Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 11

B-Movie Film Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please forgive me if I mis-dot some of the is and ts, this is my first DRV closing. The decision is: "We can rebuild it. We have the technology." Nominator agrees, by presenting a whole list of good sources. Deleting admin agrees ("Feel free to write a proper article"). Most of the others arguing fiercely here endorse one or the other of those views. That's good enough for government work. Closing, because I humbly propose that we are here to write an encyclopedia, one article at a time, not to make sure that anyone's wrist is thoroughly slapped (and that goes for both sides). Now I'm going to go and write the article using some or all of the sources Mel cited. It should be better in, oh, 4 to 48 hours. I think I am going to undelete the deleted revisions first, but I hope most people agree it doesn't really matter that much, as long as it does get made better. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article (which had existed for nearly two years) was speedily deleted as part of an attempt to get another article (Democrazy (film)) deleted at an AfD. It's true that the article offered no sources; there is, however, no real doubt about its existence, and there are sufficient potential citations to establish notability. Aside from its own site and the IMDb page, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (PDF), etc. It's linked to from six other Wikipedia articles. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. JzG, you're much, much better than this. Very disappointing to see occur especially in the context of the deletions of Democrazy (film), Honey Glaze, and his war against the alleged "walled-garden" (talk about a wiki-term that needs to be disposed of post-haste) of films made by the director. Borderline WP:POINT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, COI/Admin abuse by JzG. He is involved in active AfD disputes. One of the points of contentions is that since the Democrazy film won this award, it was notable. In turn, JzG deletes the article on the award in clear COI! Overturn. :( - Denny ^(talk) 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse of course. It's a commercial venture, and it made absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:CSD#A7 applies. WP:PARTOFAVANITYSPAMMERSWALLEDGARDEN is not an assertion of notability, as Mel seems to suggest, and there were no sourced claims in the article. IMDB is not independent either. Feel free to write a proper article with sources establishing notability, this debate is already three times the size of what was deleted. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  Er, how does "endorse" sit with "Feel free to write a proper article with sources establishing notability"? Which is it: the article should remain deleted, or it should be undeleted so that it can be improved? (I'll pass over the obscure red-linked and capitalised jargon which makes the accusation made against me impossible to understand, and therefore to respond to.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  The endorse relates to the decision to delete. Deletion review as it states is all about the process of deletion, not about the content hence half the overturns here are in many respects irrelevant. Deletion isn't necessarily about the subject, but often about the article as written. As it says at the top things like "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted.", this is generally true of deletions, if you can address the issues which led to deletion just create a new article. (Speedy G4 only applies if the article is essentially the same and does nothing to address the issues). Reasonably we spend 5 days here on wasted discussion, either to (a) undelete a poor quality article in the belief that endorsing the deletion is in somehow saying we should never ever have and article on that subject (and just end up leaving a lousy article around) or (b) undelete and have someone do the work they could have done before the discussion even started.... --pgk 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Add to that of course in most such cases hopefully the deleting admin will be willing to restore to userspace (or even mainspace) if there is going to be a good faith effort to address the issues (assuming they are apparently addressable), which of course you could just do yourself. --pgk 10:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Speedy was inappropriate. It seems clear from the description that the article was sourceable, and it must have been clear that the deletion would have been controversial, and so speedy does not apply.
• In general admin action is, or so I have been given to understand, totally inappropriate in a case of editing or a dispute in which the admin himself is involved. Understanding could be demonstrated by undeleting the article right now, and , if thought necessary, sending it to AfD in the usual way. DGG 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. Overturn, harmless, and notable (if only barely). Even if it was transparently created to bolster spam, deleting it won't help rid us of the spam itself; and if the spammer's managed to convince actual well-meaning Wikipedians to help him foist his self-promotion on us, the least we can do is snatch the seeds of worthwhile articles that he also leaves behind. I'm sorry I brought it up. —Cryptic 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as the deleting admin has indicated he has no objection to a better article on this topic, without prejudice to listing if the article isn't enhanced within a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice. Plausible topic, but article was nearly devoid of content ("screenings can be long films or short films ... various genres are included ..." O RLY). Somebody simply write a decent stub with sources and we're done. >Radiant< 08:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, notability is in dispute, speedy deletion did not help. From what I found at Google it seems to be a mostly local Syracuse, NY, affair with little wider coverage, but that's for an AfD to decide. Kusma (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Radiant. The deletion was fine, if it is notable has all the sources etc. just create a version which addresses the basic issue leading to the deletion. --pgk 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why endorse abusive, improper deletions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ...er, is there any authorization for admins to delete things out of process? I thought not. - Denny ^(talk) 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Acsys, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

User:Hu12 deleted this page due to spam. I aplogize for adding the article which was considered spam and I have rewritten the article using Wikipedia standards. Please consider undeleting this article. Thank you Klachman 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• You've rewritten it where? —Cryptic 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid G11. Keep salted until such time as a credible rewrite is presented. —Cryptic 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- only source is the company website, tone is very spammy. Xoloz 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- also looks like it falls under A7. Ryskis 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

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

Tom Harrison deleted two pages of which I am the author: Jack Robinson (songwriter and music publisher) and Georges Chatelain, whose bio I was in the process of finishing, under the pretext of non-notoriety. Both the personalities are well known, not only in France but also in English-speaking countries and correspond exactly to the criteria of notoriety imposed by wikipedia.

• Jack Robinson
• Georges Chatelain

Thank you.Adrienne93 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The principal notability criterion we use here is: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline. I am pretty sure this is different from frWP, and I note that the frWP articles are essentially unsourced, as were the articles you posted here. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's somewhat controversial, still. Assuming my limited knowledge of French, and assuming the articles in English were essentially translations, the French ones at least assert notability, and that information should avoid a speedy here, so overturn and list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it's controversial with you, everyone esle has been using it for months... Guy (Help!) 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you and a few buddies have. It hasn't caught on the way you'd like. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• So you say. Meanwhile it's been the standard benchmark both here and at AfD for most of the time since it was moved into [{WP:N]] from User:Uncle G/On notability. Yes, Jeff, we know you'd like to include stuff that has only trivial sources, but I think it's safe to say that you are in the minority. It's also safe to say that it's not especially relevant here as there were no cited independent sources, and there were also problems with tone and neutrality, as pointed out below. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's this sort of revisionism that's keeping us from reaching a consensus, but this isn't the place for the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both of these assert notability, but I can't fault Tom for speedying them. The claims are marginal at best and are buried amongst heaps of promotional language, unencyclopedic detail, a total lack of third-party sourcing, and in Chatelain's case, direct links to purchase his cds. Should be sent to afd, though I strongly suspect that, if kept there, they'll remain problem articles for quite some time. —Cryptic 15:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• I do not oppose listing them at AfD if people think that would be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list, by consent (preferably after giving the creator a couple of days to finish drafting). Newyorkbrad 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list Marginal items are not speediable. speedies are only for articles that are undoubtedly NN, and can not be reasonably considered controversial. We can argue about what is deleteable at AfD in terms of sourcing, but unsourced articles are not a criteria for speedy--and in fact, making them so was explicitly rejected by the community a few months ago. DGG 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, heck Speedy Overturn. In what sense was notability not asserted, again? I see "founded the most advanced recording studio of its time" ... wrote a song that was later covered 40 times ... was taught guitar by Paul Simon, and recorded Sounds of Silence in French under his guidance ... put out a record played for 3 years on the radio ... recorded 7 hit singles ... for the love of! Unless you are asserting this is a hoax, this guy is quite notable! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can ensure you that it is not a hoax and that these personalities are completely notable. I have photographs of George Chatelain in company of Johnny Hallyday, Paul Simon etc. If you prefer that I withdraw the bonds towards commercial sites, that does not pose any problem. Moreover, the articles were not finished because I was creating them and to improve them when they were removed.

Thank you. Adrienne93 06:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Problems with the article were resolved, it was re-written and referenced in non-OR style, thus the AFD tag was removed, but it was deleted anyway. (Admin: Please note that the article in the Google cache is the old disputed version) Orgone 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If we really really care then the debate can be reopened, but the article as deleted still reads as a personal essay and a POV fork of wildlife and wilderness. Like the article said, The mechanisms involved in producing wildness have not been elucidated. Quite. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. The article was just a personal essay that i strongly supported the deletion of. However, it was then well re-written by User talk:Lauriec. Turns out it is a valid concept in the field of Ecopsychology. Now, this whole area may be considered fringe, or even pseudoscience, but it is notably established, and Wikipedia has an article on Homeopathy, so i don't see why it shouldn't have one on Wildness. Orgone 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• You can't overturn and list, it already was listed. Try to keep up at the back there! Guy (Help!) 19:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Little in the way of input on the AfD, and no input for nearly 5 days. If a rewrite occurred, it wasn't noticed, so it's worth a second look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I cannot judge on the merits of the article since it's deleted, but the scant discussion on the AfD warranted a {{subst:relist}} and not deletion. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• neutral the discussion was short,but there is no reason to expect a different result--the article was very clearly an essay. DGG 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. If wikipedia is to be the largest Encyclopedia, it should have a page on wildness, as it is different to wilderness and wildlife. The total rewrite (that i did) should be easier for others to edit, if there are still any faults in the content to be corrected.--Lauriec 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. A total rewrite merits more discussion than that. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, I see little similarity between the two versions. >Radiant< 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I closed the article as "delete," but I have no problem with relisting to get more consensus. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist as the rewrite was significant, and the AFD got no later comments to use as a basis for evaluating the post-rewrite article. Award the AFD/DRV nominator a whacking with a trout for removing the AFD tag from the article when they should instead have gone to the AFD and retracted their nomination and said that the rewrite was enough to merit keeping. GRBerry 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I consider myself well and truly whacked! I've never dealt with an AFD before, i'll get it right next time :) Orgone 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)