Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:48, 19 November 2006

< November 13	November 15 >

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

14 November 2006

PhantasyRPG

I honestly do not know why the version of this article was deleted, It was in no way close to the previous versions, as a matter of fact I had written that completely on my own. There were no rules, to my knowledge, broken, as in no copyright violations, slander, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuck (talk • contribs)

Deleted about a year ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhantasyRPG, recreated and speedy deleted twice in the past week for "advertising" and then "Article about a game that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". --W.marsh 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The version most recently deleted, created by the nominator, seems to be copied from here. --W.marsh 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the version the nominator refers to was a clear copyright violation, and neither that nor the previous recreations have presented anything that would lead us to overturn the previous AfD. We should consider salting the earth if notability isn't asserted and verified during this review. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who had written this, I am an official writer for PhantasyRPG and was instructed to write up the myspace/wikipedia article, for conformation please contact "Shuck" at PhantasyRPG.comShuck 04:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article also violates WP:AUTO, and my concern is for the notability of the subject, not just the copyright of that single revision. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Shuck. Danny Lilithborne 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it violates as being an autobiography. The proposed article isn't any type of a biography. Yet, it does seem to be an advertisement if an employee is posting information about the subject based on instruction from the company which is the subject of the article. I would not endorse it on these grounds. I don't see anything that says that it is or is not notable. --Pinkkeith 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, copyvio, prior valid AfD, no credible evidence presented to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies featured on Arthur

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies featured on Arthur

I dont know if I'm doing this right, but whatever. Anyway, I nominated this article for deletion, the voting was 7 delete 4 keep, at 63% for deletion, yet the result was no consensus. From what I see, the page is nothing but fancruft, and original research. The people who voted it with keep were people who worked on the page and didn't want to see their work removed. P.S. If I'm putting this in the wrong section, please let me know. DietLimeCola 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 66% and up is the magic percentage that has traditionally represented a deletion consensus. At any rate, I don't really mind if I'm reversed here... I guess the DRV should concern whether I should have deleted in spite of the numbers, because the topic was original research. --W.marsh 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. AfD is not a vote, there is no "magic percentage". Two of the arguments for keeping depended on inclusion of other articles, which is a flimsy argument for keeping, and the only legitimate keep argument was "it is sourced" (only if you count the use of TV episodes as primary sources which often falls under original research). Consensus and weight of argument was clearly for deletion, in my opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse result. Are we going to start reviewing all "no consensus" closes at this point. Not sure if there was a consensus here, saw no problem with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I might have accidently given him the idea that his only choice was to bring it to DRV... of course merging or just waiting a while for another AfD were options. --W.marsh 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, or not, per below. --W.marsh 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Sam Blanning. AFD is not a vote, and "article X is here, so article Y should be here too" isn't a very strong argument for keeping anything. One article's inclusion does not justify the inclusion of other articles. --Core desat 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read what he posted in my talk page so you can get a better view of his point of view in this situation. [1] DietLimeCola 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Sam Blanning. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse In my opinion, the arguments to delete outweighed those to keep, but not to such an extent that I think the admin erred in exercising discretion to default to keep. Would suggest that the original nominator tag the article/content using {{unsourced}} and {{fact}} as appropriate and renominate in a month or so if the supporters cannot provide independent reliable sources to verify the article. A relisting to generate further consensus might also be appropriate. Shimeru 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed properly. The closing administrator did his best to interpret the debate, without inserting bias by throwing out or heavily weighting any opinions based on his own. No further action should be taken at this time. To err on the side of granting a little extra leeway to good faith contributors is always desirable, even if you don't appreciate the topic, Jimbo says so himself. Un focused 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus which means it can be renominated anytime. I'm not happy with the outcome but I find it within reason. Put up {{Sources}} and {{OR}} tags and renominate in four weeks. ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete: I place no blame on the closer, but I count another voice in the debate, myself, and that is the administrator's own reading of the deletion policy. Original research and overly granular coverage really are deletions, and this article is, at best, something that fans already know, and, at worst, just a fan's tribute largely to himself. Geogre 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn. On the one hand, as W.marsh says, we can tag it for cleanup and if it's not been fixed in a month, debate again. On the other hand, experience indicates that if an article is AfDd as uncited, is not referenced during AfD, and is kept duie to WP:IHEARDOFIT and similar arguments, it never does get referenced. We tend to end up with low drama due to multiple no-consensus AfDs with nobody actually fixing the fundamental problem of an article which appears to be composed entirely of original research. Were this AfD I would vote unequivocal delete, as it is canonical fancruft. In the end, there is no valid topic "parodies on Arthur" (too arbitrary). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my original thinking was along the lines of "Apparently no problem had been pointed out with the article prior to the AfD, people put a lot of time into this article, let's see if they can find some encyclopedic use for this content if given some more time". Probably not, but who knows? It could theoretically have been moved to a title that implies a more encyclopedic direction, sourced, etc. --W.marsh 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete normally I'd endorse in a situation like this but two factors sway me into overturning. One, the keep arguments (which are a minority) are mostly incoherent or invalid and discountable while many of the delete arguments are cogent and consistent with policy, thus the weight of the debate is clearly delete. Secondly, the article is clearly indiscriminate cruft that violates WP:NOT and should be deleted, nothing is gained by waiting 4 weeks and renominating rather than deleting it now since clean-up cannot make it an acceptable article. Eluchil404 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure While closers are free to invoke "AfD is not a vote" at appropriate times, they are not compelled to do so, except perhaps in the most egregious cases. W. marsh used his discretion to rely on a more numerical consensus-determining method, and the result is not clearly unreasonable. As JzG says, this may be renominated if it is not improved later. Xoloz 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure it can be renominated later this closure is valid though Yuckfoo 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, the closure was well within reason and as we've witnessed with the Cleveland steamer article you are free to renominate it for deletion as many times as you want until you're blue in the face. Double jeapordy doesn't apply here. RFerreira 04:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete-"Strong request to stop crying" is a personal attack and shouldn't really even be counted as a "keep". That would make it 7 to 3, even if we are doing "number of votes" rather than "strength of argument". Deletion arguments are strong and in keeping with policy, keep arguments are mainly "But somebody else got to do it!" Clear consensus to delete. Seraphimblade 08:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To add to my previous, the following (from WP:DGFA) seems relevant:

"Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions." Seraphimblade 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Young_(LARP)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike_Young_(LARP)

Twice speedily deleted within 12 hrs without reading Talk:Mike_Young_(LARP) nor giving reason, despite content being a referenced biographical entry of a notable published game designer who is mentioned in other wikipedia articles. Since there is a debate on whether it merits inclusion, 'speedy deletion' (and locking) is inappropriate. It'd be nice to have this unlocked and restored so it can be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy freelance (talk • contribs)

I'd also like to know why this was deleted. Designing an award-winning game has been accepted as proof of notability for other game designers. He is also arguably the inventor of Theatre-style live action role-playing, which has its own article. Kmusser 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For information, the logs show there were two deletions: 05:39, 11 November 2006 and 14:29, 14 November 2006, which I make to be a little under 81 hours, rather than 12. Chris talk back 15:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking in the wrong window at the time. I was rapidly deleting articles and thought the window I was looking at was for a different one. It shouldn't have been deleted, but I don't know the process for this. Should I let the DRV run or recreate it? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a mistake you made, recreate it, close this, and list at AfD. Clearly you yourself do not believe process was followed with the delete either, and it's fairly obvious. ColourBurst 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD. 81 hours or 12, seems like there's a fairly controversial assertion of notability, so this should have gone to AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sure doesn't look like a valid claim, and I'd have kicked it as a laborious A7, but, if the fans, friends, employees, and subjects are so avid, we can let AfD have it. Send to AfD but not because the deletion was improper. Geogre 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Independent non-trivial coverage? Guy (Help!) 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that will be covered when it goes to AfD, but if you google "Mike Young" LARP you get 1,470 hits, many of which are independant reviews of his games. Kmusser 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fewer hits than you get looking for "Guy Chapman" +cyclist, and it drops to around 1,000 (of which around 200 are unique) if you exclude forums. Not terribly persuasive. Try working it up in userspace to establish significance and verifiability. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do that I'd want a copy of the article as it was to start from - I wasn't the original author. I was working on adding references to it at the time it got deleted. Kmusser 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to add that Mr. Young was named LARP Guest of Honor for the 2005 Origins Gaming Expo, a nationally-recognized gaming convention.User:gregcrowe 00:40, 15 November 2006

I've been to a couple of Origins cons, and its LARP Guest of Honor is a pretty minor award, not something major enough to be an indicator of notability. In particular, not enough to overturn an AfD consensus. Barno 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, there wasn't an AfD. Since the notability assertion here is controversial, CSD A7 compels us to send it to AfD --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we have consensus. It's been a couple of days, can an admin unprotect it and roll back the article so it can be marked AfD and the discussion continued therein? User:Sandy_freelance

Overturn and relist on AFD. Is there any particular reason that the current AFD cited is a red link? Was the deletion discussion deleted too?? RFerreira 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was never listed on AfD. Kmusser 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references in Warcraft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references in Warcraft

JoshuaZ made a decision that this article should be deleted stating that "the vast majority of this list is either original research or does not come from reliable sources." Yet, just looking over the discussion one can see that there is no vast majority one way or the other. Although I am bias in that I wish to see this article kept, I do believe that the correct discussion should have been no consenses. In fact, JoshuaZ stated in my talk page, "I agree that many of the deletion arguments were not sound. Nor for that matter were many of the keep arguments." That seems to be in favor of no consenses in my eyes. I don't want to start a debate about the article itself, but rather discussion the decision that was given based on the discussion found in the AfD. --Pinkkeith 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I misread the first quote that I gave. He is giving his opinion on the article, not the comments. Shouldn't the person making the decision be making it based on what the commentors stated rather then his/her own opinion? I was assuming this to be true and my precognitions made me misread that statement. --Pinkkeith 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will for now abstain from endorsing my own deletion (I've always had issues with that). However, if anyone feels that it would be useful for me to expand my reasoning I would be happy to do so. JoshuaZ

My opinion was based on the comments about the article. I would think that was apparent. Whether I said "the comments that argued X were strong" or "X is a strong argument" is simply a matter of phrasing. JoshuaZ 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - None of the keep opinions actually addressed any of the actual issues with the article (In that the article was unsourced, original research and unverifiable). They chose to argue over definitions of wiki policy and completely failed to actually provide the references and sources that would have led to the article being kept. The Kinslayer 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to state that The Kinslayer was in favor of deletion of the article. I do have to disagree with his statement that the other side of the arguement made a fail attempt. In fact, discussion policy and how it applies to the articles is what you do in an AfD. As I stated, I am in favor of keepign it, and I do believe some people made good points on either side of the debate. I believe that Kinslayer is showing a clear bias. --Pinkkeith 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm biased in favor of Wiki policy. And I wont be the only one from the AfD coming here to discuss (not call other people biased in an attempt to devalue their comments) this article, since you put that little note over at the CVG project deletion page. Additionally, you have yet to state why you think this article should be undeleted. Just listing what the closing admin said is not really a convincing arguement. I may be biased (in your opinion at least), but at least I provide my justification for my decision. The discussion in the AfD was constantly being sidetracked by people saying 'keep' he were picking apart peoples examples with absurd examples of their own, yet completely failing to keep any of it relevent to the article. Your just coming across as a whiney kid who didn't like the decission. The Kinslayer 15:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is your interpretation of the policy that is your bias. I put the note there in order to get other people's opinons on the topic. In fact, you are a member of the said project, so if that really was my intention it didn't work. Yet, it wasn't my intention. I'm not being whiney about it or stating that it should be undeleted, I am just disagreeing with the decision that it should be deleted. My decision would have been no consenses as I stated above. --Pinkkeith 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And since 'No consensus' results in a keep, you would have got the decision you were pushing for. And since we are in deletion review, how can you state you aren't saying the article should be undeleted? And incidently, your doing it again. Rather than argue why this article should be undeleted, you are trying to argue why my Endorse Delete should be discounted.The Kinslayer 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to the adminstator who deleted the article if there was a way to appeal his/her decision and the user said to take it here, so that is what I did. I am not stating it should be undeleted (which is what this section seems to be about, but an adminstator directed me here so I put my concerns here) I am stating that the decision should have been no consensus. I am not trying to say your opinions are false, incorrect or not vaild. I am just stating that the decision that was passed to delete the article in my eyes was incorrect. --Pinkkeith 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Kinslayer is showing a clear bias. Your own words. No, it is your interpretation of the policy that is your bias. Also your own words. Funny way of 'not trying to say your opinions are false, incorrect or not valid' (Again, your words.) I repectfully ask that you stop saying I'm biased since A) I find it offensive and B) A bias is a natural occurance from representing a certain viewpoint. I thought the article should be deleted, so I debated in favor of deletion. I think the article should stay deleted, so I argue in favor of that. I provide reasons to back these decisions up. But anyway, the fact remains that throughout the AfD, not one person who wanted to keep the article went and looked for any sources (which was the MAIN issue) for the information. The article was chock full of editors interpretations of what they thought were references in the game, and as I stated in the AfD, there are many that have alternative interpretations (such as the Napolean Dynamite 'reference'.) So unless sources are strictly enforced upon any information, everyone is given free licence to include anything they can vaguely link to something as a reference, turning the entire article into an uncontrollable free-for-all that WOULD spiral out of control. WP:V is there for a reason. The Kinslayer 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't want to overly talk about this, but my quotes you stated there are just trying to point out to those who read these entries that you might have a bias in that you voted for deletion on the AfD. I made it clear in my comment where my position was, because I wanted to point it out to others who may not know. I am sorry if I offended you, but I wanted others to know that you may have a bias because of your position on the AfD. --Pinkkeith 16:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your completely missing the point! Of course I'm biased in favor leaving the article deleted, just like your biased in favour of having the article undeleted. The difference between the two of us is that you insist on calling me biased all the time and have yet to actually state why you feel the article should be undeleted, whereas I am refraining from passing comments to attempt to discredit your own opinion and provide solid reasons as to why I think this article should be kept deleted. To simplify: Your turning this into a discussion about my opinion, whereas I am trying to keep this as a discussion about the article. In point of fact, this is exactly what was happening in the AfD. The people in favor of deleting the article were providing good reasons for their opinion, while the people wishing to keep the article were going around trying to undermine each persons opinion instead of actually providing the required information that would have lead to the article being kept. If all the keepers had spent as much time trying to make the article sourced and verifiable as they had trying to confuse the issue on the AfD by sidetracking everyone into discussions on whether or not the sky is blue (this actually happened) then we probably wouldn't be experiencing Deja Vu here now. Can you please try to actually keep this discussion on track and related to the article in question?The Kinslayer 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is compeletly pointless. I'm not discussing whether or not the article should be deleted or not deleted. I'm discussing the decision of the AfD as being a delete, I think it should be no consensus. I don't wish to talk about the article, we already did that in the AfD. I'm talking about the judgement that was made on the AfD. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I hope you understand now. --Pinkkeith 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the ultimate decision is always made based on the strength of the arguements made in the AfD and not a show of hands. Regardless of how close it was, the Admin felt that the people in favor of delete made the stronger case. They did. Just looking at the AfD, the people wanting to keep the article barely mention it at all. They manage to discuss everything BUT the article in the AfD, whereas the people in favor of deleting it provide numerous well-founded reasons, citing wiki policies, guidelines and essays that support their case. And given that the AfD is over an article, you have to reference the article for the AfD to actually make any sense.The Kinslayer 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually DRV is mainly about whether process was followed, it is not a general forum for appeal of AfDs. JoshuaZ 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he stated that they were not sound on either side in my talk page. The admin also never really stated which opinons had the stronger say in the actual AfD, the admin just stated her/his own opinon on the article. Again, I disagree with what you think of the opinons of those in favor of keeping the article. I think there were well founded reasons to keep it as well, as did the admin who made the final decision. That's all I'm saying on the subject. I already stated this over and over again. --Pinkkeith 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it would be implied by comments that I thought the OR arguments brought up were stronger than the general keep arguments. JoshuaZ 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion correct interpretation of policy. The main keep argument was that "it's not sourceable/original research because it's obvious from playing the game". This sounds like an admission of being original research, rather than an argument for keeping. Tizio 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure No abuse of discretion visible. I parse JoshuaZ's closing comment as saying that there were two deletion arguments, one of which was sufficient reason to delete (The OR / lack of reliable sources argument) and the second of which (the TRIVIA argument) was minor and not in itself enough reason to delete. He further said that neither was "adequately addressed" by the keep proponents, which is a clear evaluation of the strength of the arguments. The number of opiners was close to being in balance and we expect closers to weigh the strength of the arguments in such situations. Finally, I've read the keep arguments, and don't see anything there that clearly makes Joshua's read of the argument strength wrong, because I see no mention of sourcing of any of the material independently of playing the game and playing/watching/reading/etc... each of the other pieces of popular culture. GRBerry 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Er, not completely. A small number were sourced to an article in a reliable source and they did point to some fan sites (which didn't constitute reliable sources) but other than that I think you're correct (that's why I said "vast majority" rather than "all")
Endorse Deletion. WP:NOT. Cruft. AfD is about policy/projectgoal-based discussion, not votes. --Improv 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right, the dicussion is based on the dicussion not the votes. There have been a number of people who stated they didn't feel that this is original research and others that did. I don't honestly see how you can say that this is a delete decision with as many people on both sides of the issue. Some with good points and some with bad points on either side. --Pinkkeith 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Decision appears well within admin discretion, after viewing the argument. It was closed with no prejudice against re-creation, so there's nothing preventing supporters from writing a new, sourced version of the article. Shimeru 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above, and we should codify this into a Wikipedia:Not for things you noticed watching TV one day essay. There is just too much of this stuff all over Wikipedia: Crime and Punishment — There is an NPC in Stormwind City named Nikova Raskol, a play on the name Raskolnikov, and those discussions tend to drag on endlessly. If it's not OR, there must be a reliable source somewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You could look at Category:Episodes by television series for research for your essay. --Pinkkeith 22:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, canonical fancruft and original research to boot. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per above. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate: while I do not think that the closer did anything improper, I do not think AfD is the place to go for cleaning up articles. I contend that if the one really wanted to see the article cleaned up, one should mark the statements in question with {{fact}}, and after a sufficient time (say a week or two), delete the unverified statement. Disclosure: I voted to keep the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is one of the bad arguments used. People are saying that the article is OR, and then the people who want it kept say "Well, then, you should help clean it up!" If someone says to delete due to OR, then they do not think it CAN be cleaned up, so telling them "Fix it then!" is useless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have already stated why I felt it wasn't OR in the AfD and several people supported and/or backed up this claim. This has been over looked and ignored. --Pinkkeith 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ignored is strong word. Did it occur to you maybe that the closing admin simply thought that in the end the people debating that it IS OR had the stronger arguement (again, it doesn't matter that it was close or that there were weak arguements on both side.) You seem to keep trying to claim bad faith in the AfD closure. (that's what your choice of words implies to my biased self.) The Kinslayer 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't read it that way. The first sentence in the closing discussion was the closers opinion. The second sentence talking about Trivia. I think that both sides of the discussion was not addressed, nothing should be implied, it should be stated. --Pinkkeith 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure since the concern over the lack of citations is a significant argument which makes the article have WP:V problems. If the good folks over at the Runescape Wikia ([2]) want it, we can transwiki the list there (they also have GFDL so this is possible). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not challenging the closure because I don't have a strong argument against the claim of trivia, but I wanted to comment that I think many of the interpretations of original research given above and in the AFD are too broad. First, many seemed to ignore the fact that there are at least two sources for the references to other works—the game itself, and the work that is being referenced. It is not original research to rely upon a work of fiction for a description of that work of fiction, because a primary source is a reliable source for its own content, and it is not prohibited "original research" to use it as such. Second, even when it's accepted that "Game X says Y" and "Movie Z says Y" are sourced, it's claimed that it's original research in every case to conclude that "Game X's use of Y is a reference to Movie Z's use of Y" based on the comparison alone. I think this is based on the notion that WP:OR somehow removes the necessity for a contributor to use any independent judgment or preexisting knowledge, which is absurd if taken to an extreme absolute; unless we just copy and paste, we're always required to exercise some judgment in digesting and comparing sources, to figure out how they interrelate and how they overlap in their coverage of the same topic; absolutely requiring a third source in every instance to tell us how those two sources interrelate would of course lead to an infinite regression. At some point, judgment has to step in. So the question is whether it's ever so inevitable a conclusion to say that a quote in one work of fiction can only be explained as a reference to another work of fiction. I believe some quotes and references are so unique and specific that there is no other plausible explanation other than Movie Z was the origin of quote Y that was used by Game X. Would we really need to refer to a third source saying that "Game X's quote of "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" is a reference to the Wizard of Oz," or would the game and the Wizard of Oz be sufficient sources for making that conclusion? I think in such a case, a direct comparison would be sufficiently reliable, and not count as prohibited OR. Whether any of the references in the list approach that degree of obviousness is more debatable (I think some are substantial enough), but my main disagreement in the AFD was with the extreme position that no comparisons are so obvious as to make the conclusion inevitable. Postdlf 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the point I was trying to make in the AfD which I thought wasn't addressed in the final closing decission. --Pinkkeith 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The example given above is perfect example of what I was saying. These so called 'references' are mostly editor interpretation. Sure 'Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!' could be a Wizard of Oz reference. It could also be a Predator 2 reference as it is said by one of the characters describing the Predator coming to Earth to hunt. Without sources, this is nothing more than an editors interpretation of what he believes the event to be a reference to, and is therefore original research. Sure it could be a reference to Wiazrad of Oz in one editors opinon but it could instead be a reference to Predator 2. This arguement (as previously stated) also applied to most of the information in the article. Sure the information may well be there fr those with access to the material to see, but so are many other alternative interpretations of it. The Kinslayer 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's always a Wizard of Oz reference because that's the origin of the quote. How is a reference to a reference not a reference to the original? Maybe there's some implication of "reference" that is confusing. Postdlf 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think we've been over this already. Some "references" are to the original work, but some are not. (Kill Bill/Hanzo sword is a good example - Kill Bill did not create the Hattori Hanzo character, but the article says the reference is to Kill Bill. That's editor bias.) So evidently it's not as obvious as you think. ColourBurst 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Apples and oranges. If Kill Bill wasn't the origin of the term "Hanzo," concluding that a use of "Hanzo" is a reference to Kill Bill is well outside what I'm talking about. Postdlf 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least when books and films are used as primary sources for trivia, those looking to verify the contents can skip to the appropriate page or point in the movie. Expecting people to play through an MMORPG until they reach the point where the trivia can be found is, IMO, not reasonable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted This sort of thing is more in the nature of research notes than the nature of an article. Almost all lists of trivial and pop culture references should be deleted. If the material isn't important enough to belong in the main text of the relevant article, it isn't important enough to mention at all. Sumahoy 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gear4music

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/gear4music

Changed article radically so it is factual only but cannot remember exactly how as it was deleted without comments about the changes, edited article format read similar to info about dolphin music in wikipedia. Thanks Sushmasspace 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William_Sledd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William_Sledd

Notability now proven through interview in major media. Article about William Sledd appears in the november 2nd edition of "Women's Wear Daily" covering his rising popularity. Arislan 10:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, recent and valid deletion, Angela has moved this to wikiasite:internet:William Sledd where Wikipedia policy concerns do not arise. Seems like a nicely pragmatic solution to me. Guy 12:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Just the Guy. Eusebeus 12:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD, overturn deletion. Unfortunately proper at the time, not anymore. Should be restored, possibly a new AfD should run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the article was recreated so soon after its deletion, with the "evidence of notability" having happened before the AfD closed, I saw no reason (AfD closed November 9, WWD article November 2). In reviewing the older versions, it appears that it only appeared in the recreated version, but I still stand by my deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if it happened before the AfD closed, it wasn't obviously noted in the AfD unless I missed it. The new information would supercede it, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - William Sledd listed as youtube star in Chicago Sun Times article.[3]--Arislan 22:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This one was brought up during the AfD. It's a list item, and isn't worth anything. WarpstarRider 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        To be precise, he was listed (i.e. mentioned among several others), in a column, not a news article. Speaking as a subscriber to this paper, Paige Wiser's is a human-interest column, not a hard news source. Fan-1967 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, this is an exceedingly weak point of notability. I still stand by the article's deletion at this time, though if he gets more press time, I'd be willing to restore it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion I'm EVula and I approve this ad deletion. (if the fact that I deleted it didn't confirm it already) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion but keep collecting those articles. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibility of Recreation There should be the possibility of this article being recreated on a later date, the protection should be taken off. In Williams most recent video he talks about being in L.A. because producers wanted to talk to him. This could be the start of Williams notable fame. So there should be an option to recreate this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tezzy149 (talk • contribs) .
- If that is the case, hold on recreation until he actually achieves his "notable fame". Endorse the deletion as performed. Chris talk back 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 * '''Possibility of Recreation''' There should be the possibility of this article being recreated on a later date, the protection should be taken off. In Williams most recent video he talks about being in L.A. because producers wanted to talk to him. This could be the start of Williams notable fame. So there should be an option to recreate this article. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Tezzy149|Tezzy149]] ([[User talk:Tezzy149|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tezzy149|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 ** If that is the case, hold on recreation until he actually achieves his "notable fame".  '''Endorse''' the deletion as performed.  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new talk back]</small> 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)]]====
-:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)]]
-:{{la|Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)}}
-Some of the text on this page violated the copyright of the Buffyguide website, from which it was taken without permission.  Rather than simply remove the offending text, the entire page has been deleted, along with fourteen or so other Buffy episode pages.--[[User:Nalvage|Nalvage]] 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-*You can freely create this or any other of the pages in your own words whenever you want. If they were copyvios, there's nothing we can really undelete, except the infoboxes and categories and whatever else was added. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:Only the short episode "summary" (approximately one paragraph) was a copyvio.  The vast bulk of the text and info on the page was not.--[[User:Nalvage|Nalvage]] 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-::Reverting to the version before the edits in March would make more sense. I don't yet know if just removing the summary section would be better than reverting everything. If [[User:BuffyGuide]] had only added to those summary sections, it's possible the rest of the article is fine since other sections are unlikely to be derivatives works of the summary. See also [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy#Episode Guide Copyright]]. It's possible [[User:AnGeL X|AnGeL X]]'s edits need to be removed as well. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:: This is quite worrying: there should be no ''vast bulk'' of an article on a single Buffy episode. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::There is, in fact, quite a lot of scholarly material published about Buffy. See the somewhat startling article [[Buffy_studies]]. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 15:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-*It's quite possible to restore all edits before the one that added the copyvio. It's just a lot of clicking :) That's what I'd recommend, unless other copyvio stuff comes up. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::I hope we don't rush to delete lots more hard work here, only one paragraph of text on these articles is the issue. Furthermore I contacted BuffyGuide.com earlier this year and received permission to use the short summaries from this web site under an account called 'BuffyGuide' which would represent the site, and I really don't understand why the web master would be saying the content is used without permission. I will email the web master of BuffyGuide.com as soon as I have access to my email and hopefully resolve this issue. -- [[User:Paxomen|Paxomen]] 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::*Ah, well, the point is that the author must not give his permission for us to use the content on Wikipedia, but rather he must release the content under the [[GFDL]]. This, basically, allows anyone in the world to use it anywhere. A "Wikipedia-only" license is in contradiction to our own license. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 14:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-::::*Just to chime in with a very short paraphrase of what I've posted elsewhere - Paxomen did believe that he had my permission, but it wasn't actually me who granted that permission (not his fault). And the [[GFDL]] is indeed the reason why I'm not granting it now - I'm just not prepared to offer my work up to the whole world. -- [[User:Actual BuffyGuide|Actual BuffyGuide]] 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-::To radiant: click on the box for the first version, shift-click on the last version before the copyvio and it will tick all the boxes between those two for undeletion. That's just two clicks per page. - [[User:Bobet|Bobet]] 13:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-::*Hey, that's clever. Thanks. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 14:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-*I have restored all edits to this page prior to AngelX's and BuffyGuide's. This should now be free of copyvio concerns. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:Which means we've lost all the other worthwhile edits made to the page over the last *eight* months.  It would have been much (''much'') simpler to restore the page as it was prior to deletion, and then simply remove or rewrite the few sentences that violated copyright.--[[User:Nalvage|Nalvage]] 14:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-:*I agree that would have been much simpler, but I'm afraid the GFDL doesn't allow us to do that. I'm pretty much at a loss as to how else to solve this. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-::Create a temp page of the last version before deletion, copy the non-infringing text from that to the current page, delete the temp page, and leave a message on the talk page of all articles treated in this fashion? -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 15:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Resolved now. I've dumped the history on the talk page, and compiled a new version incorporating all edits except the copyvio. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 10:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)