Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:31, 28 August 2007

< August 24	Deletion review archives: 2007 August	August 26 >

25 August 2007

Damian_Smith

Work_In_Progress PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carlossuarez46 (Talk . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; valid A1, preceded by a valid G12 (copyvio) the day before. Nothing to restore. Heather 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; nothing but a wedge of plot summary with no context. ELIMINATORJR 16:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion Note: the initiator didn't notify me of the DRV. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oneill.jpg (closed)

Inkulab

Misunderstanding of the alternate spelling of this Tamil writer's name. The article itself said that his name is also spelt as Inquilab and Ingulab, but the people who discussed on it seemed to be missed this point. The references contained published journal article and many news articles. Unfortunately I am not able to get into the article to get the sources and list it here. But what is heartachening is that if a journal can accept a paper on commentary of Inkulab's play how come he be considered as not so notable? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion That's just one link and I do not think it gives "significant coverage" to give notability to undelete this article. While it does review his play, I just dont feel like that's giving "significant coverage" to him Corpx 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the links. The original entry had a few news articles too. I do not have access to view them. Moreover in the discussion page it was indeed mentioned by someone that Tamil language is not well represented in the English media. When Inkulab/Inquilab is mentioned in the English news, he is never given an introduction on who he is or anything and JUST GETS mentioned. It is pretty obvious given that he needs no introduction that he is well known. His works often make to the English media too[1], [2] and a few more mentioned in the earlier wikipedia entry. I would ask for reasoning here that if he is not prominent would his opinion actually matter in showing clemency to assasins of a former Prime Minister of India. His opinions are often mentioned in the English media without being introduced formally on who he is. [3]. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the above mentioned reasons ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 09:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your position is already clear as the nominator :) Corpx 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the reasons mentioned above are legitimate.Wiki Raja 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propellerhead Software

I am placing this here because I am getting nowhere with it, and wanted to bring it to the attention of a larger group of people.

Over the past week or so I have been working on Propellerhead Software. This page has repeatedly been created and deleted, but as far as I can tell, in the past it HAS been a rather poor article.

However, on August 12th I recreated this article and worked hard on it over the next few days. I created what I believed was a relatively good article. However, on 23rd August it was speedily deleted, which I believe was unfair, because this could only happen because it had been speedily deleted before. Reason G4 was given, but this states that articles which are substantially identical to the original can be considered for speedy deletion. I requested that the page be restored to give me a chance to add some references. It was and I did this, making what I thought was an excellent article.

The reasons given for the deletion were lack of notability, lack of sources, and advertising. However, I addressed all of these points:

Notability - the company is very well respected and their software won a major award as I referenced in the article. The company developed software with Abbey Road studios, and this was also referenced in the article. Their software features a regular user technique section in Sound on Sound magazine, and again, I referenced this in the article. One user said "check Google" on the deletion log, and when doing so, Propellerhead Software come up in the first six searches, and in nine out of the first ten.
No sources - as mentioned, I thoroughly referenced the article.
Advertising - I do not work for or have any association with Propellerhead software, other than I buy their products and enjoy using them. I considered the article to be well written, non biased and informative.

However, on 24th August the article was deleted again and salted - despite adding these references. I just now found a second deletion nomination (which was cleverly hidden from the article and therefore I couldn't see it). The references I had cited were, apparantly, trivial and not reliable. I do not understand how references from: a major award[4]; arguably the world's most famous recording studio[5]; and Europe's largest selling music recording magazine[6] can be classed as trivial and non reliable.

I have tried to get the article restored but nobody seems to be listening to me (not even taking notice, let alone arguing with me).

What really makes me upset is that this article has only been deleted because it was deleted BEFORE. If an article of this standard which hadn't been deleted before was created now it would simply not be deleted. There are thousands of articles on here that do not cite references and are left well alone. The Steinberg and Digidesign articles are poor and have no references, and Ableton only references offical website and even forums. There has never been any question that these articles be deleted.

The article I made was well referenced and well written, the company are well respected and make excellent software. I believe the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.

I request that a few admin look at the article I made just before it was deleted, check its quality and references and restore it, and tag it so it cannot be speedily deleted again. At the very least, I would appreciate an admin copying the article code into my userpage so I can work on the article until it's agreed it can go back on.

Thanks--Mrtombullen 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep We have way less notable companies in wikipedia. This company is a leader of its sector, and everyone who works with electronic music knows about their products or uses them. They created the first true GUI analog synth emulator, "ReBirth RB-338" (article exists since February 2004), which alones guarantees them notability. Reason (software) is dominant player in its market. I see no reason why this highly notable company is not kept. Thanks! --Cerejota 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, I can't see how this is by any stretch of the imagination blatant advertising. It's possible that it's not notable, but that's a matter for a non-speedied AfD. See the cached version. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AfD. You can't substantiate any of the "popularity through internet forums" without referencing the forums themselves unless you had a third-party article explicitly saying so. In fact I'd just reduce that to a sentence or two. But I don't think it's G11 material, so let it run through the process. The Sounds on sounds article seems to be a good source. ColourBurst 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I salted the deleted article, on claims on the most recent AfD for it that represented the re-creation of a deleted article. Upon reviewing the text itself, it did not seem irremediably awful in style. There is a question about the independence of some of the given references, but not all of them. That "other crap exists" is in fact a good argument to keep an article, given that the application of precedent through analogy is what "consensus" is all about, and the point that this is the business that makes software that has had an article since the early days of Wikipedia suggests that it too belongs, and that perhaps these several articles might be profitably merged. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Propellerhead of ReBirth RB-338, Reason (software) among others? If so, Overturn strongly. Well known software company. -81.178.126.124 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Overturn ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Chinese people

Article was closed by a non-admin, essentially citing WP is not paper, while I believe the consensus was to delete this list Corpx 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedily overturned the closure per WP:DPR#NAC, which provides that non-admin closures "are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", and re-closed the discussion as delete. See my rationale in the discussion. Now, feel free to review this... Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sandstein's deletion. This was clearly out of bounds for a non-admin closure. (I do them, but primarily speedy deletions that have left an orphan AFD.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, improper non-admin closure of a contentious AFD citing a part of WP:NOT that isn't a reason to keep an article (otherwise nothing could be deleted). --Coredesat 07:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree it is improper non-admin closure. But do not agree the article should be deleted. Chineseartlover 18:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, and the arguments for deletion were, for the most part not valid: content issues not related to notability of the topic. I think those who voted keep clearly had a stronger argument: the Chinese-origin population of Britain is notable on its own. This is not a vote. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/categorify per above, and the fact that a category serves all the same functions as a list, and is far, far more elegant. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from original discussion Lists can do a lot more than what Categories can do. Lists can organise these people by occupation, and make short mention of why the people are notable. We can also have red links in lists. Categories cannot do any of the above Chineseartlover 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subcategories. And redlinks in lists aren't terribly useful, since all they really say is "there exists a person called x. He is a British Chinese person." David Mestel^(Talk) 21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Catergories and Lists both have their function. Wiki's Policies accept that not all list should be converted to Categories. Eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean should not be converted to Categories. Red Link has a clear function in Wiki, it invites other people to add to the article when the original contributor do not have the full resourse to do so. Chineseartlover 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus on deletion, Previous AFD of similar pages have resulted in "no consensus", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans, Also a simlar AFD for the Bristish Asians came to the same conclusion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. It is therefore something we need further debate rather than DELETION. Furthermore, there are many similar list of people in differnt countries according to the nation origin. In the US alone, there are 58 pages: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin , showing there is a clear need of such pages. Chineseartlover 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The mere fact that a group is notable does not automatically mean that a list of members is encyclopedic. With regards to process, consensus was not sufficiently clear for a non-admin closure and delete is within discretion given the weight of arguments. Eluchil404 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Very useful. Thankyoubaby 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL --Core desat 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion absolutely no consensus on deletion, and no particular policy-based reason for deletion here (though categorization is an alternative). ELIMINATORJR 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion; retain as no consensus. Sandstein's preferencing of arguments seems rather partial to me. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO are perhaps two of the most generic policies cited in AfD debates (excluding articles which fall under the specific examples of what Wikipedia is not). Wikipedia is not a distributor of all information, but that does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain information. The closing arguments Sandstein noted are essentially useless without being supplemented by article-specific ones. Valid WP:OCAT concerns were voiced in the AfD, but whether a list constitutes overcategorization is strictly a judgment call and should be left for the community to decide. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - Closing editor seems to have cited both WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO as reasons to close as delete, but I fail to see how this list fits the description of either, or how it is like any of the examples given in either policy. This is not a catalog or a phone or address directory, it's not a travel guide, it's not an indiscriminate list of information, etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-list at AfD. I agree that the non-admin closure was improper, but I also don't believe there was a consensus to delete, based on both this DRV and the AfD. I suggest the closing admin on this DRV overturns the deletion and re-lists the article at AfD to get broader consensus. Walton^One 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate why it was improper? Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tdimm2.JPG

Did not reach consensus, the image was listed for deletion here and three users clearly said to keep, while only one was for deleting it, yet it was still deleted. A featured article on another pop song ("Hollaback Girl") features four images of the video or performances, and this article can't have one?? The image also had a fair use rationale section. Thankyoubaby 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From deleting admin) The argument to keep was that there was commentary in the article on the image. There was none. The image caption was ""That Don't Impress Me Much" video" and the only mention of the image was "It depicts Twain walking around in the desert, in her infamous leopard skin outfit." That was adequately conveyed by the words alone and the use of the adjective, "infamous," was an opinion and unsupported by any citations. The way the image was used failed WP:NFCC #8 and was deleted on policy grounds. -Nv8200p talk 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. For clarification, Hollaback Girl contains only one non-free image of the video, and the screencap there is clearly strongly supportive of the accompanying text. I wouldn't object to a different screencap to capture the style of this video in a matter similar to Hollaback Girl's non-free image. This was just a singer closeup. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the desert and her costume, which is being discussed, "Hollaback Girl"'s is Gwen Stefani in a car, I can't see how that is more "supportive". Thankyoubaby 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Image was improperly deleted. Deleting admin contravened clear and emphatic language of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In this case, two objections to the image's deletion were raised on the basis of its value (a fundamental criterion, per NFCC#8) and there was obviously no consensus to delete. It was claimed neither at the point of nomination nor deletion that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction. In deleting, admin improperly valued his/her personal opinion about a subjective matter--the value of the image to the article--over the clear language of the instruction.—DCGeist 16:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria policy has to be given priority over the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you'll excuse the inevitable humor of the phrasing, the policy for determining whether the policy has been satisifed is expressed in the administrators' instructions, which have a weight beyond those of guidelines.—DCGeist 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -Nv8200p talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion per consensus in IfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - No consensus for such and this represents another example of improper admin behavior and flouting of our own policies. When is this going to end? Badagnani 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 ::The non-free content criteria policy has to be given priority over the deletion guidelines. -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] [[User_talk:Nv8200p|talk]] 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 :::And, if you'll excuse the inevitable humor of the phrasing, the policy for determining whether the policy has been satisifed is expressed in the administrators' ''instructions'', which have a weight beyond those of guidelines.—[[User:DCGeist|DCGeist]] 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
+::::The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]]. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have  enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] [[User_talk:Nv8200p|talk]] 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn deletion''' per consensus in IfD. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:XDanielx|xDanielx]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub> 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn''' - No consensus for such and this represents another example of improper admin behavior and flouting of our own policies. When is this going to end? [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)