Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Jason Fortuny]]: closing (overturn and redirect)
→‎[[Roni Lynn Deutch]]: closing (del. endorsed)
Line 17: Line 17:




====[[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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pokémon_test 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 [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Deutch urban dictionary], and she even has a [http://www.freewebs.com/ricearoni5/ 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 [[User_talk:Famspear|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.--[[user:mathewguiver|mathewguiver]] 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
* In what way was it not spam? Most of the article talked about her "pennies on the dollar" tax claim business. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Here is the most recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roni Lynn Deutch|AFD discussion]], with deletion review closer's reference to the last deletion review and the prior AFD discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


**'''Explanation'''
Dear fellow editors:

I have been asked to explain the criteria I used for choosing other editors to contact regarding the deletion of the [[Roni Lynn Deutch]] article. First, this is the message I sent:

::Dear fellow editor: Your input could be valuable regarding the article [[Roni Lynn Deutch]] at

::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_Lynn_Deutch

::My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours, [my signature, etc.]

I sent the above message to the following editors:

Coolcaesar

Peter Reilly

Psb 777

Bona Fides

Morphh

Robert A West

BD2412

Taxman

The criterion I used was that these are editors whose judgment I respect. With respect to some editors (Robert A West, BD2412, and Taxman) I have had extensive interaction with over the months. Others, such as Coolcaesar, Morphh and Psb 777, are ones with whom I have had mild disagreements, but whose opinions I respect. I edit mainly in the areas of articles on legal matters, especially taxation.

If any of these editors had any prior dealing with the Roni Deutch article, I am not aware of it. I also am not aware (or, was not aware until Herostratus brought it to my attention) that there is or might be a Wikipedia rule, guideline, etc., that does not allow an editor to inform other editors of a deletion discussion in this way.

When I called on these editors I certainly had a sense that each and every one of them was somewhat ''more likely than not'' to agree with my own assessment of the Roni Deutch article. This was based on the fact that in numerous edits to various articles, I perceived that our senses of judgment were similar. However, I had no way of knowing how any of these editors would actually vote in this particular case, or even whether they would be interested in voting.

Four of the eight editors I contacted did respond, and all did indeed vote the same way I did: delete. (Interestingly, DS1953, another editor whose work I respect also joined the fray and voted the same way, although I had not contacted DS1953.)

At any rate, I have informed fellow editor Herostratus that I will not do this again until and unless the issue of the propriety of this practice under the Wikipedia rules, etc., is somehow resolved. Also, regardless of what a consensus ultimately determines, I apologize to all Wikipedia editors for creating this problem with respect to the deletion of this article. Yours, [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment from closing admin.''' First of all, at least one of the Keep votes was a <s>puppet</s> first-time editor. Second of all, forget the Delete votes at the end, whether improperly obtained or not. ''I would have closed the AfD as a Delete anyway'' because ''strength of argument'' is as important as raw numbers if not more so. The strength of argument was ''very'' clearly in favor of the Delete commentors. The Keep commentors argument was very weak, amounting basically to little more than "I saw her ads on TV". Finally, anyone with a personal interest in the subject who is arguing to keep this article around might do well to read [[WP:SNARK]] and reflect on the wisdom of being careful what you wish for. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:*saying that the arguements to keep the article come down to just saying i've seen her ads on television is simply untrue. There are many arguements for why the article should be included from multiple editors. --[[user:mathewguiver|mathewguiver]] 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:**Yes, you're right, that was a bit over the top. The Delete arguments were still a deal stronger, though, in my opinion. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion''' I investigated the notifications by [[User:Famspear]] and find no evidence for "spam trolling", as detailed on [[User talk:Herostratus]]. I also asked Herostratus to retract the comments about Famspear's actions. I can't find any evidence that Herostratus had an opinion about the article prior to closing the AfD, but if evidence can be provided I might have to revert my opinion and endorse relisting. Absent this I have to assume that the "opinion" expressed is that of a closing admin and not of a biased editor. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
**I see Herostratus has responded to this on his page. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
***Yeah he apologized at [[User talk:Famspear]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as individual appears to fail [[WP:BIO]] despite impressive self-promotion per Google. Seems to just-barely have a cultural presence due to TV ads (that I've never seen). --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 20:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Telling someone about a vote is not spamming unless there is some reason to believe that the people told have been selected as likely to agree with the asker; asking editors in good standing with reasonable judgment does not count. There seems no such claim here. I actually think that the keep argument "Her ads are well-known, someone may be curious." is non-trivial; but Herostratus is acting reasonably in holding it to be outweighed by our need to keep out advertising. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:*Famspear said above "When I called on these editors I certainly had a sense that each and every one of them was somewhat more likely than not to agree with my own assessment of the Roni Deutch article." That sounds to me like he selected people who were likely to agree with him.
:**And his stated reason for this was that he thought his position reasonable, and therefore likely to appeal to other reasonable, knowledgeable, and experienced editors. I do not blame Herostratus for looking at the notes, but I would have judged differently. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

*'''Whatever'''. The vote-to-delete spam thing isn't what bothers me. I just think its unfortunate that we are wasting more disk space going back and forth about this when in actuality this person is notable (or "notable enough") for an encyclopedia aiming to be ''the'' complete sum of human knowledge. Has she done something earth shattering in the field of law? Maybe not. Is she well known, or perhaps more well known to the average person due to her unusual advertising campaigns? Would those same people come to Wikipedia to learn more about here? Probably so. And there, we fail. [[User:RFerreira|RFerreira]] 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
**I wouldn't be averse to it if you can actually draw up an article that isn't a transparent little gush piece. The problem is of course to sift through the piles of gunk and find the reliable sources. An exercise that already proved fruitless during the AfD. While [http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?submit22=Search+Latest+3+Months+of+Rip-Off+Reports+Now%21&q1=ALL&q5=Deutch&q4=&q6=&q3=&q2=&q7=&searchtype=0 this] is certainly interesting background material it sadly doesn't qualify as "reliable". ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 08:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' of blatant spam, no prejudice against creation of a ''much better'' article if relible secondary sources can be found ''about the subject'', not trivial passing mentions of her business. Needless to say blogs and urban dictionary are ''not'' reliable sources. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''comment''' I strongly agree with RFerreira. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and it allows for many diverse articles. It seems very likely to me that a person would want to search wikipedia for information on Roni Deutch, remember from the first afd discussion that Roni Deutch was a requested article before I created it. Other similar articles are in wikipedia such as [[Jackson Hewitt]] and [[JK Harris & Company, LLC]] have wikipedia pages. If it comes to the text in the article, then why not edit it? And if the article isn't perfect now that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Articles do not need to be perfect to be included, they can get better over time as people contribute to it. --[[user:mathewguiver|mathewguiver]] 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


====[[Kai Christophe Wong]]====
====[[Kai Christophe Wong]]====

Revision as of 14:59, 16 September 2006

< September 10 September 12 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

11 September 2006

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.13 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse Some unacceptable remarks from the nominator who was rightly warned by the closing admin. AfD is valid. Bwithh 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Note that while User:Blintz and I disagreed on attitude towards other editors, we both agreed (as did most others) that this article was a horrible piece of gunk. I also warned the nominator of this DRV to refrain from personal attacks. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per JzG, valid AFD closure. RFerreira 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse why are anons allowed to do this? Danny Lilithborne 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because many anons are good faith contributors. Unfortunately, those that aren't tend to become more visible. Engaging in discussion is considered preferrable to limiting the rights of anonymous users. GRBerry 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's required by WP:IH, and there are other templates that exist like this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Endorse closure The one kept had a keep opiner (now unsigned, but originally not, see the history), the others didn't. That is a signficant difference in the AfD discussions. The discussion could have been relisted; relisting sometimes generates batches of comments simply because it has been relisted, but that is a discretionary action. No consensus results are essentially no precedent for further discussion. Additionally, the third linked AFD included in the nomination that that page was unneeded because this one existed, which is weak evidence of additional reason to keep this page. GRBerry 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This is a no consensus closure, so can be sent back to AfD right away with the addditional evidence. We don't have to discuss this here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_11&oldid=76057056"