Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 24

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

24 September 2006

Alpha Kappa Nu

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Nu

Alpha Kappa Nu was deleted as an attack page. It appears that this article describes a dispute with Alpha Phi Alpha as to which is the oldest Black fraternity. However, I don't believe that makes this article an attack page. Alpha kappa nu (note capitalization) was recreated, not exactly the same article. I have moved it to Alpha Kappa Nu for now. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-24 21:06Z

*comment: by definition "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to." It doesn't fit the standards of an attack page. Mykungfu 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• endorse keep: historically relavent and can be clarified via talk section. 150.210.226.6 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• endorse keep: 64.131.205.160 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• endorse deletion: The original article was clearly an attack page[1] (as verified by several non-interested parties) written in retaliation for the author's inablility to gain consensus on his POV on the Alpha Phi Alpha page. The author has recently re-created the article, citing opinion articles as fact. No original document refers to Alpha Kappa Nu as (a) a fraternity, (b)an entity that was ever formally chartered or incorporated (c) an entity that "lasted several years" as the author states in the article. The author cites as established fact articles that are clearly an expression of opinion, including undergraduate college newspapers articles[2], one of which clearly misquotes its original source (this misquote[3] is the basis for most of Mykungfu's claims about Alpha Kappa Nu, and he prefers to use it rather than the original source document from which the unattributed quote was taken[4]). However, the author has a history of deleting, without discussion, any corrective edits, even if they cite the same information that the author cites. -Robotam 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion: PER ROBOTAM'S COMMENT. THIS USER USED AND IS PROBABLY STILL USING SOCKPUPPETS AND BLIND INTERNET ADDRESSES TO TRY TO BOLSTER HIS POSITION. HIS SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BE TO EDIT OTHER ARTICLE TO DISCOURAGE THE ONES HE HATES.-138.88.224.41 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment: 6 Distinct references are provided. Solely dealing with Alpha Kappa Nu. Reknown historians refer to Alpha Kappa Nu as a fraternity. It bore greek letters, was an organization on a college campus. Having a charter or incorporation aren't critera to being a fraternity, which is the basis of Robotam's argument. Fraternity by definition is [5]

1. a local or national organization of male students, primarily for social purposes, usually with secret initiation and rites and a name composed of two or three Greek letters. 2. a group of persons associated by or as if by ties of brotherhood. 3. any group or class of persons having common purposes, interests, etc.: the medical fraternity. 4. an organization of laymen for religious or charitable purposes; sodality. 5. the quality of being brotherly; brotherhood: liberty, equality, and fraternity. 6. the relation of a brother or between brothers.

Robotam is the original individual whom wrote of Alpha Kappa Nu as being an attack page. Any issue he brings up can be brought into the talk section. He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha a rival fraternity which has a disputed claim of being the first inter collegiate black fraternity. Robotam has brought issue with Sigma Pi Phi the oldest black fraternity nationwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&action=history He has brought issue on whether or not it is even a fraternity [6] when on it's national website it states, Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/ . This only creates un necessary rhetoric and pointless arguing. 152.163.100.138 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

*comment: What I created was a neutral point of view, which Mykungfu's chooses not to include on his pages. His references were and are questionable; In addition to citing opinion pieces and personal webpages as fact, one webpage cited by Mykungfu as authority would actually change each time inaccuracies and inconsistencies were pointed out to him. The argument regarding Sigma Pi Phi is dubious; Alpha Phi Alpha is noted as "the first African-American intercollegiate fraternity." Mykungfu (under the often-blocked alias Bobbydoop and NinjaNubian) demanded Sigma Pi Phi be inserted into the Alpha article to "disprove" this[7], and began a revert war when he was shown that Sigma is not a collegiate organization. In addition, I am not a rival to Alpha Kappa Nu, because it does not exist. AKN was one of many attempts at forming a Black college organization prior to 1906 that unfortunately failed. All of the few original references to the organization refer to it in this manner: "Black-sponsored Greek letter organizations...might well have begun in 1903, but there were too few registrants to assure continuing organization."[8] Taking his assertions that AKN (referred to as a "club," not "fraternity" in original sources) in the best light, there is still a legitimate dispute regarding the opinion that AKN was a fraternity that Mykungfu insists on presenting as fact (even as his own citations do not support them). But instead of debating these issues in good faith and building consensus, Mykungfu chose to write an article disparaging the orgaziation he does not like (Alpha Phi Alpha), describing other articles as "false" within the text of his own article. He later turned to harrassment and vandalism of other editors and pages, which is why he is currently blocked and writing in from an anon IP.[9][10][11] -Robotam 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

*comment: an edorsement to keep One University (University of Houston) and One college (Morgan State) Website aren't personal websites. Regardless of whether or not an oganization (Sigma Pi Phi) is collegiate doesn't take aways from the fact that it is a fraternity. Revert war accusation is ridiculous. That was over numerous issues as can be seen by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Alpha_Phi_Alpha . Going by a classical definition fraternity that is provided Alpha Kappa Nu is a fraternity. Robotam has himself been accused of being a sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Robotam&oldid=76944904 while his Alias Ccson has been warned about 3rr violations this month on Wikipedia this month. I am wondering, where does it state the word false in the Alpha Kappa Nu article? This could easily take place in the talk section, not thru article deletion. 152.163.100.138 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

*Mykungfu, Your allegations are silly. You neglected to mention that one of the reasons that you are blocked (and thus writing and endorsing from multiple anonymous IPs) is because of repeatedly and falsely accusing others of violations such as sockpuppetry and 3RR, when you are the only interested party creating multiple edits, comments and harrassments from various aliases and blind AOL IP addresses, in some cases giving the appearance of multiple editors (for instance, the multiple blind AOL IP endorsements on this review).[12][13][14][15] As I said before, I gladly welcome any investigation of my Wiki usage and, specifically, any interaction with you on Wikipedia. Respectfully and Truthfully, -Robotam 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• endorse keep: on a side note this personal attack written by robotam in bold should be removed

observation should note that there exists problems between Robotam, Ccson, Bearly and Mykungfu as can be obeserved here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Robotam

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian

152.163.100.138 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• endorse keep: beneficial article 205.188.117.13 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• endorse keep: per above written comment 152.163.100.138 06:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Wissmiller

Chuck Wissmiller was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Anthony.bradbury and subsequently speedied by User:The Land. The problem apparently was a lack of notability of Chuck Wissmiller. While I'm not sure he is notable enough for wikipedia, the article does assert some notability via Family Plots. I suggest undeleting the article and listing it for AfD. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the pathetic shreds of content from the article into Family Plots and created it as a redirect. The Land 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not with the article, it's with the process. If an article gives some assertion of notability (and being one of the main persons in a notable television show is an assertion of notability), the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under A7. In that case, the article has to be prodded or AfD'ed instead. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

'Endorse status quo, article was not worth arguing over, reidrect is just fine. Guy 21:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

David Harris (Rugby League Player, Parade College Raiders)

This is a nomination based on a strong objection to the procedure used. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says quite clearly "Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues." According to this, the AFD discussion should have continued. Not only did I object to the speedy on that AFD discussion, but also someone had already moved the speedy tag on the article itself, done it again after another speedy was added the same day by a different person, and had removed a prod tag on the same article. Furthermore, the prod tag should never have been there in the first place, because Wikipedia:Speedy deletions says "For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (for deletions likely to meet no opposition)". Obviously, if the speedy tag has been added and removed, it is not a deletion likely to meet no opposition". Therefore, you need to go to the next clause, "or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (for potentially controversial deletions)." Gene Nygaard 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that when the prod tag was on there earlier today (perhaps yesterday on your clock), notice was given of a five day period for corrective action to be taken. Based on a sense of fairness, whether or not it is specified in the rules, that period should not be shortened by a moving from prod to AFD. Gene Nygaard 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Response as closer: I found the article in the CSD category, noticed the presence of an AfD tag as well, went to look at the nomination. There I saw the nominator submitting it as a contested Prod, but also stating he would prefer the article speedily deleted even though it was at AfD.

What I meant by the phrase "to slap a Speedy on it" wasn't "to add a CSD tag to the article again", but rather "to speedily delete this article despite its appearance at AfD", something which frequently occurs for things which have only turned up here because of process. -- BigHaz, AfD nomination

I saw someone else also asking for speedy deletion.

Speedy delete - playing in a school side isn't an assertion of notability. I'll see if I can get that speedy tag to stick. -- MER-C, AfD nomination

Finally, I saw a third person saying that they didn't care whether it stayed or not, but that speedying it would be against the rules.

Live with it. I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules. -- Gene Nygaard, AfD nomination

I made that two people in favour of speedy deletion, and one person opposed to speedy deletion for process reasons, but with no opinion on the actual article. In other words, not one argument in favour of keeping the page. I went back to the article and examined all revisions of the history, decided it did fit into CSD A7, deleted it, and closed the nomination. If this wasn't perfectly in line with the deletion policy, I apologize; though speaking in terms of processes I have a feeling WP:SNOW applies to a certain extent here, not to mention WP:IAR.

I assume that as closer of the nomination I can't give an Endorse/Overturn response here, so I won't – Gurch 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One person objecting to speedy closure is all it is supposed to take on the AfD discussion, to keep it from being speedily closed there. Not a vote of those favoring speedy closure or not. Gene Nygaard 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I accept my decision was incorrect; put the article back so it can be deleted again (and I shall quietly ignore the fact that it will have taken two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy) – Gurch 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

: Nah, 'endorse deletion - fuck process. Guy 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I get a say as the user who nominated the article for deletion, but if so, here 'tis: I don't subscribe to the view that the removal of a speedy or prod tag without any addition of matter to assert/prove notability is "opposition" to deletion in any sense other than the panic felt by a user on seeing that "their article" is up for deletion. Thus, when the CSD tag I'd put on this in the first place was removed, I didn't view it as a controversial deletion which immediately had to appear at AfD - prodding it seemed like a sensible halfway house to allow anyone to make the player more notable than he was at the time. Of course, when a prod is removed (as this one was), there's nowhere else a non-notable article can go other than AfD. My advocation of someone "slapping a Speedy on it" meant that I was rather hoping an admin would see the listing, realise that this was a clear CSD A7 in spite of that tag not sticking and close the discussion early - I'm not a fan of AfDs hanging around like a bad smell when the subject is patently not notable, and I doubt that anyone else much is either. I accept that I didn't necessarily follow process to the letter in what I did, but surely this is a case of WP:SNOW (or WP:IAR if you prefer) rather than sticking to the rules and (as Gurch puts it above) "tak[ing] two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy". I certainly reject any notion that I wasn't "playing by the rules" in trying to speed the inevitable deletion of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, based on the article as it stood and WP:IAR. Article most definitely deleted by the rules. Sometimes, the rules are there are no rules. Steve block Talk 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• List at AfD. I don't really understand what happened here, but IAR wouldn't apply as there's just as much evidence that keeping this article improves the 'pedia as deleting it at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. If the nominator decided to keep recreating the article, AfD is where the debate would end up anyway, so no point in penalizing him for following process. JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Request - I have a significant interest in the subject but as a non-admin I am not able to view the article which I need to do to make a judgement. Can it be temp posted to a user page, please? TerriersFan 15:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the entire thing:

Harris, David Sydney: (Born 2 November, 1988) (187cm, 92.2kg) Plays with school side Parade College Raiders, under the coaching of Adrian Grace, co-captains the senior side with Terry Constantinou.

Strong player often plays out of preferred position, but can and has played any where within in the forwards or backs with success. Linked with University of California, he has a big and exciting future in Rugby League.

Nothing there to indicate notability. College players at major sports and major colleges aren't routinely kept. This is a minor college sport and a minor college, and nothing there to indicate that he's notable in that sport or at that college. If you can prove notability, like he's broken every college record or something, then he might pass the bar. But based on the above, he does not. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: It has come to my attention that "Parade College" is a secondary school, not even what in the US would be called a college. This makes this person even less notable than at first glance. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - thanks to Zoe for posting the article. This is a minor sportsman who plays a minor sport for a minor team. I see no prospect of it survivng another AfD. TerriersFan 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse eletion per above. Eusebeus 08:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)