Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 20
2007 May 22 >

21 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Care.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

ValidArticle Rjongm 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Because? You need to provide a rationale as to why you believe that the deletion was improperly done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list The article was deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as spam. I think that is a very borderline call. A couple links ought to go, but the article as a whole does not require rewriting. I also believe notability is adequately demonstrated by these three links that were in the article (references 1-2 of 5 and external link 4 of 4) at the time of deletion. (I agree that the nomination here is not helpful.) GRBerry 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Opinion changed. Endorse deletion as per Sandtein's argument below; this doesn't yet have an adequate chance at surviving AFD. GRBerry 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that the article had been read. This was not profane, self promoting, or otherwise. The article is modeled after very valid predecessors. Care.com is a Web 2.0 service related to issues which are poorly covered in Wikipedia, specifically child care and elder care. I contest that the editors are experts in the area for which Care.com was deleted so readily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjongm (talk • contribs). I note that this users undeleted contributions all relate to Matrix Partners, the VC firm backing/partly owning this company. GRBerry 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes - I made edits to the Matrix Partners page as it contained sparse information. I believe a concerted effort is required to bring the Wikipedia information about venture capital private equity investors and their companies updated is required. Separately, Care.com is unlike most venture investments as it is led by a woman and serves women. As I said before, women are an underserved market on Wikipedia and in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjongm (talk • contribs)
  • Undelete and stub Having had a look, I do agree that this was a pretty borderline G11, but the article as written was pretty promotional. I think, however, that sufficient independent source material for an article does exist. (However, my argument to undelete is based only upon this. It is unequivocally not part of our mission to correct "underserving" of any "market".) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right. No need to make any broad statements here so I apologize. I do offer to rewrite or remove links to make more acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjongm (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I deleted the article upon request of some other editor, from the speedy deletion category. So I am no the only one thinking it fitted the criterium. Rjongm'a comments that I have not read it is unnecessery and unpolite. I did. And making a call that an article, by an editor that only edited within it's scope, of a 2 week old commercial site IS a CSD G12 is not far fetched at all. So I think it should stay deleted but, naturally, I do not oppose that it is undeleted and listed on AfD. And I acknowledge the author's nice gesture of warning me of this review. - Nabla 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC) OK - I thought that by the speed of deletion that the references had not been checked. Apologize for being wrong. My intention of writing an article about a newly launched internet company is not unlike what I have seen for Geni.com. User:Axlq made the initial WSD recommendation and User:Sandstein reversed that decision only several days after launch. There is reason to believe that Care.com is a significant web property not unlike Geni.com. Rjongm [reply]
Apologies accepted, off course. - Nabla 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless some rationale is provided. G11 articles by single purpose accounts are not often overturned. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Hi Brad, I noticed you also made the AfD tag on the Matrix Partners article. In the history, you should see that my SPA account is because I saw that Matrix was poorly reported on. It's interesting that you would recommend it for deletion since I did not even start that article. I understand you are upset that there is some out of control editorializing of Wikipedia, but do please take the time to review content as I pointed out to Nabla prior to deletion. There must be a wave of activity required of administrators. So I don't like to see inconsistency in Wikipedia, but unfortunately because the oversight is inconsistent, there are articles on companies or investors and then non-articles on equally or more important topics of interest. Precendent is an amazingly powerful force, so if you do indeed want to stamp out all articles on investors or start ups (even notable ones like Matrix Partners-they funded Apple for example, it is important to clear out the articles which currently violate your policies. That would go a long way to help your purpose, Brad. Please let me know. Thanks!Rjongm [reply]
  • Speedy close, no arguments given for undeletion. Corvus cornix 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#A7, no claim to notability per WP:CORP. It can have an article once it is more than a few weeks old and has some substantial editorial coverage. The sources cited are essentially press releases, or not reliable. The author, Rjongm, (who, I might add, asked me to comment here) also has some hallmarks of a conflict of interest situation. Sandstein 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree that the three links provided by User:GRBerry above are the strongest argument so far that the article should be kept. But, per WP:CRYSTAL, it's hard for us to create a reliable article when the web site is only just going into service. (None of the three links describes the writer of the article as actually using the site). This is my substantive reason for not wanting to overturn, the procedural one is that no error in the deletion process was described. Listing this article for a full AfD is a possibility (since what we are reviewing is a speedy) but nothing in the above gives much reason to believe it would survive AfD. EdJohnston 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2|AfD3)
See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Qian_Zhijun

Let's see if we can get through this without wheel warring, insulting eachother, or shutting this down without a proper discussion. If someone does instead choose to undelete and move to AfD, that's an unorthodox option, but the idea is simple: if we're not able to discuss this now, this will be heading to an RfC, which will ultimately end up at ArbCom. So let's have this run at it, come to a final conclusion, and maybe move on.

History of the article: First AfD resulted in a delete when it was all said and done. Some confusion with a relist, but no one appears to be saying the process of the first AfD was in error. The DRV from 13 May resulted in an overturning of that AfD on a few grounds, but that second AfD was aborted within an hour. Multiple DRVs concerning that deletion were shut down, and a third AfD was aborted within a few hours as well, most interestingly with a number of Wikipedians suggesting keeping the article before it was deleted and salted. An ArbCom case regarding this was declined as premature per lack of an RfC - I think we all want to avoid that if possible.

Pros: Subject is unquestionably notable, being the subject of multiple international news reports. Meets standards for inclusion. One source has called the subject one of the most famous faces in China.

Cons: WP:BLP concerns, mostly due to the fact that the subject's fame comes from his appearance, an appearance that gave him the nickname "Little Fatty."

Question of the day: Whether these BLP concerns apply to the point of deleting and salting with a subject this notable. Whether a person can be a victim of undue weight in an article when the subject himself partakes and self-promotes the reasons for his or her fame.

I say that the pros outweigh the cons, and that this should be undelete. Let's hear this out and move on - I won't push the issue further anytime soon if this doesn't go my way, assuming it gets its full hearing. A request, per discussions at the DRV talk page and at AN/I, is that the comments stay germane to why this article should be deleted/undeleted, and not glib "It's dead" or "We don't need this" comments that do nothing to advance consensus.

So let's try this, as opposed to the alternative. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, again. I agree with the original close of this article and do not see any problems with the closure that would warrant overturning. I agree with the closing comments on the second closure, and the third closure. DRV is not an AfD2 (or 5 or 7 or 42) so I'm basing this on the merits of the closure alone. Honestly, I do hope this is the last time I see this article mentioned for a while. Arkyan • (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what part do you agree with? That the BLP concerns are still strong enough, even given his notability and the subject's hand in promoting the very issue that the BLP concerns are based off of? Keep in mind, the original close of the article was overturned, so that's the last official close we have to work off of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the assessment that consensus indicated the meme is notable, the kid is not. I see no procedural problems with the deletion of the article and support it. Arkyan • (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, merge, and redirect to List of Internet memes. I don't see that enough material is available for a full biography on the subject, but there's certainly enough source material that it merits mention. I see nothing in the deleted article's history that merits concerns relating to WP:BLP, all content was quite well sourced, and in much of that source material the article subject consented to be interviewed. This isn't a Brian Peppers situation, where the publicity is clearly and obviously unwanted and little sourcing is available. Subject is already mentioned on the meme list, the deleted material could certainly flesh out that entry. (If it is retained as a full article, it probably should be renamed to "Little Fatty" with the name as a redirect, the notability largely regards the meme, not the person. That could change in the future of course.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of miniature and terrain manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted on May 5 with "content was: '[db-spam template] List of miniature and terrain manufacturers is an index of commercial companies that publish Miniature figure..." and again on May 13 for an expired prod, and has been proded again as of May 20. Given all the re-creating of the article I believe it would be good to at least have a recorded discussion of the reasons for the delete (I believe it has been created by a different user each time). And, I feel that the original deletion was in error. The article was a split-off of the Miniature wargaming page, as I recall the actual off-site links were removed, and it is akin to such pages as List of PLC manufacturers or List of scooter manufacturers. Rindis 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I followed the directions, what'd I break? --Rindis 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had mismatched [[ characters. I added two GRBerry 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Figured it was something like that. :( --Rindis 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been speedy deleted once, and PROD deleted once. Since the page has been recreated and we have this request here, I've restored those versions deleted via PROD. There remains an open question on the speedy deleted versions should be restored. I reserve the right to form an opinion on that subject. GRBerry 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as I'm the person who first created the page, thought I should chime in. I believe that I was acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Namely, I created a list using material that was originally in the Miniature wargaming article, so it's a list that relates to a notable subject. (You can check the history of "Miniature wargaming" and compare an old version with the (original) deleted list under question.) As far as I recall, I did delete any external links to other websites leaving only wikilinks (some blue and lots of red ones). Also, there seemed to be some consensus reached on the talk page there that this was an appropriate action to do. When the first page was deleted, I knew less about policy than I do now, so didn't really know how to properly disagree with the deletion request/proposal. Craw-daddy 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, spam. Corvus cornix 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I said above, you can see the original material that was removed to be inserted into the new article (not the one that currently exists!) at this diff. I removed the external links when I created the new page. I can't see how it's "spam" myself while many other similar lists still exist (and no, I'm not trying to argue that this list should exist because some other article exists, I'm trying to figure out the differences between such articles (like those Rindis cites) that would make one of them considered to be spam and another one not). I'm also interested in knowing what changes (if any) would make it not "spam". I ask in the interest of educating myself so that I can contribute positively in the future. Finally, I'll just comment that I thought I was following the "rules", or policy, namely the part that states "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." Now it's certainly true that there is no "Miniature and terrain manufacturing" article with that exact name, or a similar one, but as I said above, I thought it's a long list, containing relevant information on a notable topic that deserved it's own list. Craw-daddy 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscrimtae collection, etc. -- RHaworth 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sigh, deleted again, with no comment here from the admin that did it, and it didn't have a speedy tag, nor was listed AfD. Craw-daddy 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm less than happy with the response here. I originally stated that I was looking for a discussion. Both Craw-daddy and I are confused as to the reasons why this article article should be deleted. All there's been are two non-explanations. Other similar articles exist, do you think they too should be deleted (I don't care whether or not they are, just do you think they belong to a class of article that should not exist)? Do you think there is a fundamental difference? What/where is the difference between an discriminate and an indiscriminate collection of information and/or spam (i.e., can positive examples be given)? --Rindis 16:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Eugene Ewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article on James Eugene Ewing, founder of a controversial mail-order "religious" organization called St. Matthew's Churches, was suddenly deleted by Doc glasgow without any prior notice, including any mention of it on the article's talk page. I know Wikipedia has been very sensitive about articles of living persons lately, and WP:BLP was this admin's reason for deleting the article. This deletion was too hastily done, as I contend that the information in the article was based on verifiable reports. The links were to published newspaper articles, including information from the Better Business Bureau. Rather than suddenly deleting the article outright, I would rather ask that it either be renamed to St. Matthew's Churches so as to avoid the use of the name of the person in question; or put up for deletion as with any Wikipedia article.

Because the article was deleted with no prior process, I ask that it be restored temporarily, at least for the purpose of this discussion, so that users can see it and make up their minds. --Modemac 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should have an article on this guy... seems to meet WP:BIO [1], [2]. Can someone write a short, verifiable stub here? --W.marsh 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be pretty much a slam dunk that he meets WP:BIO and that we should have an article on him. However, given the nature of his activities, we need to be very careful to to word things neutrally and cite extremely well. In line citations are going to be needed here. I think the best path is to endorse deletion and encourage creation of a new article, but reasonable people could disagree with endorsing deletion, as the article has been sourced (in an old style) since its inception. GRBerry 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, stub, rewrite, endorse recreation. Doc's been good about being up-front about deletions like this, did you talk to him at all? Otherwise, yes, he meets standards, so roll it back to a neutral version and start over. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, can you suggest a specific version that you think meets standards? Because of the old style of sourcing, I wasn't able to quickly pick one that I was confident meets standards. There might be one, but I wasn't certain. (History is currently available under the usual template.) GRBerry 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created an article at St. Matthew's Churches which is totally verifiable (every paragraph referenced to the source). It might be a better idea to redirect this guy's article to the church article anyway, since not much seems to be known about him. --W.marsh 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very regrettable that GRBerry appears to have re-instated this 'article' without discussion with the deleting admin but on his own recognisance instead, as I am sure he would have been made more fully aware of the WP:BLP issues raised. To me looking at recent versions of the article it reads pretty much as an attack piece rather than having any intent to adhere to NPOV, with much of it full of WP-unworthy phrases such as "Critics of..." and scare quotes. I believe this should stay fully deleted and a redirect to the - more appropriate - church article should be used. --AlisonW 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that what actually happened was that I added {{TempUndelete}}, protected that, then restored history underneath. This is quite acceptable (although my edit summary was sub-optimal). Now that Doc has requested, I've redeleted the history. I also note that BLP requires that ALL versions of the article fail, so looking at recent versions only is not an adequate review of the article. GRBerry 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read above under history undeletion "Do not do this if the deleted version of the article contains copyright violations or defamatory material." It did. Your action is not acceptable - and your failure even to discuss it with me and inquire as to my reason for deletion (OTRS related) is also unacceptable. And this [3] (is 'Sub-optimal' a new euphemism for personal attack?) makes it clear that your action was coloured by some personal disagreement you have with my BLP views. Don't do it again, not even for Jeff.--Docg 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I redirected it to the church article, which no one seems to have a complaint about, can we just agree this is resolved for now? --W.marsh 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page should be restored and renamed Lists of radio stations. This is quite similar to lists such as Lists of people and Lists of television channels which have wide consensus for their existence, and with a renaming and some rewording of the opening paragraph this list would fulfill the criteria of WP:LIST as a navigation list. DHowell 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Closure is within reasonable administrative discretion for that debate. See WP:INN for a long winded explanation of why the presence of other, supposedly similar, articles is not signigicant. No process failures in AFD, no policy based reason to overturn given here. GRBerry 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right that I didn't give a policy-based reason to overturn, so here: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The only way this debate could have represented a consensus to delete was by a simple majority vote count. The delete arguments seemed to be based on factually inaccurate assumptions based on the article's title or its opening paragraph, rather than the content or purpose of the article (except for the existence of individual radio station mentions or spamlinks, which could have been dealt with by deleting those, rather than deleting the whole article). Some delete arguments claimed that it was duplicative of a category, but did not address the fact that the category organizes various lists alphabetically, with cities, countries, and continents all mixed together; while this article organized them geographically. Others seemed to beleve that the article was intended itself to be a comprehensive list of all radio stations, rather than a navigational list. No policy-based reason was given to delete the article, and a couple of comprehensive and non-rebutted arguments were given to keep it. This should have been closed as no consensus, or re-listed to get a better consensus.
Also, I am not simply arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; Lists of people is a featured list, and thus I would think would serve as a "role model" for such meta-lists. See also Appropriate topics for lists. There is no doubt there are a large number of notable radio stations, and no good reason this should not exist as a valid list repository in line with that guideline. DHowell 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Advanced Distributed Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was about a Department of Defense Sponsored Initiative to evolve the distributed online training arena. The ADL is funded by the DoD but works with many international organizations and the commercial world. The ADL is the DoD entity responsible for developing and managing the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). The deletion comments stated that the article violated copyrights. All of the content in this article was taken from publicly available information both on the ADL initiative Web site at https://www.adlnet.gov and from publications of the ADL. The copyright statement on the ADL Web site clearly grants permission to reuse information published by the ADL for informational purposes. A quick survey of other such DoD projects yielded many other articles of this type within Wikipedia. This article provided potentially valuable information to those interested in the work of the ADL. Jjmarks01 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, while the site in question's copyright policy [4] does state that material may be copied, it requires that any copied material display the following notice: "Copyright ©20xx Advanced Distributed Learning. All rights reserved." Since we do not allow all-rights-reserved material, nor do we allow copyright notices, the site's license is incompatible with ours. (Of course, that site may still be useful as a reference, for article material written in your own words.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Taylor Garron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In the previous AfD, there ended up being two in favor of keeping the article and two in favor of deletion. However, one of the two for keeping the article was a clear single-purpose account (see contribs), and the other person for keeping the article did not give any rationale of his own, only writing "Convinced by SaguarosRule." For my specific arguments for deletion, see the AfD. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure This was within reasonable administrative discretion. No consensus doesn't mean much; feel free to list for AFD again in a couple months if no further sourcing is found. I can envision arguments (that weren't actually made), that I would think merit a delete outcome. However, the AFD needs to be judged on the arguments actually made, so those arguments aren't relevant now. For future discussions, point out what research was done to find other sources. GRBerry 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No real consensus either way on this but it was closd well within reasonable expectations. As stated above, feel free to relist this after a reasonable amount of time has gone by without any improvement to the article, but there was certainly no fault in the process or grounds to overturn the closure. Arkyan • (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse With only those !votes after a full 5 days, either continuing the AfD or "no consensus" seems reasonable. DGG 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but encourage relisting, I don't think the closure was wrong or outside of reasonable discretion, but I do believe that further discussion of the matter could produce a better idea of consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability - being a part of the National Wrestling Alliance is clearly notable. We have a offical website and have been noted on several websites including the NWA Official Home page, Pro Wrestling Between the Sheet, [5], [6], Wrestling Observer and a host of Wrestling Websites.JeffCapo 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Per process: valid AfD, no new evidence. Per policy: no, being part of something notable does not in turn confer notability, and the lack of independent reliable sources has not been addressed. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As closer, I'll acknowledge I was pushing the boundaries of admin discretion here given the headcount. But the delete arguments were clear and based in core policies, while the keep arguments asserted notability but failed to address the lack of sourcing. I will understand if this is overturned, but I think my decision was right. Trebor 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above, keep side failed to show verifiability by finding some reliable sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The primary concern raised by the AfD was verifiability. There is nothing in any of the keep arguments suggesting that it is possible for the article subject to satisfy this core Wikipedia content policy. --Allen3 talk 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse Procedurelly, a relist wouldn't hurt, but given the arguments presented in the AfD delete looks like clearly the right option so it isn't necessary baring presentation of reliable sources. Eluchil404 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse guideline correctly stated, that having an article on the main organization does not imply having articles on the state branches.DGG 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per the administrators' deletion guidelines. These clearly state that verifiability, no original research, and neutrality cannot be overridden, even by consensus, and the verifiability policy pretty clearly states that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This topic apparently has no reliable, third-party sources, so Trebor correctly saw that we should not have an article on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone could give me what is considered a reliable source for pro wrestling, I did mention and link a couple in my opening statement, I would gladly add those. Thanks. JeffCapo 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You may want to have a look at the reliable source guidelines. In particular, such sources should be reputable, have a process of editorial control and fact-checking, and should cover the subject in detail. The two sites you list seem to be directory-type sites who list pretty well anyone, and I don't see that either one has a significant process of editorial control, and are effectively fansites. Also, you just link to the front pages of those sites, on which I don't see any coverage of the subject in question. If you can show that sources are available which do meet these criteria (or that some of the ones you list do, and are more than fansites), and link directly to in-depth coverage by such sources, you may well find that people will change their mind, but right now I just don't see it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse strongly, a relist is not necessary either. Wake up, the AFD format is not a vote. If someone wants to re-create a new article which provides non-trivial third party sources in like with WP:CORP and our attribution policies, go right ahead. Burntsauce 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:MadMax/PWI Years (edit | [[Talk:User:MadMax/PWI Years|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Several months ago I began working on a list based on the PWI 500, a listing of the top 500 professional wrestlers in North America as well as Japan and parts of Europe published by Pro Wrestling Illustrated. However, while it was originally intended for the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article, I moved them to my user space when informed they may constitute a copyright violation. I then converted the lists to served as a missing topics list for use by WikiProject Professional wrestling and I and other users worked extensivly to correct disambiguation links, double redirects, etc. While I was questioned a week ago by User:RobJ1981 in regards to its possible nomination for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, however from his last responce I assumed he had dropped the matter. However, today I found through my user page all the subpages had been deleted and I had neither been informed of its nomination or that they had been deleted. As I've previously stated, I have several missing topics lists ranging from military history to true crime based on books and magazines and as I've kept these lists on my user page as a reference, I don't understand how I've violated WP:USERPAGE. MadMax 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the following pages were also deleted:


These were tagged as copyright violations, just copies of published lists, and I deleted them as such. Userspace shouldn't matter here, copyvios are to be deleted regardless of namespace. Perhaps non-speedy copyvio deletion was more called for, here... but ultimately a copyvio is a copyvio. If people don't think these were, I will undelete. --W.marsh 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would respectfully point out, had I been informed there was an issue, I could have at least had the oppertunity to try and save my work. The lists were clearly identified as missing topics lists and, while I am aware of WP:USEFUL, they were extremely helpful in looking up PWI rankings though "what links here" feature instead of looking through all 17 issues for one individual and, as these lists were used for legitimate purposes relating to Wikipedia articles, I believe this would have merited at least discussing this issue (for example, would a similar unnumbered and rearrainged list containing the same list wrestlers be acceptable ?). If a copyright issue is taken with this specific list, am I to assume this applies to all the missing topics lists I've created ? MadMax 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I explained above, that discussion was based on incorporating the lists as an article into into the PWI 500 section of the main Pro Wrestling Illustrated article, not the actual lists themselves (and the issue was never brought up as a copyright issue when moved to my user page as a missing topics list). As later seen in a later discussion no objections were raised by project members of copyright issues and I was in fact encouraged in the discussion to fix the various errors and mispellings in those lists. I would also point out, in regards to a recent MFD nomination, the articles I've previously moved to my user space were found to be legitimately used on user page despite the opinion I had purposely moved them to avoid prop/afd discussions. If I've misunderstood One Night In Hackney's comments, I apologise however I would like to clarify that I moved these lists because they may be considered copyright issues as articles themselves not simply as lists and did not purposly move them to my user page to avoid their deletion. MadMax 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, attempting to divert the discussion in another direction will not change the fact that the lists were copyright violations, and that you had been told they were copyright violations, and I will not indulge you any further. One Night In Hackney303 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My intention was not to divert the discussion, however in my view, your previous comments suggest that I knew the lists themselves consituted a copyright violaton and that I purposly moved the list to avoid its deletion. A similar complaint was raised in a recent MFD nomination concerning my other user pages. In said discussion, the participating editors believed I had acted in good faith and disagreed with the concern that I had been in anyway dishonest or deceitful. Your above comments, and I again apologise if I've misinterpreted them, imply differently. From the discussion you pointed out, I was told they may have been copyright issues when I had originally created them as part of the main Pro Wrestling Illustrated article not when I moved them to my user page. Whether or not the lists are by themselves copyright violations, they were being legitimatly used as missing topics lists for professional wrestling related articles and served a number of useful purposes. I'm not arguing to restore them in their former form and, in fact, I would be more then willing to discuss an alternative so that they would not be a copyright issue. MadMax 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, copyvios are not permitted anywhere, including in userspace. I also find the "not notified" argument rather weak when the content was moved to userspace upon being notified that they violate copyright. In addition to this, notification of a deletion nomination is a courtesy, not a mandate, while the copyright policies are non-negotiable requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have stated previously that I had orginally created the PWI lists for the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article and was told they may constitute copyright infringment as an article, not as a wanted list. If you'll note the discussion I provided after they had been converted to missing topics lists, at no time did any editor object or point out even on uiserspace they would be considered a copyright violation. As I and several other editors have spent significant amount of time converting the lists to missing topic lists for use by WP:PW, I don't see why the issue couldn't be discussed beforehand. Had I or any other editor who had worked on them had been informed, there would have been a chance to contest the speedy deletion and at least save the significant changes made if not work out a compromise to resolve the copyright issue. I'm not using this as an argument, I'm simply pointing out neither I or anyone else to contest the speedy deletion or even had a chance to save their work. MadMax 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Dear_Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

Band is clearly notable. They have released an LP (Act II: The Meaning of and all things regarding Ms. Leading) and EP (Act I: The Lake South, the River North)on a major indie label, Triple Crown Records. It contains former Receiving End of Sirens member Casey Crescenzo; TREOS is considered a notable band. They were listed in Alternative Press's 100 bands you need to know in 2007; they have been given superb reviews by AbsoultePunk.net, one of the most reputable indie rock websites on the internet. They have toured with Saves the Day, As Tall as Lions, and Say anything, all notable bands. Read more about why it is notable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jds10912 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion per second AFD. No new information. You need to prove those claims with reliable sources. --Coredesat 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no significant new information. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The record label that houses both this band and the band with the supposed famous member that is required per WP:MUSIC#6 is part of the East West family of record labels, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group (WP:MUSIC#5). Alternative Press is a notable music magazine, so there's clearly reliable sources. The information may not be new, but it was mostly ignored by the people who built the concensus. Reasons ranged from "I haven't heard of them" to "I don't believe they're notable" when the guideline says otherwise. The comment of the closing admin is particularly telling. They said "your arguments were in the right direction but since they failed to convince anyone in the community, I have to interpret consensus here as for deletion". I will endorse undeletion until those points or properly addressed. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the non-trivial independent sources from which this article is supposed to be drawn? Guy (Help!) 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You do know that this article has actually existed for months (2 days after the last DRV failed) at The Dear Hunter (band) and it is has been prominently linked from The Deer Hunter for weeks. I would have brought it over to AFD, but couldn't be fucked. - hahnchen 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, lawyering over notability sub-guidelines aside, all article subjects require significant independent sourcing. I don't find any indication that such sourcing exists. Willing to consider changing my mind if directed to such sources, and such sources do indeed provide in-depth information on the subject, but I haven't seen that happen thus far. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a biography at All Music Guide as mentioned above. - hahnchen 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do lots of bands that don't meet our notabilty criteria. AMG basically covers everyone who has ever had a mainstream US distributor, and occasionally a few others. We're not AMG, and we don't need or want to list every band they do. Xtifr tälk 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that, it's that AMG have actually reviewed their album. Not just giving it a star rating, but actually wrote a review. And whereas AMG do cover a lot of bands that don't meet our notability criteria, for those bands, they don't actually write a biography and instead just list their albums. This is not just a trivial AMG blank page. - hahnchen 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can tell, the presence of a review at AMG simply means that someone who writes for AMG found the topic personally interesting enough to write about. Like any review from a semi-reliable source, it may help establish notability, but I absolutely do not believe that it single-handedly demonstrates notability. Xtifr tälk 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMG is a reliable source and used in FAs. The AMG is a professional publication, that a writer found it personally interesting and the editor published it online is just like every other single publication online, it's not like a review of your mate's garage band will get published. Incidentally, the AMG biography/review was not online during the last AFD. - hahnchen 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMG is not a particularly reliable source; they have a well-deserved reputation for a lack of fact-checking and error correction. And they have, as I said, a much lower threshold for inclusion than Wikipedia. That said, it doesn't really sound like we're disagreeing. A review at AMG is a factor that may count towards notability, but does not, in and of itself, establish notability. It is "just like every other single publication online". Xtifr tälk
  • Unfortunate endorse, because there still aren't sources being presented concretely. They must exist, though, because this isn't some little known band in the grand scheme of things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Neither the presence of an AMG article nor one album on a notable lable establishes notability. There has not been any new information since the AfD. When or if they release another album from a notable label, feel free to create the article and see if it holds up to another AfD, but right now, it fails. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that DRV is not AFD2, and so this should in theory be about process and not the merits, but as the topic has centered around sourcing: Aversion review - Glide Magazine review - Mammoth Press interview - MusicDish article. I am not certain about the reliability of these sources; I didn't look too closely except to ensure they didn't seem like blogs, but this was also the result of only a few minutes' searching. Likely, more is out there. Serpent's Choice 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please read http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_product_submissions.html. Especially the part that says "AMG will add any product submissions we receive to the database as long as they are commercially available in their country of release". They are not discriminatory in their listings.
    • Comment - And please read the section below that, the relevant one. It is not just a listing, but a biography and album review, and being that AMG don't just take user submissions for reviews, they "prioritize coverage based on factors such as current popularity, historical or artistic importance, and the needs of our data licensee". So pretty much like every professional publication then. They are discriminatory in their coverage. This band has definitely grown in stature since its first AFD, and has garnered more reviews such as at AbsolutePunk, yet editors are claiming that nothing has changed since the last DRV/AFD. This DRV should have been closed, and an AFD opened on The Dear Hunter (band), but instead that article, which probably looked nothing like the original was speedily deleted because of process process process process. - hahnchen 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I checked the deleted version of the article, and it contained several thorough (not capsule) reviews and an interview with the band. What more is needed? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were the ones I found in the deleted article:

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreate article: Notable, now passes WP:MUSIC released two albums on a notable indie label Triple Crown Records, contains a former member of notable band The Receiving End Of Sirens. Simple as that in my view. -Halo 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adminstrative note I closed this DRV as "mooted by creation of new article." My closure was reverted and the new article was deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do think the new sources, especially with a review at AMG (the lack of which was a specific complaint at the last AfD), might be enough to pass WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure about using one album and one EP to meet the two-album requirement, but I think that with the new sources, this one might be right on the edge, so what I'd like to suggest is that the old version be moved to userspace, where interested parties can work on it, and then the new-and-improved version can be brought for review. That's usually, in my experience, a much more successful approach. Xtifr tälk 06:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_21&oldid=1138430925"