Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15

15 January 2013

Harry Dunn

Harry Dunn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No problem with the original deletion. However, it created a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, Harry Dunn (disambiguation). The now-red-linked base name Harry Dunn had fifty-odd incoming links, most or all of which intended the deleted article, so I could not simply move the disambiguation page to the base name. The deletion consensus was that the article did not meet the general notability guideline nor the football notability guideline. I re-created the article (moved to my user space) and added citations throughout the article that might meet the GNG, and checked with the deleting admin. After discussion, I moved the article back to the mainspace. An inaccurate speedy request was made, which claimed the article was speediable under G4 as a "substantially identical" repost of the deleted article. I contested it with the note that it was not substantially identical, and that the changes were made to address the GNG problem (the deletion reason), and also that the presence of the article benefits the encyclopedia in solving the problem of the malplaced disambiguation page and the incoming links to the base name. Discussion with the speedy-ing admin suggested a DRV (even though I don't think the original delete was incorrect). I think the speedy should undone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In order to help participants in this discussion to asses the situation, I will explain why how I came to delete the article, why I did so, and why I still think I was right to do so.

The article was deleted following an AfD discussion. The nominator has said both "No problem with the original deletion" and "I don't think the original delete was incorrect". However, the nominator found that this caused what she/he thought were problems, regarding redlinks and a disambiguation page. She/he proceeded to add references, evidently with the purpose of showing notability, and used that as justification for overturning the result of the deletion discussion. The article was then tagged for speedy deletion as a repost of an article deleted following a discussion, and I accordingly deleted it. It seems that the nominator is objecting to my deletion, on the grounds that the article deleted the second time was not "substantially identical" to the version that was deleted the first time.

Apart from adding some references, and a few details such as adding his date of birth, and three "citation needed" tags, the only difference was the addition of a paragraph beginning "He is sometimes confused with another long-standing Scarborough player called Harry Dunn". I do not think that constitutes evidence of notability or a substantial change to the article. So that anyone participating in this discussion can judge for themselves whether they agree with that account, the diff between the version deleted first time and teh version deelted the second time is here.

Turning to the added references, none of them, as cited, is to an online source, but I have managed to find online copies of three of them, and an excerpt from a fourth. One is a report in The Evening Chronicle about Tommy Cassidy, with a brief mention of Harry Dunn, consisting of one sentence plus a two-sentence quote from him. Another is an article with a two sentence mention of a different person called Harry Dunn, and a one sentence statement that the Harry Dunn who is the subject of the Wikipedia article had his name listed as Harry A. Dunn to disambiguate him, that being the only mention of him. The third is a five-sentence report on the fact that Harry Dunn had left a club he used to work for. The excerpt does not mention Harry Dunn, and, although he may be mentioned somewhere in the article excerpted, it is clear from the excerpt that he is certainly not the subject of the article, and it looks very unlikely that the whole article will contain substantial coverage of him. In fact, I can see no evidence of substantial coverage of the subject in any source, let alone multiple sources.

In view of the remarks made above about the fifty-odd incoming links and the disambiguation page, together with comments made elsewhere by the nominator, it looks very much as though the changes were made for the purpose of justifying restoring the article in order to avoid what the nominator saw as difficulties with the links and dab page, rather than because the subject seemed to be notable. However, regardless of the motivation in doing it, the issue is whether the restored article was a substantially different one from that which was deleted. Very simply, it wasn't. It was the same article, together with a few hastily collected references which do not establish notability and a handful of minor edits in an attempt to justify the claim that it was not substantially the same. It does nothing whatever to address the reasons given in the deletion discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis of the changes to the article and its new references. I am sure the community would be grateful if the article could now be made accessible for discussion. Thincat (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, as original nominator - sources dredged up seem to consist solely of extremelt cursory passing mentions in very parochial local media, I stand by my contention that he does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorese - Decision to delete was well placed. 50+ incoming links notwithstanding. The article is not Wikipedia material, and to be honest, some of the logic in favor of overturning seems quite convoluted to me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endore deletion - as the person who nominated the article under G4. As already stated, the sources listed are routine sports journalism, and by no means sufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Genius_Inside

Genius_Inside (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After discussion with one of the wikipedia administrator, I have made substantial improvements to Genius_Inside's page and believe all sources are now up-to-date and with solid references. Moreover, as one of the company in the project management software business, I do believe this page has an importance in this sector and in informing the users of project management softwares. At the beginning, the page was deleted because the administrator stated it did not "provide sufficient evidence that the company is notable" Rbernard84 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• The changes since deletion at afd. Maybe an encyclopedia article could be written on (not by) this company, but this will clearly never be it. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Rbernard84, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - writing about your own company is strongly discouraged. I also note that you use "we" rather than "I" and describe Genius Inside as "our page", are you familiar with our polices about Shared accounts and ownership of articles? Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment.Thryduulf, thank you for your comment. Indeed I am not a wikipedia expert, but I am the unique owner of this account. I have modified my text and will now use the correct wording. Also, I speak for all the persons in the project management field when I state that I believe this page about this company is of useful information to this sector. Thank you for your review.Rbernard84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - Decidion to delete was done properly, and was well considered. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers

Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AFD closed as delete despite numerically the decision going down the middle (7 keep, 5 delete [2 were weak delete], 2 merge). Lists of characters have been retained at AFD at the past (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alice Academy characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arcana Heart characters). The only way this page is different is that it doesn't have "List of" in the page title. I believe this deletion should be overturned to at least no consensus, as there were poor rationales on both sides, but no clear consensus to do anything. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse- I've read the closing admin's rationale and in my opinion it correctly summarizes the debate. Reyk _YO! 06:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Part of his rationale was because List of Power Rangers villains is at AFD after having been at DRV for similar reasons (a DRV he was aware of). And as many poor keeps there were in this AFD there were as many poor deletes. This is a no-consensus situation. Not a "closing admin casts the deciding vote" situation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand your position, but I disagree with it. Badgering endorsers is not going to help. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. I do not believe that an outright "delete" was the correct reading of this discussion as conensus did not appear to be established. Although having said that, both sides did have some poor rationales for the respective causes of action. Till 08:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. Having advocated deletion, I believe the closer was correct in giving those arguments more weight in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "keep" arguments can be summarized as WP:USEFUL, that it's a spin-off subarticle and that it lists (some) notable characters. However, these arguments do not address the principal arguments for deletion, which are grounded in WP:V, a core policy: first, that the article contained almost no sources, and second, that article topics (including list topics) must be notable as shown through coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:V#Notability and WP:LISTN).  Sandstein  09:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  What needs to be verified in the article? And I provided 8 scholastic sources that discussed this group of characters in some fashion. The only reason this page was singled out was because of the AFD on List of Power Rangers villains whose original author falsely assumed that the page was identical to this one, which also soured the original !votes on the AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment although technically Ryulong consulted the closing admin first, I kindly request next time that he/she check whether the admin in question is actively editing before stating that he/she has "given enough time". I would gladly have answered on my talk page, after finishing work and my post-structuralism exam at college. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  I apologize for having not waited longer, but I felt there were issues that needed to be addressed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Extended rationale from closing admin.

AFD is not a headcount, it is a discussion of the worthiness of one or more individual articles. The DRV nominator was one of several keep !voters in the discussion and, admittedly, gave the strongest argument. Some other !votes were... Rtkat3—WP:ITSUSEFUL, PortlandOregon97217—Just keep, followed by WP:NOHARM. Others were based in policy but failed to address the concerns of overlap brought up by the nominator. As I stated in the close, iff the other article is kept, merging from this one is still possible. The scope will need to be defined extra carefully, however.

And before someone launches "you didn't watch PW" at me... yes, I did. My brothers and I broke two beds trying to act out the show. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• These "concerns in overlap" were unfounded. MBisanz only put the page up for deletion because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains's original close as delete and because someone thought that the content of List of Power Rangers villains and this article were identical, when in fact the latter is a subset of the former. This was a problem I also brought up at the DRV that resulted in the relisting of the other article. And then people are faulting the content of the page when it is a list of characters and there's not much more that can be said of them other than character biographies and all this crap I found on Google Scholar in a search for "Rita Repulsa" ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and "Lord Zedd" ([10], [11]). So if the two fictional characters who were leaders of this group seem to be notable enough to be mentioned in major publications (child psychology it seems) why wouldn't the group that they led be notable enough to be given a list on this project?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Also if a merge is to happen, it should likely be at some page that is not List of Power Rangers villains but at some new list that covers all of the characters from the show so we can be rid of some of the shoddily written individual character biographies on each and every Power Ranger.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  WP:NOTINHERITED, for one. HB Jassin headed several magazines... doesn't mean all of them were notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  If the fictional characters (let this be A) in charge of other fictional characters (let this be B) are notable, why aren't B notable as a group alongside A?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Why are they? Also, why would we treat real and fictional organizations differently? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, I'm arguing more for coverage of the chairmen of the board (recurring characters but not the leaders) rather than the rank and file employees (the monsters of the week).—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn Consensus was to keep. Notable series, such as this one, have always had character lists for them. There are multiple villains on this list which are blue link, they having their own articles. Any list of significantly related things which has multiple items on it that have their own Wikipedia articles, should be kept. We just need to change a guideline page somewhere, or create a guideline for list articles to stop this debate from happening constantly. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse I was the nominator and did so pursuant to the close of a different AFD. This close appears to have been done at the appropriate time and was done following the process for assessing consensus of participants at the AFD. As such, I believe it should be endorsed. Also noting that the DRV requesting party gave the closing admin four hours to respond to inquiries before coming here, which seems insufficient. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse - As noted, normally lists of characters from notable works - even if there are no sources - are normally kept; however, arguably, sub-lists of such lists are not kept (eg "List of characters from Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" or "List of villains from the Power Rangers series" would likely be find, but just limiting it to the villains of one specific iteration would not be). There's a larger problem that the lists of various Power Rangers characters are all over the place - it doesn't help us that the show itself has umpteen million iterations with a new set of characters and villains each cycle. Given that there is so many and a lot of inconsistent approaches, it would probably be better that those involved with the Power Rangers articles look to normalize all their character lists articles. To that end, I'd support an overturn or at least userficition to give editors the ability to work with the material in this effort. But without that, I do endorse this close, agreeing with the closure in the shape of the discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn - Consensus seemed to be to keep, and at best no consensus was reached. I also feel that the keeps had more varied and policy based talking points. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, at best.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Res0rt

Last Res0rt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Okay. I nominated the page for deletion, and it did. After I nominated Schlock Mercenary for AFD, it got speedy-kept despite having only a small handful of reliable sources. I felt that this source was sufficient to argue notability for Last Res0rt, so I asked an admin to undelete the page. He did, but within 4 hours, he renominated it for a procedural AFD, where it got speedied via G4 despite two "keep" !votes. I feel this was an invalid, hasty move, and should at least get a proper discussion. It seems that webcomics are held to a lower standard, so getting any sort of attention at all is usually enough, and I feel the New Times SLO article linked here is sufficient, even though I did not believe so in the last AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As the closing administrator, I'd like to point out that G4 is a fairly bright line: Is the article a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion"? In this case, the answer was yes. The only thing that had changed was Ten Pound Hammer's opinion concerning one of the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Which is why I feel that the article needs a second look, not just a hasty deletion merely 4 hours after coming back to life. I, as the nominator, changed my opinion, and would like to see if consensus has changed with me, particularly in light of the Schlock Mercenary AFD. Did I mention I got attacked by several people on Twitter, including the author of Last Res0rt, for the Schlock AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse DRV is not to be used simply because you disagree with the outcome, after the fact included. This is the kind of behaviour that would be par for the course for a brand-new editor, but TPH should understand our procedures better than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• So I'm not allowed to change my mind, nor see if anyone agrees with my change of opinion? The "keep" by someone else in the second AFD is irrelevant? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first one ran for two weeks and garnered many comments less than a year ago. As far as I can tell, the subject has gained no significant notability in the interim. You want to undo consensus and have another bite at the apple simply because you changed your mind, apparently prompted because the author was mean to you on Twitter? Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Twitter fight is not by any means the only reason I reconsidered myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• You as nominator have no special powers. A dozen other people called for deletion, A lot more than most AFDs have comments on. What makes you so special that those 12 people should have their opinions thrown aside because you are sensitive about what is said about you on twitter? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CCC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The first AfD got the attention it did because TPH and I were running a little hot arguing over the validity of the sources in the first place. Don't say "a dozen other people happened to agree with you" when really most of those people weren't as invested in the article as TPH was in trying to delete it. Veled (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn (undelete and unclose the AfD). Most speedy deletions, G4 certainly, are for saving time where standard process is so obvious it would be a waste of time. They are not to be used to shut down discussion. Somebody arguing against deletion (the AfD shows two) means that the discussion is worthwhile. That said, the generic "Speedy overturn on the basis of a reasonable contest to a speedy deletion (except for some few exceptions)" applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD as a contested G4, albeit under unusual circumstances. And let's not attack the nominator, eh? Reyk _YO! 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. (G4 nominator). This is the very definition of a repost, exactly the same. The Schlock Mercenary afd is not relevent, it was kept due to Hugo nominatios, not because of the above source. This drv and the comment in the second afd seem to be trying to make a point about "lower standards" for webcomics. Suggestion Malik Shabazz deleted the article to shut down discusion is not helpfull (agf), especially after the about explaination for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 speedy and relist. Speedy deletion only applies when it is clear that the very strict criteria apply and a discussion would always result in a consensus to delete. When there is an ongoing deletion discussion it is very rarely acceptable to speedy delete. When that discussion includes one or more good faith recommendations for an action other than deletion, then speedy deletion cannot apply by definition, because it is not certain that the discussion will end in a consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The strict criteria applies. This is exacly the same as the article deleted at afd. A good faithed "i've changed my mind" does not overide the other dozen people who called for deletion. Restoring this to game the system is not a positive way to build a credible encyclopedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • In addition to the nominator there was also another user recommending a keep - the requirement that CSDs are applied only where a discussion would always end in delete is so fundamental that it applies to every criteria without needing to be mentioned. The nominator's rationale wasn't just "I've changed my mind" it was "Given changed circumstances [the keeping of a similar article], I think it is worth re-examining this." It is not gaming the system to have a second discussion, and in the absence of legal issues (and none were even suggested in either AfD) then having a deletion discussion does not harm. It is quite possible that the deletion discussion would have ended in delete, but there were good faith recommendations to keep made by established users meaning that the outcome of the discussion would depend on the evaluation of keep and delete arguments meaning that it is not eligible for speedy deletion. If you want to put it another, simpler way: Good faith recommendations to keep always trump the speedy deletion criteria for everything except confirmed legal problems (usually copyright violations) and WP:OFFICE actions. There were no legal issues and no office actions, therefore speedy deletion in the face of keep recommendations was incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse I think Malik Shabazz's rationale as closing admin is compelling. As someone who voted delete the first time, I don't see anything new that would change my vote. I don't know what to make of the off-wiki campaigning conversations. But I think that Starblind's comments above are getting a little too close to personal on a page that should be about cut-and-dried policies. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't ask TPH to undelete the page -- he did this on his own after I complained on Twitter with regards to the Schlock Mercenary AfD. In the absence of other evidence, I want to believe that he actually has had a change of heart. Veled (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn (recommend placement in Article Incubator) I believe that the comic is sufficiently notable, but insufficient time was allowed after the undelete to demonstrate this, hence the G4. As it seems that consensus for a Relist will not be reached, I propose that the deleted article for Last Res0rt be placed in the Article Incubator so that it can be adequately improved to meet WP:WEB. Sulucamas (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, hey! Never knew that existed. Veled (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - The article was a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a previously deleted version. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn (recommend placement in Article Incubator) I made no changes to the restored article because, quite honestly, no new acceptable sources have appeared in the time since its deletion (and I try to limit my edits on that article now to the addition of new sources as they're published, thanks to WP:COI). Considering that all it really needs is a good newspaper article (or three) to meet WP:WEB, I would prefer the article be taken into the Article Incubator until sources materialize. After all, if WP:N is the only issue with the article, I'd rather it be kept somewhere where it can be fixed rather than having to have these messy arguments over and over again about whether or not my next source is good enough. Veled (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)