Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 5

All Stars (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted per apparent lack of notability, I say, however, that the subject has substancial notability since it's one of the most popular mods for C&C Generals and has even been recommended by the developers of the original game in an official post on the official C&C site. MrStalker ^(talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not afd round 2, no process issues raised, just disagreement with the outcome. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Original deletion wabased on a misinterpretation of the notability and reliable sources guidelines; the sourcing definitely met the smell test for reliability in the context of a game mod, and from an outsider's perspective (I've never played C&C), this mod seems to meet the notability threshold based on the sources. The guidelines leave room for judgment calls, but the generic delete comments and the deletion nomination did not seem to go any deeper than the single sentence in the video game-specific recommending against (not ruling out) the kinds of sources used.--ragesoss (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources establishing notability were present in the article, none were presented during the AfD discussion, and none have been presented here, so I see absolutely no problem with the AfD closure. If it does possess "substancial notability", I recommend you present reliable sources demonstrating that to DRV. --Stormie (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, on the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? --Stormie (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short answer is I forgot. Sorry. No point doing that now right? --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral — As a non–admin who has made his recommendation in the corresponding AfD discussion and who has been invited to participate in this discussion, I have made the following observations:

1. The nominator of this deletion review did not contact the closing admin (jonny-mt) as to exactly why the article was deleted; that is, what caused said admin to decide to delete the article past citing an "apparent lack of notability."
2. The reason stated by closing admin as to the deletion of the article seems insufficient and open to interpretation (as made clear with usage of the qualitative word apparent).
3. It does not seem that any new information has come to light since the article's deletion, nor has there been any indication of any such information.
4. Referring to WP:ANI for a deleted article would not be the most appropriate alternate venue for a deletion dispute to occur.

Having made those observations, I feel that the user challenging this deletion is in a disagreement with the AfD's outcome and is going right to a deletion review in an attempt to re-argue what has been stated in the AfD discussion, i.e. AfD Round 2. However, the closing admin did not make it clear as to explaining why the article was deleted (i.e. not indicating the flaws in the arguments made by the users, not linking valid arguments to policy and guidelines, using "weasel words" like apparent). Therefore, I find fault in both the user requesting the deletion review and the AfD's closing admin.

I recommend that other admin take a look at the AfD discussion and draw conclusions based on those arguments. I remain neutral in regards with the endorsement or non-endorsement of the deletion. In addition, I stand by the arguments I have made in the AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the closing admin, let me address a few of the points raised above. Naturally, these are things I would have explained had the issue been discussed with me before bringing it to deletion review, but I'm not particularly fussed by that.
  • It seems pretty clear to me that the nominator is contesting my close not because they believe it was performed contrary to Wikipedia deletion procedure but instead because they contest that the article is non-notable.
  • My use of the term "apparent" in my close is simply to reflect that I am not handing down a judgment when I close an AfD--rather, I am measuring the rough consensus reached by the discussion. While I do generally take a quick look through the article to make sure no glaring points have been missed, I keep this to a minimum in order to maintain the objectivity required to do the close.
  • In measuring the rough consensus in the discussion, I do not count "votes" but instead give appropriate weight to the comments provided. However, were I to count votes here, it should be noted that there were two comments stating that the article subject was non-notable, one comment stating that the article was non-verifiable, and one comment stating that sufficient sources were provided to establish notablity. Naturally, this does not count the nomination, which cites both notability and verifiability as reasons for deletion.
  • In response to ragesoss's comment above that I mis-interpreted the notability and reliable sources guidelines, I would like to point out once again that my job is to measure policy-based consensus. In this regard, it meant giving weight to the policy-based arguments presented by MuZemike and taking into consideration the fact that two comments in favor of deletion were presented with full knowledge of these sources.
  • While I understand that a full analysis of the discussion might be helpful, I have found that it is only really useful in close calls or in explaining no consensus closes (such as this one, which I closed yesterday, this one, which I closed about a month ago, or this one from early June). For discussions like these that I consider self-apparent, there's not much benefit to spending twenty minutes typing up a close.

I hope this helps to clear things up. --jonny-mt 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My intention with this nomination was to have it relisted so a broader consensus can be established. The article was deleted per lack of notablity, but from where I stand there is a clear notability as it has been featured on the official C&C site. I think you can see my dilemma. If that is not enough, well then, fine. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Though I didn't participate, I did look at the sources and was unimpressed. WP:Notability is specifically not about popularity, it's about significant coverage in reliable sources, if a thousand reliable sources 'point' to the game in question then good for the game, but it doesn't provide any materials to build an article with. Someoneanother 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue for challenging deletion decisions by explaining how the deletion process has not been followed properly, not by advancing new arguments (or repeating old ones) about the notability etc. of the subject. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ORT INSTITUTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi, I'm not skilled at this but I'm just asking that you reconsider the rapid delete of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ORT_INSTITUTE Its jsut a not for profit school located in skokie, illinois. not seeking to advertize, simply inform. I tried reaching the administrator and was unable to do so to discuss this directly. The page mirrors the posting from our sister school bramson ort college http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramson_ORT_College which has long been successfully referenced on wikipedia. I believe that hte president is set by the sister school's posting that our's is an appropriate posting thank you, steve Sapplebaum (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Sorry but the article did look promotional (indeed it looked like it had been copied from somewhere but can't find evidence of that). I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Spam which explains that wikipedia is not here to be used for the promotion of any organisation. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Much of this is a copy of Bramson ORT College, which looks to be copied from the catalog at [1] --Kbdank71 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted the latter as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Par being the person why tagged it multiple times. The article is likely a copy of Bramson ORT College. I asked the deleting admin (User:TexasAndroid) to have a look at that article. IF the articles are similar (Or almost identical), i wonder if the second article should not be removed as well. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with extreme prejudice. I tried to put a db-copyvio tag on the Bramson ORT College article, and the spam blacklist wouldn't let me do that because the copyvio is from a blacklisted site. If the site it's copied from is blacklisted as spam, we sure don't want the article here. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice There has been some discussion about this on my talk page, which might or might not be relevant. I however, belief that this is an Good faith editor for now. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice The page has been re-created at The Ort Institute in correspondence between me and the original author. Originally the author believed ORT INSTITUTE was a good article because it was based upon a very similar existing one, which happened to be a low quality (spam) article. I am certain that this recreation meets all the appropriate guidelines in a manner that it will not be applicable for CSD/AFD/PROD tags. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for letting us know. I've deleted that too. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Discussion of the improper deletion of the Bramson ORT College and the recreated The Ort Institute articles is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 7

Wikijob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WikiJob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 15

Www.notgotajobyet.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion challenged by another user. Wikijob is an article created by Redsuperted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose contributions to the project consist almost entirely of this article and promoting the website (e.g. [2], one of a series of gratuitous links that ended up with the site being blacklisted per [3], although the user has now added a second domain name so bypassed the blacklisting for the link in the article). I speedied the article during AfD because the content was not significantly different from the version whose deletion was endorsed in April, it appears to be essentially the same userspace copy that was rejected then with only minor changes (including turning the first word into a hotlink to the site under its new domain name). It read to me, then and now, as blatant advertising, and the user admits to the conflict of interest. Just to be completely up front, though, here it is for review. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Guy - you interupted a perfectly legitimate debate during AfD on whether or not this article should be allowed on wikipedia - you deleted the article, you deleted the discussion - you deleted everything because you have some kind of vendetta against this site. You also left me a private message stating I should "stay away" from wikipedia - well I don't think you have the right to do this. You are not Wikipedia's pricate police man. During the previous AfD review 3 editors agreed that the site should be kept because the references in the article were substantial, and they are - they include national newspapers, university careers offices and trade press. I find it very ignorant and arogant of you that you just deleted this debate. Put the article back and let people decide if it should be kept - further more, I agree I previously added some link to wikijob on other articles. I was new to wikipedia, and this was a mistake. People change. Not everyone understands wikipedia from day one. We are not all editors with the power to delete all articles at will. Give me a break. Let people have a voice. Redsuperted (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vendetta is a word that gets thrown around a lot here, and I suggest you remove the terminology. Discuss the article, not any individual. Corvus cornix_talk 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all of this means we should undelete why? --Smashville^BONK! 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • because (1) Other than Guy, everyone who had taken part in the AfD thought this article was notable. (2) The references to the article are notable sources. (3) The site is as notable as other sites that have profiles on Wikipedia - such as ROF and "Thestudentroom". (4) I have been labelled a spammer and I take offence - I made a mistake when I joined wikipedia and spammed. It was a mistake. Guy has misunderstood me and this article and I feel he has used his authority to ban my web address and ban this article unfairly. I'm asking for the www.wikijob.co.uk address to be released from the blacklist and a debate to be allowed on the legitimacy of this article. (5) Apart from re-stating that this article was removed back in April, Guy doesn't offer any serious reason why this article should be removed, and as you know consensus can change. Redsuperted (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redsuperted, you are a single purpose account, your contributions to Wikipedia consist solely of promoting your site, the article was a valid WP:CSD#G4 as a repost of content that had been deleted and reviewed in April. You are a spammer, an abuser of Wikipedia for your own perosnal gain, and you need to go away. You need to go away because you were asked to stop and you haven't, instead of stopping you posted the article that had been reviewed by deletion review and deletion endorsed. You might have hoped nobody was looking, it turns out they were. You knew the text had been reviewed by deletion review a couple of monoths ago, you knew that as an editor with a self-confessed WP:COI you should not be creating this article, and yet you did it anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was NOT a repost of content. It was an edited version of the article you took down without allowing debate the first time round. Read the actual article as it stands now - it is objective, truthful, 100% fact. Everything is referenced. It discuss a site called WikiJob that is a very innovative concept in graduate jobs. I am NOT a spammer, I just think this article is worthy for wikipedia. This article has been posted twice. That does not make it spam. That makes this an aritcle that is trying for a second time to get an article past a very unforgiving editor - the purpose of wikipedia is to allow anyone to add content. Well Mr, I want to add this content, and other editors believe it is of value so let there be a debate, that's all I'm asking. I'm not forcing this article on to Wikipedia, but I am asking you to please let people other than you make this decision. ....AND PLEASE, don't tell me I need to go away. I'm pretty sure you are not the owner of wikipedia, and I'm certain you can't tell me to leave a website. Especially the world's most open website. That is not polite, not civil, and just plain ludicrous. Redsuperted (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comparing [4] (the version deleted and the deletion endorsed by DRV in April) to [5] (the version deleted just now), they certainly seem to be substantially identical in content. --Stormie (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn The consensus of the Afd was clearly either keep, or no consensus. A Speedy deletion on G4 grounds doesn't seem appropriate, as the previous deletion was speedy (and, incidently, also by Guy). There was a previous deletion review, but there was enough time for consensus to change, and the deletion discussion seems to suggest that it has. I don't think a G11 speedy deletion was appropriate, as the article didn't seem to me to be obviously advertising, and as argued in the deletion discussion, I feel there are enough sources to suggest notability, so an encyclopedia article on the subject is possible. Also, I feel that if speedy deletion was appropriate, the criteria should have been raised in the deletion discussion, so it could be contested. I feel the article should be undeleted, and relisted for deletion, to allow a full discussion of the grounds for deletion. Silverfish (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and relist to AFD - it appears that there was no consensus to delete at all in the recent AFD that was apparently cut short by a speedy deletion. Although editors shouldn't be creating articles where there is a conflict of interest, at this stage it isn't really relevant who created it as long as the article is well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view, which can be determined in the AFD. Aside, although it may be true that the easiest course of action when dealing with editors who have caused problems (such as spamming) in the past is to vigilantly delete any further references they add, but part of remaining neutral is to judge each article purely on its own merits and conformance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and not by the credibility or history of its creator. Wiw8 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-open the AFD - no grounds for speedy deletion here. While it may have been a recreation of a deleted article, the early comments in the AFD suggest that it may now pass our notability policies; or perhaps consensus has changed. In any case, I see no need for a speedy deletion; let the AFD run its course, and if there is then still a consensus that the article is unencyclopaedic, it can be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn we can deal with spammers by consensus. If this had been by a new admin, I'd call it beginner's failure to understand policy. . DGG (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speeding an article at AfD which looked like it was going to be kept seems wrong. Let AfD finish and some other admin should close. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a WP:CSD#G4 repost of a spam article by the website's owner that had already beenr eviewed in exactly that form a couple of months ago. Why shoulod we reward the spammer for simply ignoring that and waiting until everyone's back was turned? Guy (Help!) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As I cannot see the article in question, I can only make a judgment based on the discussion at AfD. The gist of the discussion at AfD seems to be that the article might need improvement, but that there was no justification to delete the article. The AfD, as it had progressed to the point where the article was deleted, did not demonstrate a consensus for deletion. Nor do any of the arguments for speedy deletion appear to trump the consensus of the community for retention. As the deletion was out of process, the deletion should be overturned and the article restored to reflect consensus. Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CSD#G4 is only applicable to content deleted by discussion, which means that a G4 deletion was out of process here (DRV is designed to review the process rather than the content, so an endorsement doesn't count). The vast majority of my speedies are G11, but had I come across this article without knowing the history or seeing the AfD, I would have probably let it be. Had I come across it knowing that it's written by an apparent SPA, has been deleted under various names, and that the link is blacklisted on Meta, however, I can't say with 100% certainty that I would.

  For the benefit of those who can't view the deleted content, here is the portion that I would call promotional in nature. It composes a little less than half of the article as deleted.

  Discussion board
  The messageboard is a key feature of the site, allowing students and graduates to exchange information about interviews they are currently applying for or preparing for. This part of the site was actually launched before the core wiki sections, and was originally called NotGotAJobYet. The messageboard is in fact still accessable via the original web address notgotajobyet.co.uk^[1].
  This board has grown in popularity rapidly since implementation and continues to receive many daily posts from various new as well as long term users. Posts debate interview technique and necessary preparation, detail assessment days for city firms and discuss the benefits of specific companies compared to others. Users value the messageboards because the information they receive comes from their peers, rather than from companies or recruiters where it can often be limited and highly corporate.

  --jonny-mt 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the article is restored, any material that is primarily promotional in nature can be reworded or removed. Alansohn (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created the article. It is the first and only wikipedia article I have created. I used Wikipedia articles on other similar websites as a guide when writing the article for WikiJob. It was not my intention to overly promote WikiJob. If anyone disagrees with the tone or content, I am quite prepared for them to edit this article, or to edit myself. Redsuperted (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a discussion, the deletion review in April which endorsed deletion. Redsuperted is being slightly disingenuous when he says it is the first and only article he created; he also added links to the site to numerous articles, admitted to being associated with the site and asked for help with adding links. He is a spammer. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn clearly should have been left to run its course. Viridae^Talk 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - note JzG added the site's URLs to the local blacklist ([6], [7]); should this article be restored - even if sent straight to AFD - the entries will need to be removed from the blacklist to enable this. Neıl ☄ 09:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, then delete properly through AFD. Kusma (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the closing admins job to measure consensus, and not just to enforce his own opinion? What seems to have happend here is the exakt opposite. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are indeed wrong. The closing admin's job in deletion debates is to enforce policy and reflect upon the discussion of policy within the debate. This is not a !vote process. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, so you're saying that the admins job isn't to measure consensus? Then what's the point with an AfD in the first place? From what I've heard consensus create policy, not the other way around. I'm confused here. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a vote count no, but a weighing up of arguments, yes. While the ultimate goal is to conform to policy, the problem is that interpretation of policy can vary. Which is why the closing admin's job is to consider all arguments presented in the debate, and make a judgement as to the nature of the overall consensus, or alternatively, lack thereof. It is therefore somewhat concerning to hear an admin give "why should we reward a spammer" as a reason for consensus to be ignored and an article to be deleted. Wiw8 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Let the community review the references Guy deleted to see if the site meets WP:WEB. I'm skeptical that such a site would have notable references, but no one is served by Guy blasting the article before anyone people can fully assess the merits of the article on their own. That shows a lack of trust in the judgment of his wiki-colleagues, IMO.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist to AfD. There were no prior XfD discussions closing with a "delete" decision so criterion G4 could not be appropriately applied. The DRV endorsement of the speedy-deletion of the prior version can not substantiate a re-deletion under criterion G4. However, the prior deletion justification could theoretically apply. In this case, the prior speedy-deletions cited A7 and G11 respectively. The comments which had already been posted to the aborted AfD discussion, however, were sufficient to raise reasonable doubt and to justify the full AfD discussion. When in doubt, let AfDs run.
  The conflict of interest issues are serious but those are for AfD to sort out. Being edited by a person with a conflict of interest is not a speedy-deletion criterion.
  Incidentally, the premature closure here was egregious. These attempts to short-cut the process undermine the credibility of the process itself and create far more work and hard-feelings that could possibly be "avoided". Process is important. We built these processes for a reason. Let the discussion work. Rossami (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Reider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus default to keep was affected by SPA sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brhannan where it was shown that this user and his blatant sock IP only edited the Katie Reider AfD (they did not edit WP prior to this AfD and have since ceased editing). AfD was closed by Sean Whitton, and after the blocks were set in place, I contacted Sean here to clarify whether their votes affected the outcome. I received no response. I would like the article deleted if the socks affected the vote, because no consensus minus two keeps means delete. MSJapan (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure Even with the sockpuppets removed I still cannot see a consensus to delete from that AFD. With them included I thought the debate leaned towards keep and without them it still looks like a no consensus over whether or not she meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Yes, it's a memorial, but it has more sources than many articles on musicians that have all three fans clamouring to keep. Review in a year if you want, by that time the historical perspective may be clearer one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep If you review the entry discussion, you'll note that I voted "Keep" only once. You'll also note elsewhere in Wikipedia that MSJapan's claims of "sock puppeting" were ignored by the admins because they were unfounded. My contributions to Wikipedia have no bearing on the relevance of this entry, which is well documented. With respect to the above-mentioned's motivation, please see: this. Nomad 2 (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep As noted in the previous discussion after the first AfD, this artist has been the subject of many non-trivial articles over the last 10 years, not the least of which is this article in the New York Times; [8] . She is currently in rotation on Sirius Sattelite Radio. She has won many CAMMY awards (I'll have to do some research but I believe more than any other artist in Cincinnati, including Bootsy Collins, Over The Rhine, 98 Degrees, The Afghan Whigs, Peter Frampton, etc.). Her songs were featured in multiple national television shows. All of this was noted in the initial discussion. I don't know why we are still having it. She meets several of the criteria for notability without question. I appreciate User:MSJapan's diligence at keeping wikipedia free of non-notable, trivial vanity articles but I think it has been established that this is not one. Note It has been raised in a previous AfD discussion that my editing of and commenting on articles related to Blue Jordan Records may not be in compliance with Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" policy by virtue of my username but I stated then and reiterate now that I am not an employee or owner of Blue Jordan Records, just an enthusiastic supporter. Bluejordan (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, it has not been made out that behaviour at the AFD materially affected its result. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Borkowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A notable article, speedy deleted three times by User:Gamaliel and than locked by him to prevent recreation. Following our discussion the article was rewritten from scratch to dissuade any suspicion of copyright infringement. All statements made at source were re-worded except one, due to its significance. The article was never nominated under AfD so that it could be discussed. Meanwhile, the unilateral decision to speedy delete for the third time (with a repeated claim of WP:CV) could use an oversight. Please review. Poeticbent talk 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my deletions. This editor used copyrighted material as a template for the article, in some sections barely changing a word or two. I think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, but this isn't the way to do it. The copyright violation should not be restored. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please be advised that I took the initiative to be bold and I rewrote the article. The source that was the question of contention was not included in the article. Since it was salted (an action that I feel was excessive and a bit hostile -- aren't we supposed to work together?), I did an end run and turned up with two new articles for the price of one. You can find it at Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda) plus a new Anna Borkowska (actress) article, too. Someone may want to disambiguate the two Annas. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitzan Haroz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Contesting prod; Haroz is the principal trombonist for the Philadelphia Orchestra and performs on his own, e.g., [9]. He's also listed at WP:AR1. Chubbles (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bootb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedy deleted without giving any reasons and not under speedy deletion criteria. The deleting admin did not reply.

The subject is notable enough to be into Wikipedia (this was proved by reference links and can be easily checked with Google). I'm asking to create an apropriate forum to discuss if this article should really be deleted. If any corrections should be done to fit fit encyclopedia criteria, this can be easily done. Reflecta (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but you haven't raised any issues with the speedy. What specifically was wrong about it? Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just updated description. Sorry for inconvenience. Reflecta (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, takin' a look at the article, I'm going to have to !vote to overturn. A good portion of the article was spam-ish, true, but the lede and first section were fine. A better solution would have been to trim the spam parts and leave the rest (or pursue other avenues of deletion). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Somewhat promotional in tone but not enough to warrant a G11. RMHED (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Fits the normal criteria of spam; starts with the company name linked to the website, promotional tone, sourced from prweb and other non-independent sources, written by WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn G11 requires it to "exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten"--all this needs is some trimming. We do not speedy because an article is spam, we speedy because its hopelessly spammy and impossible to easily rewrite. DGG (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Maybe not blatant enough for a speedy. Restore, then trim the spam and/or send it to AfD. There is a fair chance that the community will say delete. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AFD. Not entirely spammy, may be worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fascist movements by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

None of the keep votes addressed the salient fact that there are zero references for any of the articles. We don't allow unsourced material about living people; extend it to currently operating groups. It's more worrying when "fascist" is a term one does not normally apply to onesself because of its negative connotations. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure, the linked articles seem to be mostly sourced, and it should be possible to use these sources to the list to verify the information in the list. You're free to remove those where the article doesn't support a mention in this list, but AFD is not cleanup. Kusma (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus in the AfD was pretty clear there. Please remember that DRV is not an AfD redux. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus was 9-3 including the nominator; If Sceptre want to expand BLP to Nonbio articles about of Nonliving things other than People he should try for such a policy change, though I don't know what the policy could be called. 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Consensus was very clear, BLP has never, and does not, apply to organisations. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  McLibel. Ethical requirement applies. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No side here, just noting that the primary concern may be addressed with the work being done on List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_G-M. Presuming others interested in these lists remaining work up the other sections up to this level of quality and sourcing everything should be alright. (note that at this time I am not finished, but you can see a sample of what I'm doing at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_G-M&diff=230043433&oldid=230030578. Note that User:Stlemur also put some help in. —— nixeagle 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close this legal paranoia is unconvincing.. it's good for us to remove libel when we see it, yes. But not to delete articles because there could theoretically be libel, but we don't actually have any examples or anything. A bunch of superscript blue numbers does absolutely nothing to remove libel from an article... dealing with libel involves actually reading the article and identifying libel, then removing it. A blue number after a claim doesn't at all mean it's true and verifiable. --Rividian (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Scepter has blanked the articles per WP:V. Out of principle I must agree that this is acceptable... the burden of proof is on people restoring content to find sources. However... some of these are bound to be easily referencable... can't somebody get on this? I guess I will eventually despite having little interest in this topic. --Rividian (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources already, just not in the list article, for most of the claims in this article. I don't think WP:V disallows sources that are one click away. Kusma (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close unblank. BLP doesn't apply here. Maybe we need a new policy, but if so it should come from the legal wing. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Many thanks to the editors working on clean-up too. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by my closure. No evidence was provided of libel, rather an empty assertion. We do not delete articles on this basis; the community largely agrees with this, consensus of this was apparent, and I closed that way. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. No evidence of libel.Biophys (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Brian Dinkelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Robert Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Brandon Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Rene Tosoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Edward Ovalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Steve Singleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Daniel Lehmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Matthew Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Spencer Steedley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Oswaldo Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Blair Erickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cole Devries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Alex Burnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wilson Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Danny Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tyler Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

All received strong support in their articles for deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players). Unfortunately, too much power has been given to an egomaniac who just does whatever he wants, (User:Wizardman.) and they were all deleted. I strongly believe they should all be restored, and I strongly believe that Wizardman should lose his administrating powers. He deleted a lot of good articles that day, and I'm sure he's done it before.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I think it might be a bit much to call him an egomaniac who does whatever he wants. Numerically, it seems he was more or less justified in doing what he did, but if it were me, I would probably have closed it with no consensus. It appears that even by the time they'd all stopped debating, nothing other than an impasse was arrived at. Also, as an adjunct, this whole mess seemed to result from unclear policy, but I almost think WP:IAR should have been cited during the debate. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. None of these articles were sourced at all. As such, per WP:V, the content of every one of them could have been deleted in their entirety. WP:BIO calls for significant coverage in independent reliable sources and this was definitely not met in these articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Extra support came from Jose Mijares (which i closed as keep) and the one from yesterday (whose name I don't even remember), which I restored. Reviewing the AfD the rest of them I still believe should be deleted. It sounds like you're tryign to use DRV as AFD part 2, which generally doesn't work. Wizardman 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone, I'd think the person above you was doing that even more than the (unnecessarily belligerent) requester, and it's a paradigm we should probably try to break. However, the idea here is not that the articles should or should not have been deleted (and I think they probably should have been, myself), as that is scarcely relevant here in my opinion. It's that there was no actual consensus in the AfD discussion and so it should not have been closed with consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Wizardman is not entitled to do what he did, decide which of two disputed policies is controlling/ The community is entitled to do that and nobody individually is. The closing admin is entitled only to evaluate their decision (rejecting irrelevant arguments, which is why it takes someone with knowledge of policy.) As he said himself "this was a tough one to close" and since the policy issue is unresolved, the corresponding close is non-consensus. If whoever closes a afd on one of these baseball items closes according to what he thinks is the better policy, then we will have random closings, or else a competition to close by those with an agenda. Maybe I should start closing them, as non-consensus, for I do not know which side is right and I am not reluctant to say so. DGG (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - all unsourced, no significant coverage and DRV is not AFD2. And the editor that brought this to DRV could do with a nice cup of tea and a sit down, by the looks of it. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by unsourced. I showed-- with every single entry-- that my sources were the Miracle website and Minor league Baseball.com. What more did you want?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO asks for "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There was substantial support in the debate for keeping several of the players involved, and Wizardman's close ignored that and focused on his interpretation of an ongoing policy debate. The AFD itself with it's confusing mass of names was improper and the different players should have been listed separately so they could each be evaluated on there own merits. These pages should not have been deleted until a consensus could emerge within the project as to baseball notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak overturn I think these probably shouldn't have been allowed to progress as a single AfD and ideally they wouldn't have been nominated without some sense of consensus about notability of minor-league players was established. Some of these players were in all-star games too. I think it was a hard close, but given all the problems with the submission and the !votes, I think it should have been no consensus. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per Wknight94. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chicago musicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Category:Chicago musicals was deleted as part of the mass discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_6#Category:Musicals_by_nationality. This group of categories was deleted in part because they were ambiguous in nature. It was unclear if the category designated where the musical premiered, where it had its most prominent extended run, where it was set, where it was composed, etc. I intend to create a category Category:Musicals with extended Chicago engagements for the purpose of managing musicals that have extended runs in Chicago. I mentioned the fact that I run WP:CHICAGO using bots that track article activity based on their inclusion of categories. Many musicals that have extended runs in Chicago are important to our project as a subcategory of Category:Culture of Chicago, Illinois. I have been unable to do anything related to musicals for our project. In the debate, the fact that even if the category were clearly defined to mean locations where a musical had a notable run, the category should be deleted because each successful musical would have numerous categories (for each city it was performed in). There is great difficulty in determining where to draw the line on significant performance runs, but I do not believe any of the musicals in the category at the time of the Chicago musicals category deletion were insignificant runs. User:Kbdank71 closed the debate as delete on January 14. The musicals in the category at the time included The Color Purple (musical)‎, Jersey Boys‎, and Wicked (musical)‎. In terms of whether the category has encyclopedic value, each of these articles has significant sections for which WP:CHICAGO members can provide assistance. I need this category to run the project. As a subcategory of Category:Musicals this category is fairly useful because only a limited number of cities in the world host lengthy extended runs of musicals. I can not speak for any city other than Chicago, but I do feel the deletion of the category has deleted information from the project. I am not a proponent of adding categories to articles for stops on national tours, but rather for extended runs, (probably at least a three or four months, but a generalist Chicago contributor I am not sure where to draw the line. I am not proposing that every show that plays a weekend or two somewhere gets a category added for the stop. It is useful to the reader to know where a show had extended runs. It is useful to editors to be able to know where to contribute. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. As we have Category:London West End musicals and Category:Broadway musicals then it seems reasonable to have one for Chicago - presuming it's used for long-running shows (shows that run for months), rather than every 3-day performance that comes to town. With this category bulked in with many categories that were quite difference, the AfD was poorly done, and should have been listed by itself. Nfitz (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as the others have said, this one appears to be a unique situation. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No clear consensus to delete Chicago in the CfD, and a good case is made by TonyTheTiger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer. This is not your second shot at CFD. Tony was the only user who wanted to keep it. There was nothing wrong with the close. If you read the CFD, there was, in fact, clear consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 12:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is no parallel between the West End, Broadway and Chicago. "I'm appearing in the West End" - big. "I'm appearing on Broadway" - big. "I'm appearing in Chicago" - what, the show? no, the town. So what? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The response sounds more like New York is better than Chicago rather than assessing whether the category has encyclopedic value. The question is not whether Chicago can hold a candle to New York's Theatre scene. The question is whether there is encyclopedic value to the category. In this case it is essential to the management of the WP:CHICAGO project and it is informative to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the question is whether one is sufficiently noteworthy that people would reasonably come here looking for it, and this is a matter of judgement. The judgment is a question for TfD, and was not unreasonable. DGG (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you commenting in the right section? This is a category not a template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid deletion. DRV is not CFD2. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new point is that it is now six months later and I am unable to use the bot to manage the musicals that would be part of the project without some sort of category. This is not just restating prior arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The deletion was valid. Having categories for every city that has an extended run of a play is contrary to WP:OCAT (see the performer by performance and by venue rationales). It would clutter every musical with categories that are not defining characteristics. For example, look at the cities mentioned in Wicked‎ as having extended runs. Should there be categories for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Stuttgart, Melbourne as well as Chicago? I don't think so. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not at all like performer by performance or venue because I have explicitly stated we are not interested in one or two week performances. There are only a few articles that would have more than a dozen cats by this categorization type. Each of those few would probably be helped by persons interested in the category at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deleted category did not have any description that explained how it was to be limited. If you want to create categories for the city of origin of musicals, that seems like a reasonable objective, but creating a category for every location that had an "extended run" would be problematic. Deciding how long an extended run is, would also run afoul of WP:OCAT. The category needs to be defined clearly enough so that there is no question what belongs and what does not. I would support "Musicals that originated in Chicago" or something similar. There is nothing to stop you from creating such a new category. Having this one endorsed as a "delete" would confirm that the original was too vaguely defined and prone to OCAT problems. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]