Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 10

Image:Brian Jordan.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

It is the source image for Image:Brian Jordancrop.JPG which is definetly useful. Geni 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it useful? The only other person in the original image is Kenny Farmer, a local radio DJ who might never have an article. --W.marsh 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Without considering the utility of the uncropped image, it should be undeleted, because it is licensed under the GNU FDL license, and the distribution of the modified image is subject to the terms of section 4.J, which states, "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." --Iamunknown 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Is there a way we can confirm the original image was indeed licensed under the GFDL? While I do know the uploader has the same name as Kenny Farmer in their screen name, but we do not know if they are the same person. Maybe Geni could email and see if this can be confirmed and if the GFDL license was correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and move to Commons. We shouldn't delete the non-cropped version of stuff, we lose information that way. -Nard 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious overturn since the license forbids doing otherwise. Evouga 08:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Feed Me Bubbe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Before when this went to a deletion review there was still not enough for it being considered notable but now with the Wall Street Journal and ABC World News with Charles Gibson how much more notable do you need to get? If more is needed to be notable please specify how much more press is needed? Chalutz 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what these refs are for this cooking podcast? DGG (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is from ABC News. Corvus cornix 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete The ABC News story is something, and there were some sources in the deleted article anyway. --W.marsh 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist The new sources at least justify an AfD. Xoloz 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Slovio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

One week ago, the article about the constructed language Slovio was deleted after this discussion. The closing admin, Coresedat, argued his decision as follows: "There are strong arguments for deletion that don't seem to be addressed by those arguing to keep." There are several reasons why I think this decision is wrong. First of all, when the article was deleted, there were five "votes" for keeping and five for deleting; this is hardly what one would call "consensus". Of these five votes for deleting, only one of them actually used any argument at all. In other words, I have a strong impression that the closing admin, instead of participating in the discussion, simply pushed his own view. The second issue is that the discussion was still going on at the time; somebody promised to present more evidence for notability within a day, but didn't even get the chance. Let's face it: whether you like the language or not (personally I don't very much, but that's not the issue here), Slovio is probably the best-known and most successful artificial language ever created since 1980. At the moment, it produces 156,000 google hits. Delving for evidence of the language's notability is something that takes time, and I believe we should be given the occasion for it. Therefore, I move that the article be undeleted and the AfD reopened. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion with no prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. The problem was that the arguments for keeping were not based in policy or guidelines for the most part, and the arguments for deletion were strong. No references were presented and the AFD ran its course properly. Also, this is not AFD Part 2. --Coredesat 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I know this is not AFD part 2, and I'm definetely not trying to reopen the discussion here. My point is that the discussion was still going on when you closed it with nothing even close to a consensus. References were presented, namely by myself. In the meantime, I've been looking around a bit and found several more references. Somebody else promised references as well. I'm not accusing anybody of bad faith here, I'm just stating that the deletion was done prematurely. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus. I agree that the discussion was hasty and that there was no consensus. I had no opinion on whether the article should have been deleted (compare that with my vehement opposition to deleting Toki Pona before, of which I was proven to be correct as it appeared in Canada's largest newspaper a few weeks later), but yes, I think it would be a bad idea to set a precedent where an article can be deleted without consensus. Mithridates 10:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I think there was clearly no consensus. DGG (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak endorse. I happen to agree with the closer's reasoning here that the delete !votes were more substantial and feel that in close-call situations like this it's generally within the closing admin's discretion how to let the chips fall. However, relisting to generate more thorough consensus might have been a better idea given the close and contentious nature of the debate. I'm practically neutral here but willing to give the closer the benefit of the doubt and call it an endorsement. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• endorse per logic of Coredesat and Arkyan. If this is going to be recreated we need reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; AfD is not a vote, admin behaved appropriately, et cetera. User:IJzeren Jan states that, Of these five votes for deleting, only one of them actually used any argument at all. One look at the recent AfD demonstrates that this is not the case, however--I see five clear arguments to delete (counting the nom) and not one WP:JUSTAVOTE. Aside from the nom, we've got (1) There are no real references that demonstrate its notability. (User:Fragglet), (2) Google turns up only 13 results for "slavio constructed language"(with out inverted commas), to distinguish from "slavio" which yields 300,000+. Though, I do question what has changed since the lastm nomination, and the principle of "stare decisis" implies that a decision that has already been made should be let to stand. (User:Martianlostinspace), (3) undistinguished personal project, no evidence of notability. (User:Wile E. Heresiarch), and (4) Let Hucko do his self-promotion on his own website. (User:Friday) All of those would seem to make use of argument, and are perfectly reasonable arguments for an AfD, at that. Heather 22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Heather, AfD is not a vote. I'm perfectly aware of that. To the best of my knowledge, a decision for deletion should be based on consensus, however, and the discussion shows clearly that this was not the case yet. All four arguments you list above are moot:

• (1) because there ARE references; I gave no less than three and could contintue;
• (2) first of all, because the name of the language is Slovio, not Slavio, secondly because this search would turn up only results in English (as if sources in other languages would count, which in my non-Anglosaxon opinion is pretty anglocentric);
• (3) because it is merely a slogan repeating (1);
• (4) because it implies that Hucko wrote the article himself, which AFAIK is not the case.

Look, this is not the place for discussing the validity of the arguments used in the discussions. Let's just say that both sides used a few strong arguments. My real objection against the closure is not that the arguments are invalid, but that it took place in the very middle of a discussion when where was not a trace of consensus yet. It shouldn't be interrupted by a closing admin who steps out like a deus ex machina, imposing his own personal view on the matter.

NB1 How can I recreate the article and add references when it has been deleted?

NB2 The result of the first AfD, four months earlier, was keep. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus. Although they weren't part of the AfD or even en.wikipedia, the sheer number of interwikis suggests that there is consensus outside en.wikipedia that it is notable, which I think confounds any finding of consensus to delete. If it is not overturned, it should be relisted to allow the "strong arguments for deletion" to be addressed. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The number of interwikis doesn't necessarily suggest notability. It suggests that there are people who were eager to make all links to Slavic languages blue in the Wikipedia in their language and used an old version of {{Slavic languages}} as their reference. I can read Slavic languages well enough to understand them, and i can also read Esperanto and Interlingua. I read all those articles and none of them adds any significant sources that prove notability. But now this "many interwikis" argument is used against deletion. The problem is that "many interwikis" is not a part of the Deletion policy, while notability is. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. Interwki argument of Ginkgo100 is valid. This would be a very rare example of a voice missing from the English Wikipedia and present in so many others (more than 20!). One of the arguments for deletion cites Google search for Slavio, i.e. a search for misprints. I have found in the minute Slovenian cyber space 7-10 references to Slovio, including reports of linguistics seminars. Whether Slovio will catch on is a great question, considering the notorious "Slavic unity", but it is at least a serious effort of the author. It deserves mention as much as tons of literary, pop-art and other trivia present on the Wikipedia. As for current effort see also Slovopedia - Meta-Wiki. MGTom 00:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Extend DR and temporarily undelete article for purposes of discussion. I haven't seen the article and can't see it now, which means that I (unlike the administrators who deleted it) am thus prevented from fully participating in this discussion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • History restored behind tag Done, although this doesn't necessarily mean the DRV will be extended. That's up to whoever closes it. --Coredesat 08:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse because AFD is emphatically not a vote count. Any DRV nomination that starts with "there were X votes to foo and Y votes to bar therefore it is no consensus" is essentially misguided. >Radiant< 08:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I am the nominator of the AfD. The number of Google hits proves nothing. First of all, "Slovio" is a word in the Serbo-Croatian language, which has nothing to do with this artificial language, but it does beef up the Google hit count. I really did my best to find significant sources that will prove its notability and couldn't find anything. If someone does find any convincing sources for notability, i will support re-creation. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn because ignoring the lack of consensus is essentially misguided. The closer chose to participate on one side rather than acting as a neutral referee. Abberley2 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I did? Consensus is partially based on strength of arguments. No one addressed the issue of sourcing, so the concerns of the nominator had not been addressed. --Coredesat 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. First the notability should be proved, then the article should be re-created. The only thing that is anywhere near a proof that this language really is "the best-known and most successful artificial language ever created since 1980" was a German paper cited by IJzeren Jan, which mentioned Slovio as the best known Slavic-based artificial language. However, i couldn't find in that paper an explanation of why is it the best known one. Maybe it's because i don't know German so well. If someone can point me to the paragraph in the paper that actually proves this point, i'll withdraw my deletion proposal immediately. (I really try not to be anglocentric - English is my third language.) --Amir E. Aharoni 07:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wider attention (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

The person who closed this was the nominator, and depreceated the template and {{Wider attention list}}. There was a clear consensus to keep, yet the nom closed it as a split. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Betacommand and Radiant overhauled the whole of RfC, making RfC as simple as this template was. The original creator of the template, MessedRocker, agreed at the TfD that it should be merged. The page now serves as a pointer to the revamped RfC process. This all helps avoid process forking/duplication. (It might have been simpler to ask someone, before jumping into the deletion review process ;) --Quiddity 04:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards overturn or perhaps relist. Interesting case - I would have voted Delete myself, but the consensus is overwhelmingly Keep. It seems that the current state of WP:RFC does reflect the concerns of those arguing to keep "Wider attention" as a more casual alternative, with qualifiers like "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." Though I would have given more weight to Radiant's point, I think the Keep votes are logically sound (albeit perhaps not compelling), so the closure does seem somewhat shaky considering overwhelming 11-4 vote. — xDanielx^Talk 04:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  That 2user/48hr stipulation is only for User Conduct RfCs, not article content RfCs (which is what Wider Attention was concerned with). [See also this new thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Amending the certification requirement, where an arbcom member suggests that particular stipulation be reconsidered or removed]

  The keep votes were primarily of the ILIKEIT variety, which is fine, because the essence is still there in the new simplified RfC template system. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Practical process for the philosophical intent behind the merge. --Quiddity 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  And the 11-4 vote is simply indicative that Nobody Read the Preceding Comments, as Betacommand had already explained at 18:32, 6 August 2007 that he was happy and ready to Merge the processes. This is why closing admins don't votecount: often half the participants aren't paying attention! --Quiddity 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as it is a fine merge between RFC and Watt which should make discussion much more centralized and much easier. MessedRocker (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. What actually happened (and this could have been made clearer) is that Radiant withdrew the deletion nomination when the discussion was rendered moot. The template's replacement with pointers to the new ones is not a TfD decision; it's what occurred instead of continuing a pointless debate. Such a change doesn't require a TfD listing and probably should have been proposed in the first place. —David Levy 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously overturn, and what the hell?! The list wasn't even about RFCs, and Radiant should not have closed it (especially as his/her reasons for closing were completely irrelevant to the template). Kamryn · Talk 21:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• In fact if anything this was a better method than using RFCs. RFCs require creating a new page and going through endless bureaucracy. This meant you could just add a tag to the talk page. The discussion should have been allowed to continue, at least. Kamryn · Talk 21:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  (on just a technical note, you're allowed (and encouraged) to expand your own comments right after making them. The above comments would be a bit clearer as a single entry, ie without the 2nd bullet/indent/sig/timestamp, plus it's a good habit to keep :)

  On topic: Your concerns are all answered in the comments given immediately above, by two admins, one of whom is the original creator of {{wider attention}}. He originally made it because RfC was too complicated. But RfC has now been drastically simplified (It doesn't require any bureaucracy or page creation. It's as simple as tagging! Almost exactly how wider-attention worked!)

  So if you clearly explain what the actual problem is, then we can actually help :) Like are you missing having the results all in one spot? Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Articles -- that's all the articles that actually wanted "more attention" from the community (in contrast to the tiny subset that had discovered the new {{wider attention}} template). We could add that to the Community Portal maybe? Lots of options. Options are better than rants ;)

  The topics even have summaries, so it's no longer quite as complicated trying and figure out what a topic or argument is about! However, the instructions for using and adding summaries to the templates needs to be made clearer (well, added at all). I have no time now, but will tomorrow if nobody beats me to it (hint!). --Quiddity 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be patronising. Anyway, on topic: In case you weren't aware, WP:DRV is for discussing if deletions were done properly. And in this case, no, it really was not. This practice of allowing nominators to withdraw their noms regardless is beyond ridiculous. After a few days of discussion - "Oh I'm sorry, it's been satisfied to my satisfaction now, you can all go home". The consensus was overwhelmingly keep, as an admin mentioned above (which you neglect to mention, I note), ILIKEIT concerns are valid when it comes to meta-material and this template still functions much differently to the new RFC templates, so Radiant's point is "moot". I love how the deprecated template says "Since the list of "issues for wider attention" is very long, please use one of the following templates instead..". Each individual topic now is much longer than the wider attention list was before it was deprecated: [1]. What you can do to help is not allow admins to delete things that I and many others found useful when they have personally judged the matter to be resolved. Kamryn · Talk 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Nothing was deleted. In accordance with consensus, the template was kept. As I explained above, the decision to fork it into multiple new templates was not part of the TfD result. It was made independently and required no formal debate. The same change could have been made if the debate had run its course and ended with an obvious keep outcome (a bureaucratic exercise) or if the debate had never even occurred.
  2. The fact that the individual lists are longer than the former combined list is a major argument in favor of the new setup. Just imagine how long the combined list would have become upon reaching this level of use (which I assume the wording in question refers to). —David Levy 08:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• 1.You stated that "RFCs require creating a new page..." which is false; article and style RfCs never did that. Only user conduct RfCs do.
  2. You stated "The consensus was overwhelmingly keep, as an admin mentioned above (which you neglect to mention, I note)" which is false. Neither xdanielx or groovedog (or I) are admins, and I did point out that votecounting does not equal consensus.
  3. You stated "I love how the deprecated template says..." for which, see WP:SARCASM.
  4. You stated "This meant you could just add a tag to the talk page." Well, now you can add 1 of the 11 templates to a talkpage, plus a neutral summary. This means you are more likely to get topically-knowledgeable editors at any particular discussion.
  5. You stated "Each individual topic now is much longer than the wider attention list was..." Yes, this is because wider attention was new, and only a handful of editors had discovered it so far. It was a process fork, a redundant split, a duplicate effort.
  The aim of the merge was to Fix RfC. All of RfC is requesting "wider attention". Do you have any suggestions on how to further improve/simplify RfC? Or specific examples that you feel were only appropriate for {{Wider attention}}, and are fundamentally unsuitable for RfC? --Quiddity 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I've read WP:SARCASM, thanks. And re: point 2. I was referring to your comment above ("Your concerns are all answered in the comments given immediately above, by two admins"). Anyhow, I'll strike my vote as I really don't have the time to defend my views to people I fundamentally disagree with. It is a wasted effort for both sides, I think .Kamryn · Talk 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, When I re-did RFC I thought that the {{Wider attention}} would still be used tandem with the new RFC methods. {{wider attention}} is kinda the catch all version of RFC, those that dont fit into an specific are and could serve as a place holder in case a user is unsure of where it would go in RFC. β^_command 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist Editors shouldn't close their own TfD or AfD submissions, see WP:COI. -- 146.115.58.152 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • But having another TfD discussion won't help, as noone wants to delete the page. That'd be out of process too. I suggest anyone who still disputes the merge decision, take their concerns to either Template talk:Wider attention, or to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, or to a Village pump, for more appropriately placed, and wider feedback. --Quiddity 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously. Since nobody wants the template deleted, TFD is not relevant here. Anything else can be dealt with through regular editing. The reason the template was split was because the actual list of things that people want wider attention on is this long. Other than that there have been a numbr of people who mistakenly thought that RFC was a formal, official and bureaucratic process, which by design it's not. >Radiant< 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I tried to put informations about KINDA but it was deleted. the page is kindadirectors. I don't understand why because wikipedia have lot of information about film directors. I saw you have information about others directors who are exactly the same kind of directors as Kinda. Kinda have also links with other informations in wikipedia as bonnie pink, inoue yosui, olympus, bandai.... So maybe, this page has been deleted in error. best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laetitiaetlouise (talk • contribs)

• Endorse speedy deletion... the article contained one sentence (which really didn't say much of anything coherent), so it looks like a worthy A7/A1. As an aside, this article looks pretty much the same as one or more versions deleted last month. I don't want to bite and/or turn this into something that it isn't, but perhaps someone should take a look at this (closed as no consensus, but does not appear unjustified given the timing of the account creations and the text of the latest creation/deletion of this article). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - appears to have been a correct speedy. Recreate if you can write an article about them which is acceptable. --Haemo 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The deleted article didn't assert importance, or list any sources that have written about these filmmakers, or explain what they've done, etc. --W.marsh 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• endorse' 4 separate eds. thought it was an A7 in turn, and I think they were all of them correct. DGG (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse a valid A7 speedy deletion (times three). The fact that none of the three versions made a claim to notability weakens the nominator's argument that they "tried" to add more information. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)