Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eusebeus (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 2 November 2006 (→[[The Colbert Report recurring elements]] - endorse deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 31 November 2 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

1 November 2006

FlexSnap

This article was being written when it was deleted, with appropriate content and cited information to overview the history and development of the application. I initially began with certain parts to make sure that the information was not presented erroneously. Appreciate your time and information. Dedmond29 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article hasn't been deleted. It's still sitting there with a db tag, a hangon tag, and a Talk page. Wait until AFTER it's deleted before asking the deletion to be reviewed. Fan-1967 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Harman

Why do you think she is non-notable?? Maybe you should ask here - [1] but there was no need to delete this, what an over-reaction. Colbber 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empires

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires

This article discussed the Empires total conversion modification for Half Life 2. It was deleted, and changed to redirect to Empire, by kingboyk after the AFD process. The arguments against the article were, by the end of the AFD, based primarily on WP:Notability. In his closing comment kingboyk, who must have been able to understand that nonsensical afd in order to simply delete it, states that "Looking at the opinions of established editors, and looking at the points raised, there would appear to be a consensus to delete." Among all contributors to the talk page there was no consensus. The deletion consensus existed only among established wikipedia editors. Because all points raised had reached no consensus kingboyk's decision must have been based solely on the opinions of established editors, several of whom changed their votes based on the actions of editors within the AFD page rather than the article itself. I believe that this creates a slanted image of the page. The attention box that was placed at the top of the AFD shortly after it was begun states: "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads." Similarly, WP:AFD requests editors to "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If argument is to play such a large role in the AFD process, then arguments posted by all editors, not simply established ones, must be considered. From the closing comment I do not believe this was done, and I therefore request that the deletion decision be reconsidered. FalconXVI 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my decision was indeed weighted towards the opinions of established users, which is I believe policy. (i.e. I didn't take any notice of single purpose accounts like the one which has just opened this deletion review or of the flood of anons who came here from other sites). Notability wasn't established. I welcome this review, however, and entirely expected it: one doesn't close a troublesome AFD against a crowd of campaigners without getting it reviewed, right? --kingboyk 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. And it is policy to weigh opinions of more established users, but only to a certain extent. Regardless of the character of the poster any argument is still valid and must be considered, albeit within the context of Wikipedia. FalconXVI 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when it becomes clear that most of the new users are meatpuppets voting to keep an article because they like it, it's pretty evident that these users aren't here to improve the encyclopedia. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it seem better to start the AfD over again if something like that happens? Havok (T/C/c) 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to NeoChaosX: The character of the poster should be irrelevant if the arguments are valid. AFD policy is that the AFD discussion is not a vote. Meatpuppet posts along the lines of "Keep This page is awesome!" should be discounted, as should those similar to: "Delete This page sucks!" However, posts with valid arguments should not be. It is the job of whoever closes the discussion to weigh the arguments within the context of Wikipedia. This includes arguments made by both unique editors with hundreds of credits to their names and new editors, regardless of the purpose for which their account was created; valid argument cannot be discounted simply because the one who posts it is new. FalconXVI 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Get a clean AFD underway, the one just closed was a farce. You'd have to police the next AFD like a Nazi though, and although the fanboys may have acted like retards the article did undergo some improvement during the AFD. - Hahnchen 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse delete - Though the AFD was a mess, Kingboyk says he managed to wade through all the nonsense, so I think that should count for something. It appears to have been closed with respect to the proper guidelines as well. The AFD was a mess though, and probably discouraged more established admins from participating, which is why this is a weak endorse. Btw, I was the one who redirected it to Empire, which is what it should probably be anyway. Wickethewok 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, Kingboyk just skipped through the posts that had red links on them. Thats not going through the nonsense, thats just being lazy. He only took the consensus of the writers that had 20 jillion edits. "You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~ at the end. Happy editing!" Please remove that notice, since it's painfully obvious that this isn't the case since our opinion are useless Makiyu 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point towards the precendent of the Dystopia (computer game) article, who's first AFD resulted in a "Keep," despite the lack of evidence to its notability. A new AFD seems to me to be reasonable, provided that all arguments will be heard and weighted in the context of Wikipedia without respect to the character of those posting them. I make no accusations, but to consider argument irrelevant simply because a poster is new, or posting under an SPA, is illogical. FalconXVI 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and Comment I got an email during the first AfD from someone involved with this. Apparently at least some of them mistakenly believed the dedicated Empires wiki website was what was being considered for deletion, not the Empires wikipedia article! So it's no wonder some folks were fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it. That said, the AfD looks to have been properly closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete This review starts with two propositions from the proposer, FalconXVI, that:

  • "The deletion consensus existed only among established wikipedia editors".
  • "arguments posted by all editors, not simply established ones, must be considered"

So the question posed is whether the narrow consenus is sufficient basis for deletion. (This is a deletion review, not a re-run of the AFD, so I will set aside the substantive issues for now). The guidance is clear:

  • WP:AFD says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight."
  • Wikipedia:deletion policy says "Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus."

So, even on FalconXVI's evidence, Kingboyk has acted quite properly, in full compliance with existing policy. If FalconXVI disagrees with the policy, the approriate course of action is to follow the processs to seek a change in the policy; but unless and until the policy is changed, we have clear agreement that policy was followed correctly.

This review consists of an SPA asking us to not only ignore wikipedia policy, but to re-run the AFD giving a green light to the sockpuppets and meatpuppets and those with undeclared COIs. Bad idea: that would make for an AFD even more horrendous than the one which has just closed.

There are plenty of other substantive issues which could be discussed (yhough I'd prefer not waste more time on this). However, only one othr substantive point is raised, where Falcon cites the example of a game which passed AFD despite lacking evidence of notability. This sounds like a rogue decision, but if we take it as a precedent we might as well delete WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There is, of course, nothing wrong with single purpose accounts as such." -WP:SPA And therefore, to ignore arguments from an SPA, or a series of SPAs, is not only illogical, but also downright lazy, and only tenuously within Wikipedia Policy. There is nothing within Wikipedia policy that states that one may disregard the arguments of an SPA. I will grant you that the opinions (not arguments) of established editors may be given more weight in the consensus in order to ensure that the decision is in the interests of Wikipedia. However everything about WP:AFD encourages open discussion. For this guideline to be any more than a myth arguments from all sides, though not nescessarily opinions from all sides, must be counted. Due consideration must be given to all valid arguments in order to follow Wikipedia policy. There is no evidence that any comments within the AFD were made on bad faith (in fact WP:AGF shows that assuming such would be against wikipedia policy), therefore even in your evidence there is nothing that expressly states that the comments may be discounted. There is nothing within wikipedia policy that states that opinions of those with undeclared COIs is to be discounted (unless the post is in bad faith, which, if assumed as it must be in order to use this in a relevant argument, is against Wikipedia Policy). And there is nothing within wikipedia policy that expressly states that "Arguments of sock-puppets and SPAs are to be discounted."
Sockpuppeting by connotation implies that a single user is using numerous accounts in order to pad a vote. But even if numerous, seperate arguments were brought up by a single person acting under different accounts the arguments would still be valid. Sockpuppeting should be all but irrelevant to this review as, unless AFD process is a vote, the opinions of sockpuppets would be discounted anyway, and only their arguments would remain.
The question is not whether a narrow consensus is a basis for deletion, it is whether or not arguments from all sides must be considered when looking for that consensus in an AFD that was as contested as this one was. I am not arguing on consensus, I am arguing on whether or not the decision is in reasonable compliance with Wikipedia policies. Because there is nothing within Wikipedia policy that explicitly forbids them, and since there are many Wikipedia policies that must, if they are to truly be considered guidlines, endorse them, arguments made by new accounts must be considered if Wikipedia policy is to be followed. I do not believe they were.
I am curious as to why you believe that we would need to delete WP:NN. If we are to follow your interpretation of notability, we might logically delete WP:WEB. Why might we delete it? Because the first and third criteria were both met within the AFD, and yet their mentions were ignored throughout the AFD. One of the reasons I would endorse a rerun of the AFD discussion is because it did not seem by the end that either side (for the most part) was listening to reasoned argument, and because of that accurate Wikipedia consensus could not be judged; consensus cannot be reached unless both sides of a debate are willing to be convinced by the opposing side.FalconXVI 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Falcon, one of the major difficulties in this AFD was the persistent refusal by some participants to accept wikipedia policy, and the same thing is happening here. You say that "nothing within Wikipedia policy that states that one may disregard the arguments of an SPA". Wrong, wrong, wrong: says WP:DEL#Abuse_of_deletion_process "Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus." WP:DEL is policy, and your persistent refusal to acknowledge that is rather disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - But only because the guidelines say I should. I don't see why the article was listed for AfD in the first place, because the reasons given do not match deletion criteria and there was no attempt at improvement (save for the one prod that was adhered to and removed) or dialog on the talk page beforehand. While the original article did leave a lot to be desired and indeed did not meet the reasons for AfD (wrongful or not), plenty of proof had been submitted that it in fact did meet the requirements. Missing sources and a poorly written article are reasons for improvement, not deletion. I do suggest a rename to Empires (video game), disambiguate Empires to Empire (as wicketthewock graciously did already) and putting the proper referrals in place. The AfD discussion was a nasty mess though, but I think all parties involved did something wrong at one point. L3TUC3 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There's no reason to believe a new AfD would produce less crap than this one. Kudos to the closing admin for reading through this mess. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Wading through the AFD (boy it grew after I opined), I see no actual independent reliable sources to establish notability. There is one image of something that might be one, but without the data needed for another editor or a reader to use it for verification. The old article, even the cleaned-up version was far far too much a game guide and far to far from being an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As regards the other here mentioned article Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability is the correct answer. It wont shock me if in months to years, the mod does merit an article (which should be written in accordance with WP:FORGET and have notability established in accordance with WP:INDY, but "Empires" is absolutely not the right title for it. Empire (computer game) is already a disambiguation page, so the posisble future article should end up at something like Empires (Half-Life 2 mod). We want admins to close AFD discussions in line with policy even against an overwhelming consensus the other way, so we certainly don't object to them following the explicit authorization to ignore opinions of newer users that are not in line with the policy and guidelines worked out by long standing Wikipedia editors. GRBerry 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cite the Dystopia article as precedent not because it is included, but because its article, when similarly situated (under AFD on grounds of notability with similar, if not fewer, references than Empires), was kept. The precedent is not in the inclusion of the article, but in the decision resulting from its AFD. There are numerous explained references for Empires (many of which were not, I believe, considered in full, judging from the fact that many of them were ignored) if one takes the time to look through that mess of an AFD for them. Rerunning the AFD process would likely both somewhat clean the AFD page and allow these issues, and others (the mod is distributed through several well known independant websites (fullfilling notability requirements of WP:WEB)), to air . Naturally noone would object to admins closing discussions by following policy, but the evidence does not show that this was done. FalconXVI 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sidenote I would like to point out a potential massive flaw in logic. Certain people have cited over and over that many of the arguments came from SPAs. While it is true that several people may have created accounts in response to the start of the AfD, it is flawed to assume that they have made no other contribution to Wikipedia. I have made it a point to anonymously correct grammar errors of various scales wherever I browse. Unfortunately, I am on dial-up, and as such there is no proper record of my corrections save a list of IP addresses spanning two or three IP ranges. Thus, I would caution the old hands here about the dangers of false assumptions. Stating that such-and-such has made no other contribution to Wikipedia is inherently flawed. All you can know for sure is that you have no RECORD of any contribution. Also note that in spite of one particular admin strongly noting on several occasions that editing of another's comments is quite thoroughly against policy, someone made it a point to edit and split a post I had made. I had meant this post to be a unified impact on a reader to give a sense of scale on the flaws of many of the arguments for deletion. As such, I question the motives of whoever decided to conveniently re-arrange my comment. --Niarbeht 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply editing on a dialup must be difficult, but logging in is a fairly simple and light-weight operation, so I don't see how being on a dial-up prevents a user accumulating an edit history.
      As you know, I am the admin the who split your post. It's not something I much like doing or having done to my contributions, but there are some situations where it is appropriate as the lesser of a choice of evils. However, please note that I did not "edit and split" your post: I split it. I did not alter any of the words you wrote, nor did I remove any, and I did not add any words and attrribute them to you.
      The reason that I split that particular post (as a form of refactoring) was that it was very long, and raised a large number of separate points, which could be most clearly followed by separate replies. This was, I have to say, a margin call: the post which I split was in substance a massive ad hominem attack on a group of editors, which condemned them for legitimately pointing out problems such as sockpuppetry, and made that condemnation largely by ignoring policy such as WP:DEL. The only reason I didn't delete your diatribe was that I was one of the people named it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this was a valid (and bold) closure per policy; it is extraordinarily hard to provide credible sources for mods and their significance. There is surely some other project where they can be documented; they almost invariably get deleted here for failing core policies. Guy 10:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to note that right before the article was deleted, i added the missing link in the article's discussion page about being part of the mediawiki games and sports, however, this was useless, and instead of trying to do another AfD with a clean design, you just keep hitting a dead horse, the AfD is closed and there's nothing we can do about it. However, i don't see how somebody with 1 edit isn't trusted as much as one with 20000, if this were a police station and we wouldn't trust new cops, we might as well not have a police station. What i'm saying is that we might as well not have an online encyclopedia if there's nothing that qualifies to be added. Solokiller 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino (band)

I would like this to be revied because I believe it was incorrectly removed from WIKI for Promotion (WP:CSD criterion G11). It is not a promotional tool used by this band, but information on the band. In the DFW area the band is well know and this was a serious article for WIKI. The phrasing of the opening sentence was misworded due to this being an exerpt from the official bio of "Valentino". A different bio has been worked up that provides information, but no promotion for the band. The band's WIKI entry has never been and will never be used as a promotional tool but rather a source of information for the band "Valentino"

Explanation: this was originally deleted on prod, and the user made an undeletion request over email. I denied the request because the article also clearly met G11. I actually undeleted and redeleted it to reflect the stronger rationale in the deletion log. - crz crztalk 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "Exhilarating live shows... the harmonious blend of indie rock, blues and punk that has made Valentino a local favorite... Ramon is both expressive and captivating..." etc etc. Against this deluge of syrup, no non-trivial press coverage from significant sources or any other indication that the band passes WP:MUSIC. The most valid G11 deletion I've seen yet. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I'd have called it A7 rather than G11 but whatever. No indication the band meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC. —Angr 18:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not read the guidelines so we did not quote any of the bands press coverage. The band has been featured in Dallas Observer articles, Lubbock Avalanche Journal, houston Press, featured on Fox34 news in Lubbock, TX and is a regional touring act. The badn has also toured with national acts such as The Burden Brothers, The Offspring, Shiny Toy Guns. as previously stated the original text and wording comes from a promotional bio but will be changed.

The Colbert Report recurring elements

User:Night Gyr nominated this article for deletion on October 27, citing that the article violated the WP:V and WP:OR policies because it did not contain any sources. However, the majority of the users that replied stated that it should instead be kept and cleaned up (some even offered to do so), eventually resulting in 18 users advocating for the article to be kept, 8 advocating for it to be deleted, and two advocating for it to be merged. Ignoring this consensus, User:Angr deleted the article, explaining that "since this is a discussion, not a vote." Though it's true that AfD isn't a vote, what this article needs (and what seems to be the consensus among the users commenting in the AfD) is to be heavily trimmed down and sourced, not deleted. In fact, I for one am very willing to help clean the article up if it ever manages to get restored.--TBCΦtalk? 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said in my summary, the arguments in favor of keeping the article weren't. They were arguments in favor of keeping The Colbert Report (which wasn't up for deletion anyway), pointing to the importance of that show in American popular culture. I didn't see any convincing counterarguments to the nominator's point that the article violated WP:NOR, and looking over the article myself I was inclined to agree. The editors of the article had nine months to source the information, and didn't. I see no reason to believe the article would be brought into conformance with policy if restored. Keep deleted. —Angr 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why not restore it and let users add citations and clean it up so that it doesn't violate WP:OR? As I noted above, I'm very willing to clean up the article. After all, if the article wasn't sourced in the past, doesn't mean it can't be sourced in the future.--TBCΦtalk? 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the risk of repeating myself, the editors had nine months in which they could have been sourcing the article and weren't. Why should anyone believe it would be sourced if it were restored? "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "Be naive". —Angr 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: how about restoring it to TBC's user space (or restore and move it there, whatever's necessary) from where it can be moved back into article space when sufficient cleanup has been done? Cheers --Pak21 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that the article was going to be kept, and I was willing to give it a chance to improve, if someone was actually going to put in the effort. It's pretty much been a dumping ground for observations about the show, without anyone bothering to source or edit it, but I think moving to userspace or off wikipedia would give it that chance if someone really wants to work on it. I have my doubts that any work will happen, though, and it definitely doesn't belong as an article in the form that was deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore article I did not participate in this AfD discussion, but if I had, it would've certainly been on behalf of keeping the article. It certainly had its problems, but nothing that couldn't be solved with a good clean up (and I, like TBC, am absolutely willing to help with that effort). The AfD absolutely created a consensus, and that consensus was to keep the article. It also wasn't as if there was IP vote-stacking; prominent editors were on both sides of the discussion, but considerably more people wanted to allow the article to exist. It doesn't have to be repeated that AfD is not a vote, but it is the job of AfD to allow a consensus to come to light, and in this instance, the consensus opinion was ignored by the editor who closed the AfD. -- Kicking222 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, a lot of people "voted" to keep it, because it was people interested in the article who saw that it was up for deletion. But no one actually addressed the basic problem with the article -- not that it didn't happen to have sources, but that the information covered in it can't be sourced. One of the strongest arguments in favor of deletion I saw in the discussion was actually prefaced with the word "Keep": Lockesdonkey wrote "the only 'research' that really can be done is watching the show (or is there a book or website cataloguing this stuff that I'm not aware of?)" -- in other words, it would be impossible to cite secondary sources for the claims made. Verifiability by means of reliable sources is Wikipedia policy, and if the only way to verify the information in the article is to watch the show, then the article has no business on Wikipedia. That was the thrust of the "delete" voices' argument, and that was never countered by the "keep" voices. The "keep" voices just kept saying "the show is an important part of American popular culture", which no one ever denied. There was definite consensus on that point, but unfortunately it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I'll be glad to restore the article to someone's user space so it can be worked on, provided the people who want to work on it can tell me exactly how they plan to improve it. What secondary sources are available on the topic of the recurring elements of the Colbert Report that you plan to cite? —Angr 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - per Angr's above statement. Wickethewok 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore (and cleanup). Angr, secondary sources do exist for some of the information in the article, since reviewers have discussed many of the specific recurring segments on the show, but beyond that, reliable sources and secondary sources are not the same thing. One of the main points that was made in this discussion was that using television shows as primary sources is explictly permitted by our WP:RS and WP:NOR. Original analysis of those sources is not allowed, but merely describing that source without analysis is permittable. So, for example, stating that Colbert has a segment called "Formidable Opponent" where he debates against himself is fair and does not need another source. Same goes with the list of minor characters, which there is clearly precident for. Personally, I think a considerable amount of information in this article is problematic, but not all of it. Since there are editors volunteering to work on it, there's no reason to nuke the whole thing. I'll stand my assessment that the article should probably be split into seperate lists of recurring segments and recurring characters, with the rest cleaned up and merged as appropriate. But deleting an article entirely because it relies on primary sources contradicts policy. -- Bailey(talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overtun and restore (and, of course, clean up). As Bailey said, that a source is a TV show does not mean that it is 1. original research nor does it mean that it is 2. unverifiable. Perhaps hard to verify, if the show is not easily accessible, but given that everything on the Report is available online and for free from MotherLoad, as far as I can remember, anyone can check whether or not something something stated in the article is true. If that isn't verifiability, what is? Furthermore, would you have us delete everything about TV shows which haven't developed a base of people willing to write about them? Naturally, the article wasn't perfect. Finally, on a personal level, I applaud you, Angr, for having the dexterity of mind to take my argument, intended to clarify and crystallize a commonly-held opinion about verifiability and original research that (I hope!) is neither too broad nor too narrow-minded (in other words, the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's) and transmute it into what is possibly the narrowest interpretation of OR and verifiability with regard to television ever seen. Lockesdonkey 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - The article most certainly needs a lot of work, but, as I said in the AfD discussion and others have said here, people are willing to work on the article. Moreover, as Bailey mentioned, television shows are regarded as reliable sources, under WP:NOR, and there was in no way rough consensus. The arguments for deletion were most certainly addressed by a number of prominent users, and in all honesty, I began to stop arguing the issue because I felt that there was overwhelming support for keeping the article, and there was no way an administrator would delete it. Please don't take this as a personal attack, Angr, but deleting this article because you resent the presence of any popular culture-related articles on Wikipedia, and the neglect of "important" articles (see this page) is not fair. It is indeed a shame that more important articles are neglected, but it is no reason to delete such articles on popular culture. Similar articles to this one have survived multiple AfDs (see [[2]]), and articles such as Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches and those related to The Simpsons have been present on Wikipedia for over a year. Several such articles are adequately referenced and are quite decent, for example Themes_in_Blade_Runner. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore per above. Article should have been kept: 8-18 is not consensus to delete. Even if the closing admin thinks that there isn't a keep consensus, it should certainly be closed as no consensus. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion, what part of "AfD is not a vote" do you folks not understand? If you don't present new arguments, which none of you has done, then there will be no overturning of this discussion, and the close was perfectly proper. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear! What Zoe said. Eusebeus 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know AfD isn't a vote. I'm not even that attatched to this particular article. But I strongly feel that this should have been closed as 'no consensus'. Angr closed this AfD on the basis that no one presented arguments that effectively counter the arguments made in the original nomination. I disagree. I admit there were some unhelpful comments on either side of the discussion, but from what I can see, it was argued that:
      1. A fair amount of the information in the article is purely descriptive information sourced to The Colbert Report, which according to NOR and RS is an acceptable, reliable source;
      2. that several of Night's examples for precident were/are irrelevant -- obviously, a list of Slashdot jokes or YTMN jokes is different, since we're explicitly allowed to use TV shows as primary sources, but not forums and community websites;
      3. that precedent exists for keeping articles sourced entirely by trivial observation of a television show, such as List of vehicles in The Simpsons which survived three deletion attempts;
      4. that precedent exists for keeping articles sourced entirely by TV shows that have an even greater level of detail than this, such as articles on individual episodes, which indeed have been upheld in the AfD process repeatedly: see Bart's Dog Gets An F, or Death Has a Shadow for a non-Simpson's example;
      5. that some information in this article actually can be attributed to secondary sources since the Colbert Report has been subject to many, many reviews in print publications, even if secondary sources are sort of a red herring in this conversation;
      6. that lists of minor characters, such as the one included here, have been upheld repeatedly and are explictly allowed by our deletion policy on recurring characters, and that lists of recurring segments on a show composed entirely of segments (ie, a comedy/variety show) is entirely relevent to understanding that series, which would lack a traditional plot synopsis;
      7. that this article needs work, but is not unfixable, considering acceptable sources exist for it, and editors are obviously willing to work on it, removing original analysis and possibly refactoring content via some form of merge, rename, or split; and finally,
      8. We don't generally delete articles which are fixable simply because they're in need of cleanup -- we usually fix them.
    • I really don't mean to rant, and I empathize with the "delete" argument, since this article really in bad shape -- but I also don't see how these arguments fail to address the nominator's premise. It was widely acknowledged in the discussion that a large part of this article needs to fixed or scrapped, but there was clearly no consensus to delete. -- Bailey(talk) 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Proper close, no new evidence. Encyclopaedia cruftannica is somewhere else; the Colbert Report is notable but this was far too m uch detail and all form primary sources. We are not the Colbert Report fansite or FAQ. And anyway, the number of Colbert Report articles has tripled in the past few years. Guy 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernian Process

This article was deleted by User:Coredesat because according to the consensus of votes, it didn't meet the music notability guidelines. The main one being that it is not signed to a record label. However, I have no intentions of signing to a label, untill I find one that will not try to rip me off at every given opportunity. For now I give away all of my music for free. I do have a link to lulu.com where my most recent L.P. can be purchased for $8, yet if a fan can't afford that, I will happily supply them with a link where they can d-load the album for free.

It was pointed out early in the review that the article read like an advertisement. I will admit that I was new at writing wikipedia articles at the time, and had gone and changed it to reflect an encyclopedic, and non-point of view style.

I would also like to point out that this project is the first music project that has attempted to capture the spirit of the genre Steampunk. Another band Abney Park (band) adopted this same image about two years after I started my project, yet they have a valid wiki article.

I mentioned also in my deletion review that my project has been featured in national print media, as well as recieving the attention of Mick Mercer, who is the foremost authority on the Gothic genre of music. And an accomplished journalist within the music industry for well over 25 years. Upon searching for "Vernian Process" (in quotes) on google, I recieved approximately 679 hits, from various sources both national and international. I would also like to point out that this is a studio music project geared towards creating atmospheric film score material, not a rock band. So the idea of touring nationally is a non-issue. This was actually brought to my attention via a fan who saw the deletion review posted on my wiki article. Oh and another thing, all references to my project were also deleted from the List of Steampunk Works article as well. Which smells like a personal vendetta for some reason.

However the one thing that irks me more than anything, is that as an internationally recognized DJ and music connoisseur, I have spent the last 4 years attempting to create something completely unique that can not be compared to any pre-existing music and it is being deleted from wikipedia. Yet any number of no-talent artists who just rip everything else off, or emulate what has already been created can have a valid article. That just turns me off from this so called encyclopedia entirely, and makes me want to delete any information I have contributed here in the past. --FACT50 10:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No matter how novel your works are, if we have no way to know if they're notable, how can you expect us to have an article on it? Without standards, anyone could claim to be notable enough for an article, insisting on having an entry in Wikipedia to satisfy vanity. --Improv 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this seems to be a problem with the system, rather than with the band in question. this happens to be an area of music with which i'm familiar, and Vernian Process is definitely an important band in both the steampunk and sepiachord style histories. that it doesn't fit into the traditional categories of notoriety shouldn't be an obstacle in its specific case. i'll throw my vote in that an exception should be made, without treating it as a precedent. Whateley23 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: no evidence as to notability provided. No prejudice against recreation if evidence of having "been featured in national print media" is provided. --Pak21 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well here is a link to Livid Looking Glass Magazine (This is now a webzine, but my review was posted in issue #1 which was a print magazine available through various outlets such as Tower Records.) interview in Girls & Corpses Magazine. Yes I know it is a silly magazine. But it is available in print form through various outlets, as the site says. I have also been featured in various webzines Starvox, Aether Emporium, The Mick, and have links on most major Steampunk related genere sites Steampunk Database, Polish Steampunk database [ [ --FACT50 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the hang up about a having to have a record deal. In this day and age many artists are having successful careers with out signing their lives away to a record company. And what size record label is considered valid? Should we remove posts about various punk bands because they're work was release on tiny labels, often labels that were created by the band just to get thier music out. How is creating your own "bedroom" label different from self releasing your work through the internet?

Shemeem Burney Abbas

User:Jaranda (who subsequently lost his account along with admin privileges) removed this article as a speedy delete (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shemeem_Burney_Abbas). The only comment, "person is not notable, one Ph.D. thesis published and one academic speaking tour", was not an accurate characterization. I believe this is a notable person: Shemeem Burney Abbas is a Pakistani woman who was a professor and department chair at a Pakistani university, an exceptional achievement. The New York Times had an article about her, calling her "A leading professor in Pakistan"[3]. She is the author of a book, The Female Voice in Sufi Ritual: Devotional Practices in Pakistan and India. "Dr. Abbas is a truly courageous individual", according[4] to Carla Stuart, Senior Program Officer of Scholars at Risk, a human-rights organization that helps "scholars who have suffered violence and other threats"[5]. I advocate the restoration of the article. AmeriDesi 09:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ad-hominem is completely unnecessary; JarlaxleArtemis is now permanently banned and the fact that it wrecked Jaranda's Wikilife is just one more reason for that. The contents of the article as deleted was, in its entirety, "Shemeem Burney Abbas is the author of the book, The Female Voice in Sufi Ritual: Devotional Practices of Pakistan and India." Which is a perfectly valid A7 speedy. Feel free to re-create an article which makes at least some attempt to establish why we should care. Guy 10:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I disagree that this was a "perfectly valid A7." The book situation seems to confer a better look, and A7 requires that controversial assertions - such as this one - be sent to AfD. Simple enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Jeff, writing one book which has no article and is of no stated importance is not a credible claim of notability (it could probably have been speedied as lacking context on that basis, as well). We have already wasted around six or eight times as many bytes debating this as the "article" itself contained. Nothing is stopping anyone from writing a new article which actually establishes notability. I have, I hope you will agree, no problem with you having a much lower inclusion threshold than me (it's good to have a sanity check) but we should at least agree here that a single sentence to the effect that the subject once wrote a book is well below being a substantive and credible claim to encyclopaedic notability - it could, after all, have been self-published for all we know, the author did not even say who published it, let alone how important it's supposed to be. See WP:WSIC for my views on this. Guy 10:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that your characterisation of this as controversial is judicious: JzG sums up pretty well why this easily falls under A7. I am reminded of the classic line contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. Endorse Deletion Eusebeus 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with JzG. There is no reason to restore the previous version of the article. If anyone has anything to say about Abbas that establishes her notability, the article can be rewritten from scratch. —Angr 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd have to agree with the above, if the entire article was one sentence, then it's hard to assert notability within that, but if she's written a book and had multiple other people writing about her, write an article that includes all that information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_1&oldid=85257018"