Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 8

Fraser Committee – Speedy close, no page deletion has taken place. The IP address may use talk pages to discuss the insertion of this material into the relevant article. – lifebaka++ 03:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

To whom it may concern, I humbly ask you to replace the following page content on the Fraser Committee page. The following information has been recently deleted from the, Findings of the committee section. It is an Accurate summary of the committees findings. Thank you for your time.

The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: (1) The UC and numerous other religious and secular organizations headed by Sun Myung Moon constitute essentially one international organization. This organization depends heavily upon the interchangeability of its components and upon its ability to move personnel and financial assets freely across international boundaries and between businesses and nonprofit organizations. (2) The Moon Organization attempts to achieve goals outlined by Sun Myung Moon, who has substantial control over the economic, political, and spiritual activities undertaken by the organization in pursuit of those goals. (3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers. (4) In pursuit of this and other goals, the Moon Organization has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over or establish business and other secular institutions in the United States and elsewhere, and has engaged in political activities in the United States. Some of these activities were undertaken to benefit the ROK Government or otherwise to influence U.S. foreign policy. (5) While pursuing its own goals, the Moon Organization promoted the interests of the ROK Government, and at times did so in cooperation with, or at the direction of, ROK agencies and officials. The Moon Organization maintained mutually beneficial ties with a number of Korean officials. (6) The Moon Organization established the KCFF ostensibly as a non- profit foundation to promote Korean-American relations, but used the KCFF to promote its own political and economic interests and those of the ROK Government. (7) The Moon Organization extensively used the names of Senators, Congressmen, U.S. Presidents, and other prominent Americans to raise funds and to create political influence for itself and the ROK Government. (8) A Moon Organization business is an important defense contractor in Korea. It is involved in the production of M-16 rifles, antiaircraft guns, and other weapons. (9) Moon Organization agents attempted to obtain permission from an American corporation to export M-16’s manufactured in Korea. The M-16’s are manufactured under a coproduction agreement approved by the U.S. Government, which puts M-16 production under the exclusive control of the Korean Government. Despite this, Moon Organization representatives appeared -- apparently on behalf of the Korean Government -- to negotiate an extension of the agreement. (10) The Moon Organization attempted to obtain a controlling interest in the Diplomat National Bank by disguising the source of funds used to purchase stock in the names of UC members. (12) The Moon Organization used church and other tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities. (13) Although many of the goals and activities of the Moon Organization were legitimate and lawful, there was evidence that it had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws, as well as State and local laws related to charity fund, and that these violations were related to the organization’s overall goals of gaining temporal power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.5.104 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close No deletion has occurred. Please provide reliable sources for your proposed additions and discuss the disputed changes on Talk:Fraser Committee. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move the above to Talk:Fraser Committee. Advise the IP that he may do these things himself. Suggest that he registers and account so that we can better help him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actual text from the original page. I have brought my argument to the correct place and wikipedia does not require me to register to post. Thank you again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.23.253 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ewen MacIntosh – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Sorry, but this decision was based on factual error. Frankly, I can't understand what the nay-sayers were Googling? There are at least 2 places one can err when spelling his name and as noted in his intro on Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Seas 16, Ep 2, even the BBC messed up as he was on the credits of The Office as Ewan. I easily found info about him (found by typing the correct spelling as above) on the BBC-The Office page and an entry in IMDB that includes his DOB, extensive filmography, 2 reviews from reliable sources and even some trivia! IMO, all of the main ensemble characters in a series as important as The Office should have a character page and an actor page. Even if you don't agree, it's very odd that an actor with as extensive a filmography should not have his own Wiki page when many, more obscure, actors do. I offer to rewrite the page adding these references, and any more I can find, if they are deemed adequate. Yickbob (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the DRV links template above with the actual title of the deleted article. While it should have been at Ewen MacIntosh, it was not, and this will make it far easier for us to properly review the deleted page.
I don't see the factual errors you mention. The two sources you found do not do terribly much to establish notability, for Wikipedia's purposes. The BBC-The Office page isn't third party, the IMDB is user-written and therefore not reliable, and the two reviews linked from it only mention Ewen in passing. Do you have anything else? lifebaka++ 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's bizarre that there isn't more coverage for this guy, but there really doesn't seem to be. Peculiar. I think we have to endorse. As a separate matter of editorial judgment I would suggest replacing the redlink with a redirect to Keith Bishop (The Office) for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say go ahead and do it. We might want to hist-merging the deleting content in under the redirect, to make it easier to recreate the article when some coverage surfaces, as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse but redirect Sourcing is below what would would expect for an article. I like the idea of the redirect and don't see any obvious problems, BLP or otherwise, with doing so. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse but I can absolutely understand why the deletion seems ridiculous. In the real world this guy is obviously important enough to be included in an encyclopedia with the coverage of WP. Although the XfD nomination said the actor is "not notable", that is just wikispeak for a mere gaggle of guidelines which depend on the policies that information must be attributable to reliable sources and not just matters we happen to know about. The nomination went on to refer to these aspects and much of the discussion was based on the policy of verifiability. It looks as if in this case, astonishingly, we do not at present have adequate suitable material to justify an article. Also, because the article is about a real person, we have to be especially sure we are not maligning them. This ends up treating the article and its authors very harshly. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment - cases like this one illustrate why one can't have a predetermined position on discussions when closing. I recall thinking "I don't believe I'm going to delete this guy," but the sourcing truly did not appear to be there. Irrespective of the outcome here, I'd like to take up Yickbob (talk · contribs) on her kind offer to attempt to write an article on the subject in her user space, because if sourcing can be found to show notability I think we'd agree that it's preferable to have coverage. With respect to a redirect, as was noted by the initial proponent, this is a normal editing decision we're including in this discussion. I'm not crazy about redirecting a real person to a fictional role, but I guess it does make sense under the "rule of least astonishment." Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure It is understandable that editors abhor the idea of deleting articles on actors with whose work they are familiar. I've seen many WP:IKNOWIT "keep" opinions voiced in AfDs like this one; sometimes, a rough consensus forms that the article should be kept anyway. That didn't happen in this case, and there was instead a rough consensus that an article on the subject was inappropriate because notability was not established. Usually I would not favor a redirect from an actor to a character he's played, but this is clearly an unusual case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

ActiTIME – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn and restore. No further discussion with admin, who offered me to try Deletion Review Alyadem (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The page actiTIME was deleted with no chance to edit the article. Contacted the administrator Hu12, who referred to unambiguous advertising or promotion and did not want to continue further discussion providing the link to Deletion Review page.
Request: Could you please review the article and give me a chance to rewrite the article? I intend to add product and company background.
Arguments: I know other people were trying to create actiTIME article in wiki against its rules, however, in summer 2010 I created a new article in compliance with wiki rules, it was editied by other wiki admins and have been on wiki (with all necessary citation and links) over a year for now. When created last year actiTIME article was several time nominated for speedy deletion for different reasons and with the help of other wiki administrations, e.g., Bearcat, it stayed in Wiki. So I believe this is actiTIME case: “If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.” Moreover, as Hu12 said “Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.” actiTIME article complied with all these rules (including external links and citation).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyadem (talk • contribs)

Comment The article indeed appears to have been nominated for G11 a year ago, but was then declined by an administrator and supposedly cleaned up. As the google cache has expired I can't check the article itself and will hold my overturn/endorse until it is undeleted for review, but in general I don't consider speedy deletions after a good faith decline for the same criteria appropriate. Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two-sentence stub that was deleted at AFD in 2007 was a whole lot less promotional than anything I can find after the recreation. I'd have tagged this version G11 too. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with no prejudice against listing the article at WP:AFD. Per Yoenit, the fact that this article's CSD was previously rejected on the same criteria suggests that speedy deletion is not appropriate and there should be a discussion before the article is deleted. Anthem 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could please anybody update me on the final decision or when I should expect it? The article is still not restored. Alyadem (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Final decisions at DRV usually take about a week. So it will probably not be until the 15th or 16th of June that one is made. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for you reply. Will be waiting for further news.Alyadem (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review -- but I note there has been an AfD, not just sa speedy deletion. (And the Dawn ref is no longer online but seems to be just part of a group review' the other outside ref. is also a group review). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you restore it? ActiTIME is still a red link. I am aware of the 2007 AFD, but I fail to see how it is relevant as the two sentence stub then deleted is apparently not substantially the same as the article created 3 years later. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restored now for consideration at DRV. Look at the article history to see the version desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Deleted 6 times previously and twice as article Actitime, this is one Part of a long history of Article Spam and promotion by Actimind, Inc. Multiple articles created, by WP:SPA advertising-only accounts with IP's origionating from Actimind itself. see also spam report case, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep#Actimind.2C_Inc.;

Vladimir kornev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
62.152.93.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) descr: Actimind, Inc.
62.152.93.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) descr: Actimind, Inc.
62.152.93.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) descr: Actimind, Inc.

This marketing campain by Alyadem (talk · contribs) seems to also have spread to ru.wikipedia.org, which multiple articles have also been deleted;

Has only one "reference link" from makeuseof.com, however it seems to be a trivial, self published blog post whis is not sufficient to establish notability, nor survive another AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Spam from yet another web based time tracking and "project management" software package. Article was referenced to brief comparison stories on bloglike tech websites with small audiences, and of course to internal pages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Didn't know there is such a long history behind this article. I have 2 questions:

1) How can I get the copy of the article with all reference links?

2) If in the future there will be notable material about the software and I would like to post an improved article, where should I ask or who should I consult first?Alyadem (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ask one of the administrators listed in this category.

2) In such a case, you could write up a draft in your userspace and then bring it back to DRV for feedback, or else you could ask just the deleting administrator to review your draft. Alternatively, you could simply re-create the article. However, I strongly recommend seeking others' feedback first; that's because the page is far less likely to end up at WP:AfD again if it is scrutinized by others first, and also because you have a conflict of interest. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will follow your advice. Alyadem (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G11. Having reviewed the version of the article that was speedily deleted, I agree that it was unambiguously promotional and, simply put, amounted to spam. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.