Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 22

July 22

Angry Nintendo Nerd

During the debate [1] for keeping the Angry Nintendo Nerd somebody closed it because he thought those who were debating on whether to keep the article or not were sockpuppets. They based their decision on the actions of a few new people who came on here to save the article and not on the merit of the argument. My last comment wasn't addressed and it was clear they didn't want to bother debating it in depth any more because they didn't think it was worth their time. The sockpuppet argument didn't apply because I wasn't using any and I don't understand why my comments get thrown out because of the actions of others. I see below a thousand google hits is an argument to keep an article whereas he had 22,300. If you go to the page you can see their concern with these "sockpuppets" far outweighs their concern for whether the article should stand. --Richard Cane 21:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Arguments are not conclusions. None of the arguments given for keeping are grounded in what Wikipedia is. Endorse Deletion --Improv 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Musa Cooper

Speedily deleted twice by User:Danny and User:Deltabeignet [2] for being non-notable then protected from recreation by User:Tony Sidaway[3]. The subject was a top 12 contestant on the very popular So You Think You Can Dance and gets nearly 1000 hits on Google [4]. At the very least, this should be taken to AfD. Aren't I Obscure? 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion This looks like it should go to AfD, because of the appearance on So You Think You Can Dance . I would note that it wasn't deleted by Tony, he only tagged it with {{deletedpage}} and protected it. It was actually last deleted by Danny and previously by Deltabeignet. - TigerShark 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right. I corrected my statement above. Aren't I Obscure? 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion If deletion was based on notability, this person far exceeds the bar. Wjhonson 20:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is a guideline, it is not a policy. Am I right? Wjhonson 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - If they eventually do something apart from being contestant on a TV show, perhaps that'll be worth an article. For now, they're not notable and arn't even a footnote in history. --Improv 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be a discussion about the notability, though? Personally, I believe that a finalist (and one of the most popular contestants) on a widely-viewed TV show deserves an article. Other people may disagree. This seems like a case for Afd, not speedy deletion. What's the harm in listing it there? Aren't I Obscure? 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, the point of this review is not to generally decide whether the article should be deleted, but whether the correct process was followed. This was deleted as a speedy, so we should ensure that it matched the criteria for speedy deletion. The criteria used was A7: Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages which permits the deletion of an article which is "about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" and further specifies that only articles where there is "no remotely plausible assertion of notability" should be speedy deleted - otherwise they should be sent to AfD. I suggest that being on a TV talent show means that there is at least a "plausible assertion of notability", and that it should therefore go to AfD. Cheers TigerShark 22:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It's just like being a participant on Jeopardy. --Improv 00:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles seems to strongly support undeletion and being sent to AfD. For example, it states "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." While Musa Cooper may not be considered notable by everyone, there's certainly a remote chance of notability. The policy also states "Though it is written fairly broadly, this criterion is mainly intended to deal with vanity articles created by their subjects or by people personally known to them. which is not the case here. Aren't I Obscure? 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. There are many other articles for contestants for this show, and even a category: Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants. IMHO, there's a clear case for notability, though an AfD discussion might still be worthwhile. But speedy deletion was definitely not appropriate. --Elonka 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per TigerShark. Especially overturn the protection, as no administrative action with a logged reason of "crap"[5] should be upheld on this or any other wiki. Vadder 23:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted--This is insane. Are we going to have every participant on American Idol too? How about every participant on The Price Is Righ? and Jeopardy? Can this article ever be expanded more than saying he was a contestant? Can it ever become a feature article? Will we even know, 20 years from now, if he is alive or dead? There is absolutely no reason to keep an article like this. Danny 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So You Think You Can Dance has 20 finalists per season (and one season per year). We're not exactly talking about contestant articles overunning the wiki. This isn't like game shows which may have hundreds of contestants per year, most of whom only appear once. I'm still having a very difficult time understanding why an AfD discussion is not appropriate in this situation. It's obviously not a clear-cut case and not criteria allows for deletion simply because it may not become a featured article or he may not be famous 20 years from now. Aren't I Obscure? 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Process says that this needs to be overturned and sent to AfD. But I'm not sure that process would result in the Right Outcome. I suggest that if it goes to AfD that the whole category and all in it go with it too, but I think Keep Deleted is where I'd go. But then I've been getting more rouge lately. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why does speedy deletion criteria even exist if it isn't going to be followed? AfD is for when situations aren't clear-cut. Restoring this article for a few days while an AfD runs its course causes no harm at all. Aren't I Obscure? 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'd love to see some evidence that Musa Cooper is a hip hop dancer who was on the second season of the FOX reality show, So You Think You Can Dance meets our notability guidelines on people. Even though this is deletion review, and the notability isn't really the question, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this deletion. Jude (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion Thank goodness Wikipedia has no pages, so our notability standards aren't as high as Britannica's. The Price is Right is a silly comparison, as is Jeopardy, because of the sheer number of contestants. There is no serious violation, so speedy delete is OBVIOUSLY the wrong course. There is serious disagreement, so reinstate and let it go through AfD. --Tdslappy 01:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Corona Regis

Corona Regis was set for deletion and deleted within an hour of its creation and before it was deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkodner05 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Deleted valid CSD on just created micronation, db-club Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Google search for "corona regis" +micronation = zero results. --Centauri 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society

Overturn the deletion of the Mega Society article, on the grounds of procedural error. There were two problems I had with the deletion process and result.

• 90%+ of the discussion was concerned with Notability whereas the deletion guidelines clearly state the grounds for deletion are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:COPY, none of which were in much doubt. This shouldn't have been a problem in itself since the closing admin is meant to carefully weigh the arguments, pros and cons, and ignore irrelevant issues. But this isn't what happened ....

• When I enquired of the closing admin, Jaranda, for his reasoning, I found that, in the absence of a consensus, Jaranda had merely performed a head count tally of the established, non-anons and deleted accordingly. This is in clear violation of the following:

deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. - Wikipedia:Deletion policy

To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".

My contributions to the AfD would have been very different had I realised that I was only going to be counted in a vote. I'm sure other people would have behaved differently as well.

I should add that I do not blame Jaranda for his course of action: the AfD was long and tedious to follow --furthermore I understand that he was just following "usual practice". However procedure has been violated here, and very likely in numerous other deletion processes. The local problem can be addressed by an overturn; the more general problem needs addressing at a higher level. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. If nothing else, the principle of "when in doubt, don't delete" has been broken here. GregorB 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Brian64.12.117.5 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) I think this deletion appeal raises important issues whose scope is far greater than the article in question. Here are some comments, slightly edited, that I made during the deletion debate that show why:

This deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator who must decide this case. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case.My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons. NOTICE. As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. HEARING The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. REASONS If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve

Some people have told me that Wikipedia works through consensus and not rigid procedure and rules. This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle.

• Endorse. Notability is considered to be an inference from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since the issue under dispute was the fairly subjective one of the notability of the subject, neither side's arguments significantly defeated the other's, and a majority of established editors seemed to favour deletion, the admin was perfectly correct in his actions. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, deciding by majority voting is violation of procedure:

To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

What we have here is evidence of a widespread misunderstanding of policy, even amongst admins. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

QED. Since in this case neither argument significantly bested the other. Therefore, the consensus of established users was adopted. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A "majority" is not a "consensus". --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Article violated all three main policies: WP:V (could not verify legitimacy of group; group admitted it was impossible to select at that level by standardized means in contrast to how they portrayed themselves in article); WP:NPOV (advert; unverified claims); and WP:OR (material presented on "high-end testing" never before published in psychometric journal). Also, nn per nom. DaturaS 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Response shows a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy of the sort that bedevilled the AfD. These are all debatable /inaccurate criticisms of the society, not of its reporting on Wikipedia . --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I was referring the way the organization was presented in the article, which is why I endorse closure. That the group does seems to suffer these problems as well may be beside the point but are, IMO, contributory. DaturaS 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A presentational issue can be dealt with on the talk page, not by a heavy-handed deletion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AFD I closed the original, close AFD, I followed Northenglish mainly while closing it and discounted new users Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relisting would achieve -- I think everyone has offered their opinions sufficiently about the article, and would probably be quite weary at the thought of opening that can of worms again... What we need now is for a new admin who's prepared to wade through the original AfD and then this DRV, seeing that due process is followed as per the guidelines, rather than as it is usually practiced. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure - Not notable. Closure was valid. Deletion is about judgement and argument, and while notability is not written in stone, it is a common element in the judgement people make to delete things. --Improv 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, deletion based on notability is "usual practice", but that is one of my original points -- "usual practice" and "procedure" seemed to have parted company awhile ago (and not just for this article). --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion - Mega Society gets 14 thousand google hits. That far exceeds the bar for notability. Strong Overturn. Wjhonson 22:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per coverage in The Wall Street Journal (Graham, Ellen (April 9, 1992). "For minds of Mega, the Mensa test is a real no-brainer") and elsewhere. Wjhonson, you might want to weigh in at the deletion review for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe—it gets even more Google hits (16,800 for me). Tim Smith 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox article?

How come the Userbox article was deleted? I'm kind of a n00b, so don't yell at me for not knowing. --momo 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Leave as-is [6] Userboxes aren't encyclopedia content, they're things you find on the user pages of encyclopedia editors. We try to maintain a strict seperation between the "encyclopedia" and "all the nasty stuff that goes on in the background that helps people make the encyclopedia." Userboxes are part of the latter. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cluster Resources, Inc.

Deletion review is probably not the right place to put this but I'm not sure where is:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cluster Resources, Inc.

closed (correctly) deleting the article, but the dependent entries Moab Grid Suite (product of the spammer, redirecting to the deleted article) and Image:Cluereshq.jpg (photo of the spammer's headquarters, unfortunately not including GPS targeting coordinates) should also be deleted. There was also a bunch of linkspam inserted into other articles that I cleaned up most of, but I can't delete the above, and I'd rather not leave any remnants around.

Related article Maui Cluster Scheduler now has its own AfD. Hmm, TORQUE Resource Manager may need one too. These are actual articles rather than redirects, so I guess they need discussion.

Thanks. -- Phr (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Moab Grid Suite meets WP:CSD#R1 (redirect to nonexistant page) and has been tagged as such. I have no idea about the image, but it looks like it'll be deleted for missing copyright status in the next day or two anyway. I'd just take the TORQUE article to AfD or maybe prod it, it's not really a DRV issue. BryanG^(talk) 09:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis

After DRV's previous decision to overturn the keep result in the AfD for Kitty May Ellis and delete the article, the article's primary composer reposted the content at Kittie May Ellis. Judging the content substantially similar, I speedy deleted this as a G4 repost, and protected both pages, in an effort to get this matter resolved through a new appeal to DRV. The article's composer has taken exception to this deletion, leading to a long discussion on our respective talk pages regarding the reasons his article was ultimately considered not verifiable.

He presents the following points below, affixed with his signature. I have posted this DRV for his ease. Xoloz 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• The opinion of an editor who has no knowledge of a source, as it whether it is a WP:RS should not be the basis for deleting an article. A grading of a source as a WP:RS should be based on other WP:RSs, not on editors opinions. If an editor feels that a source is not a WP:RS they should obtain a citation which states that. If during an Afd or Review, there are opinions stating that something is not a WP:RS the closing admin should disregard those *unless* the poster can confirm their opinion using a WP:RS.
• A newspaper reporter, reporting events, that he/she was not an eye-witness to, should be considered a secondary, published and WP:RS
• Extracts of government documents, published by third-parties should be considered as secondary, published, WP:RS.
• This article was deleted based on a claim of non-verifiability, without any attempt being made to determine whether the sources were actually verifiable. The mere fact that some sources are hard to verify, should not preclude their being used if they are the only or most pertinent sources available for the task.
• This article was marked {hangon} and {underconstruction} with active editing at the *time* it was deleted. No attempt was made to allow me time to correct the stated flaws. The main complaint was that I was citing to the online diary, when I should have cited to the published secondary sources. I was in the middle of making those changes when the article vanished.
• And finally WP:AGF should dictate that I was making an attempt to make the article *more* verifiable and it should not have been deleted.

Wjhonson 04:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel a bit sad for the author of that article. Even though I haven't read it, I think I get the picture from the AFD and DRV. I think the solution is for the author to submit the article (or a revision) to some appropriate historical journal, along with copies of any necessary source materials needed for the journal's referees, instead of trying to put it in Wikipedia. That puts the RS question into the hands of professionals, and those referees can accept types of source material that's not accessible enough for Wikipedia. If the journal publishes the article, Wikipedia can then use the article as a source. If the journal rejects the article, well, they're professionals and we have to assume that they know what they're doing. Phr (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with regret. Perhaps a sister-project? The cited source is primary, the subject is unverifiable from any secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The question of verifiability was not for the trivial facts of her life (to which refer e.g. the "extracts of government documents"), but for the assertion that she warranted inclusion because as a diarist she is a notable source for historians. No source was given that could pass WP:V for this claim, only links to the local newspaper and a privately published document. The article fails both WP:BIO (a guideline), and for her weak claim to notability, WP:V (a policy), and has thus no reason to be included in Wikipedia. Fram 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has already been published, in a historical journal, along with source material. Wjhonson 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fram has been a consistent mis-characterizer of the statements I made. Fram claims no notability based on no verifiable sources. These claims have been refuted many times. I have posted the WP:RS which are WP:V and these claims have been taken to the talk pages of those guidelines and policies where they agree with my position. A newspaper on microfilm *is* verifiable and a non-eye-witness report is WP:RS. If anyone can find where I'm mistaken, please inform me. The relevant policy pages say that I'm not mistaken on this point. Wjhonson 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The events of her life are not sourced from the diaries, they are sourced from newspapers, historical journals, and government documents. All verifiable, secondary, published sources per WP:RS. The diaries only serve to support and back-up the events cited from the secondary sources. Wjhonson 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Talossa

Wikipedia really needs this article on this micronation, because it is one of the most legitamate micronations ever. Kitia 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Kingdom of Talossa gets 680 Google hits. Wjhonson 23:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Crawford

This is an article on a Professional Wrestler contracted to World Wrestling Entertainment whom is signed to the Ohio Valley Wrestling territory at the moment. Notablility is clearly met by an article on a WWE contracted professional wrestler because WWE is the major leagues of Professional Wrestling. This deletion is about as smart as deleting a AAA baseball player's article. Page is currently protected and needs to be unprotected to be undeleted. 205.166.61.142 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

'Keep, Notability is met by every professional sports figure. Wjhonson 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, I don't know why we keep having to protect articles like this, because they shouldn't be deleted in the first place. Honestly. --Tdslappy 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment every professional sports figure? It wouldn't have occurred to me that AAA baseball players were automatically encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. IMO they are not. No opinion about WWE. Phr (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)