Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 3
2009 May 5 >

4 May 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Global Warming: Hype (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While there was a majority for deletion, I feel that there arguments were insufficient.(I also would like to get an explanation from the closing admin). I believe that because the term "global warming hype" has been used in various sourced articles, that all the article needed was cleanup and not deletion. I would like to see it relisted, and am requesting that an admin userfy the article for me if the decision is not overturned. Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't asked, however I think the AFD explains itself and if the initiating editor wanted more specific reasoning then they should have asked (I don't usually bite). As this is open though: I'd say generally that the comments by Apoc2400 summed up the AFD closure for me. Nja247 20:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask the admin, though I should have. I will remember that for the future.Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion. I don't see any new argument here to counter what people said in the AFD. And as Stifle says, you can usually get clarification from an admin if you just ask on their talk page. Admins don't normally provide a detailed rationale when there's a very large majority going one way or the other, but any decent admin should give one to you on request. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correctly closed in accordance with consensus. In my humble opinion, the deletion reasons were entirely adequate. Agree that a detailed rationale isn't required in cases where the consensus is obvious. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A spinout article on criticisms of global warming (including hype) is reasonable and should exist as I have to imagine there is a lot that can be said but would cause undue weight to the topic in the main article. That said, the AfD was clearly delete and the article title is horrible. So endorse but no objections to a criticisms spinout if it doesn't already exist. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse It might be possible to write an article on the phrase, or or various other specialized points, but the general issues discussed here have been covered much more fully in multiple Wikipedia articles. Overwhelming decision to delete, and I don;t see how else anyone could possibly have closed it. DGG (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I think the arguments and rationale in the deletion discussion clearly point to a consensus to delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was very clearly against the article, and after reading it I have to agree with that conclusion. The article makes no attempt to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy; the problems start at the title already, and get worse with lines such as "Scientist has ignored the fact that sun plays an important role in the climate change" and the article concludes "This is how global warming is more of a hype than a threat". Global warming controversy is the article which should cover this topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion due to a clear consensus. I doubt that an encyclopedic article could ever exist at this title, and would only userfy to facilitate use on some other website. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Per consensus in AfD. DRV should not be AfD take 2. DianaLeCrois  : 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw DRV, I have come to realize that an article with such a name would have a difficult time having a NPOV and so instead, I have create a redirect for Global warming hype to Global warming controversy.Smallman12q (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hollie Steel – alter closing remark from "keep" to "no consensus". General practice across Wikipedia XFD discussions is that a "no consensus" close should be primarily marked as such, even though this results in the same immediate result of the article not being deleted. – Aervanath (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hollie Steel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

While there was a majority arguing for the page to be kept, Wikipedia is not a vote. Steel is only notable for auditioning in Britain's Got Talent, unlike Shaheen Jaghrafoli or DJ Talent, and Wikipedia should refrain from articles about people notable for only one event. None of the "keep" arguments countered this reason for deletion. Additionally, Steel did not have a cultural or societal impact like Susan Boyle did. Finally, she's a minor, and we should show restraint in creating an article about her. Thusly, I find the closing of this AfD as a "keep" to be a error in judgement. Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The closer did not treat the matter as a vote as the closing statement indicated that he had read the points made and considered that the Keep arguments were stronger. The BLP1E argument was specifically addressed and refuted repeatedly so the DRV justification above is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that "the BLP1E argument was refuted repeatedly." All I see in the AfD to counter BLP1E is you saying "the person is the topic, not some larger event in which she played an incidental part" (with which I also disagree), and various assertions that the number of mentions she got in the press somehow exempt her from BLP1E. Her article says nothing notable about her outside the context of this 1E. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should perhaps look at our exchange in which I made yet another point by observing that BLP1E does not indicate deletion. You disagreed but it seems that the closer did not buy your argument. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, it does. Read BLPDEL: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." 1E is part of "this policy", and it's nearly impossible to fix a 1E objection about someone that's only notable for one event. Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- based on the closer's reasoning, probably should have been a no-consensus, but since that defaults to Keep anyway, no point in changing anything. BLP1E was addressed and refuted in the AFD, and besides, this isn't AFD part 2. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't. To address and refute BLP1E, you need to show notability for a second event. Steel falls way below the baseline for ignoring BLP1E. Sceptre (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse that there was no consensus. I think people get too worked up on deleting this stuff just to follow the letter of BLP1E... a policy that was created to deal with negative articles on people of very marginal notability. Maybe when the dust settles we'll want to delete a lot of these articles... but if they're of a person who's getting a zillion news stories at the moment for a positive or neutral reason, it really just seems a waste of energy to run into a buzzsaw trying to get their Wikipedia article deleted on principle. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel has exactly one news story about her in the past 24 hours, and even that's marked as "satire" by Google. This is just her fifteen minutes. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    but 413 in the past week. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, fifteen minutes of fame. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close I can reasonably see the BLP1E argument here. Indeed, if I had commented in the AfD, my primary comment would have been something like "let's wait a week and see where this goes. Leave an article for now". If the basis of BLP1E is to do no harm, then we shouldn't too worried about people who are arguably BLP1E when the covered event is clearly extremely positive. A no consensus close in this case seems completely reasonable. If in a month the situation is unchanged then we can AfD it again. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked just a few hours prior to the placement of this request for a comment (though not by the initiating editor). I'm not sure of this review generally as I've considered the AFD discussion prior to close and as I noted during the close the keep's were generally more convincing. Further there wasn't a solid consensus, meaning it'd default to keep anyhow. I, like everyone thus far commenting here endorse the close, and I remain confident it was the best choice. I cannot understand why the initiating editor believes I've erred in judgement, surely not because I've came to the opposite conclusion of what they were hoping for. Nja247 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My tally of the arguments
keep worldwide coverage in RS
keep no BLP1E argument
keep (author)
keep (per above)
keep newspaper coverage, notable
keep good refs now
keep might be BLP1E, but passes WP:MUSIC several times over
keep and let it develop
keep making headlines around the world
keep passes WP:N
keep good sourcing 

merge to series
merge to series
merge to series

delete, WP:NOTNEWS
delete BLP1E
delete BLP1E
delete another reality show contestant
delete textbook case of BLP1E & NOTNEWS (well refuted)
delete BLP1E
delete appearing on a talent show is not notability
delete no real notability besides a few articles (well refuted)

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many times must I say that you can only refute 1E by either showing notability for a second event or by arguing that said person had a notable and undeniable societal impact? Steel has neither. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Cannot see how this article is harmful to the subject as it is very well-sourced. Decisions on whether it passes or fails the NOT#NEWS policy is dependent on consensus, and that was not present for this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A no consensus result in a BLP discussion should default to delete, and I would overturn and delete bearing that in mind. No objection to recreation if she puts out an album or something. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this your interpretation of policy? Otherwise, I'd appreciate a link to the relevant bit of the deletion policy that supports this view. I understand unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be deleted, and the entire article for that matter if the article is bad enough, but what you've stated above isn't that so I'd hope you could direct me in the right direction. Cheers, Nja247 10:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such part of policy. It's not even close. BLP was created to ensure accuracy of the articles and specifically address negative information about living people. Steel's article has no accuracy concerns or negative information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But BLP applies to any biographical information about living people. Not just negative information. A positive-slanted BLP would still be eligible for deletion per 1E if said person was notable for one event. That's not even considering the fact she's a minor and thus we should presume privacy over her fifteen minutes. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above this was addressed in the AFD debate and needn't be rehashed here. I appreciate your tenacity in having your point heard, but please keep this discussion on the deletion closure itself. Nja247 11:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my interpretation of policy, but it is how I have seen some AFDs closed and thought it was a precedent. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I would have merged and redirected the article, had I been able to figure out where to merge it (there doesn't seem to be a place yet for information about BGT contestants who don't merit their own articles), but I see nothing wrong with the closure of this AfD as "Keep" and the rationale given ("no solid consensus"). - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse default keep, but change to "No Consensus" - While there wasn't a consensus to delete this article, there wasn't a clear one to keep it either.--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I guess a "no decision" could also have been the result, but that would have defaulted to keep anyway. The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and that was what carried the day at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But not notability for more than one event. God, I feel like a broken record. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'keep' arguments seem to be based on the premise that she's not low-profile right now. Give it a few months, and I believe she'll have become low-profile, and then perhaps an AfD will succeed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One could argue she's low-profile right now with the emergence of another Auditionee-Who-Does-A-Shockingly-Good-Performance-Of-A-Song-From-A-West-End-Musical. Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing rationale confuses me – keep is bolded, but the extended comments indicate no consensus. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Linguist. I'd like to say clearly, here and now, that there is no consensus suggesting that a BLP1E should default to delete.

    I do, however, think there should be a wider discussion on whether it should.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse but closer may wish to amend to "No consensus". Hard to see that as a clear anything. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep as sympathetic as i am to the 15 minutes BLP1E argument, this is sociology worthy of coverage, reality shows are culture, and wiki needs to cover, even if the talent quality is equivalent to the average church choir member. pohick (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but amend to no consensus I think the BLP1E argument was correct, but this is not the place to rehash it. Nja correctly diagnosed a lack of consensus on the matter. We could revisit the topic after a suitable amount of time, at which point I think those of us who supported by BLP1E argument can reasonably expect to be vindicated. RayTalk 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Neenyo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted on the grounds of Billboard magazine not being a credible reference and that "Neenyo" did not produce any Factiva results (which searches news article databases). Please note that after searching through wikipedia, most of the largest producers in pop music do not cite any references on their articles.

Billboard is the leading trade publication in North America for the record industry; if there is a better reference I should use please advise.

Factiva searches news articles and I don't believe applies to verifying the validity of creative persons (artists, songwriters, record producers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a low-participation AFD the nominator apparently missed, so I don't think they're asking for 'round 2 of AFD'. The question is whether Billboard is a meaningful source... can you cite where in Billboard this would be found? Billboard does several types of publications, I believe. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The article was speedied as supposedly no different than the version that underwent AFD. If you look at the references, you can see there is a clear attempt to fix the issue raised in AFD about the reliability of the references. So it shouldn't have been speedied. - Mgm|(talk) 04:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD again. While the article's content is almost identical to the version deleted via discussion, the author did make a good-faith attempt to address the reason the article was deleted (lack of reliable sources) by removing the unreliable sources and adding two references to billboard.com. This does not fit the WP:CSD#G4 critera. The reliability of the billboard.com references should be discussed on AfD if necessary. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore deletion. This article should stay deleted, especially as it is a biography of a living person, because Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. All that exists for this person is producer credits on a couple of websites. The new references added were: 1 2 3, 2 has no mention of the article subject, the other two are simple credits. If nothing more than simple credits exist in reliable sources (such as the billboard website), then Wikipedia should also include simple credits (which is already done). Incidentally, Factiva does include the magazine Billboard (but not the website). Wikipedia:Conflict of interest may be relevant if you have a personal connection with the subject matter. I was the person that nominated the original article for deletion.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle: I have requested how I can make the article within the wikipedia guidelines from Commander Keane, unfortunately I didn't get a straight answer. Keane seems upset, and slightly hostile in his responses regarding this article for reason I am not sure of. I feel this article is being treated unfairly by Commander Keane. If this articles reference do not meet standards, approx. 90% of the articles on American and Canadian music producers should be removed from the website as well. I am new to the wikipedia, but I don't think an article should be removed without offering some assistance to correct it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was deleted by User:SchuminWeb. Why did you ask some other user? Stifle (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mnotaes originally posted the question "Why was this page deleted?" at Talk:Neenyo. I was watching that page, and knowing that the talk page would get deleted promptly (not that it should) I posted at User talk:Mnotaes. At the user talk page I also suggested deletion review. In regards Stifle's question above, I didn't think of suggesting to Mnotaes to contact the deleting admin, and given my thoughts on the article, deletion review seems like a good choice. Also, I am not upset about this article. I just think that it can't meet Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. If some sources can be found then I am happy to write the article, but at the moment there just isn't enough to base an article.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The deleted article was sufficiently different from the new version to defeat a G4 claim. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean it is going back up? Also can anyone offer suggestions of music related websites that are more trusted then Billboard? And being credited for writing and producing a songs is "trivial" to listing albums that the producer has worked on, how else should this be show Commander Keane (to avoid any problems in the future)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After a period of about five days, an uninvolved administrator will determine the consensus of this discussion and take whatever action is appropriate, which may include undeleting the page. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly seven days, depending on if anyone reverts me. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone that offered help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_4&oldid=1089275927"