Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 27 >

26 June 2008

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

Despite the educated-sounding nature of the opinions at the AFD for this article (which was closed merge), they do not address the simple problem that this is a notable candidate. The man is a the Democratic candidate in a US house race, and, yes, the race is quite possibly competitive ([1]), especially in a year when nominal Democrat candidates are having shocking wins. Additionally, he is the state attorney general for Maryland (the people calling for delete happened not to notice this), and has a plethora of non-trivial mentions on google news: [2], many of which are not local. And the claims that this is a local only issue are troubling; I have read about this race in major newspapers. It is results like this which deeply trouble me about the AFD process. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I think WP:BIO makes it quite clear that being a candidate in a US house race does not meet the Politician-specific notability criteria. As for the general criteria of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", I'm not seeing that in the references on the pre-redirect revision of the Frank Kratovil article - the only newspaper article referenced which I can access is [5], which is entirely about the campaign, and seems to me to be far more suitable for use as a reference for United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2008 than for establishing notability for a biography of Frank Kratovil. --Stormie (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read what I wrote below. There are dozens which I wrote of on google news: [6], including several major newspapers. What the hell? Anybody would have called for a keep on this person if in an AFD if he weren't a politician. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I closed this AfD, I am inclined to believe that I interpreted consensus correctly. :) However, I note that although the AfD closed as merge, the article seems to have been simply redirected. Redirecting is not what consensus called for here. Ordinarily, when I close AfDs as merge, I attempt to merge them myself, but I lack sufficient familiarity with Maryland's political processes to follow up on User:John J. Bulten's suggestion in that AfD, which seems to have received considerable support, to merge several paragraphs from this article and include a few on the candidate's opponent. Nobody argued for straightforward redirection here, and I'm surprised that the merge discussion tag was removed within hours of its placement, with no discussion having taken place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any arguments for merge in that AfD that are contrary to policy. The guideline at WP:POLITICIAN doesn't guarantee that all politicians are notable enough for inclusion. One contributor argued that more potential sources were forthcoming. This is clearly contradicted by WP:N, which says "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." There were three other keeps--one of which was subsequently persuaded that merge & redirect was more appropriate, one of which indicated that "merge" was also acceptable; and a final that offered no rationale except that he or she obviously found it notable. You've got two clear arguments for keep there, one of which is not supported by guideline and another of which offers no support at all. Those arguing for deletion or merge found the source insufficient to indicate notability outside of the election and suggested coverage of the candidate there. If there are sufficient widespread sources to substantiate notability, then there is nothing to prevent an article that does assert stand-alone notability being written. WP:CSD#G4, for instance, only applies to recreations where the issues raised at AfD are not addressed. In my closure, I noted the consensus that "Article does not substantiate stand-alone notability." If stand-alone notability is substantiated, there's no issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Nominator is not requesting the result be overturned and become delete, so this is not deletion review's business. As the article tag says, if the merge doesn't occur the article can be sent back to AFD again, not speedily deleted. GRBerry 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know better than that. I'm asking the result of merge by overturned. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you want merge changed to keep. That question is not deletion review business. From the deletion review perspective, merge is already keep, because both involve nobody using the delete tool on the article. Thus you aren't asking for anything deletion review cares about. The proper venue(s) for your query is the article talk page(s), or should it occur AFD#2. GRBerry 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think closing admin got it right on the policy interpretations resulting in merge, particularly that this gentleman does not clear POLITICIAN. I looked at some of the Google search stuff above, and it sure seems like there should be media sources establishing his notability under BIO outside of POLITICIAN - he's been in public life for a while - but none jumped out at me, mostly just random quotes and articles about his cases (not about him). So I think merge is the right call given the information we have before us. Townlake (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cary_Herrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_Original creator was blocked from defending the article by administrator after said creator upset administrator. It appears the creator and the administrator were going back and forth, to where the creator offended the admin on the admin's talk page, and the admin had the creator blocked, prohibiting the creator from properly defending the article. In my own attempts at communicating with the admin, he/she appeared to be defensive and paranoid which gave me even more reason for concern. Furthermore, the admin in question slapped a warning on my page when I attempted to edit:

June 2008 This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware as to his/her reasoning, but there is definitely an underlying aggression in regards to this particle article and/or contributor, LDCortez.

Upon reviewing the wiki guidelines, it is without doubt that this article was and is notable. I request that the article be reinstated, protected and that Jauerback be warned against taking such aggressive actions toward contributors. It makes a very unpleasant, hostile and "war-like" environment, as opposed to a forum to exchange information and to learn. Wiki readers deserve to have Mr. Herrman as a part of their library of living persons to study, understand and live up to. I ask that the article be reinstated. My notes are available on my talkpage for any further review. BHOrchid (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Endorse Deletion - this is laughable. User:BHOrchid is either very naive or is User:LDCortez herself. I don't know what to think anymore, and frankly I don't care. However, I'd be willing to bet that a checkuser would find these two users originating from the same place, but it doesn't really matter as it's not warranted. Anyway, the whole drama can be found on links to my talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD was extremely clear, to the point that it'd be insane to try to dispute it without having notability-establishing sources in hand when doing so (which if someone does, awesome). The speedy was most likely done properly, as it probably had the same failings as the AfD'd version. I'd prefer to stay away from accusations of sockpuppetry and the like, but I'd like to point out that the block only lasted 31 hours and was placed nearly 4 days ago (which is 24*4=96 hours, for those who don't like doin' math). Jauerback, I'd suggest not easily jumping to {{uw-create4im}} for G4's; they happen and get deleted pretty easily, usually just a simple warning about it will do. I'd personally save it for G10's myself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speedily deleted revision was identical to the AfD-deleted revision, yes. --Stormie (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Since I believe that these are one and the same user, or at the very least working together, given User:LDCortez's past with recreation of the article, removal of templates (including the AFD notice more than once), and User:BHOrchid's numerous attempts at recreation of the article including under a different spelling, I felt the {{uw-create4im}} warning was justifiable. And as far as the accusation of them being sockpuppets, it doesn't mean anything, because they haven't abused it... yet. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Exactly the core case WP:CSD#G4 is meant for; the redeleted article was an exact duplicate, without the AFD tag and other warning tags, of the article deleted by community consensus at the AFD. GRBerry 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the allegations made by Jauerback are correct, it is a worrying development. REcreation of deleted articles is of course to be deplored, but any one ought to be able to contribute to discussion. I known nothing of the subject and thus make No comment on the main issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not sure you meant to say "made by" or "made about" because of your 2nd sentence. Either way, the creator of the original article had plenty of time to participate in the discussion. She removed the AFD notice numerous times before she was blocked (31 hours) and her block ended before the AFD discussion (5 days) ended. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dogma Free America – Deletion endorsed. There seems to be no question that the speedy deletions were proper. To the extent that this DRV has functioned as a defacto AfD on the userspace draft, there seems to be strong agreement that the userspace draft fails notability criteria at the present time. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dogma Free America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This has been deleted 5 times in the last 3 weeks or so (and is now fully protected) so I thought a review would be the way to go. There's a copy at User:Mindme/Dogma Free America that I'd like you to have a look over. This is very much just procedural from me. Many thanks, Alex Muller 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the w/u's discussion section for notability support. Mindme (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put some of those sources on the article and it looks good to go to me. I'm gonna' leave another message on the talk page of the userfied version about other issues I'd like resolved, but they can just as easily be handled after it gets into mainspace. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources moved into the reference section and a couple linked within the body. Mindme (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ech, takin' a look those ain't that good. We need stuff that's more reliable, not so much on the blogs and forums; and we also need references that are third party to establish notability, so no press releases. It also really helps to have the sources be written about the podcast itself and not someone else. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is nothing there that will pass web notability. The thrust of my argument is a) it's the wrong criteria to apply to podcasts, albeit wiki does not have one for this new form of media b) it is notable when it registers thousands of unambiguous google and yahoo hits and c) when a podcast demonstrates a pattern of having on notable guests and its achieved a top ten ranking in its itunes category and it appears as a notable podcast on itune's category page, this should be strong evidence the podcast is notable. A podcast could literally have more listeners than a newspaper columnist has actual readers, but a newspaper columnist would be notable for entirely circular reasoning. But since dead tree media has not yet noticed podcasting, beyond a handful, most podcasts are deemed by wiki as not notable although clearly notable people judge them notable and itunes judges them notable. Am I being unreasonable? Mindme (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was just sticking with WP:N and not WP:WEB. I think that WT:WEB would be the best place to discuss adding a special set of criteria for podcasts, so I'm not going to cover it here (it was discussed here before, just to note). Your arguements are great, and I may have to go support such an effort to add podcasts to WEB, but for right now it doesn't pass either the general N or WEB. If you get podcasts added, I'd be happy to support an overturn. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB seems poorly suited for podcasts. For example skeptoid appears to meet no notability criteria. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a top 10 science podcast gets one dead tree media hit. SGU was admitted because notable Randi was a frequent guest. As well, Dogma Free America is listed on a press release (see references) and actively discussed on forums of notable organizations (James Randi Educational Foundation, Richard Dawkins' site, etc.) My notability argument lies in if a podcast has a pattern of having on notable guests, it is because the podcast is manifestly notable. A high school newspaper might not be notable. It might not be notable if the editor's dad gets Jimmy Carter to do an interview. However, if the high school newspaper has a pattern of running interviews with notable people, to me it seems the high school newspaper is manifestly notable. The same criterion should apply to a podcast. It does not strike me as unreasonable. Mindme (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The core concern with notability is having adequate independent and reliable sources to allow editors to write an article on a subject that is neutral, contains no original research, being fully verifiable, while also not being a mere directory entry. For this core concern, if the independent reliable sources can't be found, it doesn't matter who the guests are. GRBerry 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original decision to delete. I took a look at the userspace article's discussion page and the notability (as defined by WP:WEB just isn't there. CredoFromStart talk 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse most of the speedy deletions. The one citing G4 is clearly incorrect; that should have cited WP:CSD#A7. I can't encourage moving this into article space; it doesn't meet the community standards documented at WP:WEB. If the nominator is aware of other podcast articles that don't meet those standards, lets get them nominated for deletion as well. GRBerry 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To attempt an answer your question, Skeptoid has never had an AfD, it may or may not survive one. SGU has been speedied once as an A7 but has also never been taken to AfD. If you believe these articles fail WP:WEB you can list them at AfD and see what the consensus is. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Skeptoid and SGU have now both been listed on AfD. --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided for those podcasts, please apply the decision evenly to Dogma Free America. If Skeptoid and SGU pass because of notability by assertion, history of having on notable guests, high ranking in its iTunes category, then that goes as well for Dogma Free America. Mindme (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jason Naidovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • 1) Football player named to 2008 Australian Olympic team, who has played in Olympic Qualifiers. As such he meets WP:ATHLETE having have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. In the AFD it has been pointed out that Football in the Olympics is not amateur, but I feel that is wikilawyering abiding by the letter of a policy while violating its spirit.
  • 2) this AFD was for 4 different people of different situations. While some were clearly not notable, others were more questionable. WP:AFD notes that for multiple deletions If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately (I'll stress the word could). I asked that they be split in the AFD and no one commented. I've asked the person who made the nomination this in other AFDs before and he has refused without noting why he won't follow the guideline.
  • 3) the closing admin didn't provide any explanation to how the decision was reached as recommended in WP:GD#Closure.

Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Totally agree with you on all counts. I particularly agree that the deletion of this article was "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit". Jared Wiltshire (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can you provide a reliable source for him being named for the Olympic team for Beijing? He's not listed on the current squad here, and I don't see him having played in any of the recent games reported on here. As far as I can tell, his games with the U-23s squad were in the 2008 AFC Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament in February and March 2007 [11][12], one game as an unused substitute and one starting. Certainly playing at the Olympics would establish notability, and if I was confident he was in the squad I would say to restore the article now, rather than waiting until August. But does playing in the qualifiers establish notability? I don't know. --Stormie (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Player clearly fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league. He has not played at the Olympics, only in the qualifiers, and football is not an amateur sport at the Olympics (how exactly is this wikilawyering, when it is the case??), so "playing at the highest level in amateur competitions" is irrelevant. Ever since I nominated Kilian Elkinson for deletion, it seems that User:Nfitz is pursuing some kind of personal vendetta against my by !voting to keep any article I nominate for deletion, and then taking it to DRV when he fails to get his way (see an incredibly poor choice here). I would also be interested to know why he notified the only editor other than himself to !vote keep in the AfD,[13] but none of those who !voted delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personal vendetta? Absolutely not true. I have supported most of User:Number 57's deletion attempts; I've only removed one or two of his prod's that he hasn't actually challenged. In this deletion review, I did contact one user who supported keeping, because of all the people involved in the discussion, his name wasn't familiar, and I didn't think he'd find out about it otherwise. To maintain balance I also contacted one person endorsing deletion. And I contacted the deleting admin. I figured everyone else was likely to find their way here - and that appears to be correct. Meanwhile User:Number 57 has made a personal attack against me on my talk page, and yesterday attacked someone else on their talk page who also disagreed with him (on another issue). The only person getting personal here is User:Number 57. User:Number 57 also ignores that he has been making procedural errors in the here - which was part of the reason for the review, and as far as I can tell is simply attacking someone for pointing out his mistakes. Perhaps if User:Number 57 had in the AFD pointed out he was not on the Olympic Team rather than being obstinate, we wouldn't be at this deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about? I clearly stated in the AfD that Olympics football is not amateur and that he had only played in the qualifiers! As for claiming you have supported most of my deletion attempts, that is a barefaced lie. On all three AfDs I started where you !voted, you have gone for keep.[14][15][16]. As for attacking another editor, I noted that him contacting you about an AfD which you would clearly object to could be construed to be canvassing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Censure for Number 57. I am tired of his unwarranted personal attacks against me and others simply when someone disagrees with his views. Bald-faced lie? In two cases he tried deleting multiple pages, and there was only one on each page I objected to - it's quite clear that I supported most of his other AFDs - I've reviewed all the Football AFDs recently, and most were so profoundly clearly non-notable that there was little point in being the 10th person to make that comment. I'd previously noted support for him in his talk page. I have no idea why a supposed respected Admin is resorting to personal attacks, particularily after I've already withdrawn my objection to the deletion! Nfitz (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, football is not an amateur sport, especially in Australia where there is actually a fully professional football league. I might support the article's restoration only in case the guy actually takes part at the Olympic games (not merely as a call-up, however, but by means of playing football in one of the games). --Angelo (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - It would appear that the nominator doesn't quite understand WP:ATHLETE. – PeeJay 08:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure many here understand abiding by the letter of a policy while violating its spirit. I think if he is on the Olympic Team then he meets WP:ATHLETE; though I admit that if the source document (ironically a Wikipedia article) showing he is on the team is not correct, then he is not notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being on the team is not sufficient. He has to play to be notable. The criteria are quite clear cut about this. – PeeJay 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he played in the final qualifications this year, then I'd say he has played at the highest level of amateur sport (ignoring the whole is Olympic being amateur issue). Though the evidence appears to suggest he hasn't. Nfitz (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If he plays in the finals tournament later this year, then I would not oppose recreation of the article, as playing football at the Olympics is quite an honour and definitely confers notability. However, your point about playing at the highest level of amateur sport is moot, as football is not an amateur sport at its highest level. – PeeJay 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - players still fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on recent evidence that has come to light of errors in other Wikipedia articles, I dropping point 1. However, my second 2 procedural points stand - which no one has addressed. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin has expanded upon his decision, so you can cross number 3 off as well. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, the four articles nominated were closely related on the grounds that all four were young Australian footballers who had signed to A League clubs, but not yet played for them. It was not immediately apparent that Jason Naidovski was in any way different - the Olympics were not explicity mentioned in his article, there was just 2 appearances for "Australia U-23" in his infobox along with other age grade appearances. --Stormie (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural objection - considering lots of people vote on AfDs about single articles without doing their homework, how can anyone expect an AfD with more than 1 article would be treated in any reasonably intelligent way? ugen64 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or Delete. It's true that listing multiples is not a good idea, but I don't think this one will pass a standalone listing either. CredoFromStart talk 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it would, or even should, pass a standalone listing now we've had a proper discussion on it. Part of the issue is that the Admin in questions insists on bulking these AFDs together, which only confuses the issue, stifles debate, and leads to things like this. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out above by Stormie, all four articles were concerning young Australian footballers signed to A League clubs, who had never played. As it has been consensus for a while that youth caps do not confer notability, there was no issue with bundling them together. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As an article existed in Wikipedia noting that he had been named to the current Olympic Team, I'd say there is an issue. And as if there is a possibility of issues it should not be bundled. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this article was correctly closed per consensus. Trying to get this overturned on procedural minutiae, such as stating that the closing admin didn't elaborate on the closure, is just process wonkery for its own sake. The consensus in that discussion was abundantly clear. Shereth 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting comment coming from an Admin who also ignores requests to provided a closing statement. Were the procedual issues the only issues, I wouldn't have started a deletion review. However through the course of the discussion here, it's become apparent that the prime reason isn't valid (something we'd have discovered at the AFD if people had actually discussed the issue rather than simply saying 'Delete - per nom.') Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Consensus is clear. Subject does not meet the criteria to be in Wikipedia. 217.44.188.103 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_26&oldid=1136100495"