Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 11

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

11 September 2006

Roni Lynn Deutch

This article was improperly deleted afer it was spammed for delete votes and an inflated consensus voted to delete. I think that the arguements come down to this, Roni Lynn Deutch is the head of a nationwide tax law firm that specializes in tax debt relief, her company has been around for almost 16 years. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there are different standards for inclusion, people come here to research companies that they intend to use, like Jackson Hewitt, JK Harris & Company, LLC, Video Professor, Dell, and many other companies that use television ads. There are people who are going to want to know about Ronie Deutch and who will come to wikipedia and want to find out about her. This article was requested long before I even created it. And if every single pokemon character has their own wikipedia page, then why should Roni Deutch not have one? I am sure more people are going to want to know about Roni Deutch then about some unknown pokemon character. WP:BIO says "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." I would say she fits this requirement, her company was one of the first ones to provide offer in compromise services, and she has gained recognition for her work. Hundreds of blogs and forums talk about her, she has thousands of google results, she has a post about her in urban dictionary, and she even has a fan site. The article deletion discussion brought up good points, but then it was spammed for delete votes. If these votes had not been included then the article would have been no consesus. The admin who deleted it said that the votes did not change the outcome, but I disagree. Herostratus posted this at Famspear's talk page: "After deleting the article Roni Lynn Deutch, what did I find in the links but that you had spammed user tall pages regarding the AfD. If you had not done this, I would have deleted anyway, but now the deletion is tainted. There's every reason now for the article to go to deletion review where is should probably be relisted and start again. I'll make a note of this on the AfD page. This is pain because the article should not exist in my opinion. So don't do that. Herostratus 03:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)" Herostratus says that in his opinion the article should not exist, it seems that Herostratus let their opinion about Roni Deutch get in the way of judging the article fairly. After the vote spam was discovered there is no reason the article should not be overturned to a no consensus vote.

• speedy overturn I feel very strongly that this article was improperly deleted, I think that the decision should be changed to no consesus which is the decision that would have been reached had there not been vote spam.--mathewguiver 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review

The MFD for deletion review was closed as Keep after about only four hours. Due to the short timespan, only DRV regulars had any real chance of seeing the page and commenting and as a result the brief discussion failed to capture a reasonable sample of the Wikipedian community. Even with that bias there was still a fair amount of support for deletion and the folks supporting deletion tended to write strong arguments, while the folks supporting keep simply cast votes. I think that this is as an important an issue as any that we've had outside of article space in recent memory and that it deserves a good discussion. No matter what the outcome I think we could all grow from more communication and introspection. --Gmaxwell 13:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many DRV regulars consider it (and insist on it) as being strictly for consideration of AFD process, and by strict vote. So: make DRV strictly for AFD process consideration, and the newly-reborn AFU for merit considerations. This way they both get what they need for a workable process - David Gerard 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So would you prefer we Endorse, Relist, or Overturn this decision? I'm DRV clueless but I think that you're only supposted to answer with one of those bolded words. :) --Gmaxwell 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't see the point of relisting or overturning it, but I don't endorse it either since that's a big problem with DRV. "Leave it undeleted for now" (or Doc glasgow's Shrug) is probably closest - David Gerard 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse decision to keep. DRV is a component of the undeletion policy. Policies are pretty firm. Although they can change, XfDs are not the normal place to recommend policy changes. That being the case, the nomination itself was out of process. If someone wants to change the undeletion policy to remove the DRV, I think that the appropriate places to take it would be the policy's talk page or the village pump. —Cswrye 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This answer is a parody of the bad ideas described in Process is Dangerous, right? - David Gerard 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting essay. I actually agree that there is too much process and it should be streamlined, but I also believe that as long it exists, it should be followed. Bad processes should be changed--by going through the right processes, of course! (That was a parody of your essay.) I understand and support using ignore all rules for uncontroversial issues, but if there is a dispute, following process is the most neutral way to handle it. --Cswrye 14:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Shrug--Doc 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse my own closure Take this to a centralized discussion, why don't you? The problem with the MfD is that 1) MfD is not equipped to handle policy proposals (and getting rid of DRV is one, whether you call it that or not; and 2) an MfD on the top of the DRV page will confuse the heck out of newbies, and snarl things at DRV, leaving Wikipedia without an efficient means of review of its duration. (Ironically, the DRV notice is less intrusive, I'll give you that.)
• If I read Mr. Maxwell right, he wants two processes to replace one? Sounds like process-wonking and bureaucratic hell to me -- not the best idea, but I have my suspicions this entire affair is a joke anyway. So, have fun! Ha ha! Xoloz 14:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• w00t! Recursive process! Wikipedia disappears up own arse... Guy 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist. Definitely worth a hearing, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse *fD is not for policy discussions. -- nae'blis 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kai Christophe Wong

This was deleted by a sysop under racist bias a copyright violation against the Asian-American actor and producer. Kai Wong has been on an Oscar-winning production team. Credits include film starring Naomi Watts and Kate Hudson. This is a valid wikipedia entry that should be kept, instead of being eliminated by a group of racist sysops. 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse This AfD looks like a pretty clear 'delete' to me, and according to the logs the article was a repost. Note that I'm not an admin, so I can't even see what the article was about; if you have new information that might persuade the AfD commentors to change their mind, please let us know in this DRV. --ais523 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. The AfD is valid, and the subject's IMDB profile gives such gems as "man in courtroom (uncredited)". Completely unfounded allegations of racism against sysops is the icing on the cake. Guy 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Linda Perry

This was deleted (including history) as a copyright violation, but an editor has shown up claiming otherwise, i.e. that the averred "source" actually copied from us. The thin ranks of the internet archive give us our version from March 2005[1] and the lindaperry.net site from the same month[2] "under construction" with no bio. Note, I warned the user for "reposting" the text before investigating. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

{{3di H1}}

This was deemed "useless" by the voters, however, the fact that this template is required by WP:IH was neglected. An IP nominated this, and it received 3 votes for deletion (one unsigned.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still just as useless. This was a single use template with the single purpose of linking from Interstate H-201 back to Interstate H-1, an action better accomplished with a text link - like the one in the first paragraph. This setup makes sense when there is more than one auxiliary route - see Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) for an example - but it is ridiculous on I-H1. --SPUI (T - C) 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television

When this article was put up for afd 1, it was closed with a no consensus. However, when similar afds for the closing logos of Columbia-Tristar and Tristar Television ended, they were deleted: Columbia-Tristar, Tristar TV. I have talked to the admin about this situation, and he said that I made a good case and that I should report it here, more details can be found at my talk page. In accordance to the 2 articles being deleted, I feel that the decision should be overturned to delete the Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television page as well. Renosecond 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)