Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Benbow

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Benbow

This is a disputed speedy. The article asserts notability, is verifiable, and is encyclopedic. The only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I vote Keep, but I think a merge with another article, say James Ulmer, with a redirect, would also be fine. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Andrew pmk 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. -- DS1953 19:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone seems to have speedied it again. Naughty boy. Restoring in order that this deletion discussion can continue. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - New article is worth keeping. Old article was a valid deletion. Mr. Sidaway's war with other admins is inappropriate and against policy and the community. - Tεxτurε 20:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I hereby utterly and completely refute any and all suggestions that I am at war with other administrators. I restored this in good faith as a bad speedy and the fact that I have successfully expanded it using as my original source the contents of the original article confirms that this speedy was at best disputable. Bad speedies can and should be corrected. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? How can you refute being at war with other administrators when your comment above is "Someone seems to have speedied it again. Naughty boy." - Tεxτurε 21:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because someone has performed an invalid speedy, does not mean that someone who observes that fact is at war with him. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • A revert war is when two users start reverting more than once each. An admin war is when two admins begin deleting/undeleting more than once each. How many times have you undeleted it? - Tεxτurε 21:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

        1. 16:14, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" (6 revisions restored)
        2. 16:13, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Warren Benbow" (To placate geogre I will delete and then selectively undelete only the parts I worked on.)
        3. 16:03, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
        4. 15:47, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
        5. 15:46, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
        6. 11:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"

• • • • You claim that it's war but you've only listed my actions. 11:48 I recovered a bad speedy (the article you currently see sailing through VfD). 15:46-16:03 I repeated the operation because again a rogue administrator had speedied an obvious non-speedy candidate. 16:13 and 16:14 I took action to take away the rogue's excuse for speedying. I'm not at war with geogre. At most I'm in dispute with him. His actions in the dispute are to delete, concealing a blatantly non-speediable article from editors who are not also sysops; my actions in the dispute are to restore, making the article visible, and give the editors a chance to decide. This isn't war, it isn't even a police action, it's just a man with an ego being silly enough to think he can push it so far as to repeatedly delete content from Wikipedia without any scrutiny and get away with it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I would respond that "it's just a man with an ego being silly enough to think he can push it so far as to repeatedly " UNDELETE "content from Wikipedia without any scrutiny and get away with it". Can you explain why you violated WP:3RR by undeleting six times? That's an edit war. Or do you think that such concepts only apply to non-admins? The way you think VfU is only for non-admins? - Tεxτurε 22:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If you believe I have broken WP:3RR, please take steps to have me blocked for doing so. Obviously it cannot be claimed that I'm attempting to undelete without scrutiny--it was I who listed this article on VfD--where geogre should have taken it in the first place if he thought it should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't want you punished. I just want you to edit like a normal user. You "undeleted without scrutiny" when all you had to do was create a better article. You resorted to VfD after you realized the revert/delete war wasn't working. Why list an article that now only has what you created on VfD? To make a point. Of course a new article with real content would be kept. You nominated your own content that you wanted kept for deletion. Why? WP:POINT? - Tεxτurε 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I think you are pushing it a bit. I undeleted only as a result of a bad speedy. I have no problem referring such restorations to VfD and indeed see no reason to do so unless there is a serious dispute--administrators on Wikipedia perform hundreds of speedies every day, performing a great job with no immediate supervision, and make one or two mistakes, and I don't see any problem with other sysops like me exercising the same scrutiny on their speedies and fixing the very few mistakes they make. If you ever have a problem with any of my resurrections, it's a doddle to spot it in my deletion log and list it on VfD. There is absolutely no reason to introduce onerous procedural obligations. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Please note that at the time of this vote the article appears to be deleted and hopefully will be restored? Hall Monitor 21:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So as to remove any further excuse for deletion, I have deleted and then restored *only* those versions which are indisputably unspeediable. The original versions are gone. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The link appears to be restored, thank you Tony. Hall Monitor 21:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. I hope that we will now be left to continue building the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, bad speedy. Kappa 23:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The first speedy by Geogre was perfectly valid, there was no claim to notability: Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY . Born December 22, 1954. However, Tony Sidaway created a new entirely different version which was encyclopedic [1] and Geogre's second, third and fourth speedies of this new version were entirely unjustified.
  
  A clueless newbie or vandal cannot "poison" a topic by creating an unworthy article that meets the speedy criteria. A speedy delete merely says the current version fails the very low threshold for retention and wipes the slate clean. It's simply a botched article; no judgement is made on whether the topic itself is unencyclopedic or non-notable (only a VfD does that). No vote for undeletion is needed to create a new article — the slate was wiped clean and it's as if the speedied article never existed. Nevertheless, a bad faith attempt to WP:POINT by recreating the speedied article with only cosmetic changes (such as merely adding the adjective "notable") would be very dimly viewed. However, that's certainly not the case here.
  
  Tony Sidaway should have recognized that the first speedy deletion was perfectly valid, and probably should have just created his new article without restoring the old speediable stub. By restoring it, he (wrongly) implicitly criticized Geogre's action in speedying it, and Geogre perhaps reacted with indignation. However, Geogre should have realized that the new article rewritten from scratch was in no way a speedy candidate. -- Curps 03:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone is described as a "drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator" this appears to me to be quite a strong assertion of notability. I accept that geogre may not see it that way (this could be seen in my original note telling him I'd undeleted). This ambiguity in CSD7 is systemic so each administrator must use his own judgement. There is no absolute here; to me it's obviously an assertion of considerable notability, to you it isn't. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not at all an assertion of notability. There are many, many people who could fit that description (such as, a high school teacher who plays in a band on weekends). Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles suggests: For instance, if the person's profession is cited, a reasonable guideline would be how many people have the same profession: there are tens of thousands of porn models, but very few senators. Even if you dislike the relatively recent "no assertion of notability" criterion for speedy deletion, it's not a solution to simply declare nearly anything to be "asserted notable". -- Curps 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it's pushing it a bit to say that this description could be applied to a high school teacher. Most people would expect "music producer" to mean "a person who produces recorded music" and in fact this is precisely the case here. VfD is *good* at discerning when an assertion of notability is bogus (as with your hypothetical high school teacher). Individuals on RC patrol, historically, are not so good. It is therefore inappropriate to speedy. I objected to CSD 7 for one main reason: it relies on a vague phrase, "assertion of notability" that means different things to different people. And here we have a classic case. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It is categorically false to state that the article was rewritten from scratch. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well here's the confusion: the anon author first created a non-speediable version (but badly formatted and indented, so that an entire paragraph was contained on one line, with most of the content invisible unless you scrolled horizontally way beyond the right edge of the browser window ("first version"). A few minutes later, the anon himself then truncated that first paragraph to one short sentence ("second version"). That second version was correctly tagged for speedy deletion and correctly speedied. I suppose it was that "first version" that you found and rescued. That "first version" was not speediable (though TenOfAllTrades reports it was a copyvio), but personally I never would never even have looked at it... when there are multiple editors, you check the history, but when there's just one editor you just look at their final revision. -- Curps 08:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing that out, but actually because of the bad formatting I would not have seen the extra text in the original even if I had looked at it (it scrolls off the right hand side of the screen). To me that looks like a copyvio of an entry I've seen elsewhere, probably allaboutjazz.com. So to reduce the confusion I want to make it absolutely plain: I considered the second, truncated version to be a good stub. It correctly identified the subject and told me absolutely everything I needed to know in order to expand the article. The problem of these bogus speedies would not exist if those doing RC patrol would use google before speedying. We are, after all, here to edit an encyclopedia, not just play with the delete button. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable musician. As for the undeletion, it is completely within process to write an all new article, and the make a history only undeletion of the old deleted versions beneath it, without a VFU debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and would everybody please stop bickering? Deletion was valid. Writing a better article was valid. Undeleting the edit history was in my opinion pointless but it doesn't do any harm. Radiant_>|< 10:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If "[t]he only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article", then it's been answered. This vfd isn't really the place to discuss the speedy deletion. The current article is unanimously valid so far. --Sketchee 17:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, working with Whitney Houston, LL Cool J and Olu Dara is notable enough for me.Jobe6 18:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.