Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 25

Administrator instructions

< January 24	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 26 >

25 January 2009

Deadstar Assembly

Band_VERY_valid DeadstarAssembly (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band was deleted as not being notable, per our guidelines for musical groups. Do you have something which shows how they fit those guidelines? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 08:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried reviewing it with the administrator who deleted it and found that even providing hundreds of links that proove the bands standing wouldn't be enough for him, so he had suggested to do it via this method. So here's a shortened version of the information I have provided to him:

The group have been around for 8 years and have appeared numerous times in publications both digital and print globally including such magazines as Zillo (germany), and Metal edge (United states). Also having toured the United States over a dozen times in that span, been sampled on numerous TV shows for stations such as VH1, MTV, and even ABC family, and have a pending release of its 3rd globally available album (retail, not only online), airplay on a global level on both satellite and air-broadcast radio, I would assume these would qualify them for a few of the criteria listed on the wikipedia's page of terms.

Below you will find a listing of just a fraction of the bands mention -

The bands listing on MTV

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/deadstar_assembly/artist.jhtml

Proof of the bands contribution to a major video game

http://projectgothamracing3.com/gothammusic/Soundtrack+Samples.htm

Major music label #1

http://www.purerecords.com/

Major music label #2 (international)

http://www.dockyard1.com/deadstar/

Proof of the bands endorsement with BC Rich Guitars

http://www.bcrich.com/artists.asp

Proof of the bands endorsement with Kustom Amplifiers

http://www.kustom.com/artist_main.aspx

Proof of the bands endorsement with SnapJack Cables

http://www.zzyzxsnapjack.com/artists.html

Proof of the bands endorsement with DDRums (Under artists section)

http://www.ddrum.com/main2.php

Proof of the bands endorsement with HotPicks USA

http://www.hotpicksusa.com/artists.cfm

Partial list of the bands touring history (Sadly unable to parse 8 years of touring data)

http://www.deadstar.com/tour/past_dates.php

Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=deadstar+assembly&x=0&y=0

Simple google search for a review of the bands last album

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=deadstar+assembly+unsaved+reviews&btnG=Google+Search

Bands large list of videos on youtube (some with almost 200k views per)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=deadstar+assembly&aq=-1&oq=

Bands listing on Rolling stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/10748864/unsaved

List of articles on blabbermouth (a major label run music blog)

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=deadstar+assembly&x=0&y=0

I can provide more if it would help show the standing of the group.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadstarAssembly (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of algal culture collections

As noted by me and two others who commented, the article violates WP:NOT#LINK. Some argued that the links could just be made into references, but it would then become a directory of these farms, and so would violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Since these reasons are policy, those supporting keep did not refute this, and consensus is based on policy, the consensus here was that the article should have been deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sustain no-consensus If not improved, just wait a month or two and renominate, hoping for a clearer consensus. The basic feeling at the AfD was that this mainly needed major reformatting. give the interested people a chance to do it. I continue to not see the point of appealing a no-consensus close, unless it is really bizarre. DGG (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain no-consensus. I can find me in DGG's opinion. If someone thinks an article can be improved, they should get the chance to do so. Concerns about the links can be met by adding {{NOINDEX}} while work is ongoing. -Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The arguments in support of maintaining this linkfarm were in the WP:USEFUL family and should have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Violette

Creation of this article has been permanently blocked since July 2008 because of repeated recreations without establishing notability. I have an article sitting in my User:Americasroof/Sandbox which I believes establishes notability including a IMDB profile and a New York Times story. A google search on the guy's name produces more than 500,000 hits. He has done a movie in addition to his commercials. I was not part of the previous articles. If people still have a problem with him it should go to afd rather than being permanently blocked by one administrator. Americasroof (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the NY Times article, but Eric Violette does not appear in it. May I suggest you tighten your citations before asking that the article be unsalted? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The NYT article doesn't mention the subject, the imdb link offered says he played a nameless character in one film, as does this imdb link and there's nothing in the Google News archive about this Eric Violette, which I'm sure there would be for any notable 21st century American actor. I just wish people would realise that the cool thing these days is to get your Wikipedia article deleted, rather than to have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Fiddle Faddle. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and do not reintroduce the article at this time in the current state as indicated in the sandbox. Also (immaterial), I only get 13,000 gHits doing a search under "Eric Violette" in quotes. MuZemike 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted IMDB apparently doesn't know which character he plays in the French-language Canadian film mentioned and several sites have him near the bottom of the list of cast members which doesn't really help in establishing whether is part was relevant. His personal site isn't reliable for anything but personal details (age, birth name, etc), Maholo contains user-submitted data and isn't reliable and the NYT article doesn't mention Violette. In short: there's no reliable sources to build an article with.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The NYT article is a red herring; there's no mention of him there. None of the other refs are reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008

Admin failed to recognize systemic bias Trachys (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I was the nominator, so declare my interest, such as it is. I saw the article become greatly improved during the AfD, but it was, for me, still way on the wrong side of the "keep" fence. I see a good closing rationale, support the fact that there is a deletion review because this is inherently a good process, and find the review reason to be somewhat harsh. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have no personal bias in this conflict. I see all such conflicts as damaging and wrong. I do not have the knowledge to be biased in favour of or against either party. My only interest here is in Wikipedia articles. I did not see any systemic bias in the various arguments raised. Any pro and anti participant comments seemed to me to even each other out, broadly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the only argument to be advanced here, I endorse my own closure. If anything, far from suffering from neglect because of systemic bias, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the most extensively covered current conflict on Wikipedia. I've, incidentally, userfied the article following the discussion at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 200. Sandstein 14:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You appear to have misinterpreted my reference to WP:BIAS. I am suggesting that there is an imbalance in coverage of the subject, not that the subject is neglected. Please see Cvrx's comments in the log. Trachys (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse, good close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, consensus was read properly. Systemic bias doesn't come into it. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see a valid reason to overturn raised. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question It sounds like the article improved considerably during the AfD. Could we get a history undelete or userification of the article so it can be seen in its final state as what I'm seeing in the cache looks older. At the moment it looks like the discussion was leaning hard toward no consensous (about split on !votes), but it is hard to judge the strength of the arguments without seeing the article. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'm a bit worried about deletion for content reasons. If the article was too detailed, it seems likely clipping things would have done a better job rather than deleting the whole thing. But again, I'd want to see the article. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Joyce Carty

Couldn't find the AFD; but, in any case, the article is salted; but, should probably redirect to Footprints (poem), as a likely search term. Neier (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the admin's page, but, noticed this comment, so, it seemed like DRV was the next logical step. I've no idea what OTRS is; but, none of that was mentioned in either the conversation above, or the deletion log anyway. Neier (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note- this article, and it's subject, as well as the Footprints poem article, are all the subject of an OTRS legal ticket. The article was becoming a trouble spot; it had previously been a redirect to the Footprints poem article, but a banned user (banned in relation to the aforementioned ticket) insisted on recreating it. The subject of the article itself does not merit their own article; this is about whether there should be a redirect or not, which is not the point of Deletion Review. For the purpose of not exacerbating the ticket and correspondence surrounding it, I would ask that this be closed and the matter be dropped. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have the ticket number so that other OTRS users can have a look? Stifle (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If its in the legal queue other OTRS users cannot see the ticket. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem the obvious solution is to create the redirect and protect it. Ditto for the other proposed authors. DGG (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the obvious solution here. Doing so would greatly exacerbate the current situation that OTRS is dealing with. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, the OTRS ticket number is #2009011210025003 but you will need legal queue access to view it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh well. Bearing in mind that Swatjester has a @wikimedia.org email address, I suspect that overturning this would just result in a WP:OFFICE deletion. Keep deleted as such, but to provide for a proper audit trail, I suggest undeleting and redeleting quoting the ticket number. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comsec Consulting Ltd.

I think this page was unjustifiably deleted a number of times. It was written from a neutral POV, citing a number of third party substantiated references. There are MANY companies on here of the same size, and the same caliber that have pages that are much more advertising-oriented. I made a point of using phrases such as "commonly known for" and "active in", not provides services or our product line - as many other companies have done. I have proven our certification, and linked to our publicly traded page. As this is a public company, there are people with vested interests in the company who will find it important to be able to readily gather background information about our company. Wikipedia does not have a legal leg to stand on when deleting our page, when other company pages are present. This is clear bias. Furthermore, there has been a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy. My tags for Deletion Review, and Speedy Deletion Review were just deleted and ignored. If I am to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, then certainly Wikipedia admins are expected to hold to them as well. I would be more than happy to respect any proposition for edits or changes to the piece to make it seem less like "blatant advertising" according to certain admins. No attempt to edit or modify the piece was made it was simply deleted, even after having been edited for the purpose of neutrality - which I believe was not even noticed or appreciated by the admins, it was simply redeleted without having even been read. Shar1R

Endorse deletion. The content is clearly intended to advertise, and that justified deletion. To address the nominator's points:

"I have proven our certification, and linked to our publicly traded page." - WP:COI

- - Where is the conflict of interest? There is no conflict of interest here. I am a writer by profession, and if I didn't know how to remain neutral I would have long ago been searching for a job.

"Wikipedia does not have a legal leg to stand on when deleting our page" - (a) it's not your page, (b) law has nothing to do with whom Wikipedia does and does not permit to use this private website.

- - If a company is clearly being discriminated against, for no apparent reason, then yes that's not legal, especially if this is a website that claims to be welcoming to all.

"Furthermore, there has been a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policy." Yes there has. By you. WP:SPAM for one, and also you removed deletion tags from the page despite that they clearly say that the creator may not remove the tag.

- - I hadn't seen that when I removed the tag. There's a social bullying policy here on Wikipedia where admins instead of helping newbies choose to purposely hinder progress, instead of contribute to the success of an article.

"My tags for Deletion Review, and Speedy Deletion Review were just deleted and ignored" Incorrect. This deletion review has not been ignored, and the hangon tag you added states "Note that this request is not binding". The admin who deleted the page noted your request, but did not abide by it.

- - Yet another demonstration of the social bullying. I have a funny feeling that admins rarely abide by them, and thus there is that blatant disclaimer which they probably constantly use as a defense. Give a real reason why they didn't bother to consider it, and I'll respect it. The "just because I don't have to" is pathetic.

"If I am to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, then certainly Wikipedia admins are expected to hold to them as well" - I don't see any breach of guidelines by any admin.
"As this is a public company, there are people with vested interests in the company who will find it important to be able to readily gather background information about our company" - Sure. That's what your company's website is for.

- - Uh ok. Those other companies have websites too. This isn't a free web hosting site. It's an encyclopedia. If one company is encyclopedia worthy, than another is, as well. There is no justifiable claim otherwise besides bias.

"There are MANY companies on here of the same size" WP:WAX

- - These are such ridiculous unsubstantiated arguments. Companies of the same exact size, in the same exact area of interest, written much less neutrally are on here. I can give PLENTY of examples. You can not use the WP:WAX claim as a justified response. Where's the policy on fairness and equal opportunity? That doesn't exist. It's whoever is friends with the admins? Why is one company clearly given a free pass, and another is disparaged and attacked in an unjustified manner? Talk about systemic bias. British companies can be on here, but Israeli ones are prohibited? Please.

Speedy deletions do not normally prohibit recreating the page, but because you repeatedly recreated the page it has been locked. If you wish to recreate this page, you should create a neutral draft with citations to reliable sources (which have to be independent of your company), and then come back here to request permission to move it back to main namespace. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't understand what this last comment means, however I DID cite NUMEROUS unbiased, objective sources that make reference to our company - believe me we don't own Computer Weekly and SC Magazine - you can even check on Wikipedia. I can name PLENTY of companies on here that have much fewer citations, and are still here. And if that is the case I will start proposing all of them for deletion, as this is a clear bias.Shar1R
Restore. See this Google News archive search and this Google News search. I think the references from reliable sources (ignore the press releases that show up in the search and concentrate on the newspapers and magazines) are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article can start out with problems such as bias or (in other cases) bad writing and still be about a notable topic. The fact that the original contributor removed a speedy tag should not be allowed to hide the possibility that the topic is notable. If the article can be easily salvaged and turned into an adequate one, then it should be. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse These deleted content was clearly an advert and wikipedia is not the place to promote your business. Eastmain, there is no reason why an independent article can't be written if it meets WP:CORP but you need to specify exactly what sources you think there are as editors are not going to parse google searches for you. I had a quick look and note of the references were non-trivial. Of course, I can revisit if you actually cite the sources since I didn't actually look very closely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse advertisements should be deleted, other crap exists is not an overturning reason. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I placed the original CSD tag because the page was nothing but blatant advertising of a non-notible company. Eeekster (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — this has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard. MuZemike 06:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please may we see the deleted text? A simple search of Google shows that this organisation is potentially notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been restored under a tempundelete tag for now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (userfy if it helps). Despite claims above that the company is blatantly non-notable, WP:CORP says that publically traded companies are notable if multiple sources exist to build an article with. The deleted version of the article already contained such sources like this (discussing new director), but there are others including: [1] [2] [3]. Issues of advertising can be addressed by trimming and rewording. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which have been speedied can be recreated by any editor as long as they overcome the reason why the article was deleted to start with. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]