Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:50, 20 August 2008

< August 19	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 21 >

20 August 2008

Article:Knowledge instinct

This page goes not have original research, everything is from published materials which are referenced. I agree that the style of the first version was not appropriate and I have changed it to the neutral style, hopefully making it acceptable.

I made a mistake by posting the new version of the page too quickly, as I lost the name of the admin who deleted it the first time. I hope one of the admins can find out who this was and add the appropriate notification. Thank you. Romanilin (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Internet Defense Force

I'm requesting that this keep (and subsequent speedy keep) be reviewed. The initial AFD was a mess of sockpuppetry accusations, disruptive comments, etc. I started a new AFD just yesterday because I believed I hada better rationale for deletion than the original nom. However, this morning my AFD was closed as "speedy keep" and I was told to bring it here. This is an article about an "unofficial" collection of people that hijacked an antisemetic Facebook group and started deleting its members. As far as I can tell, all of the provided third-party references that can be considered reliable don't actually talk about this group beyond that single event. The CBS news one is about the Canadian military telling it's soldiers to not post their photos on Facebook. The Computerworld article is about the Simon Weisenthal Center. MOST of the provided references in the article are from the group itself. A Facebook vandalism group doesn't seem particularly notable, and WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here as the overall breadth of coverage is pretty scant. Two articles about hijacking a Facebook group and an opinion piece that was written by one of the people who has edited the Wikipedia article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No one else felt it needed to be deleted. It's merely a convenience that all of the links all go back to the same group which publicizes what it does. If anything as time goes on this group gains more attention. So pushing for deletion seems absurd as this page is becoming more important. - Saxophonemn (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Saxophonemn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think it's a shame as this is the first time I was ever inspired to contribute to Wikipedia and I was trying to help make this article more neutral in the first place, and as soon as everything dies down and we all start getting along and the article is making progress, it seems it continues to get vandalized w/ all of these deletion tags (despite the fact that most people seem to think it is notable enough and with enough reliable sources to keep it.) is this how it goes for all new articles? If so, it might be too frustrating to continue to try to help edit...--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Endorse. Seems to meet the notability criteria. The AFD was a mess, but pretty much a keep. I don't see any issues. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Saxophonemn. Further, I explained on the deletion request that most of the links Nobody of Consequence has listed here refer to the back ground section. Naturally this sets the context and does not refer to JIDF itself. There are references in the Jerusalem Post, Artuz 7, and the UK's Telegraph -- all specifically about JIDF. As discussed extensively on talk (and which there is concensus on) the nature of the group JIDF recieved press coverage for is critical to understanding the JIDF. It is one thing to say the JIDF aims to close groups that are in its opinion antisemitic, it is another to have third part references validating that the group in question was indeed widely considered antisemitic. As for WP:ONEEVENT, the take over of the group is a single event. The JIDF is an organisation and will most likely be notable again in the future. To remove an article now would be to raising the bar significantly from common practice, and an insult to those editors who have been working on this (these editors come from many different perspectives on this and have worked hard to reach common ground - the common thread is that we all agree an article is of benefit to Wikipedia). Oboler (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or Relist Most of the keep !votes at the original AfD acknowledged that the group probably wasn't notable for more than one event or a momentary burst of publicity. Despite heroic efforts, nobody has been able to provide more sources in the 12 days since the first AfD to better establish the group's notability. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse keep It is not the function of DRV to re-run an AfD, but to discuss whether the AfD was done correctly. It was.--Bedivere (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Tramel

I believe this debate was incorrectly closed as delete. It was closed after only a day despite several keep votes - there certainly wasn't consensus. No policy was quoted as to the reason for this 'rapid delete' and dispute discussions with the closing admin User Talk:Moreschi#James_Tramel I still see no reason for the early close as delete. Closing admin has quoted WP:BLPBAN as his reason so I'm not sure this is the right place for review but as it seems the most logical place I've started it here. Comments in the AfD suggest that the article was properly referenced so I'd be surprised if WP:BLP has been breached. I have no idea whether this article should be deleted as I've not seen it - I'm asking for review purely on procedural grounds. Dpmuk (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; there was a number of keep votes, from regular AfDers, who would have caught this if it were a clear WP:BLP issue. It's not a clear negative bio, despite what the closer said; the news is all about him becoming a priest and respected member of society, not the (well-documented) crimes he did. Just looking at the first article in the Google search[1] should make it obvious that this is not an open and shut AfD, unless you're an inclusionist, in which it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow AfD to finish. I can understand WP:BLP concerns but with the exception of one sentence alleging professional misconduct (I did find an RS, here), the article was thoroughly sourced and not negatively written. Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion notes that "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." The policy goes on to say that "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by BLP summary deletion." Whether this individual is a worthy candidate or not according to WP:BLP1E should be decided in that AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn'This was not a consensus decision, but done as an administrative rapid delete under BLP. In essence, he is a reformed criminal who became an ordained priest, and was subsequently suspended for an accusation misconduct unrelated to his prior conviction (neither admitted nor proven, but responsibly reported). There are good newspaper sources for both the earlier and later parts of the story. This seems to be of fairly clear general interest. "One event," is clearly not applicable--there were three distinctive events over a 23 year period. There were keeps or strong keeps, some explained in detail, from six responsible editors, and 2 deletes besides the nom. and the closer. The keeps relied on one event, which seems contrary to the plain facts of the matter--he would have been notable even without the subsequent suspension from office. consensus, presumably based on personal conviction. DGG (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Based on the arguments presented at AfD there are perfectly valid justifications provided that the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard supported by reliable and verifiable sources. As there are valid claims of notability, combined with a consensus for retention, the "rapid delete" seems to be in violation of process. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The deletion was out of process, but there are BLP issues present, we can't just overturn and ignore them. Wizardman 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with a relist, but what BLP issues are present? It's incredibly verifiable and notable that he's an ex-con (convicted of murder) who became a priest; dealing with the issues behind the suspension can be handled on the talk page, not through AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article:MyWikiBiz

As the article on MyWikiBiz was deleted through AFD previously (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination)), I thought bringing this to DRV (as I did with the Wikipedia Review article) would be a good step. While the old version of the article failed to assert sufficient notability, since April 2007, a lot more sources have appeared, most notably including Jonathan Zittrain's book. I believe the draft version of this article, which you can see for your edification at User:Neil/mwb, meets all the neccessary criteria for an article; it is neutral, it is referenced, reliably sourced, and it asserts notability. I am looking for a green light to move into article space. Please note this is not an AFD discussion. Thanks. Neıl ☄ 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move into article space as nominator and creator of draft article. Please note I have notified each administrator who has either deleted or undeleted the article of this discussion, based on the deletion log of MyWikiBiz. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject A large number of the citations are internal to Wikipedia or MWB. Additionally, several of the exterior citations appear to be coverage of Wikipedia or blogs, where MWB is incidentally mentioned. I'm not seeing the widespread or lasting coverage I'd expect for such a topic. MBisanz ^talk 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 16 citations, 3 are Wikipedia (wholly appropriate as a ref for the topic (e.g., referencing the COI policy, which is mentioned in the article), and one is internal to MWB. 4 out of 16 isn't really a "large number". Zittrain's book, Die Welt, the Post-Gazette, the Chronicle of HE and the AP article are all widespread coverage that meet WP:WEB and WP:N. Neıl ☄ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I am seeing 2 of the 16 sourced to MWB, 3 sourced to WP, the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece is from the Chronicle's online blog, not the actual magazine, then we have the Attack of the Show blog entry, The Future of the Internet covers it in under 3 paragraphs of a lengthy chapter, and contradicts other sources, saying that MWB is dormant (not active). The Heise article is about Friedrich Metz with 2 sentences referencing his coverage of MWB if I'm reading the german correctly. The Register article is about Jimbo and mentions MWB in passing, The Pittsburgh Gazette article looks like a copy of the MSNBC piece, not a separate coverage incident. The SBWire piece never even mentions the term MyWikiBiz and is a press release, not independent coverage. I'm seeing barely any MWB-focused, independent sources here. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you aren't seeing very well? I still only count one reference sourced to MWB, being #3 (unless you mean #7, which is a press release from MWB, sourced to 24-7 Press Release). Including and referencing a company's mission statement and the press release announcing its inception is hardly a bad thing. The CofHE piece is still fine - or is the Chronicle's web coverage not reliable? Three lengthy paragraph's in Zittrain's book is MWB-focused, detailed and independant. The Pittsburgh Gazette article is, yes, mostly the same as the MSNBC piece, but the fact multiple reputable media sources picked up the AP piece is further evidence of notability. Neıl ☄ 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted with Neil) Comment The issue here is inclusion-worthiness, which is usually determined on the grounds of notability, the encyclopedic/discrete nature of the topic, and whether or not there are conflict of interest/BLP issues. I don't think anyone would accuse Neil of the latter, an individual business/website is certainly an encyclopedic and discrete topic, and the article asserts and proves its notability through the following coverage: MSNBC, Chronicle of Higher Education, Die Welt, paragons of reliability whose coverage could not credibly be deemed trivial. Your objection seems to boil down to "too many bad references", which seems irrelevant to the inclusion-worthiness of the topic. It has enough good references, ergo it is notable. What's the real problem? Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space A significantly improved article that includes multiple reliable sources that cover MyWikiBiz as the primary subject. While some of the blog and Wikipedia sources could be questioned, sources from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Chronicle of Higher Education are the kinds of reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alan - note there's only one blog as best I can see (and that's the official blog of a topic notable enough for its own article). Are any other sources blogs?Neıl ☄ 13:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with both you and the comments from Skomorokh above. I have no issue with the inclusion of these blog/Wiki references in this context. While there might be justifiable issues if these were the only sources, my point was that the bulk of the article is referenced by ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the topic and establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approve notable, encyclopedic and free of spam/coi/blp concerns. Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space appears free of problems and well sourced George The Dragon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article space Sources covering all bases. Internal sources are required to show internal policies (doh) Jacina (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Accept' into article space in its present form, regardless of earlier history of the article. DGG (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still no evidence of notability, fails any test of a business getting into Wikipedia. If it weren't for the internal Wikipedia debates that have used it as a test case, we wouldn't be having this debate. The company perhaps merits mention in an article on Wikipedia, and might usefully redirect there.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is self-referential. It's only notable because there was a fuss on Wikipedia. Nobody outside Wikipedia would regard it as notable.--Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article:Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, 6th Lord of Monroy

Despite Spanish Lords having no automatic seat in the Parliament, in Spain the title of Lord is as much a title as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess and Duke, and as so is recognized in the Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Beside that, Lords, as other titulars, as their owners, were the actual rulers of their towns, as were and are the Alcaldes, Mayors, and such. For that reason, they should be considered at the same level as such. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the modern descendants, but he was a 17th century figure, and I think they may still have been sufficiently important then to count as notable. 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh... 1: I don't know why I got a DRV notice on this. 2: There's no article history. If there a typo somewhere or, what's going on with this? Wizardman 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy, User:Moonriddengirl found it for me. Wizardman 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAMESPACE of page:Jamie Anne Allman

She was on 16 movies. Sixteen!... How can that be not notable? I've seen biographies in here with half of it!... The deleters didn't see them from between the many small guest starrings she did and which alledgedly weren't enough to make her notable. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look through this search and see if you can find some secondary sources. That would make her notability claim bulletproof. Plasticup ^T/C 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--the AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Anne Allman DGG (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Process properly followed. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure: nominator doesn't explain why the closing was incorrect, seems like he just wants AFD2. Wizardman 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flat_Daddy (closed)

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 *''''Accept'''' into article space in its present form, regardless of earlier history of the article. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose''' still no evidence of notability, fails any test of a business getting into Wikipedia. If it weren't for the internal Wikipedia debates that have used it as a test case, we wouldn't be having this debate. The company perhaps merits mention in an article on Wikipedia, and might usefully redirect there.--[[User:Troikoalogo|Troikoalogo]] ([[User talk:Troikoalogo|talk]]) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' This is self-referential.  It's only notable because there was a fuss on Wikipedia.  Nobody outside Wikipedia would regard it as notable.--[[User:Bedivere|Bedivere]] ([[User talk:Bedivere|talk]]) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:{{ucfirst:Article}}:{{ucfirst:Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, 6th Lord of Monroy}}]]====