Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:44, 18 October 2006

< October 16	October 18 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

17 October 2006

JAKAZiD

I wish to have the JAKAZiD article Restored/Undeleted, I feel it was unfairly deleted, it contained factual data about the Arist and was not Spam. ShadowmanX 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For benefit of other reviewers, article was speedy deleted by User:Blnguyen with the summary "self web-recorded musician". Endorse deletion unless notability per WP:MUSIC is asserted and verified. This is about the creator of the Internet Cillit Bang and Esure videos, which are funny and arguably merit a mention in those articles (which they've got), but absent third-party coverage they and their creator do not merit articles themselves. However I would encourage administrators to at least link and refer to WP:CSD when speedy deleting articles for the benefit of users like ShadowmanX. Even cryptic shorthand like "CSD A7" is better than something that really just looks like the administrator's opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. It's a contested speedy, 'nuff said. Even if it wasn't enough, the cached version indicates assertions of notability, such as the television commercials. Clearly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All speedy deletions are contested by at least one person. The word WP:CSD uses when it says that some articles should be sent to AfD is "controversial", not "contested". And he hasn't made any television commercials - he makes parodies of other people's which are self-published. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a discussion at CSD about it, then, because that's what some believe there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Contested PRODs need to go to AfD, not contested speedies. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion unless notability can be established. Looks like another teenager with a webpage. The fact that he's remixing commercials and posting them on the web (does he have permission from the original makers?) doesn't seem like an assertion of notability to me. Fan-1967 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, if you READ THE ARTICLE instead of jumping to dumb conclusions then maybe you would have realised, yes he does get permission, and also there being released into the UK Charts. Want proof? Check HMV's website, its there. ShadowmanX 01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, JAKAZiD is now signed to two major UK hardcore labels (Nukleuz and Thin 'n Crispy), is about to have a single released (which will enter the UK charts and will be inserted into radio rotation). --PkerUNO 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per PkerUNO if verifiable, as he would meet WP:MUSIC if this is the case. No matter what, there was an assertion of notability, and articles that assert notability no longer fall under A7. --Core des at 01:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some relevant links. 1: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-2005022553,00.html - Sun article on JAKAZiD. 2: http://www.cillitbangremix.com/ - Official website of the upcoming single. 3: http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=572580 - HMV preorder page for the upcoming single. 4: http://www.beatport.com/ - Search for JAKAZiD. Already available on digital distribution through Nukleuz. 5: http://www.dmcupdate.com/charts/charts.asp?id=859 - JAKAZiD on the DMC charts. He's not up on the Nukleuz website yet, but will be when the single is released next month. Hope this is enough! --PkerUNO 02:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Burden is on the article to prove notability. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per my look at the deleted history, no assertion of notablity was given and links pointed myspace etc lead me to advertyness. I would have speeded as well -- Tawker 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless notability can be proven. If reliable sources can be found that prove notability, then I'd agree with overturning. --Core des at 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (which means nuking it again since it's currently there in all its - er - glory). No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, first single on a "major" (as in major for this small genre) label is yet to be released. Guy 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia

Request for the deletion of Lostpedia to be reviewed. I appreciate the article was previously deleted but on this occassion was removed without any kind of discussion. I personally had added the {{hangon}} template, yet the article was still swiftly removed despite my requests for review first. Please could the article be restored, if only to allow actual free debate --Nickb123 3rd 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD. Whispering 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was endorsed in a DRV in July: Review. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {hangon}} has pretty much no value on reposting deleted content. Those must come here first. Fan-1967 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The linked deletion review is for an old version of the article, and main grounds for deletion was "shameless advertising". The new version I made today was an attempt to overcome this, however it was still removed despite my pleas for actual formal voting. Therefore, I request the content to be restored, if only for to be deleted after a real debate. The content, I believe, is objective and causes no offence to anyone, so I don't see why it cannot remain until a proper conclusion is made --Nickb123 3rd 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on AFD. I've got conflicting thoughts on this. On one hand, it's lostcruft. On the other, it passes one of the notability guidelines from my interpetration. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - cruft IMHO, does not appear to fit WEB -- Tawker 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Patent cruft with no encyclopedic value except bringing hits to lostpedia to earn you money, non notable fansite. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Wikipedia is not the keeper of the term wiki, which is where this debate is headed, and as such should not decide how other sites use it, and how the content is defined. LOST is a very unique show in its structure of building up the story line, and generating fan speculation. It relies on the theories of the fans involved, and as MatthewFenton a former Lostpedia vandal puts it "fan cruft". Furthermore, all fan speculation is clearly marked as such, and is clearly defined seperately from the article about the episode. The article fits WEB and Notability requirements also. To add to this debate. Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha, which the known Lostpedia vandal User:MatthewFenton edits are allowed on the site, under less notability than Lostpedia, yet are allowed to stay on the site. --Plkrtn 07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to cite me being a vandal? and you might find because Memory Alpha is notable and is also one of the largest wikis and in the top 100,000 websites. I dont not know about Star Wars wiki as i do not endorse Star Wars existance. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton</wnoiki> and <nowiki>http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/User:MatthewFenton. Furthermore, the Alexa.com 100,000 websites not only applies to the whole of Wikia, not just Memory Alpha but it has already been deemed as an unsuitable marker of notability on Wikipedia. Google Trends also shows that Lostpedia gets more search hits than Memory Alpha [1] --Plkrtn 07:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - All that google trend shows is that someone likes google bombing - and the Alexa rank is for memory alphas domain not wikias. Also its patently pathetic deeming me a vandal, you must of been truely scared when i brought to light all your copyrigth violations. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are diverting the point of this discussion once again. Under Lostpedia policy you were a vandal, and having been banned you obviously have an agenda for the deletion of Lostpedia on here. Further more, Memory Alpha's Alexa Page rank (3,344) [2] is exactly the same as Wikia.com's (3,344) [3] clearly showing that the sub domain is not taken into account when looking for traffic details. Ignoring of course the fact that Alexa.com is not valid reasoning for notability. Even if taken into account, Lostpedia is currently ranked at 15,034 [4] compared to Memory Alpha's, via its domain being 26,306 [5]. --Plkrtn 07:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse does not meet WP:WEB. —ptk✰fgs 09:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion users above may not be aware that it does actually meet WP:WEB criteria, specifically #1 & #2 (and only one is required per notability definition), as lostpedia has been referenced by Entertainment Weekly, Time Magazine, and the LA Times. --192.138.70.245 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Notability from the Lost Experience official game means Lostpedia has more press than e.g. Wokieepedia, which is allowed an article --Nickb123 3rd 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Same participants, same lack of discussion. The votes here of previous participants will simply reflect those of previous acrimonious discussions. That said, Alexa is no longer part of Notability; nonetheless Memory Alpha (a frequently edited article of one of the editors above) is cited in the discussion here; Lostpedia ranks higher (15034) than Memory Alpha (26306) in Alexa. Also note same particpants above in a push-button response to peripherally related delete afds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost further reading. See also relevant discussion by the same parties at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites Due to lack of productive discussion this issue may require mediation with a neutral party.--Santaduck 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not invisible. I hope you will look again before concluding that this is just more of the same participants. I only got involved in this when Plktrn made repeated bad-faith nominations of other articles in some kind of attempt to make a point about this being deleted.

I don't care about Alexa, or Memory Alpha, or any of that. I have one question:

Where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources commenting on Lostpedia? Please answer that and we may continue. —ptk✰fgs 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/sites/sfw13095.html - SciFi.com site of the week, July 5, 2006 – which by the way is a par to Wookiepedia’s “notability”
http://ia331304.us.archive.org/0/items/WatermarkStudentMinistries_119/djdanfinalcut.mp3 – the DJ Dan final broadcast, official Lost canon made by ABC.com and the producers of the show. Lostpedia is quoted: “And just listen to this ball of lies they're chucking at our heads on the famed geek-out Internet site, the Lostpedia. That's right, it's a wiki-wiki site.”
List of other references, including primary as well as secondary topic can be found by searching “Media Coverage” on the pedia site (I can’t link to it as its been blacklisted apparently?)

--Nickb123 3rd 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, no new evidence presented since last deletion review. Nickb123 3rd (talk · contribs) = Nickb II (talk · contribs) = Nickb123 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account who appears to be having some difficulty understanding part of the phrase multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The argument that "Wookiepedia exists therefore Lostpedia must exist" is begging the question and ignoring the policy basis for the original deletion, which has yet to be addressed in this DRV. For more Lostcruft see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost further reading. Can't people find something real to write about? Guy 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources for notability cited per above (EW, LA Times), largely ignored in the past. Here is one very recent citation in Time; there has been one other in the past, and I'll search for the other 2 mag citations when I get a chance. -192.138.70.245 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' per my look at the deleted history, no assertion of notablity was given and links pointed myspace etc lead me to advertyness. I would have speeded as well -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion''' unless notability can be proven. If reliable sources can be found that prove notability, then I'd agree with overturning. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse deletion''' (which means nuking it again since it's currently there in all its - er - glory).  No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, first single on a "major" (as in major for this small genre) label is yet to be released.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 ====Lostpedia====