gave good supporting comments, and even that succumbed to a contextual slant. onebravemonkey 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While arguments ("This lawyer is notable...", "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO...") were made in favor of keep they did not really explain the basis of their arguments. Good closure. The section it was redirected to seems to cover the facts anyways. Chillum 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus,' which is the actual state of the matter. Consensus is determined not by counting heads in a mechanical sense, but by what amounts to the process of counting the support of sensible people. Very few people participated in the AfD--fewer than are participating in this review. I didn't myself, because I was overwhelmed by the flood of afds of articles on lawyers--if one prefers, one could word it as us all being overwhelmed by the flood of articles on lawyers. Most of them are--quite reasonably-- now redirected or merged by the people writing them, and we can reconsider the more notable, and she is among the more notable. But even if we do not overturn, i expect Geo swan will improve the article enough that it becomes acceptable. You know, this is all going to look very silly a few years from now, when everyone involved has written books and they all become historically notable, for their work in destroying or attempting to rescue the reputation of a nation. DGG (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they have books written about them and they become historically notable then they will certainly have an article. I won't feel silly for waiting either. As before I support Geo and others bringing the article up to standards, I gave a keep opinion on the MfD for the userfied version of this article. Chillum 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Closure was not premature. Of the three editors suggesting "Keep" only one, PJHaseltine, gave any reasons, and those concerns were addressed. PJHaseltine was not swayed by the argument, which is understandable, seeing as he is the article's creator, but that's to be expected. The point is that his arguments, and those against them, received a fair airing. The other two "Keep" suggestions gave only conclusory statements, with no basis for them: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO"; and "This lawyer is notable". In contrast, each of the three editors suggesting "Delete" provided bases for their positions. If this were an election, we wouldn't look at anything but the numbers; but it's not. With only the article's creator giving any reasoned basis for keeping, which was fully addressed, closure was appropriate. TJRC (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there have been no comments for more than a day and a half, a few hours don't matter. WP:BLP1E policy, and WP:BIO1E would both lead to a conclusion that we should not have an article - making FreeRangeFrog's argument contradict the support he claimed for it, and of zero to negative weight. Before the relevant AFD started content about Bradley was already in the appropriate merge target. So merging would not have been useful. Accordingly, endorse closure based on the strength of the arguments. I am aware that there is a userfied version, and if biographic sources about her appear we can consider again at that time - the "new evidence" above is not biographic sources, it is more evidence that BLP1E and BIO1E apply and that we should not have an article. GRBerry 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment immediately above seems to say no subject can have an article about them, that only covers their notable activities, when that article doesn't also include biographical material. By biographical material I assume GRBerry means details of the subject's birth, education, and career prior to and after their notable activities. This doesn't make sense to me. For some individuals who merit coverage those kinds of details may not be available. False Geber being an archetypical example of a very notable individual whose birth and education we know nothing about. I have encountered the argument that articles about individuals have to include details about the course of their lives. I wrote an essay in response: "False Geber" and what a biography should contain. When I wrote this essay we didn't even know, or have any meaningful guesses as to False Geber's name. FWIW I believe that the biographical details GRBerry asks for would be classified as "puffery" by THF's essay WP:PUFF. Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone tell me why the former Yvonne Bradley article redirects to Binyam Mohamed#Release and not to Binyam Mohamed#MI5 'collusion'?---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Geo Swan here -- the article was userified to my user space.
    • While I personally believe that the topic Yvonne Bradley merits coverage I thought it made sense to more fully incorporate the additional references I told the closing administrator about (...some of which are collected here...) into the article prior to considering moving it back to article space. Although I didn't agree with the closing administrator's conclusion I thought the approach that would be least likely to trigger controversy would be to incorporate more material into the article, and ask the closing administrator if they agreed that the article, with the enhancements could be restored to article space. This approach would also have saved the time and energy of everyone who has participated here. This remains my preferred choice, but I am going to offer arguments that this article belongs in article space, and that there were flaws in the nomination, because, if this DRV endorses the closure, and I then enhance the article, and the closing administrator authorizes restoration to article space, or there is a second DRV, I don't want anyone to question why I didn't advance arguments for the article's inclusion during its (first) DRV.
    • FWIW, I was not aware of the original {{afd}}.
    • My understanding of deletion policy is that if the closing administrator is satisfied that if a userified article has been sufficiently improved they can authorize its restoration to article space, without consuming the resources through a DRV.
    • My understanding of the deletion policy is that those weighing in at a deletion discussion should base their opinion on whether the topic merits coverage -- not on the state of the current article.
    • I have only participated in a few DRVs. In my first the discussion focused around whether a procedural error had been made. And when that disputed {{prod}} was overturned the administrator who closed the DRV promptly nominated the restored article for a full {{afd}}. I thought this meant that DRV was solely for reviewing whether {{afd}} had been conducted according to policy -- not to replay the discussion of the pros and cons whether the article merited inclusion. However subsequent DRV I have participated in have focused on the pros and cons of whether the article merited inclusion. So I am going to address both the procedural issues, and the merits of covering the topic.
    • I watch the BBC news at 6, and it provided extensive coverage of Ms Bradley, in the month or so preceding the recent release of her client back to the UK. She met with the Foreign Minister, and this was widely covered and discussed. I think that makes her notable.
    • Back in 2006 Ms Bradley faced a daunting catch-22. Binyam Mohammed didn't want the assistance of any US military lawyers. Yet she had been ordered to represent him, without regard to his wishes. If she obeyed orders she could lose her liscense to practice law. If she disobeyed her orders to represent him she faced contempt charges. This was extensively covered back in 2006. And some of this coverage focussed on Bradley -- not on her client or his military commission. I believe this establishes that WP:BLP1E does not apply.
    • FWIW I think the original nomination contained serious factual errors. They are, in order:
    1. As above, this is not "one event";
    2. The nomination cites WP:PUFF, an essay, drafted by the nominator, as if it represented a wide consensus. I don't see any attempt to establish consensus over some of the controversial claims in this essay, and I am mystified as to how it came to be place in WP space, as opposed to placement in the author's user space. This concerns me.
    3. As above, my understanding of deletion policy is that deletion discussions should not be about the flaws in the current state of the article, but rather on the merits of covering the topic. This nomination however is largely critical of the current state of the article. I regard this as a serious procedural problem.
    4. The nomination claims: "Bradley wasn't even the client's lead lawyer: that was Clive Stafford Smith." Bradley was the lead military attorney, I believe that this made her, officially, the lead attorney.
    5. The nomination makes comments about the Bradley's clients being barely notable. So what? Think Clarence Darrow or Alan Dershowitz -- some attorneys are more notable than their clients. Whether she merits coverage should be independent of the notability, or lack thereof, of her clients.
    6. The nomination contain criticisms based on claims of "redundancy", which I believe show a fundamental lack of understanding of how human beings find information. While duplicating paragraphs in related paragraphs is generally a mistake, due to maintenance burden, some small measure of redundancy is important, to provide context. We rely on that context/redundancy in order for us to determine which of the links in articles we need to follow. Without the context provided by a measured amount of redundancy we would have few or no clues as to which link lead to the information we were really interested in.
    • Returning to what I think is the best choice. I didn't agree with the closing administrator's conclusion, because I believe the available references show Bradley has independent notability, from multiple events. I didn't participate in the {{afd}}, so I directed some questions to the closing administrator, who agreed to userify the article for me. I would have preferred to add those additional references, then contact the closing administrator to see if they would agree to the article's restoration, and to have reserved DRV as a lsat resort if the closing adminstrator did not agree that the enhanced version merited restoration. I have placed arguments that this topic merits inclusion in the wikipedia because, if this DRV endorses the closure, and I then enhance the article, and the closing administrator authorizes restoration to article space, or there is a second DRV, I don't want anyone to question why I didn't advance arguments for the article's inclusion during its (first) DRV.
    • I haven't enhanced the userified article much. I haven't had the chance, because the person who nominated the Bradley article for deletion subsequently nominated for deletion a dozen articles I started shortly after the Bradley article was userified. Responding to a an {{afd}} can be time-consuming. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and there is no deadline. I did try to encourage PJHaseldine to help you improve the userfied content, but he lamentably dimissed my comments, and brought it here. Let's see how it goes - I suspect we can sort this without another full-on DRV if this one endorses my close Fritzpoll (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Lighting Designers

International Association of Lighting Designers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)


This group is an international professional organization for architectural lighting designers and incorporated at a 501(c)6 as an association, akin to the American Medical Association for doctors and the American Library Association for library professionals, meeting the requirements for notability for non-commercial companies as defined by wikipedia.

U.S. Department of Energy and International Association of Lighting Designers Partner to Improve Energy Efficiency in Lighting Systems

IALD is an internationally recognized organization comprising independent and esteemed professionals dedicated to the very highest standards in lighting design. DOE's collaboration with IALD further strengthens its commitment to developing innovative, energy-efficient lighting solutions.

Associations & Organizations, National Lighting Bureau

International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) Founded in 1969 and based in Chicago, Illinois, USA, IALD is an internationally recognized organization dedicated solely to he concerns of independent, professional lighting designers. The IALD strives to set the global standard for lighting design excellence by promoting the advancement and recognition of professional lighting designers. Value Lighting designers are a tremendous resource of innovative, practical and economically viable lighting solutions. They understand the role of lighting in architectural and interior design and utilize their extensive experience and knowledge of lighting equipment and systems to enhance and strengthen design.

Quick Google search shows 11,400 references[1], including several from journals, trade press, and industry sites.

Full disclosure : I am a member of this association, and have been asked to try and reinstate this page - I have typically edited lighting design-related industry pages in the past. Layingblames (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the deleting admin...this was deleted back in September. At the time, it consisted of a single sentence and a weblink to the organization's website. Editor has been advised on my talk page that the article, as it stood, showed no evidence of notability. As it was, it was essentially a promo piece. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Permit recreation see below speedy as A7 is wholly inappropriate for an article on an national level professional association. The original text --although longstanding--was a previously undetected copyvio, which cannot be tolerated. The appropriate course was to ask them to license it or rewrite it as a stub. An ed. chose to remove the copyvio, lieaving a very minimal stub, reading only: "International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) was founded in 1969 in Chicago Illinois USA "to set the global standard for lighting design excellence." IALD.,, and, having done it, nominated it for A7. The admin should have examined the history, seen there was a reasonable likelihood that the association were notable, and left it to be rewritten further. DGG (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG, taking care to restore only the non-violating sections. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with permitting recreation without undeleting as well. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion which does not prevent recreation. Remember, we are only reviewing whether the deletion was proper, and it clearly was. The quoted language by DGG, which was the content at deletion, is absolutely no claim of anything - it doesn't claim to be a national organization, it just has "International Association" in its name. Big deal. Any dry cleaners with "International" in its corporate name has a claim to avoid speedy dleetion -- and it of course would be setting the global standard of stiff collar and stain-free blouse excellence. WP:BOLLOCKS. Recreate it, if you have claim to notability, the language above gives you a start, but as for the correctness of the deletion: 100%. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the relevance of the suggested analogy. But, re-examining, actually the original content,quite apart from copyvio, does come fairly close to what i would consider a G11, spam--as so often is the case for transplanted webpages . So the best course would be to simple rewrite a new article, this time according to our our FAQ on businesses and other organisations. DGG (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Rasputin Richards

Randy Rasputin Richards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • The author is now notable, thanks to his interview in a printed magazine article of a major periodical in Louisiana, and his third appearance in a major newspaper (although more the former than the later - I only include it as part of the body of evidence that continues to accumulate). I was informed last time at least a full page interview was required for notability, and that when notability occurred I could put the article back. References are noted in the article, but I can paste them here for convenience: http://www.inregister.com:8080/rrserver/browser?title=/InRegister/InRegisterFeb09 and http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/38438679.html?index=1&c=y respectively. On the first link, be sure to wait until the magazine browser loads (it takes a minute) so you can page through the magazine. Randy Richards appears on page 20 in a full page article, and in the index in a photo on page 1. In case anyone asks, "Rasputin" is his middle name. Thank you. Malakai Joe (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting editor directed me here by saying "I would urge you to post a review at WP:DRV when you think that the article(s) is (are) finally ready for republication." and then after some discussion "However, it is indeed a full-page interview, so it may persuade some people in a DRV." In the interest of full disclosure, you can review the discusion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram#Randy_Richards
  • Endorse deletion AfD was a mess, with pleny of badly-behaved socks/meats coming apparently from Richards himself, but it did reach a very form consensus to delete. The Advocate mention was actually considered at the AfD, so it isn't anything new, and the first is neither enough to build an article around nor enough to overturn a very solid AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm waiting for the meat puppets and sock puppets to show up any minute. Anyway, Starblind, are you saying that once an article has been deleted that its HARDER to get it reinstated? With all due respect, this latest magazine interview is EXACTLY the type of thing I was told would be required to get the article reinstated. Would you please outline the new standards so I can avoid this sort of thing in the future? I don't want to waste people's time with deletion review after deletion review, if the bar has been raised. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. The Advocate mention is new, it is from February 3rd of 2009. You're probably thinking of the other two Advocate newspaper articles about him. Apparently even three times in the newspaper is not enough. I hope he reaches a critical mass soon. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The book Dreadmire has lost its license as the D20 3.5 license was revoked. The author has failed to update many of the issues of slander and misdirection. The goal of the article is based on the need to maintain an advertising presence for continued sales. And the author has noted his happiness at having the article deleted as noted here at the D&D wikia site: http://dnd.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Randy_Richards. The article fails to clarify any points from the article and the photo op was an accident, he showed up uninvited and in uniform and happened to get his picture in the paper.Quode (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OGL is not revocable, although the new GSL is incompatible with it. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The d20 STL was published at the same time as the OGL, and was used to license WotC trademarked "d20 logo" in order to signify compatibility with other d20 System products, most notably D&D 3rd Edition. The license was revoked on June 6th 2008 upon the launch of the D&D 4th Edition Game System License (GSL), although publishers using the license were permitted a 6-month sell-off period for products in channel still bearing the logo. Quode (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit a rewrite The original AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Richards. I would say relist, except a considerably more compact and less promotional article would have a better chance. DGG (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to do that. Recommendations are welcome. Malakai Joe (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Starblind. I have very little time for people who choose to recreate articles under a new title to get around deletion and/or salting. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any increase in notability here from the previous incarnations; the magazine article looks to be local color, and I don't actually see his name mentioned in that Advocate article linked above (and I read it three times to try and find it). Keep deleted, and suggest that if consensus doesn't emerge for a restore here that the submitting editor use userspace next time instead of pushing directly into article space with a new draft. And, as Stifle notes, using a new article name to get around previous deletions is not on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper article only mentions him in the photograph caption. I only included it for completeness. The jist of the notability is his appearance in a major local magazine in a full page interview. Are you saying notability has to be world wide? Malakai Joe (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a page in a local publication confers notability, I've created literally hundreds of notable people in my career. I may be in a minority (and get that sense lately), but I feel that a couple of local references aren't enough to prove that a person meets the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Local notability is much harder for non-locals to judge, than, say, vs. national-notability, or vs. worldwide-notability. A good example is Mr. Bingle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bingle. Mr. Bingle is not known very far outside of New Orleans, and barely known inside it anymore. Mr. Bingle is a local department store's marketing character. I'm not saying the character is not notable, but that he is notable only locally, like Randy Richards. How do you define local notability? I guess I am looking for numbers -- 5 newspaper/magazine articles? 10? 25? What size distribution does the newspaper/magazine have to possess? Etc. If I can get a solid number, I can come back when the threshold is reached. Malakai Joe (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, though, is that the character you reference has been discussed in other media, and described as a "New Orleans icon for 50 years" in other media - there are several stories in newspapers from around the country about how it was a centrepiece of New Orleans post-Katrina. (The article needs more references, mind you, but the character definitely shows notability out of that.) I really suggest just leaving it be for now, if this discussion comes out as endorsing the delete; if coverage extends outside of the local area, or if it continues for multiple articles over time in his local area, then resubmit. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is where things get vague and confusing for me. He's already had coverage outside his local area, and he's been in multiple articles over time (10+ years, not 50+ like Mr. Bingle). So how many more articles, and how much more time? Not trying to be difficult here, just seeking concrete information (annoying as it may be) to avoid future deletes. Thanks for your advice. Malakai Joe (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you did rename the Dreadmire article as well, care to explain? Quode (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dreadmire links in the article were from another wiki where its entry is "Dreadmire Book" and the text links still say "Dreadmire". I clicked one of those "Dreadmire" links to create the article without realizing I was bypassing anything. In the future I'll know not to do that. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SO MUCH. Malakai Joe (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Aarbakke

Magnus Aarbakke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After having people whine and complain about my "improper" closures of AFD's after 4.5 days, I present an improper closure after just two hours. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, discussion must ensue for five days, sans extreme cases, which this is not one of. This needs to be overturned and remain at AFD for at least five days, per policy, regardless of what the closing administrator cares is the outcome. seicer | talk | contribs 15:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed the AfD as Speedy keep following our standard guidelines. I don't know whether the nomination was a bad faith one, but the nominator, himself an admin, certainly should have known better. This is an article about a Supreme Court Justice, and the reference was his entry in a published encyclopedia. I'm not sure what point the nom was trying to make, but the question was not whether or not the article should be kept. The question was how much time do we need to waste collecting Keep votes for a first-tier national figure until this charade is closed. Two hours was more than enough. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should assume good faith. The article is a complete waste and has not been substantially improved upon since 2008. It does not establish notability outside of an official position, and the article requires either a rewrite, expansion and cleanup, or removal. That said, you have no authority to decide to close an AFD after two hours; if I can't get away with it after 4.5 days, then you shouldn't be able to, either. seicer | talk | contribs 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you being serious? "It does not establish notability outside of an official position"?? Wait, so.... no notability outside of the position that makes him clearly and obviously notable? Well, if that's your argument, Obama isn't notable outside of the fact that he's a major politician, so are you going to go tag that one for deletion too? The sky's blueness isn't blue outside of all the blue parts. If you ignore the parts that prove you wrong you can claim to never be wrong but you're still wrong just the same. Speedy Keeps are valid per WP:SNOWBALL. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Snowball does not trump policy. At least, that's what I was told when I closed several snowball'ed AFD's in the past. I love the wild interpretations of policies and guidelines every time this issue comes up. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD should perhaps not have been closed so early, but keep is the right result and I endorse the result, although not the timing. Things are getting a little POINTy, I venture. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I opened up the discussion at WP:AN for consideration of an amendment to the policy and guideline pages that have conflicting closure dates. While policy mandates five days, the guideline does not, and that has caused conflict in the past. seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep closing it so quickly was probably bad form, but realistically speaking it could have been open a full week and the result was still inevitable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep We can quibble about the length of time it was open, but that AFD would never have turned into a delete close.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this is what SNOW is meant for. A bad faith nomination can be closed because it's bad faith, but a good faith nomination like this one which is simply misguided in terms of the motivation needs a SNOWBALL close to close it early. Agree that waiting for a few more !votes might have been a good idea but lets face it, a supreme court justice who served for eight years is pretty notable. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Keep but I share the concerns above that this was closed far too quickly. If nothing else, allowing additional voices to be heard at AfD helps establish/reinforce consensus going forward and is useful as a test or reconfirmation of the community's notability standards, even in blindingly obvious instances such as this one. Eusebeus (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep per WP:COMMONSENSE, but with a gentle piscine caress for the closer for an inappropriately fast close and a horribly inadequate closure summary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. As previously stated, the gentleman's notability is pretty much without question. Keeping the afd open for a full 5 days would have been pointless. As an aside, I'd like to ask S Marshall to reimburse me for a new keyboard, since the current one is now ruined thanks to the phrase "gentle piscine caress". Umbralcorax (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Perhaps it should have run for a few addition hours, but there's no point in overturning Owen's close when the ultimate result was clear. WP:COMMON. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Member of the supreme court of Norway is so obviously notable that the close was correct. perfectly good use for speedy keep. The nomination said "No major notability established outside of a Supreme Court Justice". None is necessary, and I wonder at the nomination. But a speedy keep does normally need to have something more said in the deletion summary. DGG (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia should strive to at least equal the coverage of regular encyclopedias. Since the nominator's reasoning was based on a faulty premise and it was unlikely to get another result. Next time, however, a close like that needs a far more detailed rationale. = Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep but I think more care should have been made in closing. This may be hindsight talking, but a brief note to the nom explaining the early close may have been a better idea as it would have clarified the thought behind it, rather than leave the edit summary to bear the brunt. onebravemonkey 09:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy keep. Covered in a paper encyclopedia. We shouldn't need to go through nonsense like this again. If a person has an article in a print encyclopedia, they are encyclopedic. End of discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep. Personally, I'd have let it run a bit longer, but the right call was made. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. This one was so obvious, I didn't even click the edit button when I saw the AFD come up, so I apologize for not providing that third speedy keep vote. I'll assume the nomination is in good faith, but at a minimum, it was a sloppy waste of other editors' time, and the early closure was a blessing, if one undone by this DRV. THF (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. There is no 5-day rule when commonsense dictates otherwise. For those who think otherwise, nominations such as these are the perfect counterpoint: a justice of the Norwegian Supreme Court not notable? yeah, right... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Schultz and It's Yoga

Larry Schultz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It's Yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First I will apologize if I am a newbie. If I am not following protocol, please advise.

I feel these items were deleted without a current consensus at the time of deletion. Both of these articles were questioned on notability. Larry Schultz AfD was initially closed for lack of consensus by another editor, and then subsequently deleted. It's Yoga delete comments all came in long before i added proper citations.

After initial delete comments, I added more citations and it appears those citations at least exceed many of the other wikipedia pages. Schultz's article I think had 4 or more citations. These citations included San Francisco Chronicle and Yoga Journal. Yoga Journal is the primary yoga trade magazine and cites Schultz as the creator of Power Yoga, which right now is just forwarded to Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. Personally I dont agree with that, but that is a whole separate issue. All of these citations were eventually added to the articles, but after a few people had already added delete comments.

In summary, this yoga guru and his school are very notable in the yoga world and outside. Schultz is quoted as the yoga teacher to celebrities like Grateful Dead and Christy Turlington, as the founder of power yoga, and head of a worldwide franchised yoga network. (All of this was hopefully cited properly at the time of deletion, but not at the time the initial delete comments came in.)

Comments?

PS- I object to the first comment by an admin that incorrectly listed me as an Single purpose account. Sorry I didnt read about SPA's before I created a username with yoga in it before i went on to create a page about one of my yoga teachers. I believe this comment, which appears intended to imply that both articles were biased, intentionally biased the discussion. Is there something in wiki's guidelines that states that a user cannot edit or create an article relating to a subject of which he has used their product before? Jtyoga (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to be some confusion over the Larry Schultz deletion - I only read the one for It's Yoga, and if you read it, it appeared to me that the nominator was nominating both articles, and this seemed reflected in the discussion. I will comment on my close specifically in due course, but there may be a procedural point to discuss here as well Fritzpoll (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana L. French

Dana L. French (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I got into an editing war with User:Tedickey#Dana_L._French over his lack of reviewing additions and updates to the article before reverting to a previous version. Rather than actually reviewing the article an recognizing the improvments, sources, and references that were added, he simply reverted to a previous version and refused to review the modifications. Part of his argument is that I did not supply reliable sources. If he had actually reviewed the sources he would have seen they included the International Standards Organization (as in ISO9000) and IBM. I am not sure you can get any more reliable than these sources.

I am requesting the article be restored and that Tedickey be blocked from editing this page again. After reviewing his talk page, he seems to have a large number of problems where he has not actually reviewed the articles he edits.

Additionally, even if he did not like the updated article, it was far better than the previous version. Why would he revert to previous version? Why would he not comment on the updated article instead? It makes not sense, but then neither do any of his arguments. Dfrench (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously deleted at articles for deletion all be it some time ago, so it seems to have been deleted as a recreation of deleted material, that is it hasn't substantially addressed the reason for original deletion. Looking at the cached version the "sourceing" to IBM et al doesn't seem to be sourcing at all, it seems to be pointing to articles written by D French [3][4], The "ISO" page [5] which is just someones links to ISO standards and doesn't mention D French at all. Or another IBM page where [6] where D French is listed as a contact. I didn't see one which was about D French, so I guess there isn't that much interest to write about the person which would be the normal standard for biographical articles. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment: The page was deleted as having "same material deleted already per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana French" by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. The original AfD closed in early 2006. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 07:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment 2: to the nom, I noticed a discussion on the talk page about whether articles written by the subject were WP:RS. This is generally not the case as it conflicts with the requirement that these should be "third party". Please have a look at WP:OR and WP:COI. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 07:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. Sources need to be third party if they're used to establish notability, but selfpublished sources can be used for non-contentious material as long as the article doesn't rely on such sources entirely. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the context of RS in AfD and DRV is mostly notability so that was the perspective I was adressing this from. I agree that it would be a bit weird, for example, to refuse self-published text used to source a statement about an opinion. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Restore as substantially different from what was previously deleted. We are not in a position to prohibit a user from editing the page, however; you may wish to look to WP:3O or WP:DR for that issue. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Stifles comments on content. If the content is substantially different from the deleted content then G4 (implicitly claimed) doesn't apply. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - clear consensus as a vanity page that does not aspire to the standard elaborated at WP:BIO or, relatedly, WP:CORP. The RS issues, while also suspiciously peacocky (as noted above), are in this case a canard. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ISO reference lists multiple references to Dana French and Mt Xia: Business Continuity Expert, Business Continuity Methodology. Dfrench (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been observed, the article was completely rewritten, reformatted, restyled, and referenced as was requested. The point of contention is why these updates were reverted? And then when a complaint was registered about the updates being reverted, the article was deleted. The whole thing reeks of some sort of power play by User:Tedickey to display his mighty power because someone dared to question his irrefutable editing decisions. I would recommend the wikipedia administrators review the User:Tedickey talk page to count the number of instances of this sort of thing. He/She seems to have a problem with this.Dfrench (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus by any wiki admins as a vanity page, you (Eusebeus) are the only one asserting this, and up to this point have had no input to the discussion. Dfrench (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and optionally list for AfD. I'm at not certain about the use of membership on a standards committee alone as sufficient notability, but I gather it's only one of several factors, so let's have it discussed again. DGG (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
For the sake of discussion purposes, it would be useful to have that "ISO" url here. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what was deleted now was different than what was different then, and what was deleted now still fails WP:BIO, so while technically G4 may not apply, the article if restored cannot stand. I have particular issue with the COI of the author - for a biography this is skimpy on details, like where's the birthdate and birthplace of this supposedly notable individual? CEO of corporations is a weasel-worded claim to notability - pick up any newspaper and you can get a corporation for a few hundred bucks, for a few grand you can be the CEO of many. Does that mean that any one can buy notability here for a few grand? Andy Warhol would be pleased with that notion. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "corporations" indeed do appear to be small partnerships with no more than a handful of people involved (usually the same partner...). It's misleading. Tedickey (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way (responding to the comment about COI), this user also edits as two different anon-IPs: 12.171.225.24 and 65.203.91.35 Tedickey (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the comment made by User talk:Carlossuarez46, perhaps there is a technical problem. The first line of the updated article contains the birthyear and birthplace. So either he is not viewing the latest version of the article, or there is a technical problem where he cannot see the latest version.

  1. ^ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS289US289&q=%22international+association+of+Lighting+Designers%22&btnG=Search
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11&oldid=276969169"