Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23

< February 22	Deletion review archives: February	February 24 >

23 February 2007

Mr Stabby

"Mr Stabby" as an article has rightfully been deleted, however Wikipedia does already carry information on Mr Stabby, at Weebl's cartoons#Mr Stabby - why not make a protected redirect from Mr Stabby to Weebl's cartoons, as is already the case for other entries, like Magical Trevor? 62.31.67.29 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brian Peppers

Like many editors, I hope to work on establishing a notable and verifiable entry for internet celebrity Brian Peppers, so now that the Grand High Poobah deigns to let us to write about it again, I was upset to find that admins have deleted and blocked the Brian Peppers talk page. There is no reason why this should be the case - the arbitrary year's embargo has lifted, we should get on with creating a good article on Brian Peppers. If we can't go about this collaborative editing process in the article itself, we at least need a talk page. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion we don't keep talk pages around for deleted articles. Andrew Lenahan 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is enough rubbish on the wiki without discussing the revival of some of the stuff we've already deleted long ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - we've quite enough of this --Doc^g 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt

Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Pages talk page was deleted on 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Do you people use common sense at times? We are not obliged to do this nor are we proveyers of knowledge"
Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) deleted his/her own talkpage on 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) with a deletion summary: "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"[reply]

I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria to delete Daniel Brandt.

--Cat out 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion this is long overdue. We are a serious encyclopedia and we need to rise obove the silliness of this tiff. He doesn't want an article, and he isn't (very) notable. He can be mentioned on the various pages about the activities he is involved in, that's a much better solution. Honestly, whilst we may not like this guy, enough is enough - he's got a point, our biographies on people who are not public figures have rel-life implications. Would deleting this this set a precedent, and lead to other demands?? Yes, and we'd be a better encyclopedia for it. Delete all less-notability bios if the subject is unhappy and the article no loss, and lets go back to creating great articles in all the meaningful areas where we are full of shit.--Doc^g 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I've awarded Yanksox an Ed Poor barnstar.--Doc^g 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, in order that 400Kb of AfD argumentation need not take place. 400Kb of contributor effort that would be better expended writing articles – Qxz 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Daniel Brandt's significance isn't all that great, and respect for his privacy should take precedence, at least as long as he is still alive. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles. Bastique 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. You're right, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Similarly, this wasn't an encyclopedia article; it was a weapon in some people's private war with a vilified external force. When the formal rationality expressed on policy pages loses touch with the substantive rationality behind building this encyclopedia, we shouldn't be afraid to just do the right thing. --Robth^Talk 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, retrieving the article from Google cache shows that the article had thirty-two sources. While some of those weren't too specifically about Brandt, others were. He's easily notable, so his bullying aside, that article belongs here. This is not the same as the Brian Peppers case, where sources were thin to nonexistent. WP:BLP applies to unsourced information, not well-sourced information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; in the spirit of WP:BLP, "do no harm". Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion due to my own personal belief (admittedly unsupported by current policy) that in cases of unclear, ambiguous, or borderline notability we should respect subjects' wishes not to have articles about themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy we have a clear precedent that the subject's wishes should be taken into account in cases of marginal notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke (I knew that would come in handy).--Doc^g 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion It's true that the WP:CSD may not have been met specifically, and that's not something that should happen casually, but this was clearly a proper example of WP:IAR to do the right thing. This guy isn't really notable, and if, after he dies of old age, we revisit the matter and decide he actually is/was, then he can be re-added. There's nothing _that_ urgent about having an article about him in the meantime. The wiki isn't going to burn down. It was a fine article, well cited, and it's still there in the logs. I don't think his bullying should be rewarded either, but perhaps the best revenge is living well in the meantime. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; If he's notable at all, he's just notable for being notable. Let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I wish I'd done this a year ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion He's not really notable, no real reason to have this article.Lkinkade 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I say endorse deletion and someone hurry up and emergency desysop Yanksox for apparently going mad and acting without any deletion policy basis? Maybe just deleting the Brandt article would be regarded as mere rougeness, but the deletion of the user page etc. appears to demonstrate this was Yanksox's explosive departure from the wiki, or something to that effect. I'm happy to be proven wrong, however. - Mark 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I have yet to see anybody explain why Brandt is notable in the first place. - jredmond 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse. Good job, Yanksox. – Chacor 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center in film and media

While the nominator is under no obligation to notify the article creator, it really would have been helpful if someone notified me about this AFD when it was posted back in November. My watchlist is massive, thousands of pages, so I missed this one. The AFD wasn't a unanimous 100% delete. 2 of 6 said keep, and I would have said strong keep, and then it would have been kept as no consensus. The subarticle was created per WP:SUMMARY to keep the "film and media" section in the main article pared down to ~two sentences. Since it was deleted, trivia is starting to creep back in and becoming a nuisance to maintain. Someone even started re-adding a list of films with the WTC in them, and was "offended" when I cut it out. (See the top of my talk page) As primary maintainer of the main article and creator of the subarticle, I strongly prefer having a subarticle where people can put stuff like this, as it makes maintaining the main article more manageable. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, the WTC article is getting to #5. We need to go back to #3, with just a very brief summary in the main article. At some point, as the main article reaches featured article status, I would go through, cleanup, and pare down this subarticle if we could have it undeleted. Please let us have our subarticle back. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore per my nom. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse since AfD is not a vote™ the addition of another keep argument would have changed the result only if it was persuasive. Instead of restoring the highly problematic old list I would suggest simply recreating a list with clear and exclusive inclusion criteria. The "we don't want this material in our article so we need a place to put it" argument is generally unpersuasive. If it is unencyclopedic it should be excised not quarintined. Eluchil404 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (a featured list) and Joan of Arc (featured article). Ultimately, if the WTC gets to featured article status (may happen in the next couple months or sooner), the subarticles will all be made at least good articles if not featured themselves. In the case of pop culture references, it would be a featured list. Now, do I have to start from scratch and make up a new list or can I please work with what was there, try to find references, and cut out what's not notable. It would be much easier (a big time saver) for me to do the latter. --Aude (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case I have no objection to userfication. You can work on the list in your userspace and when it meets minimun standards move it back to the mainspace. It doesn't need to be FL ready but some basic standards on inclusion and some secondary sources would be a big help in convincing people that it has potential. Eluchil404 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The two keep comments didn't provide any arguments to why the list should be kept. So they had almost no weight in the discussion. Also AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore; per Aude above, we need something like this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Too Far

This article has been deleted for prevention of recreation. The single has been confirmed. A music video has been released and the single as already started charting. What more is there to say. This page should be unprotected and recreated for the benefit of fans and other artists etc. User:Zz128 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, agreed as per nom Lord Metroid 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse again, for the same reason as on 11 Feb. What's changed since then? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on Feb. 11 was "Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)". That DRV closed as request withdrawn. GRBerry 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would strongly suggest endorse deletion but as my userpage states I'm extremely repulsed by any rap/hiphop song so my endorse vote would border COI. So no opinion here. Wooyi 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem: rap song is a tautology. Not sure why the C is silent in rap, but a song has a tune. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I'm sure you meant oxymoron (or more precisely contradiction in terms) rather than tautology. -- Ben 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooyi, someone I greatly respect, C. S. Lewis, wrote (among other things) book reviews, but declined to review mysteries, saying that because he disliked the genre he could not fairly judge whether any given book was a good or bad example of it, and he wished not to write any unfair reviews. It's nice to see that you share the same scruple. -- Ben 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The video has been released; "Go too far Jibbs" gives you something like 230,000 ghits. And, btw, this is not "gangsta rap" - this features a member of the Pussycat Dolls and is strictly tame suburban rap/r&b - this would not sound out of place on a KISS-format station. --Brianyoumans 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits? I think you need to look past the google test and find some evidence that proves this is notable. Lots of ghits justify a redirect for reader convenience, not an article. For that, we have WP:N and stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BinSL.jpg

Image was deleted for not complying with Fair use, although it did comply, and it is needed as a citation. TheGreenFaerae 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series

The deletion of this list was discussed with two marginally related pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3. The conclusion "delete all" didn't take in account that some opinions favoring deletion very mainly about Deaths in Final Destination 3 and opinions for keeping specially the above list weren't examined. -- User:Docu

Overturn as per above. -- User:Docu
Relist while delete may well be the correct ultimate outcome, the balance of arguments at the AfD suggest that this article needs to be considered seperately. Eluchil404 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to the fact that most of the opinions for deletion either didn't take Lists of deaths in the Friday the 13th series into account (for example, they noted the over-the-top plot summary nature of the list--while the Friday the 13th list was very brief and matter-of-fact) or they expressed an opinion to keep the list. I think that this list, being very different from the Final Destination lists should get a chance to be deleted or kept on its own merits. janejellyroll 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercars

Don't bother going to the link, someone has started a new page with the same name. The AfD was a very weak delete with no consensus (5 to 4 by my count) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars My particular objection is that that that article was on my watchlist and yet the AfD notice did not appear in it, which I check every day. Also the deletion summary was not filled in thereby forcing me to do a manual search for the AfD debate, which is a waste of time. Greglocock 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and re-deletion as G4. AfD is not a vote, and the delete arguments pretty clearly demonstrated that the subject inherently requires subjective judgment. If we can't possibly write an article without original research, we can't write that article period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a vote may not be mandatory, a consensus is, by my reading. I see no consensus. Also I have checked my watchlist for that date, and taken a screenshot of it. No proposal for deletion was posted on that page, so far as I can tell. Greglocock 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD notice would've been posted there, but you'd no longer see that. Since the page was in fact deleted, its history would be gone as well, and not show up on your watchlist. An administrator could look at history of the old page and verify that the AfD notice was posted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawball

I recreated this after searching for the original deletion reason. The only thing I could find was that it was frequently vandalized and that nobody could be bothered protecting it. I don't believe that this is a valid criteria for deletion, otherwise we would have deleted George W. Bush some time ago. It seems like the beginning of a reasonable article on a notable enough subject (an example of web 2.0 emergent behavior) to me so I recreated it. Seraphimblade speedied the article pointing out that it was probably deleted for a reason. The AFD was "No consensus". I originally searched for Drawball on Wikipedia as I had read of it elsewhere and wanted to know more. This seems like a good criteria for an article to me. AntiVan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and clarifications It was actually Lectonar who deleted the article, though I did G4 tag it (and Coredesat who closed the AfD). I'll notify them of the DRV. Also, while the first AfD was indeed a no consensus result, this did not lead to deletion-no consensus results default to keeping. It was the second AfD which led to deletion, this time on the basis of lack of notability due to no reliable secondary sourcing available. I endorse deletion unless those sources now are available and can be cited, but am willing to change my mind if they are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Seraphimblade for incorrectly attributing the deletion to you, and thanks for notifying the others. Obviously I am not familiar with this process. In support of secondary sources I offer these: SmartMobs, The Wilx Collection & AdRants. I appreciate these are not the same as a front page story in the Times, but I feel it should be enough to support a little stub of an article. Thanks, AntiVan 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, blogs tend not to count as reliable sources, due to lack of editorial supervision. ColourBurst 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the most recent AFD was valid. I have linked it in the nomination statement. Blogs are also generally not considered reliable sources. --Core desat 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid unanimous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Materialization (science fiction)

IndieTits

Overturn Article had an AfD with a clear consensus to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Deletion was out of process. It had survived a fairly recent AfD. JuJube 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment logs say it's an A7 speedy deletion (doesn't seem to be related to the AfD decision). The last AfD was almost two years ago; consensus may have changed so relist it. ColourBurst 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article had no sources and claim of notabily, the deletion wasn't really out of process as I doubt the admin who speedied knew about the AFD so JuJube please WP:AGF. The prior AFD or VFD when it was called back then also wasn't fairly recent, it was over a year and a nine months ago. AFD had much weaker standards back then, same with sourcing, so that VFD is moreorless moot. Endorse Deletion. But if any valid, reliable sources can be found for notabilty, than I would think over Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy. The article states in two lines that it is a webcomic, who writes it, when he started, and how often it's updated. In between, the entirety of the article is a description of the comic's content. No sources are given other than a link directly to the comic itself, and no claims of importance or significance are made. This is a textbook A7, and even if it had a claim to disqualify it as a speedy, I would remove the bulk of the article as original research. The vfd is ancient and the opinions given not based in any sort of policy, even as it existed then. As usual, nothing's stopping anyone from creating a new article that either meets WP:WEB, or at least contains the barest minimum hint that it might possibly. —Cryptic 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]