View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width=20% align=left    | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 6|February 6]]
! width=60% align=center  | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February|2007 February]]
! width=20% align=right   | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 February 8|February 8]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
|}
</div></noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7|7 February 2007]]===
<!--New entry right below here in the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ 
{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=Long Island Economy|reason=This page was not meant to be spammy.  We are a well regarded company based in Long Island, New York.  We will fix and modify everything nessesary to have our page undeleted.  Our comptetitor Long Island Exchange has an article with alot of the same content and it wasn't deleted.  When people search us on wiki and see that we've been deleted it makes us look very bad.  Please undelete this article!}} ~~~~ 
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.-->

====[[JewsDidWTC]]====
:{{la|JewsDidWTC}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/JewsDidWTC|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JewsDidWTC|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>

This article was speedy deleted right after being created based on the conclusion of a previous deletion review about the GNAA article.  The GNAA article was not reinstated because the consensus was that one notable action does not necessarily make a group notable.  There seemed to be some confusion about the CNN spot, though- to be clear, all the still images that CNN used in that six-minute segment were cribbed from jewsdidwtc.com.  Under standard notability rules, having a CNN segment almost entirely about a website makes that website notable- especially considering the journalistic implications of not verifying if a website being quoted is for real, or not caring.  So while the consensus was that the GNAA itself is not notable for having produced jewsdidwtc.com, I still think that jewsdidwtc.com is itself now notable under Wikipedia policy.  The CNN segment is available on youtube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rubm-ttR-Lw here].  Compare with the fan art section of jewsdidwtc.com, and see for yourself. [[User:Fellacious|Fellacious]] 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:Keep deleted without predjudice - there's almost certainly an article to be written here, but the deleted article isn't it. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::Any suggestions to improve it?  I wrote that article quickly because I thought it should be written, after my suggestion to reinstate the GNAA article was denied- as I recall, [[JewsDidWTC]] used to be a redirect to [[Gay Nigger Association of America]].  The person who tagged it for speedy deletion was probably right that I was too harsh on the issue, and I was definitely focusing too much on the CNN segment and not on the ostensible topic of the article.  Suggestions and even rewrites are welcome- I'm not suggesting that my prose is sacred and I have been personally violated by its deletion. [[User:Fellacious|Fellacious]] 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion'''. CNN did not talk about the site at all. They used screenshots of the site to illustrate the story. Even if using images of a website constituted non-trivial coverage, CNN would not be a reliable source in this case. Their use of images from the website was entirely unprofessional and moronic. Though, I do give my personal congratulations to the GNAA for successfully trolling CNN. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per RockMFR. (I couldn't see any of the "fan art" in the youtube clip anyway - I may have missed it as the clip seemed to skip when playing quite a bit) [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

====[[Cyrus Farivar]]====
:{{la|Cyrus Farivar}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Cyrus Farivar|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (1st nomination)|AfD1]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar|AfD2]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-08-08/Greenlighting Cyrus Farivar|Aug 05 Signpost article]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (3rd nomination)|AFD3]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination)|AFD4]]<tt>)</tt>

A notification, rather than a request, but I'm not sure where else to put it. I am undeleting [[Cyrus Farivar]] as per Jimbo's previous endorsement of exactly this act: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-08-08/Greenlighting_Cyrus_Farivar]. [[User:Jaranda]] expressed concern that this was not brought to DRV, so I figured I should leave notice here (and also on [[WP:AN]] before restoring it again. I will not continue to restore at this point, but I will bring the issue through proper dispute resolution channels should it continue to be an issue.

I am not asking for or opening a full review because, well, it's unnecessary and beside the point. DRV is a process through which we review deletions, but it is not the sole way in which they are reviewed. This is something that there is a definitive ruling on - journalists with the publication record of Cyrus Farivar are notable. Small segments of the community may create pages that proport to establish other criteria for notability, and AfDs can fail to attract the attention of anything but the mindset that currently dominates the page, but none of this changes the basic fact that a notability guideline of that extremity has been actively rejected from the very top, and the act of unilaterally restoring this article has explicitly been sanctioned.

This ought not only terminate the debate, but also serve as a rather sobering warning about the sad state of so-called policy on Wikipedia, whereby it clearly does not provide useful guidance on our actual best practice. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''General reminder''' As the last community decision was the AFD, closed as delete, '''"Endorse"''' here at deletion review means the article should be returned to a deleted state.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Question''' As the quote by Jimbo at the top of [[Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem]] points out, arguments based on what Jimbo said are pretty weak.  Given that it is policy that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], and given that the [[WP:BLP|standard for biographies of living people]] have gotten a lot tighter since he made that remark 18 months ago, why should we believe that Jimbo would still endorse that old quote?  There is not a single [[WP:RS|reliable source]] meeting the standards for biographies of living people used in the article.

====[[MSK-008_Dijeh]]====
:{{la|MSK-008_Dijeh}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/MSK-008_Dijeh|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008_Dijeh|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>

Several articles were listed in this AfD at once; let it be said that I am contesting the outcome of the deletion of the [[MSK-008_Dijeh]] and [[RMS-106_Hi-Zack]]; the other articles were indeed unsourced and with little or no real world impact that I could ascertain. Anyway. These articles were nominated for deletion due to being "unsourced and non-notable fancruft with original research". Upon discovering this AfD, I have sourced the relevant articles including specific citations of "original research" from official or semi-official sources (quite excessively, I might add) and was presently re-writing the jumbled text of the article itself when it was summarily deleted. I and others in favor of keeping the article believe that our rationale were given no weight or ignored entirely. This is demonstrated by the deletion of the article despite the original AfD criteria no longer being relevant, as well as the fact that apparently I and the other "keep" votes were "members of the project." I presume this is in reference to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gundam]], which I am '''not''' a member of. Furthermore, I was not aware that being in a WikiProject, for whatever reason, was grounds for having one's rationale in an AfD debate be discarded. This AfD was conducted as a head count, and nothing more.[[User:MalikCarr|MalikCarr]] 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' I pretty much agree with this. I helped provide some sourcing to two of the articles, which was objected to despite the fact that they followed the correct policies for such things as far as I can tell. When [[User:Malikcarr]] provided some examples of many other articles that have similar sourcing, his argument was simply brushed aside. Furthermore, I would like to point out that fancruft is an essay and not a policy, and thus is not a valid reason for nominating anything for deletion. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' I was actually putting up my own entry on this for this, but you beet me to it. The reasoning that the closing admin used has me troubled. It appears that he discounted all of the keep or merge comments because they were from members of [[WP:GUNDAM]]. Why should comments from a WikiProject be discounted so long as they give solid arguments? At best, this appears to be to be a '''no consensus''' once the [[WP:GUNDAM]] comments are taken into account. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' I agree as well. The Dijeh and Hi-Zack are both intrinsic parts of the Zeta Gundam universe that have been fleshed out to extreme detail by the developers of the show, through liscences with video game corporations and technical manuals of Bandai produced model kits. There is plenty of reliable information and source material for these particular articles, and the only real argument against it could possibly be that it is taking too much attention to detail, and is unnecessary. This line of reasoning might as well say that individual articles on breeds of dogs are unnecessary, and that there should only be a central article on dog breeding on wikipedia. That is silly, and so is deleting these articles.[[User:149.142.119.170|149.142.119.170]] 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Deletion Review isn't a reargument of the AFD, but whether the closing admin reached the proper conclusion based on the comments of the AFD. If you read the comments above, you will see how we are disputing the reasoning the admin used in closing the AFD and not with the reasons behind the AFD. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''' perfectly reasonable closure. I didn't see any of the keep voters bringing forth multiple non-trivial published works about the "ENG-001 Estardoth" - because there aren't any. Now, without re-arguing the deletion debate, either point to such evidence having been presented, or just accept the deletion. - [[User:Tragic Baboon|Tragic Baboon]] <small>([[User talk:Tragic Baboon|banana receptacle]])</small> 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': If you had read my review request above, you would have found that I am only supporting the recreation of two articles. The one you mentioned is indeed unsourced, and until I can find references for it, it's likely going to stay deleted. With that in mind I believe you should re-evaluate your decision, since there -were- "multiple non-trivial published works" about the other items in question. [[User:MalikCarr|MalikCarr]] 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. No policy reason was given for the deletion, and the original arguments did not even apply. Pretty straightforward. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)