Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 11

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 12 October 2006 (→[[Stargate Atlantis DVD]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

11 October 2006

Stargate Atlantis DVD

Nomination for: Undeletion.

This article was deleted without any input from the WikiProject which covers it (i.e. WikiProject Stargate) who would have given more argumentation that may have provided reasons for the AfD's not going through. Some of those reasons are listed below. I have now alerted the project to this deletion and we would like this deletion to be reviewed.

Put simply, there is also another article Stargate SG-1 DVD. If Stargate Atlantis DVD goes, so does that; if Stargate SG-1 DVD stays, Stargate Atlantis DVD stays. They are both of exactly the same format.

Stargate SG-1 DVD is a valid article because it provides information on how the DVDs were released, complications there were, etc. It also lists the individual release dates for each of the DVD volumes. This is important information simply because the Stargate DVDs, canonically released in many volumes, are collectors items; particularly ones bought at the release. The article, along with Stargate Atlantis DVD is a useful list.

I'm sure the Project will say more. For now, I humbly submit this article to Deletion Review! --Alfakim-- talk 22:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The argument that "some cruft exists therefore this cruft must exist" is, as ever, spectacularly unpersuasive. Guy 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support undeletion With at least 4 seasons being made and the abundance of information that can be presented this is a valid article. Konman72 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-list Although I don't think it's necessarily to have to notify a WikiProject about a deletion, it seems to me that it's very bad taste not to do so when it's so evident that there is one. Given what Stargate SG-1 DVD is, I understand why Stargate Atlantis DVD was deleted, but I can see it going either way. Re-listing will allow us to come to a real consensus on this, rather than having it be snuck under the radar. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess no one noticed this, but it seems the nominator User:Andd was a single purpose account (Special:Contributions/Andd). -- Ned Scott 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And this matters because...? Also, relist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you need an account to initiate an AfD, in contrast to almost everything the vast majority of users and a significant proportion of editors want to do on Wikipedia, doing so is a perfectly legitimate use of one, single or not. Unless they click 'remember me' people who create an account because Wikipedia forces them to may just as well fade back into the shadows once they've done what they wanted. Anyway, the nomination was based on policy and supported by numerous editors in good standing, so that's not really important. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. SPA = bad faith until proven otherwise. (Yeah, I know it's not policy, but I can dream....) --Aaron 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolute rubbish and a monumental violation of assume good faith. Not just not policy, but explictly anti-policy. I urge you to read my above post to Aaron and reconsider this attitude. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am Aaron! --Aaron 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Guy, no compelling reason to overturn the AfD, which had a near-unanimous consensus for deletion bar one editor who argued for keeping (but gave no reasoning). It's neither necessary, reasonable nor always beneficial to inform a relevant WikiProject (of which there are a hundreds of varying degrees of utility), as depending on the WikiProject it may amount to votestacking, inadvertantly or deliberately. I would take an educated guess that telling WikiProjects on fictional universes (or fancruft if you prefer) that something is up for deletion is more likely to result in reflexive 'keep' !votes than, say, WikiProject India or WikiProject Science. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa there, extreme bad faith. I'm apart of WP:STARGATE and I'd probably have moved for a delete too. Not only that, but several WikiProjects are created to decrease fancruft and inappropriate articles. I take extreme offense to such a suggestion. The consensus reached, whether I agree with it or not, is hardly a consensus. Have some faith in the system, that if those deletion rationales are valid they would come through in another AfD. Ignoring valid concerns and demeaning your fellow wikipedians as mindless fanboys is no attitude to have. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash

Nomination for relist at afd This article about a current event (not far from where I work incidentally) was nominated for deletion by a new account but was speedily kept in less than 20mins and marked as a bad faith nomination (I found that out when I was trying to nominate the article myself(I wanted to suggest a redirect at most to Cory Lidle, and transwikiing any material not already on Wikinews to the Wikinews article; it took about 2 seconds for someone to remove my initial afd tag...)). Afd here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/October_11,_2006_New_York_City_plane_crash.

I think the nominator had a good point - too many people treat Wikipedia as if its Wikinews (Wikipedia is not a place to write up current events of little or no historical importance as per WP:NOT). This was a tragic accident and terrible for the casualties, but it has only tenuous links to 9/11). I understand the closing admin's perspective (and the concern about single purpose accounts - I too usually consider all SPAs suspicious) but I disagree that there this is necessarily a bad faith nom, and feel that this afd should be allowed to run, with the precedent of the afds for similar Tampa and Milan small aircraft crashes of 2002 (in both cases, small aircraft crashes into a building, people worry briefly that it was terrorism like 9/11, but it turns out it wasnt):

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2002_Tampa_Plane_Crash.

The afd for these articles ended in no consensus. While I predict that if relisted, most people will vote for keep ("because it's on the news" and "because it's to do with 9/11") due to recent occurrence of this event (see Wikipedia:Recentism), I feel on principle that this should be relisted rather than just speedily closed as bad faith nom. Bwithh 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist after departure from Main Page There is no rule preventing new users from nominating articles for deletion; the nominator's statement is perfectly coherent and legitimate. However, due to speedy keep guideline number six (i.e. the article is linked from the Main Page), we ought to wait until the article is de-linked from the Main Page before deciding whether the article should remain permanently. -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refuse to cite WP:IAR, so ok about the CSD guideline - though I'd like to point out that this is another symptom of the confusion between Wikinews and Wikipedia (shouldn't we be linking wikinews articles from the main page current events box? I do feel that wikinews editors are getting the short end of the stick here in terms of wiki user community exposure and the confusion between wikipedia and wikinews. Bwithh 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'in the news' box is for articles which have been updated (or created) recently based on recent events. Of the six items currently in that box, three of the focus articles are 'normal articles' and their scope is larger than a single event - i.e. The Inheritance of Loss, Edmund Phelps and Anna Politkovskaya. Arguably that's different from 'current events', and it's certainly different from what Wikinews does - and also arguably people do get confused about that. Still, I would say that if it's linked from the main page, it's of some merit, and shouldn't be AfDed while on the Main Page. I have no particular opinion at the moment whether it should be relisted at all. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this AfD was closed by a non-admin (namely, myself), my reading of policy is that Bwithh is free to reopen it for further discussion if he wishes, without running it through DRV. I have no objection to that, and I thank Bwithh for taking a moment to notify me of his intentions on my user talk page; there's too little of that sort of courtesy around here lately. Regarding the AfD itself, it was opened by an [[WP:SPA}SPA]] who apparently created his account solely to list this article, and it was a 100% "keep" or "speedy keep", so I invoked WP:SNOW and closed it. But as long as a good faith editor like Bwithh wishes to reopen it, I'm fine with it. --Aaron 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aaron for the gracious response. Given Tariqabjotu's point about the main page issue, and my reservations about WP:IAR, I'll refrain from nominating the article for the moment. Bwithh 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMFR

This article was tagged as db-spam and then summarily deleted. I feel that the deletion is completely unjust. The article only describes SMFR as a Helsinki-based BDSM organisation and is not intended to specifically advertise it as any better than any other BDSM organisation.

I feel this organisation is notable as being the only public BDSM organisation in Helsinki, as I explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UngBDSM:

On the other hand, SMFR is by far the most famous BDSM organisation in the entire city of Helsinki. It is the only public one, and the only one known to mainstream media. SMFR, founded in 1996, is a legally registered organisation (RY, ryhmäyhdistys). It is one of the two Finnish BDSM organisations to have its own closed discussion forum on Tuntematon Maa.

(Note about UngBDSM, though: I only know about that organisation what was written in the article, and I'm arguing the case for SMFR, not for UngBDSM.)

Going by List of BDSM organizations, I feel that the following articles are similar enough to be judged by the same criteria: Turun Baletti, Datenschlag, SMil-Norge, The Spanner Trust, Violate, Black Rose (BDSM organization), Group With No Name, People of Leather Among You. Of these, I wrote Turun Baletti, but I have nothing whatsoever to do with the others. If the other articles are kept, so should SMFR be. If SMFR is deleted, so should most of the other articles. JIP | Talk 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I'm the one that placed the {{db-spam}} tag on this article; I just thought I'd mention that since I've been active on DRV lately. As I recall, it was a single line article with a link to their web page, so I thought it qualified. For the purposes of this discussion, I abstain. ---Aaron 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion absent multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The most famous BDSM club in Helsinki is not much of a cliam to fame. Guy 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bruce Nellis

This article was deleted by an administrator who personally knows Mr. Andrew Bruce Nellis on IRC through Dalnet. I believe this is an unfair because of the personal connection between the two people. It was stated in the past that the users who wanted this article deleted were people who had a personal vendetta against Andrew Nellis. This article was previously deleted at Andrew Nellis. No one from Wikipedia believe me and other users when we stated this. All the previous nominations for delete were from people on one IRC channel #atheism who wanted the article deleted because of their personal and political ideological differences from Andrew Nellis. I hope someone looks into this matter immediately because it shows a severe flaw in Wikipedia if admins have the power to delete articles on people they know personally. This should NOT be happening.--69.196.150.118 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Lynn Deutch

Please see the current version of the article. This article was deleted through an AfD that was spammed for delete votes on 10 September 2006. Also, see the pervious entry in deletion review.

One of the main arguments in the discussion that being notable for being seen in many commercials was not enough, that there needed to be verifiable sources. When it was deleted, the closing admin (Herostratus) emailed me and said I could "recreate the article at any time, as long as it is 'substantially different from the previous article' according to Wikipedia policy." In the month since it closed I have been doing more edits on wiki and have gotten a better feel for articles, and have rewritten the article and added verifiable sources. I feel strongly that this article should be included in wikipedia so I decided to bring it here for discussion.--mathewguiver 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted Looking at the most recent revision of the article, I still feel that this fails to meet the criteria of WP:BIO; in the last AFD, you claim that she meets this criteria:"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Your only sources are the Better Business Bureau, a press release about the advertisements, and Urban Dictionary, none of which establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Please find better sources before attempting to re-create this article again. --DDG 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boom goes the dynamite!

Here is the original AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boom goes the dynamite! from May 10, 2005; result was Delete. Among the many reasons cited for the deletion was the low number of google hits at the time of the article's listing (about 500) and non-notability.

I would suggest that the deletion was a little premature, as the phrase gets over 40,000 hits now, and since the deletion of the article, the originator of the phrase appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman [1], CBS's The Early Show [2], and the phrase itself has become incorporated into many regular sportscasters routines. The phrase has also been referenced in many other mainstream media, as recently as a October 2006 episode of Veronica Mars.

I think that this was a fairly widespread internet meme (similar to the Star Wars Kid), certainly more significant than many other items with articles on List of Internet phenomena, that had lasting impressions on other genres, and should be re-evaluated for inclusion in Wikipedia. --DDG 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eAthena

eAthena is a program used by Ragnarok Online servers. It is the most popular of its kind and its popularity exceeds that of Freya's, which apparently deserves its own article. One of the main reasons for the original deletion was because it lacked information and was used as an advertisement by gaming communities. I propose that the protected redirect be removed since eAthena meets the guidelines listed in WP:SOFTWARE (it has thousands of users) and a new article written in its place (I can help write one). Joshuaali 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetwise Scarlet

Streetwise Scarlet was deleted because an administrator from another country dictated that they weren't notable. However, they just started out and are one of the many artists who use myspace as their official site, have released a single which is being played on a mjor New Zealand music channel, and an EP and have been endorsed on a few websites and appear on official New Zealand music sites. Originalsinner 18:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"they just started out and are one of the many artists who use myspace as their official site". Exactly. Keep deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_11&oldid=80924579"