Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 27

Wiki vandalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted due to unverifiablity. I'd like to try and develop an article in userspace and then move it to mainspace. See User:Miltopia/Wiki vandalism - if an admin is willing to move it there, that would be wonderful. small note: In the event it's determined the old history shouldn't be uncovered, please do not delete my subpage, since it won't be posting of recreated content. Milto LOL pia 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably a better idea to come back when your article is written, since your subpage has nothing in it. Wait, never mind, I misread your request. I could userfy the page history, but I'm honestly not sure you want it, since it was quite obviously a vandal magnet. Try starting something from scratch first. --Coredesat 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• It is highly unlikely that a valid article on this can be developed which is not both self-referential and obvious from the combination of "wiki" plus "vandalism". I suppose if Miltopia wants to waste time that is not our problem, but the deletion consensus was as much in respect of the subject as of the article. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore to userspace, I think this could get some good sources. Abeg92contribs 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for now, but if you can come back with some reliable sources on the topic, might be worth reconsideration. But find some reliable sources first, please! Otherwise, there's really nothing to talk about. Xtifr _tälk 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to a good article on the topic. Chris cheese whine 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Overturn: Article about the webcomic, it was speedily deleted (A7) 5 minutes after Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists, an anthology that published it by the same admin. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, neutral on a list. The book as a reference certainly gives enough information to constitute notability at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Could somebody just tell me what the claim to notability is supposed to be? Only, that looks a lot like a valid A7 speedy to me. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say that the speedy of this article inconjunction with Attitude 3 seems to me that it was just done without much thought - if an article is important enough to be featured in a book about online cartoonists, its importance is not in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, I'm still trying to work out the supposed claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article consists of two sentences - what it is and that part of it happened to get published in Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. It's a textbook A7; just put a redirect to that article in its place. --Coredesat 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How on earth does a redirect make sense here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's part of the larger compilation. There's no information about this particular comic, and the previous article had pretty much nothing to build upon. It's a simple solution. --Coredesat 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist. I cannot view the text of the article, so will not comment on its content. My suggestion to overturn and relist at AFD is mostly for the sake of courtesy. I am aware that a speedy deletion that is contested need not be overturned, but when editors other than the article's creator also request undeletion, I feel it's a good sign that more discussion (and an opportunity to develop the article) is warranted. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. The entire text of the page was "Fighting Words is a political webcomic by Ben Smith. Material from the strip is printed as part of Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" plus an almost empty infobox and some minor wikification. There is no reasonable assertion of notability in that text and the page has been unchanged since May 2006, leading me to conclude that no expansion is likely. Rossami (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion, redirect it to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists. --Dragonfiend 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the deletion/relist issue, but I'm opposed to a redirect. The link between the Attitude vol. 3 anthology and Fighting Words isn't strong enough that a redirect would be representative.Epameinondas 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You may be right -- it just seemed that since the information in the deleted Fighting Words article ("Fighting Words is a webcomic by Ben Smith that was in Attitude 3") is already in the Attitude article, that a redirect would work. --Dragonfiend 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn - no valid reason offered for deletion. Reasons offered were "not encyclopedic" which is pretty meaningless in an AFD debate; WP:BLP concerns, which are invalid because the article was sourced and it's very unlikely that someone is going to sue for being called heterosexual; "unmaintainable" and "too broad" which since the list only had a handful of entries is ludicrous on its face and "once gay, always gay" which is rank POV pushing. The !vote count was 11-7 which is hardly a clear-cut majority, especially in light of the poor reasons offered for several delete !votes (which should lead to those opinions being discounted) and the fact that one of the delete !votes actually supported the notion of having List of ex-gay people which is for all intents and purposes the same list. Otto4711 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of requesting that the history be restored, I thought I would state the following: The list included "people who at one point identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual but no longer do" and "people wrongly believed to have renounced LGB identity."[1] Also, there were three mentions of encyclopedic in the AfD, none of which linked to WP:NOT. For this deletion review, please provide links to policy. There might be room for an article on "Notable people whose sexual identification changed overtime prior to their death." -- Jreferee 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please point me to the official and exhaustive list of Valid Reasons that you've been perusing. Failing that, endorse deletion for the reasons given in the deletion debate. >Radiant< 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If this was directed at me, I never said that there was an exhaustive or official list of valid reasons. I said that the reasons offered in this nomination were not valid for this AFD. Otto4711 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• endorse A number of reasons were given for deletion in the Afd, all of them valid. Anmong other, I questioned the assumption that a gay person would not object to being called heterosexual is probably false; there is further the problem that listing here implies the person was once gay. Therefore, BLP concerns make a list like this unmaintainable. The close was reasonable.DGG 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, it seems from the above comment that you do not understand the content of the list. The list was for people who stated that they were once homosexual and no longer are. There are people, for example, John Paulk and Richard Cohen, who made careers out of stating that they were once gay and no longer are. How can someone who states in a reliable source that they were once gay and now no longer are possibly be subject to BLP concerns? How can someone who writes books extolling their own transformation from gay to straight possibly raise concerns that it might be "implied" that they used to be gay when they write and sell books in which they state flat out that they used to be gay?! It's a ridiculous non-concern. BLP does not demand that biographies of living people be deleted in their entirety if there is unsourced or poorly sourced material. It demands that the unsourced or poorly sourced material be removed. Since the items on the list were properly sourced BLP cannot properly be used as an excuse for deleting the items or the list that the items make up. Also, at no point in the AFD was the notion that a gay person might get upset at being called heterosexual raised so why that's coming up here is a mystery. Otto4711 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. Most of the delete !votes used arguments that were subsequently rebutted, or which could trivially be solved without deletion, or which are somewhat week (e.g. "Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay" or "This doesn't provide useful imformation" (AKA WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "Delete per BLP" -- BLP would only require the article to be sourced, which a number of contributors suggested it was). The keepers were outnumbered, but only by a small amount. I don't see consensus, no. JulesH 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Kind of a tough one. Nom makes a good point that many of the delete !votes were weak but I believe the points were still valid. Also concede that the consensus was weak, so while I will endorse the deletion, I would also not mind seeing it relisted to generate more consensus one way or another, but not flat-out overturning. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't mind seeing it relisted then maybe you should vote relist instead? Otto4711 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because I still endorse the deletion. As I stated I view it to be something of a borderline case, where my support is behind the closing admin but I would not oppose relisting. Consider it a "weak ensorse" if you must. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion of a list of this nature which is not footnoted to reliable sources on every single name, which this wasn't, should be automatically endorsed per WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The only problem with this statement is that every single name on the list was sourced, either in the article itself or in the linked page to the subject's own article. Otto4711 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Linked in the article' is a smokescreen for endemic poor sourcing and not good enough for lists of this nature. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, so undelete the article and I'll move the sources from the individual articles to the list. Problem solved. Otto4711 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Poor debate, for sure, but the fundamental fact is that this was a list of people asserting a sexuality for which no reliable sources can be found any more. Heavy on "said to be", light on sources. And what, precisely, is supposed to be encyclopaedic about lists of people who might once have gone gay but don't any more? I don't see it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, read Reparative therapy to get some idea of the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Second, the sourcing for people's former sexuality does not vanish with the change of sexuality. Source for John Paulk in which he identifies himself as a "former homosexual," which he also states in the book that he wrote (which as far as I know still exists and did not vanish in a poof of fairy dust). Source for Richard Cohen, in which he is identified as having transitioned from homosexuality to heterosexuality, which he has also written about in his as-yet-not-turned-to-fairy-dust book. Source for Michael Johnston in which he is reported to have given a speech about his "journey...out of homosexuality." The sourcing is there and the encyclopedic nature of the topic is there. Otto4711 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no suggestion as far as I can see that any of these individuals have undergone "reparative therapy". Such a claim would certainly require robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately being obtuse? This was not "List of people who had reparative therapy" (although many on the list did in fact have it). This was a list of people who used to self-identify as gay and no longer do. The reparative therapy link was offered to show that the notion of gay people turning straight is an encyclopedic topic. "Ex-gay" redirects to that article. Otto4711 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Isn't this a subpage? I thought they were explicitly not allowed. JuJube 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If it is, undelete it and move it from being a sub-page. Otto4711 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes! There is obviously no consensus to delete in that debate - thus an explained delete closure just begs to be overturned. Given the lack of consensus, is there an overriding policy reason to delete anyway? Now, I'm torn - this is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. But then, if it is properly sourced, is it any more of a problem than any list of people by sexuality? If we get the wrong people on this, then we'll have problems, but same goes for the 'lists of gay people' which I suspect we have. POV issues rise here - but looking at it, it seems to me that the deletion argument is also guilty of that. Ok, my vote weak overturn as 1) no consensus to delete b) no overriding reason to delete without such a consensus. But I wont cry if this says dead. I hate lists - and especially lists by sexuality (or ex-sexuality).--Doc^g 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Otto. Deletion reasons included:

1. "not encyclopedic" (vague and unexplained)
2. "just a way to beg for trouble" (so is any biographical information!)
3. "sub-page... in the mainspace" (moving is a solution here)
4. "WP:ATT" (the article and it was rather well-sourced)
5. "WP:NPOV" (huh??)
6. "large/unmaintainable list" (the list was being regularly maintained and being large is hardly a reason to delete)
7. "Once gay, always gay" (here's one response that comes to mind: <uncivil remark not written> (no offense); also see WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAP)
8. "doesn't provide useful imformation" (no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT)
9. "susceptible to BLP" (so is all biographical content!)

I should note that while going over the AFD page for March 21, I skipped over this discussion because it appeared a clear case of "keep" to me. -- Black Falcon 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as closer, I think I made an error here (after looking at the debate again, and noting the problems here). Not sure if I should simply undelete this, or not...? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think you can take unilateral action since its now at deletion review. But I'm still on the fence on this one. Per WP:LIST, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Do you think it would be reasonable to read the AfD as saying that the consensus thought it is unlikely that an unambiguous statements of membership criteria could be developed to overcome WP:BLP concerns? -- Jreferee 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't say as I find it at all reasonable to put words in the mouths of the people who !voted in the AFD. Had they wanted to raise the issue at AFD, they could have. To answer the specific concern, however, off the top of my head the membership criteria would be something along the lines of "for people who once self-identified as LGBT but later began self-identifying as heterosexual." The wording can be tweaked but it seems relatively unambiguous to me. Otto4711 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WikyBlog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article seems to have been deleted because WikyBlog's notability was questioned.

1. User User:Kesh confused it as an "innovative use of Mediawiki" and not an independently developed project.
2. User:Retiono_Virginian "doubt[ed] it exsist[ed]" but did not refer to the links on the article to WikyBlog.com and the sourceforge project page
3. I find it somewhat ironic that DidiWiki used a reference to WikyBlog to defend it's own deletion.

   Note as well that, using DidiWiki's approach, the number of hits when searching google for "WikyBlog" is now around 88,000 in comparison to:

   • DidiWiki (30,000),
   • WiClear (46,500)
   • WikkiTikkiTavi (34,000)

   which all have articles on Wikepedia and have been deemed notable.

4. Moreover, a google search for "powered by wikyblog" returns over 27,000 results.

It is for these reasons of interpretation, popularity, and measurable user base that I respectfully request the undeletion of the WikyBlog article. Oyejorge 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD. Google hits alone are simply a rule of thumb and are not part of the notability guidelines. --Coredesat 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Unanimous AFDs are usually only overturned/relisted with the presentation of multiple reliable independent sources. This doesn't seem to have that. Wickethewok 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid unanimous AfD (and it was even relisted twice, and still got no support despite being open for 3 weeks!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD valid; noone of the above make it notable; also, I only get 27 google results (not that that's important...) JulesH 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The close by Punkmorten was certainly valid. As noted by Wickethewok, undeletion in this case should really be accompanied by the presentation of multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. -- Black Falcon 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was CSD'd under nn-bio after an afd. That was in September 2005. Since then, Star has released an EP, appeared with AFI and Godhead, made #1 on the iTunes dance chart [2], and been covered by the LA Weekly [3], Buzznet [4], and MusicEdge [5]. Overturn Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most recent deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23
• Last full deletion review (links to all prior): Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22

GRBerry 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, again. Still no reliable sources which are really about him. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion yet again; however, you can write a new article in user space that cites reliable sources (the Buzznet article hardly qualifies as a reliable source, it's an ad for the EP) and come back here with it - it could then be restored and/or given a full AFD discussion. However, do not unsalt the article until that condition is met. I'm being a little harsher here because that possibility has been brought up a few times, and no one has attempted it. --Coredesat 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • LA Weekly is a reliable source. But now I expect to hear some excuse as to why it's not good enough. I see a lot of excuses popping up as to why this topic must be so vehemently excluded. None of them really justify WP:PP to me. Semi-protect I could see. WP:PP is a bit extraordinary for someone who is much closer to notable than, say, my boss or my kid brother or my high school principal. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Repeating general plea for Wikipedia to bring their sourcing in line with the 21st century so obviously notable individuals can be covered properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeating general comment that being in line with the 21st century does not make unreliable sources reliable. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's part of the problem, we're still considering otherwise reliable sources unreliable. But I've led us too far OT already. Just generally frustrated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse yet again. Viral marketing aside, no reliable non-trivial sources about this person. As with Dr Steel, I think we are being targeted by fans to try to promote a "famous for what?" subject into notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Yes, LA Weekly gives him a passing mention and Buzznet is clearly not reliable. But that still leaves iTunes and MusicEdge as reliable enough to base an article off. A number one at iTunes is clearly notable and there's sources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion deletion endorsed just a few days ago (see DRV March 24th). Suggest future DRV attempts be speedy-closed: a new DRV every 4 days is disruptive and unreasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No one's noting the DRVs on the article talk page. (They can't, of course, because of the curious use of PP.) I might have known what the issues were. Clearly there are issues so bad that they require extreme lengths to prevent the creation of the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It may be worth placing a note on the talk page - I'll do it once I gather links to all the DRV discussions. The frequency this appears on DRV is a reason why deletion is usually endorsed. --Coredesat 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per [6] this LA Weekly article (and photo). I realize that he's still borderline in terms of media mentions, but given the buzz (evidenced by over a million Google hits), I think the notability is close enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a passing mention, actually, despite the photo. --Coredesat 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless, if a notable magazine in a major city is making "passing" mentions by name and printing photos of someone, I would argue that they must have some notability. The Weekly determined he was notable enough to showcase in the photo. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I found another mention in Slate.com [7]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh please. Both of those are "also-ran" namechecks and nothing more. His viral marketing campaign really is not getting result, perhaps he should hire a new publicist. Or get his kit off on YouTube, that seems to work. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • His viral marketing campaign did succeed in getting him a #1 spot on iTunes downloads, for what that's worth. Honestly, I don't care whether or not he has an article. I thought the Lonelygirl15 thing was incredibly stupid, but eventually it got to the point where I couldn't deny it's notability. I think JS is getting close to that point, if not already there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, we don't include things because they are "getting close" to being notable. They have to be notable and the information attributable now, not later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Without sources that are actually about the subject and aren't just passing mentions, there isn't much of an argument. --Coredesat 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when is reaching number 1 in an iTunes chart not notable? And how are MusicEdge and iTunes not reliable sources to attribute to? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse nothing here--Doc^g 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - passing mentions are still trivial no matter who's doing the mentioning. Chris cheese whine 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and redeletions. As several have already said, passing mentions are not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. As to the claim that he hit "#1 on the iTunes dance chart", everyone can be number one if you parse your selection criteria narrowly enough. iTunes alone lists 23 different chart types, each with 22 charts (by country). That alone does not convince me that the subject yet meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:MUSIC's relevant criteria is: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." That is not well defined... that is to say, what chart(s) qualify as "national music charts", though it does say "any national music chart". So... unless you are saying that the US iTunes dance chart is not "any national music chart", it would seem to fit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)