Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 23

Perimeter Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• Previous deletion review closed December 5: deletion endorsed

Improper_Use_of_Speedy_Delete Itsdannyg 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the prior review of the deletion of Perimeter Mall was appropriate as reviewers never seemed to examine the appropriate use of a speedy delete. This article was removed on a speedy delete via the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory. "What Wikipedia is not" is not a sufficient reason for a speedy delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#Non-criteria

In addition, admin JzG claimed that it was Blatant advertising in his speedy delete but it doesn't appear to be in an archive I see at http://www.answers.com/topic/perimeter-mall

When is the last time you saw an advertisement for a mall talk about a shooting at its food court?

Perhaps the article should be deleted, but not through the channel that JzG removed it. I think the Wikipedia community should be strict on the process by which articles are removed... regardless of whether or not the right outcome resulted.

• Overturn, reading the version at the mirror, it doesn't read spammy. Not sure what version JzG saw it at, but mistakes happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• As I said at the time, I was happy to acknowledge that one or two valid articles may have been swept up in the morass. However: Wikipedia is not a directory, and this was a directory entry. Where are the multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? This was endorsed a couple of weeks back: [1]. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like it got much input, though, and I wonder how I missed it. Ah well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia not being a directory is not just cause for a speedy delete.. that's my point. It should be removed through the right channel if it is to be removed. Itsdannyg 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yuser31415 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. JAM. Denni ^talk 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Proto::► 23:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per badlydrawnjeff, this one looks like a bad speedy. Silensor 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. Speedy deletion is not meant to be a process by which you can ram judgement about notability down people's throats. When it's controversial, it gets an AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's not what happened, though. I nuked a nest of very similar spammy articles on malls created or heavily edited by a single-purpose account clearly connected with the operating company. Which is legitimate. I also posted it for review at the time. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn no comment on notability... but if its even slightly debatable... it goes to AFD process and is not speedied! Thats quite clearly expressed in WP:CSD!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, don't undelete, do allow recreation with encyclopedic content and proper sourcing by a non-spammer. This deletion was already endorsed at DRV and repeated re-DRV is not justified. Deletion was correct based on "shoot on sight" [2] for all articles created as spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.130.181 (talk • contribs)

Image:John F. MacArthur, Jr.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am amazed at the level of abuse of power and irrationality of some admins around here. See User_talk:Angr#John_MacArthur_image_deletion CyberAnth 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, proper speedy deletion per WP:CSD#I7, and note that yelling at people won't get you far around here. You could add a request for this man's picture at WP:PMS instead. Sandstein 12:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion fails replceable fairuse, proper deletion. Looking at the link you provide I see irrationality, but not on the part of the admin. --pgk 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• No. If you want something, the correct way to do it is not to yell at people. Regardless, it was a valid I7. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm amazed at the level of abuse and irrationality of some editors around here. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Why? This is a discussion, not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why am I amazed, or why do I endorse the deletion of a replaceable fair-use image as a perfectly proper application of CSD I7? Guy (Help!) 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• See here for the comment I was originally replying to, which appears to have been removed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse admin abuse and irrationality involved in restricting the use of someone else's work where law and Wikipedia policy does not allow it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this deletion review is a bit unnecessary, since CyberAnth has already reuploaded the image under a different name, Image:JohnMacArthur.jpg, claiming that since it's from the public-domain wiki http://theopedia.com it must be public domain. Actually, Theopedia's copyright statement says "Images are often used in accordance with fair use" and their image description page says nothing about the source or copyright status of the image. —Angr 21:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedily deleted, as the source link absolutely does not establish public domain. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid I7 deletion. --Coredesat 04:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I7 is applicable, and a future note: starting off a request for deletion review by accusing Administrators, people appointed by a concensus of Wikipedia users, by stating "abuse of power and irrationality" doesn't bode well with me, and does little for your chances of having the deletion overturned. Just a FYI. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Matchwinner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The Matchwinner company is a sports brand that supplies/has supplied numerous professional football (soccer) teams with their jersies and equipment, yet the deleting administrator accused me of advertising when I created the article. Similar companies with articles include Umbro and Le Coq Sportif, to name just two. I have nothing to do with Matchwinner, nor does its sale-rate or financial well-being concern me in the slightest, so I find this accusation odd to say the least. I was simply creating an article about a sports company. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• As the deleter, I note that unsupported unsourced statements such as "acknowledged as one of the leading suppliers of top quality football clothing" are basically just spam, the only external link is to the company's website, and information that would be expected in a genuine article (such as where the company is based, how many employees, turnover, etc.) is missing. Jimfbleak.talk.13:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So did it need to be "fundamentally rewritten," or could the POV be excised out and have a viable stub? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Edit history is restored for review. ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Can't see what similar companies existing has to do with it, what makes it an advert is the tone and style. If the company and article meets the required standards such as WP:CORP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V etc. then there shouldn't be an issue with an article being created, simply create it in your userspace and if it meets the standards then an admin should be able to move it to that title. --pgk 12:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. Deal with the spamminess by editing, and see if it meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but allow creation of an article which is less spammy, provided relibale secondary sources can be cited. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Enable for recreation but delete the current edit history, so it has to start from scratch, as a way of getting a better article. I think the best thing to do with the original article would have been to edit out the "acknowledge as one of the leading" and mark it as a stub. As an alternative, it could be resurrected into that state. The original deletion seems a bit draconian, but not worthy of condemning. Blocking it for recreation does not seem right though, unless there is evidence that it has been recreated more than twice by editors refusing to take direction. One thing about articles to remember is that if a topic is truly notable, it will be rewritten or recreated by someone knowledgeable, sooner or later. Hu 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Matchwinner's notability is evident from the fact that they have supplied football kits for clubs including Kilmarnock FC, Birmingham City FC, Bristol Rovers, Rotherham United, Carlisle United, Swansea City, Falkirk and Partick Thistle in the past 14 years. Prior to the rise of Nike, Adidas, Umbro, etc., Matchwinner would have been one of the most popular kit providers in the English football league. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, allow recreation with proper docs per Hu and Guy. 67.117.130.181 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Diego Trazzi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Please, let the people who browse all the photo I recently uploaded on Wiki, know who I am and the Movies I have been working for during the last few years. I think is reasonable to have a wiki page if I upload a lot of contnents for the Community. Please Undelete my page. Diegotrazzi 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Absurd. You don't get an article because you've contributed to Wikipedia. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as the deleter) that's what your userpage is for, plus the image pages have your info on them. Also, please don't give yourself attribution within article texts. Mak (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think we can close this. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

RIC Environmental Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

notable Ironwolf285 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Deleted by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh Decemeber 22

To everyone who is reading this now... Notablility on Wikipedia is defined as "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". This club passes all the alternative tests. The RIC Environmental Club is more well know than an average professor, It is certainly well known today and will be well know 100 years from now at Rhode Island College and in the State of Rhode Island. If you check the history of the article I was updating it daily from all of the accomplishments that we have done in Rhode Island. There are many people that don't even know where Rhode Island is or where Rhode Island College is... should we delete them too because a particular person has not heard of the State. No. There are articles in our school news paper, and we are known by local politicans, and as I said earlier by Miss Rhode Island. If you enter us into a search engine you will get hits from our website (which is myspace for now) to aricle we have written to our activism in our state. This club has done alot for the State of Rhode Island and I would ask for you to please reconsider. If you haven't heard about the Rhode Island College Environmental Club before you have now... which makes it notable. Thank you. 64.223.44.93 18:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Ironwolf285 18:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "15 active members"... Not notable at all. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion trying not to laugh. Danny Lilithborne 05:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. "80 person emailing list..." sponsor events with Miss Rhode Island, Audubon Society of Rhode Island, Save the Bay. Ironwolf285 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but, they also "took two weeks off of their regular meeting time to help clean up around campus. They picked up approximately five full leaf bags of cans, bottles, wrappers, and other items."[3] I wonder if they got picketed by the janitors' union? Bwithh 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion' per Ironwolf285. Naconkantari 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Per Ironwolf285??!! Ironwolf285 is the person arguing that this page should have been kept, not endorsing its deletion. Yuser31415 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the confusion. I mean to say delete based on an "80 person emailing list". Naconkantari 03:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Widely recognized" means that independent reliable publishers have taken notice of the contribution. Since the proposer believes it is widely recognized, it should be trivial for them to provide us with several independently published (ie, not by the school, the school's papers, the club's members, the club's partners, etc...) documents about whatever the club's contribution is. Until those independent publications are referenced, I don't see a reason to overturn. Given repeated use of "our" in wording the proposal here, the proposer should read WP:COI, our guidance on conflicts of interest. GRBerry 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please view Newpaper Article : http://anchorweb.org/content/view/1260/67/ Ironwolf285 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment GRBerry mentioned "not by the school's paper" already. It can't be considered independent by any stretch of the imagination. ColourBurst 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Yuser31415 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Ironwolf285. + some kind of amazingly hilarious joke about Family Guy/the Mob/Waterfire I thought of totally off the cuff Bwithh 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Google search for RIC Environmental Club. I found enough information. 64.222.39.216 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey, Yahoo! even picked up this deletion review discussion already. That's neat. Bwithh 03:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh, yeah, a Google search with a grand total of 20 hits, the first of which is MySpace. Boy, that is sure notability. I think the use of "we" in your argument killed you then and there. See WP:COI. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Zoe especially. Although Ghits aren't the be-all-and-end-all, it's a very good indication of why this article is deleted in this case. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse own deletion, this club seems to be no different from similar clubs we have in our university - which are just as non-notable. As a rule of thumb, clubs established in only one school are almost certain to be non-notable. Kimchi.sg 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)