Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 2

< January 1	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 3 >

2 January 2008

Image:Theemptychild.jpg – IfD closure overturned; relisted. The removal of the IFD notice from the image early in the debate stifled discussion, and prevented the formation of any real consensus. Anyone prematurely removing the notice now should, after warning, be blocked for disruption. – Xoloz (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Fair use rationale is to describe a key moment in a particular episode, this key moment has not been disclosed. The closing admin is member of the relevant project,and unable to act from a point of neutrality, who has in the past month has demonstrated a complete failure to grasp the concept of fair use Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Fasach_Nua_disrupting_IfD here, or the need for impartiality. In addition the ifd tag had been removed to stifle discussion within 80 mins of nomination Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin. Closure was long overdue (nominated Dec 18th) and the IfD consisted of a long discussion between nominator and uploader over the nom's suggestion that the image of the episode could be replaced by a free image of a child wearing a gasmask, as wel as another Keep comment. Original fair use rationale problem was also solved, so there was neither reason nor consensus to delete. — Edokter • Talk • 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- point of information The closure was not overdue, the most recent edit was less than 2 hours before closure
  There is a clear consensus to delete copyrighted images with invalid fair use rationales, "to demonstate a key moment" that the uploader has not revealed in not a valid fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist as the {{ifd}} notice was removed from the IDP by Khaosworks (talk · contribs) 79 minutes after the deletion nomination. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per pd_THOR above. Sandstein (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, and remind closing admin of conflicts of interest. Also remind Khaosworks not to remove discussion tags while the discussion is ongoing. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Technodrome – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The comments supporting keeping the article had no basis in policy or guideline. They merely claimed that the Technodrome was important in the Ninja Turtles series. They made no assertion of real-world notability, and did not even claim there were sources. The other commenters, however, all agreed that at the article lacked real-world signifance, and that no one could find sources, and thus should be merged and redirected, but several supported deletion. Personally, I favor merging over absolute deletion whenever possible, so I propose we redirect the article to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and leave the history intact so that editors who care can merge as neccesary. I had already done this to be bold, but it was reverted, so I come here. I (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close the discussion. You need to work this dispute out on the respective article Talk pages. The page in question was not deleted. Once the AFD discussion is done, the decision to merge (or unmerge) is a matter for normal editing. If an AFD discussion has a recommendation to merge, that recommendation should be given due weight. After all, AFD discussions get quite a bit of visibility and discussion. But they are no more binding or permanent than any other ordinary editing action. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no dispute. I am asking that the AfD be overturned with a redirect/delete outcome, for the reason I explained in my initial statement. If there is consensus that the close was according to consensus, then I shall pursue normal merge procedures. But for now I am asking that the AfD close be examined. I (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any way that discussion could have been closed as anything other than "no consensus". To that extent, I have to endorse the closure. You could always renominate it for deletion but your own opinion above is sufficiently ambiguous that I doubt a new discussion would be sure of getting a different result. Rossami (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The article is completely unsourced, as noted by most AfD participants. This would mandate deletion per WP:V. The other participants did not raise any policy-based arguments to keep the article, but used WP:ATA arguments like "The Technodrome is very important". Based on the strength of the arguments, the AfD should have been closed as "delete". Whether someone should then create a redirect in lieu of the article is outside the scope of this process. Sandstein (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close/keep The AfD wasn't exactly a stellar example of adhering to Wikipedia policy but in fact there are many reliable sources that mention or discuss the Technodrome. See this search of google news. Someone who cares more about this topic should use some of those to reference the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty thin sourcing for the main article (and many of these pieces are behind paywalls). Were there any fan magazines released contemporaneously with the series or afterwards? Any DVD extras that include discussions with the producers, so we might be able to discuss the design of the Technodrome from an out-of-universe perspective?
- There is one area where I'm pretty sure we can come up with reliable sources: the video games section. I have a published book (Nintendo Games Secrets) from about 1990 that discusses the original NES game in great detail. Similar guides surely exist for the other games listed as well, though finding them will require digging through old books and magazines. *** Crotalus *** 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein although DRV should be about process, and to be fair the close was not out of process. That said, no keep arguments were advanced that refuted the grounds for deletion and the closer sh/could have exercised greater discretion in finding to delete per policy, rather than no consensus based on a simple tally of ilikeit votes. Thus, Overturn and Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is about disuputed deletions or non-deletions, not neccesarily if they are out of process. I (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure There was no consensus in this discussion. If there had been no merge or redirect viewpoints expressed then closure as delete could have been a valid judgement based on policy. However there was clearly no consensus for deletion with merging/redirecting being argued (which is not a variant of deletion). Some of the delete arguments were very weak as well (e.g per nom) and cannot see how the closer could have decided to delete the article based on the discussion. Equally there was no consensus for merging/redirecting over the other two options (keep or delete). Would suggest pursue getting a consensus for a merge/redirect on the talk page which this AFD certainly did not decide against. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and query whether this is the right venue for this debate? Solve this one in line with editing policy. Agree with Rossami too. Hiding T 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure no evidence has been provided that there was any out-of-process Wikipedia policy violation that took place as part of this closure. As there was indeed no consensus found in the AfD, and as all of the arguments to overturn the result are simply attempts to fight the AfD all over again, there is no valid justification to overturn. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No consensus is no consensus. I wish everyone would learn to stop wasting time in AfD/DR when some matters can be clearly fixed pretty much painlessly in article talk pages &c. People have done giant merge-with-chainsaw jobs without bothering with the Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

APM Terminals – Endorse recreation and keep. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article APM Terminals was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APM Terminals. The author, Bertatmindcomet (talk · contribs), has written a new version of this article in his userspace, which he has recently copypasted to APM Terminals. I'm requesting this deletion review, to assess whether the issues raised during the AFD have been addressed sufficiently. A ecis^Brievenbus 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming the basic facts of the article are even close to true, this passes WP:CORP easily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity: WP:CORP was never an issue in the discussion. All, including me as the nom, were satisfied that this company was and is notable enough for Wikipedia. The issues raised were WP:COI and WP:V, with a hint of WP:SPAM to the side. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:V seems no problem, I see 28 Google News results in the past month alone, with most of it being worldwide coverage in reliable sources, an example being this article in the UK's Financial Times. COI is never pretty, and if exists here it can and should be dealt with by careful monitoring, not by having no article on this huge and profoundly-notable company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation - it seems fine. The page will need careful monitoring (I've removed some corporate hype and an unsourced list of future projects) but that's a separate, editorial matter. BlueValour (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - when closing please carry out a history merge for the two cutnpaste moves. BlueValour (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation, is now sourced. Sandstein (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recreated version (what's the procedure here?). Looking at this article I don't see how it could possibly be deletable in its present form. It's a better than average (or at least somewhere close to average) start/stub class article about a notable subject, without obvious bias, not blatant advertising, and cited to some reliable sources. However, I do wish the sourcing were stronger and done inline to the specific claims made. Wikidemo (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation I'm not sure that anyone's permission was necessary, but the reconstituted article makes clear claims of notability, and provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Four J's Development Tools – Deletion endorsed under speedy criteria A7 and G11 – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was created after reading IBM Informix 4GL, which contains links to several of our competitors; notably Querix and Aubit-4GL. If you allow these two pages, you should also allow our page. If the deletion of our page stands, then you must delete Querix and Aubit-4GL. If you do not, I can only assume our page was deleted on request of one of our competitors, which would indicate that the admin has a commercial interest in doing so. Four J's plays a significant role in assisting IBM Informix 4GL customers (Kmart, Sears, Skechers, AT&T, PBS, State of Arkansas, Mississippi, US Navy, etc... ) and has a legitimate place in the history of this language and therefore this page. Bryn.jenkins (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can accept these arguments only if you remain equitable and consistent in their application. So if this is true you must also delete Querix , FourGen CASE Tools and Aubit-4GL pages which violate exactly the same rules and referenced on IBM Informix-4GL. If you do not, I can only assume that my page was targeted for deletion for purely commercial reasons by one of those companies. Also, despite having placed a 'watch on this page', I was never notified of its deletion, which is why I did not react within 5 days. I only noticed by accident, when someone pointed it out to me. Bryn.jenkins.
Speedy undelete as contested prod. Note to Bryn.jenkins (talk · contribs): please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:CORP, WP:COI and WP:AUTO, and please assume good faith on the part of the admin. The proposed deletion hadn't been contested for five days. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not undelete. The deleted article meets WP:CSD#A7 and violates WP:V; also, the undeletion request violates WP:COI. Sandstein (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion there is no point in restoring an contested prod of an article that would be deleted again, it's a A7. Secret ^account 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the end result appears correct... while this should technically be restored a contested prod, multiple editors (including I) believe that the article in its last state would fall under CSD A7 and also possibly CSD G11. If a sourced article which illustrates notability without any sort of COI can be created, no prejudice to recreation. This is not it. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list at afd, clear case of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 86.12.247.201 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, do not undelete. Despite this being a PROD, there is no point in restoring it as it would immediately be redeleted as A7. Also, WP:COI and WP:V come into play here. --Core desat 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User talk:202.76.162.34 – Speedily closed, bad faith nomination – Core desat 09:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I want the old comments from this talk page back. I have created an archive of these discussions several times, but it was deleted without a good reason. Please bring this back. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

Why do you "want" them? You're going to have to explain further. It doesn't seem like there's much of interest from the page other than it being a blocked user. --Smashville^BONK! 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want them because people who are not interested in contributions may need to know what this IP has done in the past. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No-one is possibly going to take any action against this IP for warnings they got a year ago. Keeping the old warnings around just gives the vandal recognition. Hut 8.5 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page was considered at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:202.76.162.34. Hut 8.5 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...and it looks like it was a speedy keep...and the wording on that one was pretty close to this except he wanted a delete...I also notice that the nom was blocked recently for harassing another user...so one has to wonder how much good faith is involved in this nom. --Smashville^BONK! 14:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close as bad faith nom. See deletion log. I checked the nom's talk page and contributions to find background info aside from "I want it"...I think one can safely assume that this nomination is not in good faith. --Smashville^BONK! 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. No clear reason has been provided to restore this page full of outdated warnings. Sandstein (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can't have the old comments, we might as well just delete the damn page. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is your issue with the page? It's virtually identical to every other blocked user page on Wikipedia? --Smashville^BONK! 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Daniel DiCriscio – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was in fact deleted earlier this year. The reason being that there were to many photos and that the article wasn't properly referenced. This article was created again with the proper references and with only one photo that is owned by the subject. This article is of a well known person who is of importance and who is also a public figure. Every fact in this article is notable and has been proven. The speedy deletion this time is not a question of the importance of this person or by the way the article was written, but what seems to be the targeting of this person by people who do in fact know who he is and do not want him to have a Wikipedia page. I would like to request that this article is reposted and protected. NLovelle (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from what I see in the AfD, it didn't seem like there were nontrivial sources. What has he done to make himself notable and a public figure since the AfD? --Smashville^BONK! 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Recreate and List. In many ways this guy is a one hit wonder making his name with the Paula Jones makeover, as it were. Having said that, the article does contain some reasonable references particularly the Washington Post one. I was surprised, it has to be said, that there is no mention of him in the Paula Jones page. Whether this is sufficient I don't know but I think that it is just about worth another look. BlueValour (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The "Washington Post one" was discussed in the prior AFD discussion. As I noted then, it is an article about Paula Jones that comprises 1 paragraph on this person, most of which is telling readers things that are not known about xem. This is an encyclopaedia of knowledge. Articles that tell us that things are not known are not useful as sources.
  As for the Paula Jones article, I suggest looking at these three edits Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. Looks like a bad G4 deletion in a situation where G4 doesn't apply - G4 is for areticles recreated in substantially identical form to the original. I don't have the original to compare, but looking at this by itself the person is notable and there were nontrivial sources given. Here is one better source to establish notability[1] but perhaps too scandalous to use for anything else. Nothing fundamentally wrong with the article as far as I can see, and I can see no reason to delete this article.Wikidemo (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you've paid no attention to the sources, either the ones cited in the article or the one that you cite yourself, which provides zero information about this person. Read the AFD discussion, where these supposed sources have already been discussed. It's a perfectly good G4 deletion. The article is the same as before, even down to the hyperbole, and cites the same supposed sources as before. This is the same as was discussed in the AFD discussion, and deleted. Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a parade of single-purpose accounts attempting to get this person into Wikipedia: Jasminjones (talk · contribs), Daniel DiCriscio (talk · contribs), Ddicriscio (talk · contribs), and Macbedone (talk · contribs). They've tried everything from legal threats, to proffering of sources that only they have copies of but that are mysteriously absent from the on-line archives of the newspapers concerned, to ballot stuffing. I suspect that NLovelle (talk · contribs) is just another in this parade. Xe has certainly done nothing else but re-create the same article all over again. The one new citation in this article, is citing a ZoomInfo page, which in turn is mirroring an article, a purported magazine interview, the only copy of which was published by DiCriscio on DiCriscio's own web site and that doesn't exist in any other archive (and that, in fairness, doesn't even exist on DiCriscio's own web site any more). Endorse. Uncle G (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comments of Uncle G, whom I have full confidence in, Endorse, nothing has changed since the AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Uncle G; nothing new other than a new sock. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I am persuaded by Uncle G - not having access to the deleted page I was unaware that the deleted article was substantially the same as the one considered at the AfD and on that basis G4 is justified. BlueValour (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sorry, but there's nothing that we could really write an article from here. Unless we list every hairdresser at Paula Jones, I think we'd be in conflict with WPNPOV there too. Hiding T 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.