Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RenamedUser jaskldjslak904 (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 17 September 2007 (→‎Pretty Crane: -relist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 15 Deletion review archives: 2007 September September 17 >

16 September 2007

User:Wikihermit

User:Wikihermit (edit | [[Talk:User:Wikihermit|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

For the above and associated talk page. I don't want this to become another White Cat situation, however I'm not sure it's appropriate to delete these redirects to new userpages (Wikihermit changed name to CO) when there isn't a privacy issue (whuch I'm assuming there wasn't, as the request was made publicly, and it does show up on a log, and all). Users do need to be able to tell who this user now is, especially since there are old incoming links, and the log is rather obscure: someone seeing a link to a red userpage, no talk page, and no edits would be VERY confused. What do we do here? --ST47Talk·Desk 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At the very least, I think it to be well settled that user talk pages, except those, I guess, devoid of any old discussion that might reasonably be expected to be of any value to another editor or to the community in the future, ought not to be deleted except upon a user's invoking his/her right to vanish (and actually vanishing thereafter) or where some particularly pernicious edits necessitate revision deletion/oversight. Unless I'm missing something compelling, then, the issue of redirects from the "old" user and user talk pages to the "new" aside, the talk page history should be undeleted. Joe 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create redirect. I believe that in nearly all cases, a redirect should remain if a username change has occurred, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Ral315 » 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikihermit has commented the reason for a name change was for privacy related issues. In this case, I'm not sure what benefit a rename is considering there are log entries and histories on talk pages and the like. My personal preference is for all renames done through openly on Wikipedia should have redirects created, new accounts or renames done privately should be treated differently and no redirects created. Nick 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, changing usernames is not a way to dodge your account history. >Radiant< 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If CO has explained that there are privacy issues involved, we should respect his decision. Although admittedly it seems strange (as the username change request was made publicly), I think we should assume good faith and assume that he has good reason for wanting this page to remain deleted. WaltonOne 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Nintendo Nerd (closed)

Ameriprise sucks

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

This article is not a personal view of the company, but was about a website listed by Forbes as a top ten consumer complaint site. It has received national attention from a variety of sources and is noteworthy in the respect that it denotes an early forerunner of the online consumer complaint site. Furthermore, the purpose of this article was in no way to comment on Ameriprise or any of it's activities, as this would be redundant as negative information about the company is listed on the Ameriprise page in wikipedia. I had listed several other company specific websites on the page as additional examples of what has become a thing in and of itself for the online community. In point, these online sites have become an issue for those in the marketing and business communities to address. The legal cases that these sites have spawned are rapidly becoming major benchmarks of free speech issues faced by American citizens and companies. As these issues are sociological, legal, and economic in nature they are worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. }} Donating intellect 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supertall

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

I know that these discussions are not votes, but c. 8 keeps to c. 4 deletes means that a majority of the community does not think the article should be delete; this one is a no consensus at best. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing admin. As noted in my closing rationale, the "keep" opinions were not based on policy, but essentially on "it is used WP:BIGNUMBER times on the net". Also, apart from the WP:WINAD issue, the lack of reliable sources for the definition of "supertall" given in the article means that it violated WP:V and WP:NOR. According to WP:DGFA, policy compliance must be taken into account when closing an AfD, because the the community's consensus is manifest in policy as well as in the AfD opinions. This is what I did here. Sandstein 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn. Closure basically ignored consensus. Those advocating Keep were not just using WP:BIGNUMBER arguments; a glance at the AfD shows that, through a peremptory Google search, several participants in the discussion had located sources which provided some indication of the subject's notability. AfDs may not be votes, but they're also not contests for who can cite the most WP:ABCs and WP:XYZs in support of their position. Coherent arguments should be taken into account and given due weight in closing a discussion, even if they aren't full of policy acronyms. WaltonOne 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The redirect is just fine, the debate was correctly assessed per reference to policy. As the lead states, Supertall is a colloquial, recently-coined term that refers to an extremely tall skyscraper. It is especially common jargon among skyscraper-enthusiast bloggers. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary or a repository for original research forks of subjects already covered under titles that were not made up last week by bloggers. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closer's reasoning was both sound and well-explained. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn unless the NYT is deemed an unreliable source. The term has been in formal use for twenty years (possibly forty) and deserves a comprehensive article. Yes, the article did itself a disservice (e.g. the lead mistakenly claiming it was basically made up last week), If it must redirect anywhere, that should be to skyscraper, as supertall buildings are being built today (Burj Dubai, Chicago Spire) and arguably since the World Trade Center. This is not a science fiction concept. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn since consensus was to keep. This is much more than a dictionary definition; the closing rationale was plainly inconsistent with the spirit of WP:DICT, and wasn't even raised in the AfD. Sources were given, and the consensus was that they were adequate. — xDanielx T/C 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was entirely correct. The revision Xdanielx links is a dictionary definition heading a duplicate article. We merge or redirect duplicate articles. This is precisely the spirit of WP:DICT, for the same reason we don't have separate articles on eggplants and aubergines. I'm not unalterably opposed to a history restore, but don't see any reason to do so. —Cryptic 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good call from the closing admin: wider policy consensus should generally trump individual AfD opinions that fail to make a compelling case why the issues should be regarded as exceptional. Eusebeus 09:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Eusebeus. >Radiant< 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As per Dhartung, don't see basis in AfD for specific redirect to Megastructure. If consensus is still to redirect, then suggest a different redirect be done, for instance to Skyscraper or similar.VJDocherty 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg

File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Booking photograph (mug shot) of notable subject, which was released as public data pursuant to a state statute after involvement in an incident of significance, was deleted based on an improper reason, deleted against consensus for use of image in article under fair use guidelines and not channeled through the images for deletion process.

Proposed article: Larry Craig

The image in question was improperly deleted against consensus. The image was included in the article because of its significance, which was also the object of coverage in the article itself. The discussion about the image can be found here, here and here. No discussion occurred to my knowledge about the deleting or keeping the image through the IfD process. The image history included both a full rationale (including licensing and basis for the license) for using the image in the article, and a deletion dispute tag that stated the reason against deleting the image.

The nature of the proposal for deletion was that an editor thought that the image was improperly tagged as "public domain," and when consensus pointed to the belief that use of the image should be allowed under fair use guidelines, that same editor shifted to WP:NFCC #8 as the deletion rationale, citing "image used as decoration" as the basis for deletion. Days later, an administrator removed the information from the article, and then deleted the image, using the a POV rationale that the image was "disparaging" -- a basis that is not found among the reasons for deleting an image and nothing included in the article that disparages the subject. Coverage of the incident was stated as reported by various news sources without analysis to maintain neutrality. The same administrator mentioned that a "free" image was available (the subject's "official" U.S. Senate photograph), discounting the fact that the booking photograph was taken in connection with a specific incident of significance on a specific date. In one instance, the administrator who restored and then finally deleted the image expressed misgivings by way of a message on the talk page for the image about the rationale provided by another administrator who previously deleted the image. Neither administrator nor the editor who first brought up the deleting the image introduced a discussion beforehand on the article's talk page about whether the image should removed from the article, let alone deleted from Wikipedia. →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh what a brilliant idea - let's slap the {{infobox Criminal}} box and a mugshot on the article on a politician, shall we? That's really in line with the spirit of WP:BLP, that is. Public domain is completely irrelevant, the only possible reason for including a mugshot when we already have a perfectly acceptable picture for this person (which we do) is to denigrate him. It adds precisely nothing to one's understanding of the subject. Just because we can have the mugshot certainly does not mean we must, and WP:BLP strongly suggests we should not have it. Pictures in Wikipedia exist to aid visual recognition. We have a perfectly decent picture, we do not need a mugshot. Even if he is a hypocritical bigot hoist by his own petard, which seems quite possible, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding crude, that mug shot has been all over the place - it's one of the most ubiquitous shots around. It's not like Wikipedia is doing him any more harm than has already been done, especially with just his picture. The Evil Spartan 11:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fundamental issue with the deletion of the image is not the fact that JzG is again misinterpreting WP:TABLOID in a situation that clearly doesn't apply here. It's not just that JzG has circumvented the WP:IfD process and refuses to make any effort to reach consensus on the subject. The most disturbing issue is anointing himself as judge, jury and executioner in deciding that there is no possible circumstance in which this image could ever be used in an appropriate context in any current or future article on Wikipedia. This form of prior restraint is not only unconstitutional, but entirely inappropriate and counter to the objectives of building an encyclopedia. While it might be possible to make a justifiable argument that the image should not be included in the Larry Craig article, there is no valid argument against deleting the image and preventing its use in any form on Wikipedia. Alansohn 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the fundamental issue with the image is that it serves no encyclopaedic purpose, as noted by several others. It looks to me as if Alansohn might need to read WP:FREE. Guy (Help!) 06:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I have read it, WP:FREE has never been mentioned, and it's a great tactic to attack a straw man rather than any of the actual arguments stated. You may want to read WP:CONSENSUS or WP:IfD and learn how those processes are used. One day, you may even try them out, see how they work, and respect the consensus they generate. That's how Wikipedia works. Rather than address the propriety of inclusion of the image on one particular article, you have taken it upon yourself to decide for all of Wikipedia that there is no possibility, under any circumstances, for any article now existing or to be created in the future for this image to be used. That is completely in contravention of your authority as an administrator and a basic violation of the collaborative effort. What will the thought police decide next we aren't allowed to look at? Alansohn 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: 1/ is the image licensed suitably for Wikipedia, 2/ should it be used in the article. (If it is not suitably licensed then it should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia, of course, if it is then it's fine in Commons even if not in the article itself.) The question I think comes down to WP:BLP, and what the article is about. The reason he is notable is first and foremost because he is a politician, not because he is a famous criminal. The article states he has had such a controversy. At most, if he was famous, then the mugshot would be fair for that section. Although that section is long (as current news often is), it doesn't seem the central part of his bio, and to re-centre his bio around the legal incident would still probably be undue weight. This aspect would be an editorial issue, not an image licensing issue. I'm not yet convinced the mugshot is useful in that section, reading it. The point is already made by the facts of the text. Concur with User:JzG in essence. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this issue has been talked about endlessly in the US. This is not a small part of his biography (and let it be known that my political loyalties are similar to his, so I'm not exactly on a witch hunt right now). The Evil Spartan 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Small" isn't the issue... more that it's not central to his bio. He has a bio article because he is a politician, not because he is a notable criminal. This subject comes up because he is a notable politician who has had a side legal issue, not because he is a notable criminal who has a side political career, so to speak. The perspective advocated by WP:BLP is to avoid titillation, look to the long term, write conservatively, and avoid harm. The legal issue matters, but it's not central. The mug shot doesn't add to the information given, but does pander to things WP:BIO frowns upon somewhat. It doesn't add enough for encyclopedic value to outweigh the clear weight of where WP:BIO focusses, and the concerns WP:BIO would raise. (And, I believe you that you aren't biased in it. I don't have an interest either. I just watch DRV.) FT2 (Talk | email) 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it's a question of usefulness and context. There is nothing gained by the article showing a mugshot of Mr. Craig. It does not tell us anything we do not already know, because we already have a higher-quality free-use photograph of him. The article adequately discusses Mr. Craig's criminal behavior and consequences. If we had a photograph of the actual crime being committed, that would clearly be relevant and important to the biography, but the police mugshot adds nothing of value to the article. FCYTravis 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, precisely that. Being booked is not a notable event, in the way that being arrested or convicted is, and that's what the picture illustrates. As you say, a picture of the offence being committed would be an entirely different matter. Plus we could make a fortune out of syndication... Guy (Help!) 16:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: mugshots are public domain, in almost all cases. Larry Craig is known as a politician, not as a criminal. He's not Son of Sam. Should the image have been deleted under FU rules? No. Do we need it? Also no. Move to close this discussion as pointless. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion An extremely poor precedent is being reinforced here in which WP:BLP is being abused as an excuse to delete anything that can be possibly misinterpreted as reflecting negatively on an individual. The material is encyclopedic, is in the public domain, is relevant to the article, and has a place in the article. The POV-pushing admin who removed it has not indicated how WP:BLP is being violated here, how the individual would be negatively impacted or in what way Wikipedia would be exposed to risk of lawsuit. Wikipedia is not censored, but some admins will use any excuse to create a nanny state here. Alansohn 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. The photo just demonstrates that he was booked; that he plead guilty is the important part (even if he reverses his plea[1] ... bizarre). Also endorse Guy's and KillerChihuahua's points. CWC 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on policy grounds. I cannot imagine an interpretation of BLP that would apply here. Media coverage of the senator's arrest--including the omnipresent display of that photograph--is the reason Craig is (or, er, isn't) resigning. If someone wants to make an issue of the copyright status, fine. But how it is defamatory to include an image to illustrate an event that already takes up half the article is entirely beyond me. Chick Bowen 04:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; come on, now. It clearly shouldn't be the lead, and we clearly shouldn't be using {{Infobox Criminal}}. But the mug shot, IF FREE, is relevant to much of his bio. Ral315 » 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the thigs I hate about people on a mission, as some of the editors of that article appear to be, is that it forces us to defend unpleasant people. I don't like this man. I think he's a hypocrite. But he is entitled not to be denigrated, and including gratuitous mugshots is indeed denigration. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Agree with Guy. I am sure that interested readers can find plenty of reproductions of this image across the web. Placing it here is pushing an inherent tabloidism & it's use is frankly tacky. Eusebeus 08:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Addis (closed)

Flash Flash Revolution

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

Was speedily deleted by User:FisherQueen a few days ago, citing CSD G4 - since the article was deleted in December 2006 for lack of sources. In the time since then, more sources were found, and a better article was written. CSD G4 explicitly states that it does not apply to substantially revised content, or when the re-created article fails to address the reasons why the first article was deleted... As the entire article was rewritten from scratch with sources, the material was improperly deleted per CSD G4. Userfied version of the deleted article is at User:Chardish/FFR.
Restore due to improper speedy, and send to AfD if there are problems with the current article.
N.B. I have brought this information before the administrator who speedy deleted it, and she seems uninterested in defending her decision. Chardish 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and restore the original redirect. The whole thing reads as original research, the supposed sources are either the FFR site, blogs, or one entry in a seasonal space-filler on "time-wasters" in a minor magazine. The deletion log also makes interesting reading. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the only concern should be that it was improperly deleted. Let AFD decide if it should be deleted or remain. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-list at AfD. I agree there was no valid speedy reason (G4 didn't apply, as it wasn't a recreation), and the deleting admin should have taken more care; however, I think there are still serious notability issues with the rewritten (userfied) version of the article. In particular, as Guy correctly points out, there is a lack of adequate sourcing. WaltonOne 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until there are real sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is not a criteria for speedy deletion, and thus I do not see how you can endorse a speedy deletion on those grounds. - Chardish 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was deleted (originally) for lack of sources, and the re-creation didn't really address that. Blogs and the like don't help. Remember, what we need are multiple non-trivial articles in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZDNet, Maximum PC, and Blogcritics are not reliable sources? Again, I think you can argue that they're not enough, but I don't think it's possible to argue that finding 3 notable sources is not addressing the problem of sources. The debate over whether these sources are enough belongs in AfD, not DRV. - Chardish 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are significant discussion primarily of this item. A listing in a seasonal spacefiller in Maximum PC does not establish notability. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not what's being debated. Was including those sources addressing the problem of sources? If yes, then the article should be restored due to an improper speedy. I don't see how you could argue "no." - Chardish 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decide that at a new AfD, then. You can't speedy delete an article because you feel that the attempt to solve its problems wasn't good enough. - Chardish 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore It's obvious that the article must be restored, as it was improperly speedy-deleted. Many people made an attempt at solving the article's problems, and if the solutions they came up with are not good enough, this should be re-reviewed, but the article certainly should NOT have been speedy-deleted. There is no grounds upon which to speedy-delete such an article. It was not recreation of deleted content - simply creation of a deleted article that had little to do with the old article except for its subject content.
And IMO, just the fact that people keep creating and investing time in the article marks its notability. I don't agree with all this notability stuff. Why does everyone have to be so anal about it? We should use common sense more than sources. FFR is a community with thousands of users, and a popular game that you can often see people playing just randomly wherever you look. I've seen it in the library, on random laptops, and people have even been playing it in class... if that isn't notable I don't know what is. But people insist on sources that say that it's notable. This concept eludes me. It strikes me as being ridiculously anal. But that's just my take on it. Nevermind, it's obvious the article was unfairly speedy-deleted. I've had little stubs of articles that don't say anything worthwhile marked for speedy deletion and they weren't even approved, yet THIS was? -- Rediahs 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Crane

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

The article was originally deleted and protected from creation in March because the article dealt with a minor, never-seen character in a soap opera. The character has since debuted on-screen and is involved in a major storyline. The article is currently located at Pretty Crane (Passions character), but the disambiguation is cumbersome and makes searching for the article much more difficult. Charity 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_16&oldid=158557047"