Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 12

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

12 November 2006

Playboy Online/Playboy Cyber Club

Herein, I attempt to shed new light on articles that have been deleted and reposted multiple times in the past. See, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_22#Playboy_Cyber_Girl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club

There has certainly been extensive debate about the various articles which I will lump together under the title Playboy Online. Most important among these is the Playboy Cyber Club page. As always the primary guideline in deletion/undeletion review is "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" as per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.

Basically, the debate has revolved around WP:CRUFT and WP:N. Although, I think some well intended wikipedians have taken time to make numerous extensive related pages, they certainly appear to have gone a bit overboard. The main problem is that the result of the debates has been to throw out everything related to Playboy Online. Thus, my request is that the following pages be restored

• Playboy Online,
• Playboy Cyber Club
• Cyber Girl of the Year

I believe that Playboy Cyber Girl should be merged into Playboy Cyber Club. Oddly, the way the article is written it seems that Playboy Cyber Club is the same thing as Playboy Online or Playboy.com. I am not sure if there is a free portion of Playboy.com. At one time there was, but that may not be the case any longer.

I affirm deletion of

• Cyber Girl of the Week
• Cyber Girl of the Month
• Coed of the Week
• Playboy Employee of the Month

The first point of contention is that the main reason for the deletion of all related articles was cruft. Obviously, based on the response to the AfD they seem to have been given just and equitable treatment. However, I contend on two bases:

1. Cruft is misapplied. The first sentence of the 16:15, 1 November 2006 version of Wikipedia:Fancruft says “Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.” I think everyone is well aware that Playboy Enterprises Inc is a huge multimillion dollar business of which Playboy Online is a very significant part. The business has 3 main business units (Entertainment, Publishing and Licensing). About 60% of the revenues for the 9 month period ending in September 30th came from Entertainment [1]. The online business accounts for about 25% of this revenue or about 15% of the Playboy Enterprises revenue. It accounts for more than 50% as much revenue as the traditional publishing segment. Note that Playboy Online produces about $50 million in revenue (annualized from 9 month data). I do not consider a $50 million dollar annual business something that should be referred to as of “importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans”. In fact, this number means that hundreds of thousand of people use the business and probably millions more who, like myself, are not paying customers care about information about the business unit as investors, financial scholars, or fans of the product and personalities the business unit promotes. Cruft designation is an abuse of process and may fall under the auspices of WP:CIVIL.

Personally, I am a scholar of financial economics and have made many contribution to Wikipedia. In addition to having created several biographies of notable business persons (including August Busch IV, William Wrigley III, Seymour H. Knox I, & Donald Trump, Jr.), I have created several templates for important business entities. Among those relevant to the discussion here are Anheuser-Busch, Trump, Wrigley, Federated. Notice that in each case the template is a useful addition to wikipedia because of the number of business lines that have separate articles. Most major business enterprises have business units or business lines that have separate articles. There is some misconception that Playboy online is some minor business used only by a few people who are

User_talk:TonyTheTiger#re:_your_Content_Review_request note that I was mistakenly reminded that although it might be important to have an article for Ford Motor Company it is not important to have an article for Cleveland Engine Plant No. 19. However, I believe it is important to have an article for any of their Business units that accounts for 15% of their revenue. I do believe Wikipedia is better for having articles for the separate articles for the separate entities. I do believe wikipedia would be better for having a Playboy Online article.

There may be some dissenting opinion because the second line of the Federated template mentioned above reads

Bloomingdale's | Macy's (East | Florida | Midwest | North | Northwest | South | West | macys.com)

The confusion is that no one has created a macy.com article so why should Playboy Online get a separate article. By the way, I believe if someone were to contribute a macy.com article it would probably not be contested for either cruft or notability and would probably remain a part of wikipedia. As I understand the macy.com business, they basically provide home delivery of the same offerings as the other business lines. Playboy online, offers extremely different fare from the more well-known physical publication. Anyone who wants to understand the playboy business needs to understand the offerings of Playboy Online.

2. The process is unfair in this case due ot the sociopolitical stigma associated with the subject matter. I believe that the way past debates about the topic have gone those in support of articles seem to be notably absent. Even the article creators and prominent contributing editors seem to be lacking from the debate about the AfDs. This indicates that the something makes people supportive of the article hesitant to speak up for fear of being viewed as socially depraved, immoral, amoral, looney, emotionally imbalanced and possibly heretical. The stigma associated with supporting their business is probably akin to supporting businesses that invest in South Africa, or businesses that are environmentally unfriendly. Regardless, of whether you want your loved one or your children to be using the service, it exists and as an encyclopedia wikipedia should account for it.

The remaining question involves the extent to which the subject matter should be incorporated into wikipedia.

At this time, I affirm deletion of the Monthly and Weekly awards based on the prevalent views of similar subjects. Major League Baseball is the only one of the 4 major sports to have an article for its players of the month ([[Player of the Month). None of the major league sports include articles for their players of the week. All 4 major league sports include articles for their annual awards: Baseball awards, NFL#Awards, NBA#Awards, National Hockey League awards. I would retain Cyber Girl of the Year on this basis.

In addition, those who believe Cyber Girls are minor league or ameteur Playmates should note that articles exist for baseball’s Minor League Player of the Year Award and Golden Spikes Award. Additionally, football has a Heisman Trophy award (although I make no statement as to the comparable notability of a Heisman winner and a CGOY). Basketball has the John R. Wooden Award. Hockey has the Hobey Baker Award. Basically, what I am saying is that annual awards are recognized as noteworthy. Again, let me be clear. I am not saying CGOY is as notable as being a player of the year in a major college sport, but it falls under the same precedent.

Furthermore, I believe it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the following templates: Template:2000 Cyber Girls, Template:2001 Cyber Girls, Template:2002 Cyber Girls, Template:2003 Cyber Girls, Template:2004 Cyber Girls, Template:2005 Cyber Girls, Template:2006 Cyber Girls of the Week. I think they should be reevaluated. Short term support for this six year old idea will probably die in a decade or two when the templates would clutter pages with several hundreds of name links. I think categories may be better in the long run. Therefore, I would tend to be against undeletion of the templates, but I believe that the Cyber Girl Categories ([:Category:Playboy Cyber Club]], Category:Playboy Cyber Girls, and Category:Playboy Coeds of the Week) should remain as they do. TonyTheTiger 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Endorse deletion 1) I don't see how there is so much to say about the online version of Playboy that couldn't be said satisfactorily in the main Playboy or Playboy Enterprises articles. 2)I also don't see that there's any "socio-political stigma" here... Playboy is very mild compared to a lot of stuff on wikipedia. 3) Playboy Enterprises is a major US porn company... but since you're comparing it to Ford Motors (!), lets be clear that it's really not that big as a corporation (US$400mm market cap is a small cap company; compared with $16bn+ for Ford) 4) I don't see how cruft is a breach of WP:CIVIL. The cruft case was made against the article about a subdomain of the main playboy website plus the exhaustive articles for every single girl. The main playboy online article was merged with the playboy article in a separate process. 5) I'm not seeing the comparability of Cybergirl of the Year with national college sportsperson of the year awards. 6) As for the categories and girl pages.... Didn't realize those categories hadn't been deleted. Also, the various cybergirls in the categories still need to be evaluated for possible afd (issue was raised in the main cybergirls afd). Gurgle. Bwithh 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Bwith, I appreciate that you took the time to respond although you did not really seem to pay attention to what I said. Here are my responses to your numbered points 1.) If you read the link that I sent you to you would note that Playboy Enterprises is like many other conglomerates with various business lines. It is normal in wikipedia as I have noted by way of reference to my template creations that you also seem not to have read either to create articles for separate major business lines. It should be apparent from looking at the link that separate articles should exist for Playboy Entertainment (with separate subarticles for Playboy Television and, Playboy Online), Playboy Publishing, and Playboy Licensing. The way it is now Playboy Online wiki searchers are being directed to an article about Playboy Magazine which is a part of another division. It would be just and equitable (when compared to other business enterprises on wiki) to give very different operations separate articles. Grouping Playboy Online in with Playboy Magazine, which is a part of a different division of the company makes no sense. Compare the 2005 and 2006 numbers on the financial page I sent you to. You will see that the online business is growing and the publishing division is shrinking. Probably, not long from now the Online division will generate more revenue than publishing. 2.) Yes there is a stigma. I have tried Playboy Online for 2 separate 2 week free trials. Asking people if they subscribe to playboy (or playboy online) is like polling people on whether they cheat on their spouse or whether they masterbate. People will underreport. They do so because there is a stigma. The numbers speak for themselves. There are probably 300,000 Playboy online members who pay for the cyber club. There are additional hundreds of thousands who view the free Playboy Online at Playboy.com. However, they are all shamelessly lurking as the vocal moral majority strips articles off of wikipedia 3.) Yes, softporn is a major part of the business. Sex sells. You may be aware that they are entering the night club business. I am comparing it to any business entity that exists on wikipedia. There are several small cap companies that have extensive wikipedia articles. In an effort to be neutral, I would admit that relative to other small cap companies, I am suggesting many more articles than is normal. However, Playboy Enterprises is a much more diverse company than say a Jones Soda or a Gateway Computer. The argument is not based on the size of the company, but rather on the variety of the business enterprises. 4.) If you read my suggestion it is a partial restoration, which agrees with you that many of the subdomains are unnecessary. Please read my undeletion request and note that I am only saying that some of the articles should be restored. I concur that many individual Cyber Girls do not at this time meet notability requirements. 5.) The comparability is that whether you personally appreciate the achievement it is an annual competition with thousands of entrants and hundreds of thousands of fans who both enjoy the nature of the competition. In addition, they enjoy participating in the voting. 6.) We disagree on the categories. The use of the categories is that it will avert the need to create a webpage with a list and/or templates. Girls who have article pages will be able to add a category. TonyTheTiger 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, entirely uncontroversial assessment of the debate, which in turn was valid per procedure and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a web directory, after all. Plus it really was porncruft. Guy 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Guy, My question to you is 1.) did you read my request? 2.) Do you understand what cruft is? Cruft is when a few people care about something that no one else cares about. It is not when a company that is charging individuals between $8 and $20 per month is generating $50 million in revenue. Cruft is not when a vocal group of people find something offensive and under the guise of due process pretend a group of less vocal people don't care about something.

P.S. I have taken the liberty of creating the Playboy Entertainment, Playboy Publishing, and Playboy Licensing pages that represent the three major business segments of Playboy Enterprises. Playboy Online and Playboy Cyber Club should be undeleted (and possibly merged to support the Playboy Entertainment. TonyTheTiger 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.S. I often argue about my vision of the way things should be because I can see my vision very clearly. In order to gain a proper perspective I have created my vision for you to more fairly assess the question of whether wikipedia would be better with separate Playboy Online and/or Playboy Cyber Club pages. See the template that is of the type I referenced above at Template:Playboy. TonyTheTiger 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. To see deleted content go here: [[2]] TonyTheTiger 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• UNDELETE My support of Tony's position is based on the fact (i.e., my opinion) that these articles are in his field of knowledge and expertise and to not allow him a fair amount of room is to not fully acknowledge and support his contributions to wikipedia. As someone who operates in a relatively unpopulated niche (Business history, studies, etc.) The Tiger should be allowed space to operate in. If folks such as him are not granted this leeway, then wikipedia just becomes an arm of Google. Carptrash 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of female porn stars

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female porn stars

List of female porn stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

good category for people interested in this type of thing Louisaparicio 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, the article wasn't deleted... what do you want reviewed exactly? --W.marsh 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, it has been deleted now (after the above posts). In which case, endorse deletion; it consisted entirely of links elsewhere and a rephrasing of the title and fell under WP:CSD A3 (no content). One "keep" proponent said "One advantage to a list is it can also include actor aliases, debut movies, career dates and other info that a category can't" - well, this list didn't include any of that, but feel free to recreate it with that data. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Good category? Then use a category! Guy 14:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy. This list was immensely long, without hope of ever being maintainable, and essentially resembled a category page. This is a case where categories are more appropriate than lists. --Coredesat 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• ednorse deletion per above, should create a category.--mathewguiver 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean, like Category:Female porn stars? —Cryptic 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy and Samuel Blanning. No prejudice against recreation with additional information. JoshuaZ 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per my nom in the afd (redundant to the category). Tizio 16:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and list on Afd. I can't see the article in question now that it has been deleted, but I also don't see how the deletion was within process. "replaced by a category" [3] is not a valid deletion reason, particularly after the article survived an Afd where the list vs. category question was directly addressed. --JJay 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion apparently this should be viewed as an overturning of the AfD which is fine when the correct result is clear. Eluchil404 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kristen bell.jpg

Image:Kristen bell.jpg A free image could not easily be obtained which would be of an encyclopaedic quality.

"Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious."

One is not readily available to the general public (of an encyclopaedic quality) and one is not easily capable of taking a picture due the nature of man kind not being mind readers (i.e. where she is, what time she will be at xyz, etcetera - this is also not sarcasm, it is fact) and so the only viable way would be stalking (which is !bad!) - the day Wikipedia tells its users to stalk for images will be the day it fails. Hence this image does not (at present) fail the FUC. Fair use is a last resort, and in this case its a valid FU claim, (there is an image on commons which is so bad you could in no way identify it as Kristen Bell, it could easily be someone else..)

Note: The sysop who listed it again listed it for a second time after it being undeleted, the sysop then speedied the image when I added the dispute tag (which is in its self out of process as the sysop is involved.) said sysop then threatend me with a block stating I was a troll (for disputing them) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Could - In otherwords possibly.. a might be able to.. a try your best.. could != must, the FUC states this.

Also see Talk:Kristen_Bell#Bad_picture. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn as nominator - a speedy overturn and un-delete may be applicable? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• MatthewFenton is well aware that the policy in question here (WP:FUC) is not "A free image could not easily be obtained which would be of an encyclopaedic quality.". In fact, MatthewFenton proposed that WP:FUC be changed to this criteria and this was soundly defeated. The image in question is of a living person. The image was used solely to depict this person. The image is not freely-licensed. It was clearly in violation of WP:FUC and was deleted according to that policy. --Yamla 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Side note: I have'nt been defeated at anything.. the debate isn't over and I see a support :) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use_criteria#Proposal_to_change_FUC_.231. It would be more accurate to say that there is one person who is "vaguely supportive" and six who oppose it, two strongly. Fenton's attempt to change WP:FUC failed to garner a consensus in favour. --Yamla 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Fair use policy applied exactly the way it ought to be. --Robth^Talk 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't care to endorse this, because this demonstrates a very poor part of our fair use policy, a policy that's possibly more poorly thought out than any other policy here. It's completely absurd to consider that this is easily replaceable, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the fair use policy was applied properly, and as for all this nonsense about turning into stalkers--that's just silly. She's a public figure who cares about her image, and Wikipedia is a very visible site. Has anyone even tried approaching her publicist or agent about getting a properly licensed image for use on Wikipedia? Xtifr _tälk 08:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above Borisblue 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Forocoches

Forocoches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I agree the content should be redone in English, but the reason given for deletion: "Spanish message board, non-notable on English Wikipedia", is undeserved: By sheer size, this forum currently ranks #38 among 1,797 forums listed at Big Boards (just two places below the very popular Slashdot and one place above the IMDb forum), being the largest Spanish and Spanish-language forum on the Internet (which should suffice to justify its notability); and by content Forocoches.com was voted "Best Portal Site" of the year 2005 by the Spanish site Lamejorpaginaweb.com.

• Endorse speedy deletion. Keep deleted unless written in English with references to assert notability. --Ezeu 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  Did you care to read the reason for undeletion? I provided a reference asserting its notability (it received a Spanish award for best portal site), and I did say the article (obviously) should be redone in English (but it cannot be rewritten in English unless it is undeleted, because simply rewriting an article that has been speedy-deleted before it gets undeleted would result in another speedy deletion). Uaxuctum 07:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete to userspace so that the article can be worked on without being deleted, then moved to articlespace once it's ready and won't be speedied. --ais523 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• The above being an eminently sensible idea I boldly userfied this to User:Uaxuctum/Forocoches. See if Uaxuctum can make anything of it per WP:WEB. Guy 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Film

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Film

The Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I request that The Film be undeleted. This band has had songs featured on the FIFA 06 soundtrack and had two of their tracks (including "Can You Trust Me?") used in a major advertising campaign for the Peugeot 407 in Europe when it was put into production in 2004. Surely the fact that their songs are instantly recognisable from this campaign makes the band notable? Songs also achieve a match from Shazam (2580), which recognises Can You Trust Me?.

(Incidentally, I had already heard of this band before discovering that their page had been deleted, so they must be a little notable). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apex204 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

• Endorse AfD closure. Redirect to FIFA 06 and mention the band there. --Ezeu 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion (which cut short the AfD), but allow recreation if a better case for notability can be found (have they any albums on notable record labels, or anything else meeting WP:MUSIC?) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg

• I have undeleted this and tagged it as {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}; discussion at Image talk:Nikkor lenses.jpg. --Robth^Talk 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)