Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 12

< January 11	Deletion review archives: 2007 January	January 13 >

12 January 2007

Jizzle me this

Swift and unfair deletion of well-written article Wheresmydanish 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse swift and perfectly reaonsable deletion of unsourced article on a game patently made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was well written. It was also original material, very creative, and not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Paul 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.jpg

Wikipedia:Esperanza

Discussion moved here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza

List of fictional police detectives

Closing admin's comments were "The result was delete. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category." Actual votes cast were 6 keeps (one of them "strong"), 5 deletes, 1 keep which was withdrawn so maybe should be counted as a delete, one abstain (from procedural nominator) and two speedy closes which I think need to be disregarded (one of them from a user who also voted keep). On the face of it, therefore, an obvious no-consensus default-keep, leaving us only to deal with the closing admin's discount of the keep votes and his or her own opinion that the list is duplicated by the category. It's hard to rebut the "not rooted in policy" assertion, since I cannot see what the closing admin based it on, nor what policy he or she thinks the delete votes were based on. I expect Proto will come here and comment, and I will either agree, or rebut, when I see that explanation. For my own part, I would assert that my vote ("nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it") is precisely AS rooted-in-policy, no more no less, than the nomination which asserted that the article should be deleted because it was indescriminate and unmaintainable. That leaves the suggestion that the article was duplicated by the category. The relevant guideline on this, here says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes... These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." When looking for "official guidance" (so to speak) on whether a list and a category can be redundant with one another, therefore, the wikipedia guideline says that they are not. I see a keep voter saying "The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition". I do not know why that was considered "unconvincing", and I cannot now look at the page to check, since it has been deleted and I am not an admin. However if David Edgar is right on that point then Proto is wrong. I would argue (and our guideline seems to support the view) that a list is not redundant with a category even if it contains exactly the same information, since it has scope to expand in a way the category does not. AndyJones 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (my own) closure. If we have to go through them:

- Keep as a common and notable character archetype. - OK, so we should have an article about the archetype. This wasn't it. Non sequitur.
- Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. - see above.
- Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion - Docu's first vote, ignored as clearly incorrect.
- Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. - ditto.
- Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it - fair enough.
- Keep as per above two comments - ignored as above two comments were to delete, and was Docu's second "vote".
- keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre - nothing but keep it as I like it and it's useful.
- Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition - good argument, referring to WP:NOT issues and why the user doesn't believe them to be an issue.

So there were two decent "keep"s, three poor ones, and two ignored. Of the deletes:

- Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness - OK, so asserts indiscriminate (WP:NOT). This in contradiction to one of the keep votes, but I'm not judging whether or not you are right, I'm determining whether the votes are argued well and rooted in policy. So, referencing WP:NOT, good argument.
- Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful - again referencing WP:NOT ("indiscriminate list"), and also pointing out the belief that categories duplicate the content. Good argument. There are then three 'delete per this arguments', which are fine.

So that's five good deletes, rooted in policy. The nomination was also broken up, making it look purely like a procedural nomination despite being done in good faith, but even with discountint the nomination as an argument to delete, it's still five solid delets versus two solid keeps and three very weak ones. I am aware that viewing each argument is always going to be subjective, but I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed those to keep, particularly as most information is retained via the category. Proto::► 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Arguments which are wrong do not count towards the closure. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, Proto should have made more closings in that group since several of the others were closed incorrectly. >Radiant< 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There is nothing better about the delete comments than the keep comments. Most of both were "it's useful" or "it's unuseful listcruft". As for the arguments: are you telling me that there's a huge difference between keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre and The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition? By your reasoning, the second invokes WP:NOT, while the first is WP:ILIKEIT. This is pretty shaky grounds, and I'm worried the admin is reading what he wishes into the comments. Just as bad, he completely ignored Docu's "vote", despite the fact it contained clear reasoning (i.e., look at the reasoning in the previous afd). Patstuart^talk|edits 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse closure. I think the actual result probably should have been "no consensus" (thus "keep"); however, this one was a judgment call and the closing admin displayed a reasonable exercise of judgment. Agent 86 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closer's reasoning was sound and no reason to overturn. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Photography Review

It is my impression that dpreview.com is _the_ online ressource for cameras. The site was recommended to me, and when I got down to the camera store I found that they used it too. Seems to be an established site, with comprehensive coverage of current high-end camera models, ahve very active forums. Searching for "dpreview" gives me over 4 million hits.

Was speedy deleted after being tagged with {{db-web}}. Thue | talk 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Three sentence stub had no assertion of notability. That makes a valid WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. Post it at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you don't have time to to find independent, reliable sources and write an article yourself. GRBerry 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if we just insert a link to [1] which says that dpreview is a top 1000 website, thereby documenting notability, then you would be satisfied that the article should be restored? There doesn't seem to be any complete reviews of the site on the web, but nytimes and cnet regularly link to it. Why not simply undelete the stub and use it as a starting point? It is irrelevant that the speedy deletion was formally correct because the article did not cite notability. Thue | talk 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Yes, it is relevant that it was formally correct, because you can and should just start a new article with notability asserted. Understand, though, that since you imply there are no sources, I'll immediately AfD it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - again, appears to be an improper speedy. If it's even close, it goes to afd. If it appears notable (as 1 minute of research would show) and is unsourced, then tag it with {{unsourced}} or afd it. Otherwise, it's what one admin decides despite what community consensus may be: and that is definitely against what an WP:ADMIN is not - above the rest of the community. At least undelete it so the poor guy can give sources. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are all missing the point!. I don't care if it was an improper delete (I myself think it was proper). What matters is that I have now (quite strongly IMO) asserted notability, which means that Wikipedia should have an article, and the deleted article should be restored and used as a starting point. What you are doing is meaningless Wikipedia:WikiLawyering about the properness of the original speedy delete, not thinking about improving Wikipedia. Thue | talk 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant by what I said. Overturn to let you source it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I guess I focussed on your first "appears to be an improper speedy" sentense. Thue | talk 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, an after the fact assertion of notability does not mean that the old article should be returned. It means that you believe it is possible to write a decent article - so you should just go write that decent article. GRBerry 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually did look at the deleted article then you would see that it is very decent, except for the point that it does not claim notability. I am trying to improve Wikipedia here, in a completely reasonable way, and you are working against me. Why? Thue | talk 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Agree with GRBerry. As it stood, the article was an unsourced stub. Even just adding a single link for notability wouldn't have helped much. Rather than working to have it undeleted, a better option would be to rewrite the article, expanding it outside of being a stub and adding more WP:N references, then add it to Wikipedia. Even just a couple paragraphs with references would be good enough to stand as an article. -- Kesh 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While sources would be nice, we usually don't delete articles when the facts such as website owner can be verified in 30 seconds by actually going to the website. I think the people here voting delete are acting quite silly, caring more about WikiLawyering than improving Wikipedia, but it is getting easier to just rewrite the article that to convince you of (what I think is) the obvious. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. -- Kesh 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Guitars

Nothing to Lose (Heroes)

There was clearly no consensus for deletion, episodes of TV series are notable inheritly and encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at the AfD, the page was almost devoid of content, because there are no sources for any content, because the show has not yet aired. The only information that is not devoid of content is "The episode's title was originally given to the seventh episode, which was ultimately titled "Nothing to Hide".", which is unsourced. The rest is simply ""Nothing to Lose" is the fifteenth episode of the TV series Heroes." That's not an encyclopedia article, and an influx of fans of the show saying "Every other television show has an article" does not change that; calling every episode of every television series "inherently notable" is bizarre. —Centrx→talk • 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. In the vast majority of situations, an article should not exist on an episode that hasn't yet aired. Exceptions would be episodes such as series finales that receive lots of coverages, such as the Seinfeld or Friends finales. While I agree that this episode should have article after it airs, I strongly disagree that TV episodes are somehow "inherently notable". SuperMachine 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion WP:V is a policy that trumps consensus. Additionally, the claim that "all episodes of a TV series are notable" has, to the best of my knowledge, never been proven correct, and is not likely to. For certain series, yes, for certain broadcast networks and times of day (prime time), yes, but for local public access TV, absolutely not. GRBerry 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist (if you wish) - agreed page is worthy of deletion, non-notable and unsourced. However, not a single person made that argument (i.e., unsourced) in the discussion, which makes it appear that Centrx paid no attention to the discussion and formed his own opinion on the article. This is a problem precisely because we have a discussion in order to gain consensus - otherwise, any admin could delete any file without community input. If a closing admin disagrees with the prevailing consensus by bringing up a new point which has not been mentioned, it should be placed in the text of the discussion under delete, simply because sometimes, certain arguments to not occur to those in the discussion, and the new idea should be discussed, not unilaterally decided. Bit of a run on statement, but I think I got my idea across. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this comment User:Srose correctly noted that this episode hadn't even aired yet (it won't for nearly a month). It's nearly impossible for an episode to be notable or reliably sourced if nobody has even seen it. AfD isn't a vote, so one insightful comment such as this can have more weight than any number of keep "votes" with weak justification. SuperMachine 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There most certainly can be sourced information on an upcoming episode, even if it's not much. For that matter, I think you may have it backwards: it's actually more likely to be sourceable than not, as the article writer has not just watched the episode (i.e., OR?), but gotten his/her information from other sources. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but the question is if they're reliable sources. Spoiler sites and the like are often quite inaccurate. SuperMachine 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the vast majority of cases, there's at least some early info about the episode from the network itself, either on their website or from a press release. Articles about movies aren't forbidden until the day of release, are they? Or any other unreleased "product". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no objection to relisting) - I find it very alarming that an admin would close an AfD with a reason that hadn't even been mentioned by any of the people supporting deletion, it gives the impression that instead of determining consensus, he ignored it and made a unilateral decision. In addition, information being uncited is something that is potentially fixable, if this had been brought up during the AfD instead of being mentioned for the first time at the closing, editors would have had the opportunity to remedy that (if that's possible). If it turns out there's no verifiable info about the episode yet (I don't personally know either way), then the article will only stay deleted until the first information arrives, which is a matter of a couple weeks, if not days. There's no question that this is a temporary deletion, and that there will be a complete article soon. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The idea that episodes are "inherently notable and encyclopaedic" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument to policy. This is not a hugely popular programme, an article per series should be fine. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, when the episode airs and a full article is written, will you still support deleting it? You do realize that wikipedia has many articles on individual TV episodes, many for shows much less notable than Heroes, right? And what policy supports the notion that shows should only have episode articles if they are "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - For the same reasons Patstuart and Milo H Minderbinder have already placed. It was an unjustified removal.Jacobshaven3 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oi!

File:Tumbler Ridge coa.png

Deleted here, requested undeletion here, used here: Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. It was tagged with {{coatofarms}} but I didn't upload or watch it so I did not get the notice that its (what-they-thought-was-a) "copyright tag" was removed. I request that it be restored, tagged with {{symbol}}, and kindly moved to a better name, so that it can be used that article again. Also, same with Image:FSJ Flag.jpg deleted here, used here. Thanks. maclean 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker's Dozen

The Baker's Dozen is a accapella singing group from Yale which was Deleted on December 26, 2006 due to lack on notability. However a week later, the group has gained a great deal more notablity in the United States (and possibly worldwide) due to an assault on the entire group which is allegedly being mishandled by the San Francisco Police Department, below are a few sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs)

Relist The AfD closure was completely correct, so that's not a particularly contentious issue. This atack has certainly made the news, but we must recall that WP:NOT Wikinews. Thus, I'd suggest a relisting (with the news sources added to the restored article) as opposed to a simple (kept) restoration to decide if the group has any actual notability. -- Kicking222 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist because of new information with the usual pointers about "multiple coverage of a single day's news event counts as one coverage". I am unclear, having read the AFD, whether there was consensus on anything that would count as a second source for notability. GRBerry 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep closed Group has gained a little bit of news notability for being assaulted and being a minor news item. No substantive claim of encyclopedic notability from new sources. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Bwithh 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted This is a pretty good example of how "notability" and "verifiability" are similar but not necessarily identical concepts. For a music group, getting beat up does not equal additional notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, Wikinews is over there on the right. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic-link

Catholic-link is a talk page template which recommends the use of the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Such a template is unprecedented for Wikipedia. This will open the way for similar banners from other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others in the public ___domain or otherwise, resulting in conflicts over which sources should be given special lobbying treatment. Already there is considerable conflict over this (the TfD was "no consensus"), but the issue is bigger than that - do we want users lobbying with banner templates for a particular source to be used? Recommend a change from no consensus to Delete. Thank you. Stbalbach 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The closing admin was correct, there was no consensus to delete. Nominator here does not cite a policy that overrides consensus. We frankly could use more pointers to old historical sources; we aren't very good at using them in our daily editing. Concerns about competition could be improved by a template that takes a list of sources and links; something akin to {{historical-free-sources|source1=[url|name]|source2=[url|name]|...}}. GRBerry 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true multiple listings could be created. But I've rarely see someone who is an expert on a topic use old encyclopedia articles, so why encourage it? Wikipedia is beyond the stage of having to fill up blank space, it needs to improve quality, not encourage old material that has not been properly vetted by an expert who knows if it is still accurate or not. It takes someone with a lot of skill, time and knowledge to properly import an old article into Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, you provided no reason why the closing was bad, just reasons you disagree with it. DRV is not XfD round 2, most especially not for things which weren't deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the closure bad? Because the majority of people wanted it deleted - most of us are veteran experienced editors who have dealt with the endemic problem of old encyclopedia article material on Wikipedia for many years. The keep arguments are weak in comparison to the problem. This problem of old encyclopedias has been discussed in many places, see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#The_origins_of_bias (last bullet point), Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and various discussions at Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and encourage edit-warring over JASpencer's templating rampage. No, on second thoughts that's a bad plan. At least one keep opinion was entirely misinformed (MrDarcy (talk • contribs) confused these templates with {{Catholic}}), one was a simple vote (but TfD is notavote). There was no consensus here to keep these templates and the concerns from a wide variety of editors (including me: I've written articles for the Saints wikiproject, as have Stbalbach and Wetman) were real and justified. We should not encourage the addition of any more CE or EB material. Overturn and delete per clear consensus at TfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinion. I beleieve that my closing was correct (obviously) but I believe that according to policy, the template should have been deleted. However, consensus comes before what I personally believe policy says, so take my vote here with whatever grain of salt you would like to. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]