Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:12, 29 October 2006

< October 23	October 25 >

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

24 October 2006

SkyNET Telesystems and CyberDyne IP Systems

Would respectfully request that these two pages be relisted, they were deleted for reasons of 1) not being relevant, and 2) due to the name of the CEO of both companies being the same. As to the relevance issue, both companies are associated with the VoIP industry: The page postings of SkyNET Telesystems and of CyberDyne IP Systems were both in the process of having more historical data added to them when they were deleted. Additionally, these two pages had relevant data on a same level as that of Packet8 and SunRocket, which are still listed. Once relisted, both pages WILL have additional historical data added to them.

On the point of Mr. Hitchens being listed as the CEO of both companies in the Key People area of the page, and somehow being a conflict of interest, it should be noted that if Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Mobile are checked, Sir Richard Branson is listed as a Key Person on both postings.....not a conflict of interest there?

So, please relist these pages. Changes will be made to bring them more in line with what is deemed a proper listing.

Comment: I speedily deleted both articles under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11 - Blatant advertising: Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic as supported by these following excerpts:

SkyNET Telesystems

"In addition the broadband plans SKyNET also offers their customers toll free access to their VoIP network by dialing a toll free number..."
"SkyNET Telesystems International calling includes...for full list Click here
"Some of the various features offered include: Caller ID with Name, Voice Mail, ..."

CyberDyne IP Systems

"...is available to companies or individuals wishing to terminate their high volume voice traffic."
"Additionally, the services are available to those companies with large call volumes wishing to lower their phone charges."
"Some of the various services offered include:...Reseller Opportunities"

Furthermore, no attempt was made to assert the notability of either company using 3rd party sources independent of the company itself as required by Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). -- Netsnipe ► 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid G11 deletions. Nothing prevents anyone writing an article which asserts and verifies notability of these companies. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid G11 speedies. Guy 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid G11 speedies. I put a speedy template on once before and here it is again. And now someone else has stuck one on there...--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid G11 terminations. —ptk✰fgs 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchopedia

Come on! what's going on here? With approaching 100,000 Google hits Anarchopedia is notable. I see absolutely no reason for this deleted page to be protected. Continued protection says all the wrong things about Wikipedia. So get it unprotected and I'll write a (short) article about Anarchopedia. Arcturus 18:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia, last deleted by Xoloz as a repost on 10/2/06. --W.marsh 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchopedia 3rd nomination appears to be the most recent AFD, closed by Xoloz on 8/15/06. (There also was a no consensus second nomination.) GRBerry 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Article subject already went through successful afd nom plus apparently 2 deletion reviews which concluded with supporting the deletion verdict. Compelling new evidence needs to be introduced to reopen the issue. Googling for Anarchopedia produces a lot of noise, but it seems very difficult to find anything authoritative as a source. Single hit in Factiva database - from a brief mention in an Irish Times column discussing the Los Angeles Times' 2005 ill-fated and short-lived "wikitorial" experiment. (And the column inaccurately uses Anarchopedia as one example of "many" Wikipedia fork projects) Bwithh 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion valid AfD. Who cares how many Google hits there are when there are only [128 unique Google hits]. Plus all the usual: WP:WEB, WP:V, lack of reliable sources, etc. With the AfD and previous DRVs, consensus is clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Google hits mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. No reason presented to overturn AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion If the nominator believes that an article can now be written that meets WP:WEB based on independent coverage in sources that meet our standards for reliability, they are encouraged to do so in their userspace and propose that article here. There is too much unpalatable history here for me to be comfortable unprotecting the article before seeing the new version. GRBerry 21:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No additional arguments in favor. `'mikkanarxi 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. On my way out this evening I stood in a puddle. On returning home I looked it up in Wikipedia and there it was, an article about the puddle outside my house! Wikipedia is full to the brim with non notable articles and in serious danger of overflowing. Maybe Anarchopedia doesn't pass the Wikipedia notability test (I think it probably does). One thing is certain though, it is critical of Wikipedia, and of Jimmy Wales. Funny then, that mention of it here, i.e. within its own article, is forbidden. If I didn't know any better I'd be thinking that there are hidden agendas in operation; maybe there are. Personally I'm not that bothered one way or the other, but banning an article about this subject leaves Wikipedia open to the worst possible criticism, namely that it applies censorship. Whether or not censorship is actually applied is irrelevant. It will be perceived to be the case. You have been warned! Arcturus 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no, I just realised Britannica doesn't have an entry on this either! Neither does Encarta, Funk & Wagnalls, World Book, or The Greater Ozarks Bass Fishing Guide! It's worse than I thought! Everyone is trying to censor you! It's a worldwide conspiracy!!!!1 Ok, ok, seriously... if you see other non-notable articles on WP, prod them or take them to AfD. The (true enough) fact that we do have some bad articles doesn't mean we need/want more of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like the guy below, you haven't grasped the main point I'm trying to make, so let me try again. It's the fact that the article can't be (re)created that leaves Wikipedia open to criticism. It probably wouldn't matter for any other article, but in Anarchopedia, which I happen to think is crap anyway, we have a site that lambasts Wikipedia. Therefore it will be concluded that the reason for this "censorship" is not because of notability or the lack of it, but simply because of its critical stance. Now you might know this is not the case, ans so might I, but the world at large will see it differently. Arcturus 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So every site critical of Wikipedia should have an article in Wikipedia, for the sake of openness, and to avoid criticism on that count? Would this include, say, Joe Smith's sister's cousin's brother-in-law's blog at livejournal? We have no obligation to cover criticisms of Wikipedia unless they stem from an otherwise notable source; just insulting us shouldn't be sufficient reason to have an article within us. My girlfriend certainly hates Wikipedia, mainly for the amount of time I spend here, and I don't think she merits an article: Do you? Xoloz 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Get a grip of yourself! It's the fact that the article can't even be created. Do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? Arcturus 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Censorship isn't the same as deleting things for lacking notability. And as it is, there are still 479 links to anarchopedia from wikipedia, so whoever's doing this "censoring" is kind of sloppy. - Bobet 06:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion, valid AfD, valid G4. To the above commenter: the presence of non-notable article is not evidence in favor of allowing every non-notable article. Such a flawed "reverse slippery slope" argument would, if followed, make Wikipedia a depository for every bit of information that exists, a violation of WP:NOT. Furthermore, while Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, it is censored to eliminate unencyclopedic material. This is good thing, and the major defense that prevents Wikipedia from becoming a blog. This kind of "censorship" is sometimes called "quality control." Xoloz 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the above commenter, you obviously haven't understood the major point I was trying to make, and perhaps you should find out what quality control is actually about. Anyway, no worries. Like I said, I'm not that bothered one way or the other. Arcturus 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the delete debate, the opinions of the site's owner on its encyclopaedic merit may not be fully objective. The temptation to speedy close any nomination which invokes censorship is overwhelming. Guy 14:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for someone who is not bothered one way or the other, the author sure seems to care a lot about this page. Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
 -->
-==== 4-4-1 ====
-Re: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4-4-1]] Deletion was instigated by a user clearly hostile to Christianity ([[User:The Crying Orc|The Crying Orc]]) and has shown[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#The_Crying_Orc_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29| bad faith behavior before]] and has no expertise in the subject of Christian Rock music as it would pertain to 4-4-1.  User [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] states a weak [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=441&sql=11:ck9us32ba3zg~T2 allmusic.com entry].  4-4-1's three releases in the 80's had been out of print until recently and there is, in fact, an allmusic.com entry.  Jayron's discovery of an Ohio 4-4-1 is another band with the same name (something that needs to be addressed) and thus concludes the information on the [http://441online.com band website] is false.  This is not true.  The real 4-4-1 is from Southern California and is notable, with three record releases with [http://www.wordrecords.com/ national distribution in the 1980s], a #1 ranked song (Break Out) on the (then) high profile radio station [[KYMS]] in Los Angeles in 1984, #2 ranked song on the Contemporary Christian Music magazine national rock chart in July, 1985 and an album in the top 40 in the same magazine's charts in '85.  Many items are difficult to reference, pre-web.  The band was an important part of the Christian New Music movement in the 80s and the deletion of the page leaves a gap in the history of that period.  The band is notable for performing at many significant venues (which their contemporaries [[The Choir]], [[The 77s]], [[Adam Again]], [[Undercover (band)]] also played) such as [[Calvary Chapel|Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa]], [http://www.441online.com/pics/85_441_knottsprogram_640.jpg Knott's Berry Farm festivals], the [[Cornerstone Festival]], Icthus festival and, last May, Spirit West Coast.  As indicated, the band has reformed and has also played at the [http://christianmusic.about.com/b/a/169077.htm Broken Records reunion concert with several of the aforementioned groups].  Searching on the 4-4-1/441 name is problematic and does not always lead to easy returns.  Other references for notability:  Popular contemporary group [[Joy Electric]] talks about [http://www.opuszine.com/blog/entry.html?ID=1286 441's influence], [http://www.spiritwestcoast.org/delmar/appearing.php 441 at the Spirit West Coast festival], [http://www.441online.com/pics/ccmcover_aug_86_640.jpg a CCM magazine (leading Christian music magazine for decades) cover with 441's name on it], [http://www.thechoir.net/pages/thebeatgoeson.html a review of the Broken Reunion concert from 2005]
-[[User:Gh228|Gh228]] 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Gh228
-<b>[[User:Gh228]] additional comments - </b>  Although I mentioned the bias of [[User:The Crying Orc|The Crying Orc]], the thrust of my argument was that 4-4-1 was indeed notable.  The Crying Orc and [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] based their arguments on notability, with Jayron also bringing up the possibility of misleading information as he had found contradictory data on the web.  I think I have disproved the latter.  [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] mentions “actual popularity” and “mainstream music press” and puts the Christian music sub-genre in a light of relative invalidity.  I can pull up thousands of articles on Wikipedia that certainly aren’t “mainstream” and I do not think this is the test.  Genre validity is also a tricky subject, because who is the one who passes judgment?  Granted, the Christian Alternative sub-genre is small, as are a lot of off-mainstream genres, and not every historically notable item worthy of Wikipedia entry can be <b>easily</b> substantiated.  The band did, in fact, release three albums with national distribution, get played on the radio nationally with good success, performed many notable concerts both 20 years ago and now that they are reformed, presently.  Again, this isn’t a coffee house group, as was part of the original rationale for deletion nor is this a useless “vanity” page.  The band was an integral part of a specific movement that has a place, albeit small, in music history.  Their acheivement of having a #1 song and record in the first week of release on an all-CCM radio station in a major market was unprecedented.  <b>That is notable.</b>  Therefore, based on the facts, worthy of inclusion.  I appreciate the desire for sales figures and, frankly, those are going to be hard to get from defunct labels from 20 years ago.  Thoughts such as "soft ride" and "traveling with evangelists" may be true in general for some segments of the genre (and may be thoughts I agree with at some level) but are not germane to the issue nor do they apply to this group (with the exception of a [http://441online.com/galleries/1985anaheimcc.htm few performances linked to the Billy Graham crusade] which, if you're going to play with an evangelist, he's the one to hook up with.).
-[http://www.441online.com/pics/ccmstory_aug_86_1024.jpg Please see this link, a review from Contemporary Christian Music magazine from August 1985.]  It verifies many of the things I’ve stated, such as the airplay, chart position, album releases, distribution.  There is no more credible source than CCM magazine in this genre.  [http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Mar06/Art_Mar06_21.html Another link to the Christian Examiner re the recent festival appearance by the band.]  - Respectfully, [[User:Gh228|Gh228]] 14:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Gh228
-*'''Endorse closure, but relist'''.  Seems to be enough here to reconsider. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' I agree.  There's enough here that it's worth another look. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', which was a valid interpretation of the debate.  No credible evidence is presented of ill-faith on the part of the nominator, and undelete requests based on supposed bias without credible evidence is calculated to harden my heart (quite aside fomr being [[special pleading]]).  Actually I think any relist based on supposed bias which is not backed by substantial evidence should be rejected out of hand on principle.  As to the subject, the sources cited above do not look reliable to me as they are either blogs or not independent of the source. '''Allow relist''' if necessary, although Christian bands are hard to quantify; they tend to distribute through Christian outlets and tour with evangelists, not as independent acts.  Actual popularity can be very hard to quantify.  A verifiable figure for record sales would help a lot, as would evidence of being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in impartial reliable sources independent of the subject.  A review in the mainstream music press is what I'm really looking for here, something which I have seen for the best Christian bands.  Average Christian bands get a bit of a soft ride, since the message is generally considered over and above any objective musical merit - in as much as musical merit can be objectively judged.  We would normally, I think, delete a band if the only people who have passed judgment on it are those predisposed to approve of it.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' - three albums released by a company that handles major artists like [[Amy Grant]] and [[Randy Travis]], if they can be cited properly, gives them at least some footing under [[WP:MUSIC]]; I'd like to see the applicant above provide some sources for greater consideration, and the confusion involving the other band with this name concerns me as well. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' There is very, very little cross press between the coverage of Christian music and the coverage of other forms of music.  This is because a large share of the audience for Christian music actively wants not to see/hear/read about other forms, so the press coverage splits into two camps.  There is enough here to relist.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)