Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 23

[[Cy Fox]] ([{{fullurl:Cy Fox|action=edit}} edit]|[[Talk:Cy Fox|talk]]|[{{fullurl:Cy Fox|action=history}} history]|[{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/Cy Fox|limit=999}} links]|[{{fullurl:Cy Fox|action=watch}} watch]|logs)

This was a properly made article quoting sources and websites that was created in the correct section. Deleted by Teke for "CSD A7". ImperialTIEPilot 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)ImperialTIEPilot

• Keep deleted. Sources are supposed to be by uninvolved 3rd parties. Citing people from the project itself makes the article pretty much an advertisement. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, generic fanfiction. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion fanfiction is never kept, especially fanfiction published only on the web and hosted on a free message board with 11 registered users. No way, not gonna happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid speedy and the subject would fail WP:FICT anyway. Seriously, between this and the Naruto fan character articles I've stumbled upon in the past few months, I believe there really should be a separate wiki where fans of all fandoms can post their fanfiction characters and ideas instead of cluttering up Wiki with their wishful cruft. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, most wikis will not accept fanfiction material for both practical and legal reasons. I can't speak for every wiki in the whole universe, but the big guys like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia don't allow fanfic. If someone were to create a fanfic-only wiki, they'd be treading in some murky legal waters: in the US and most other countries (Japan excepted) it's illegal to make a profit from fan-derived works, so such a wiki likely couldn't sell ads or otherwise make money. There are other prickly issues to consider too, and it's too big a topic to fully cover here, but believe me that there's lots of good reasons wikis steer clear of fanfic besides their being "cruft"! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Inhuman (webcomic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (AfD)

Deletion with unsubstantiated reason Icarus morning 4:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC) A standard webcomic style article, there was no clear reason why the Inhuman article was deleted while other similar webcomic articles were left untouched. Opabina regalis gives only the reason "lots of text but no assertion of notability." There is no difference between this and any other webcomic article. Unless vast quantities of webcomic articles are meant to be cleared in the near future, the Inhuman one ought to be reinstated. The website fails to obtain an Alexa rank due to the robots.txt file banning Alexa and the Internet Archive wayback machine engines from large portions of it.

• Endorse deletion indeed no assertion of notability is a speedy deletion criteria. Argument that other articles may also meet the criteria don't tend to cut much sympathy, we are not in a position to magically remove all such information in one go, nor to stop people creating more. It gets dealt with as and when. --pgk 11:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Being a webcomic is not an assertion of notability. Don't try to use comparisons (Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability), rather use WP:WEB and WP:V. You still haven't given any sources. ColourBurst 01:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• So how are we supposed to know how much of an audience it has? That's the most important thing for a webcomic. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - failure to assert notability in the article is a deletable offence. Chris cheese whine 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Reasoning given is downright silly. Tons of webcomic articles are deleted all the time, it's certainly not just this one. As for the robots.txt thing, it's not our fault if the website is broken, and besides Alexa gets its rankings info from a browser plugin, not a webcrawler, so that shouldn't be affected by robots.txt anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pick-Up Mastery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Deletion without Reason DanTolumbro 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Overly rapid deletion without thorough review. Lucky 6.9's unprofessional reason given for deleting was literally "Oh please..." Nothing else. This is an informative article on an social skills company which is all over the internet. There are other dating companies who have articles up such as Real Social Dynamics, Mystery Method, David DeAngelo and Lance Mason. If there is something that needs to be edited, I should be told that, but quick deletion is unreasonable.

• Comment The merits of the (ostensibly speedy) deletion notwithstanding, oh please... is not only less-than-civil but not particularly constructive; I imagine that Lucky 6.9 meant to suggest that the article failed G11 or A7, but I hope he'll clarify his intention straightaway. Joe 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the subsequent recreations and deletions seem to describe the situation from the deleting admins point of view. "Reposted Spam", fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP reads as advertising copy. --pgk 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh and statements like " He has admitted taking heavy influence from Tyler Durden on these matters." - guess would create an "oh please.." reaction in me also. --pgk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably fair to say, although content can be entirely silly and wholly worthless and nevertheless not speediable as patent nonsense, such that one might properly react with an oh please even where speedy is not appropriate. That aside, though, oh please must be one of the most benign edit summaries ever offered by a spent new page patrolling-admin, and so I surely don't mean to suggest that there was any breach of civility here—my less-than-civil was probably unnecessarily harsh.  :) Joe 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I apologize for my less-than-professional summary (it's been a busy night on NPP), but this was plain old link spam as it stood. I'm not opposed de facto to a version without the "adspeak" and with verifiable sources reinforcing notability. - Lucky 6.9 07:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, self-promotional spam.-gadfium 07:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Pgk is quite right; I rather overlooked those subsequent "reposted spam" deletion reasons, which seem readily and properly to explain the speedying. In any event, Lucky's surely correct; the nature of the article as G11able adspam notwithstanding, there appears to have been no assertion of notability (a quick search leads me, FWIW, to belief that nothing reliable toward notability per WP:CORP can be adduced), such that A7 properly entails. Joe 07:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, blatant spam. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as extremely blatant spam (founded by Dan Tolumbro and posted by a user named DanTolumbro). If the poster cannot bother with even the slightest attempt to obscure the fact that this was clear and shameless self-promotion, I don't see why we should bother wasting extra time on it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Brent House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Wrongful deletion of informative article Tomthebombsears 04:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) The article created about Brent House is an extension to an Article about Trinity College School, and it further explains the concept and life of a private school boarding student. This article which was deleted was incomplete at the time, and with more information, would be a very valuable resource for Wikipedia to host. This article about Brent House also hosts history of the residence, explaining its founding and the man who it was appropriately named after. Brent House need not be world famous to exist on Wikipedia, however it has, in its time, had many worldly people come through it. There was no basis for a speedy deletion of this article as, at the time it was proposed for speedy deletion, was just started. --User:Tomthebombsears

• Redirect to Trinity College School and add the information there. (Radiant) 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Individual houses are not independently notable, and the author has a clear conflict of interest (see the vanity namecheck in the article). The chances of anyone looking for this rather than the school are remote. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per JzG. Naconkantari 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Feel free to write an article if you can indicate how this place is notable, but remember that the bar is pretty high for houses. Start it in your userspace and don't post it in the article space until it's ready to avoid a half-finished entry being deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion. Articles on individual houses do not really belong. A subsection on the parent article about the college is OK, but there is no evidence of this house having notability outside of the context of its university. --Jayron32 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

P-P-P-Powerbook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook - 20 May 2004 (Delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook - 31 Oct 2005 (NC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) - 1 May 2006 (Keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) - 22 Aug 2006 (Keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (3rd nomination) - closed as redundant per 4th
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination) - close no consensus by Parseltongue, one of his numerous contentious closures; deleted as unsourced by Brenneman, taken to DRV
• DRV, Oct 4: [1] - deletion endorsed due to lack of independent sources. Specifically, fails WP:V form WP:RS and also the primary notability criterion, being the subject of multiple non-trivial treatment in reliable sources independent of the subject.

Inappropriate re-closure of debate. Article has been nominated for deletion four total times. It reached no consensus on 23 October 2005, and keep on both 25 April 2006 and 14 August 2006. Was nominated a fourth time (just over a month after previous nomination) on 25 September 2006 (which could probably be seen as bad faith in itself). The result of the debate was originally no consensus. A day later, another editor came along and singlehandedly overturned the result of the discussion, which was inappropriate and out of process. --Czj 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• This deletion has already been reviewed and endorsed here [2]. WarpstarRider 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• This description seems to be missing some important details: the original n-c closure was by a non-admin, was out of process and was clearly against deletion policy (as the subsequent closure and its review demonstrated). Ziggurat 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per arguments at previous DRV. The closure by Parseltongue is irrelevant here; the article has, despite several debates, remained entirely free of any evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. As I said before, this is one of my favourite bits of crap off teh Internets, far better than the average YouTube vanity junk, but without non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources I'm afraid it's no deal. I'd be delighted to userfy for transfer to Wikinfo or somewhere. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy. I'm trying to work out the basis of this nomination when we've already endorsed the reviewing of Parseltongue's close, and no new evidence has been presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse deletion per previous DRV, new listing adds nothing additional to consider -pgk 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Aaron's complaints about sourcing is based on the heavily contested WP:RS. All of the proposed remedies to that pages numerous flaws would leave us in a position to keep this article, and there is a clear lack of consensus behind the current sense of what a reliable source is. Thus, despite Aaron's insistences, this article poses no meaningful problems with WP:V or WP:RS. The reason for its deletion is non-notability, but there is no white-line policy for that, and it is not something where one admin should defer to the 2/3 rule of thumb. Phil Sandifer 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yebbut, it's mostly contested by people who want to include more crap off teh Internets. I don't care what medium the coverage is, it can be on a respected technology correspondent's website just as well as treeware, but I do want to see enough non-trivial discussion in secondary sources of some demonstrable authority that I can verify both the content and its neutrality - and of course so that we can avoid original research. Phil, I love this story, but do you genuinely believe it is an encyclopaedia topic? Would it not be better suited to some other medium? Guy (Help!) 17:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm generally wary of deciding that something is better suited to "some other medium" when we don't have a place for it. Given that the issue appears at least somewhat well known and appears verifiable, unless we have somewhere else we can think to put it, I think we should err on the side of presenting the information. Phil Sandifer 19:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• And of course we are all right behind WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and so on, so what we need is to see this subject as the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatments by reputable authorities. These have not been provided. Sure we can prove it exists and we can précis the primary source, easy, but we are not supposed to do that, are we? Without authoritative critique we can't verify neutrality. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Guy and Pgk. You don't get to just put something up for debate over and over again until you finally get the result you want. Either find a new argument or move on. --Aaron 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This again? Issue discussed in detail in DRV and deletion endorsed. Don't see any new arguments emerging this time Bwithh 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Initial closure faulty, endorse d-d-d-deletion - contesting a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy (WP:RS is somewhat requisite for WP:V) is hardly grounds for including everything that comes through a series of tubes. Chris cheese whine 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning. Naconkantari 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion for the second time; I was the one who uncovered this horrific AfD close by Parsssseltongue, and the DRV came back that there was in fact concensus to delete it. See WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Also, the most cruical point, Parsssseltongue had !voted "Keep" in the fourth AfD'. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note" This, especially the last sentence, is very worrying.[3] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse last DRv, keep deleted The fourth AfD looks like a 'delete' to me when duplicate arguments are discarded and the remainders considered on their merits; there doesn't seem to have been much of an attempt to show the sources to be reliable. The fourth-AfD closure was out of process, the subsequent deletion/reclosure was also out of process, but DRv, within process, decided that the closure should be delete, and there's no reason as far as I can see to change this result. --ais523 10:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse last DRV, keep deleted The first three AfD's were based on notability, not verifiability, so are irrelevant. The fourth nomination (mine) was based solidly on verifiability policy: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Had process been followed from the beginning, all the "Keep, its notable" arguments should have been ignored, leaving almost no "keep" arguments, and most of those based on including a source that doesn't mention the incident. The DRV action was an in-process correction. The proper way to recreate the article is to find a reliable third-party, independent source that discusses it, and mention that source in the nomination for undeletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per previous AfDs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Survival of a previous AfD is not (IMO) a valid reason for overturning a more recent, equally valid, AfD. Chris cheese whine 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And in any event, consensus cannot override the requirement for Verifiability. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that this did. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'm very much against using AfD multiple times to get a desired result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So, the way to ensure that original research stays on Wikipedia, in your book, is to nominate it for some other, weaker reason, let it be kept, and that forever immunizes it from being reconsidered under the actual problems it has? Three determinations that a story is notable do not create reliable third-party sources out of thin air. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • T'm not interested in keeping OR around. I am, however, interested in following WP:V and, in what may be clearer as I've noticed in recent days, fixing the inconsistencies around them. This article specifically did not violate WP:V, and an argument can be said that it possibly didn't violate WP:RS. With it meeting the policy and with dispute on the guideline, we shouldn't be removing it when there's no question regarding it and WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, come on. May 04, Oct 05, May 06. That's hardly gaming the system. No article is immune from AfD. If it were felt that an article really were beyond deletion, the recent AfD would and should have been speedy closed. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to weighing up the arguments, previous AfDs or not, failure to address WP:V is a delete by default. So, in summary, we have an AfD with consensus to delete, already endorsed by a DRv. Chris cheese whine 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • We're very bad at closing AfDs as speedy keeps when they should be. Unlike the rush to speedy delete, that is. I don't expect any change here, regardless - we actively want to be wrong about this as a community, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I remember voting to keep this once, long long ago. But looking at the issue as a whole I don't think it quite measures up to our current verifiability standards, and it looks like the last AfD was properly closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse D-D-D-Deletion, this already failed DRV once. As funny as I find the story, there's still no non-trivial coverage of the incident in reliable sources. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)