Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:15, 13 July 2007

< July 12	Deletion review archives: 2007 July	July 14 >

13 July 2007

Barnraisers

After the AFD this was recreated twice. The authors appear to be attempting a DRV given the tag at the top of the article but failed to list it, so I’m doing it for them. But don’t worry, this is not one of those “procedural listings.” I do think the administrator who closed the AFD came to the wrong conclusion.

First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight.

I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer. Following the additional sources, the opining was actually 3 to 1 in favour of deletion per failing WP:BAND. There were a total of two editors plus the creator of the article who argued for retention. There were many many more who argued in favour of deletion. The "multiple reliable 3rd party sources" cited by the few "keep"ers were pretty sketchy, and the band has had no releases to support passing WP:BAND. Neil ╦ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank Neil ╦ for his comments but perhaps he should re-read category WP:Band which clearly states that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria listed. As stated on multiple occassions, The Barnraisers clearly meet points 1 and 7, therefore the fact that this band has yet to release any material is irrelevant. Also with regard to the 3rd party sources not being reliable please refer to User:Emerson1975's comments on Talk:Barnraisers regarding the credibility of the references cited. Also, the so called 'many, many more who argued in favour of deletion' failed to cite adequate reasons for doing so. See Pan Dan's comment above.Dajbow 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Pretty close call given that there are a couple of sources, but the sources are both local. This just doesn't seem like a noteworthy band to me at this point. NawlinWiki 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obesanes

This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion unless you actually have any evidence this isn't a hoax. I see none: [1]. --W.marsh 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion When a town has has no Google hits and doesn't show up on maps of the area, it's almost certainly a hoax. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor

A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 actually, including the nominator. In my opinion, three unopposed delete votes is pretty much consensus to delete. If this fails, I will happily restore everything and start a third AfD to gain better consensus. —Anas ^talk? 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The nom would have us restore a non-notable article on a technicality and the idea that there's a quorum at AFD. We're not a bureaucracy. Is there any evidence to contradict the strong 2nd AFD nomination? I note that strong AFD noms tend to result in less participation, as no one really can refute them, and if the nom says it all a lot of people don't want to just say "delete per nom". --W.marsh 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per lack of reasoning. AfD has no quorum, and 2 votes (3 counting the nom) counts as consensus. Besides, while their votes may have been weak, their reasoning was strong and grounded in policy (non-notability and lack of reliable sources). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story

A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, as I can't see that there is any new material here like a third-party taking note that would put us in a position to write about it. I'm not even sure what the DRV rationale is supposed to be, here. Maybe the G4 issue? As for other Wikipedias, they aren't sources nor necessarily trailblazers for us. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AFD consensus was clear. Neither recreation satisfied the concerns, and all but one of the sources are either the film's Wikia (which it shouldn't have, given its limited scope, but that's a matter for Wikia) and IMDB, which is not a reliable source as its information is contributed by the people who post there. --Core desat 10:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Any movie about Wikipedia that doesn't include me must be extremely non-notable. Ok, ok... endorse per strong AfD consensus. An article on a non-major movie that far from release is really unlikely to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still do not understand exactly why this has been deleted repeatedly. However, it is clear that the consensus favors deletion, at least until the film is released. I would favor waiting until the film is released, then using this material to recreate the article. Surely then the article would not be subject to deletion.--Filll 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime_South

Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (my) deletion Well, where shall I start? The article was previously deleted by an AfD, to begin with. It's substantially similar to the old article, and the dredging up of some newspaper human-interest pieces and blog posts doesn't really change that. It's also an ad, which one might not be surprised to see from the evident conflict of interest here. The AfD concerns really aren't addressed-the newspaper pieces tend to be substantially about other topics, and use the convention as a "springboard" into those, and are human-interest pieces which provide little of substance. The rest of the references are bare lists or anime fansites (except the first, I have no idea where that came from or what source published it, it looks like a press release). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are 7 newspaper articles listed - none of them are adverstisements. -Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and Salt. Also there is a serious issue with WP:COI. Not sure why you recreated the article (04:44, 13 July 2007), then open a Deletion review case ( 05:06, 13 July 2007)?? This is a little disturbing also Wiki Edit War in Full Bloom--Hu12 07:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I could not open a Deletion review without listing the 15 new sources. -Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have deleted the article again as G4, but restored the history behind a {{drv}} tag. Anyone can go in and view the history to compare versions. --Coredesat 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please leave the article open so the newly cited sources can be verified. -Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is still there, it's just behind a tag, which is the appropriate thing to do in a DRV (not just recreate the article). --Coredesat 13:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I still cannot see it behind the tag. -Animesouth 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sad Endorse deletion I probably would have voted to keep this, but the AfD consensus was clear. Besides, apparent WP:COI issues are very worrying indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All the non-cited sources that called for its deletion have been addressed. -Animesouth 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since the article the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below: ^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15]

^ Sherman, Fraser (November 16, 2005), "Emerald Coast's first "anime" festival begins Friday" (PDF), The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Delahanty, Patrick (2007-07-09), AnimeCons.com: Convention Schedule, retrieved 2007-07-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Fandino, Daniel (2005-11-03), An Interview with the chairman of Anime South, retrieved 2007-07-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ ""The Anime South Show Part One"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. November 13, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); Check |serieslink= value (help); Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |episodelink= and |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
^ ""Finally, The Other Anime South Show!!!"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. December 3, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); Check |serieslink= value (help); Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |episodelink= and |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
^ "NexTag". “Hilton Sandestin Beach, Golf Resort & Spa in Destin, FL”. NexTag.com. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Maboroshi (2005-11-19). "Anime South 2005". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Tomecek, Nick (November 5, 2006), "Animenia", Northwest Florida Daily News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Anime draws hundreds to Sandestin", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ "Things to do", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 2, 2006 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Cartoon voices step into the spotlight", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Holt, Keri (November 15, 2006), "Anime fans up to speed on dating scene", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Maboroshi (2006-11-04). "Anime South 2006". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "Weekend Guide", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 3, 2006 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ "Anime South 2007". AnimeSouth.com. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

-Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loserz

I am only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question.

The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:

In this page's defense, I'd like to point to the fact that there is a webcomic section. This is a popular comic and it deserves a page to explain about it's origins, characters, plot and creator. It is no less than comics like Control Alt Delete, VG cats and Penny Arcade who still have pages on Wikipedia.

This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:

a7 nonnotable webcomic, no sources

As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Loriendark also posted this on the talk page of the aforementioned article:

This page was posted for speedy deletion by someone who clearly does not understand the Webcomic section, is infact.. for webcomics. He did not give reason for its deletion. Could not backup why it was deleted and why other comic pages still exist. This is not about destroying an entire section, it is about improving Wikipedia as a whole. Not taking from it. This is utterly a disgrace.

—Kurykh 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Loserz comics themselves are hosted here after an issue with site host:http://loserzcomic.comicgenesis.com/
Loserz is recognised by:
- http://comixpedia.org/index.php/Loserz
- http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/p/105/loserz
- Major Spoilers (http://www.majorspoilers.com) Named Loserz the 25th best Webcomic of all time. Only three behind the ever so notable VG Cats.
- http://www.majorspoilers.com/archives/753.htm
- Also of note Loserz has 32,900 Google hits. Loriendark 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lori[reply]
Endorse deletion no new information to overturn AfD, article was unreferenced and would be deletable under A7. Also, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was under construction and will have references. As I posted above. It is not an advertisement for Loserz, simply reference for all those who want to know more about the characters and plotline as well as the creator. I'm sorry, I don't believe you're looking at the precedent here. Loriendark 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lori[reply]
Boy, the history here was convoluted at first glance, so I broke it down:
- 2005-September 2006: Article created and grew organically
- 2 September 2006: 1st AFD closed as "no consensus" by Xyrael
- 10 September 2006: DRV sends it back to AFD
- 15 September 2006: Second AFD closed as "delete" by Xoloz
- 20 September 2006: Article recreated, then speedy deleted and WP:SALTed by Lucky 6:9
- 12 July 2007: Article \recreated and speedy deleted by NawlinWiki.
So what deletion is actually being challenged here? The DRV Nom, such as it is, presents no real argument. The article needs sources towards meeting WP:WEB, not obviously invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. So endorse deletion for now pending actual arguments/evidence. No offense, Kurykh, but couldn't you have looked into this before bringing it into DRV? It's convoluted at first but once you figure out the essence of the complaint, there's really no credible argument for undeletion yet... this could have been told to the petitioner without the time of a DRV. --W.marsh 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, what would be needed for an article are real, reliable sources, not Comixpedia or the like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion decision, but there's an article that could exist here in future; if the article was under construction then construct it in your namespace before bringing it here and asking for the okay to move it back into articlespace. Neil ╦ 08:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[dl2005-1] Sherman, Fraser (November 16, 2005), "Emerald Coast's first "anime" festival begins Friday" (PDF), The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[”animecons”-2] Delahanty, Patrick (2007-07-09), AnimeCons.com: Convention Schedule, retrieved 2007-07-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[”orangeanime”-3] Fandino, Daniel (2005-11-03), An Interview with the chairman of Anime South, retrieved 2007-07-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[”dfpradio2006a”-4] ""The Anime South Show Part One"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. November 13, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); Check |serieslink= value (help); Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |episodelink= and |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

[”dfpradio2006b”-5] ""Finally, The Other Anime South Show!!!"". Digital Frontier Plus Radio. December 3, 2006. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); Check |serieslink= value (help); Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |episodelink= and |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

[”nextag”-6] "NexTag". “Hilton Sandestin Beach, Golf Resort & Spa in Destin, FL”. NexTag.com. Retrieved 2007-07-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[”risingsun2005a”-7] Maboroshi (2005-11-19). "Anime South 2005". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[nwfdn2006_3-8] Tomecek, Nick (November 5, 2006), "Animenia", Northwest Florida Daily News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[dl2006a-9] Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Anime draws hundreds to Sandestin", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[nwfdn2006_1-10] "Things to do", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 2, 2006 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[dl2006c-11] Sherman, Fraser (November 15, 2006), "Cartoon voices step into the spotlight", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[dl2006b-12] Holt, Keri (November 15, 2006), "Anime fans up to speed on dating scene", The Destin Log {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[”risingsun2006a”-13] Maboroshi (2006-11-04). "Anime South 2006". Risingsun.net. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[nwfdn2006_2-14] "Weekend Guide", Northwest Florida Daily News, November 3, 2006 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[”asweb”-15] "Anime South 2007". AnimeSouth.com. Retrieved 2007-07-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Comment as closer'''.  Following the additional sources, the opining was actually 3 to 1 in favour of deletion per failing [[WP:BAND]].  There were a total of two editors plus the creator of the article who argued for retention. There were many many more who argued in favour of deletion. The "multiple reliable 3rd party sources" cited by the few "keep"ers were pretty sketchy, and the band has had no releases to support passing [[WP:BAND]].  [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600"><big>╦</big></span>]] 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
-'''Comment''' I thank [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600"><big>╦</big></span>]] for his comments but perhaps he should re-read category [[WP:Band]] which clearly states that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria listed. As stated on multiple occassions, The Barnraisers clearly meet points 1 and 7, therefore the fact that this band has yet to release any material is irrelevant. Also with regard to the 3rd party sources not being reliable please refer to [[User:Emerson75|Emerson1975]]'s comments on [[Talk:Barnraisers]] regarding the credibility of the references cited. Also, the so called 'many, many more who argued in favour of deletion' failed to cite adequate reasons for doing so. See [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]]'s comment above.[[User:Dajbow|Dajbow]] 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
+'''Comment''' I thank [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600"><big>╦</big></span>]] for his comments but perhaps he should re-read category [[WP:Band]] which clearly states that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria listed. As stated on multiple occassions, The Barnraisers clearly meet points 1 and 7, therefore the fact that this band has yet to release any material is irrelevant. Also with regard to the 3rd party sources not being reliable please refer to [[User:Emerson1975]]'s comments on [[Talk:Barnraisers]] regarding the credibility of the references cited. Also, the so called 'many, many more who argued in favour of deletion' failed to cite adequate reasons for doing so. See [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]]'s comment above.[[User:Dajbow|Dajbow]] 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion'''.  Pretty close call given that there are a couple of sources, but the sources are both local.  This just doesn't seem like a noteworthy band to me at this point. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)