Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 22

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

The original consensus for the deletion review(see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Warner_(second_nomination)) was that there were not enough independent sources to keep the Josh Warner article on WP. Last night, episode 3 of LA Ink aired. In this episode, Kat Von D went to visit "World famous Los Angeles jewelry designer, Josh Warner" to have pendants made for her staff. Josh Warner and his work were then featured on the show. Does anyone think that this is enough to bring the article back? Shaunco 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Video at www.tlc.com/fullepisodes Episode 1, Eric Balfour scene was filmed at Josh Warner's studio; Episode 3, Kat asks Josh to make custom LA Ink pendants for her team. Shaunco 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a mere promotional appearance of no real significance, and all on a basic-cable show. I'll betcha that he's listed in the end credits under "Promotional consideration by". So no, not even close. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was listed in the credits as "Special Thanks To". Shaunco 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Still no sources available from which to write an encyclopedia article. Appearing on a cable TV show does not indicate anything. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention Best thing to come out of Virginia since Washington. 69.143.236.33 07:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AFD and nothing new here that can be considered notability. --Coredesat 09:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This article recently survived AFD, in my view on mistaken arguments for notability. The Keep votes, and the closing decision, judged notability based on his appearance in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. A full entry would be undeniably notable: but he only gets four lines in the 90-line article on his son, Alfred James Pearce (which is nothing unusual, as all articles in the ODNB give brief mention of subjects' parents). As WP:NOTINHERITED says "notability is not inherited up, from notable subordinate to parent", I don't think this small ODNB coverage automatically confers notability. Gordonofcartoon 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse retention His own place in medical history appears to be fairly substantial. We wouldn't delete an article about 21st century author of several books about a controversial issue who had also been tried for his life in connection with that same controversy. His connection with his son is not used in the article to make a claim for inherited notability , so it is irrelevant whether or not it would be legitimate to so use it. Carina22 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't tried for his life; and it wasn't in connection with the same controversy (i.e. vaccination). As I said, editors arguing on mistaken information.

Manslaughter wasn't a capital crime in 1849. Working-class people convicted got transportation or a couple of years hard labour; but doctors convicted around that time got very lenient sentences: a year or even only several months in prison, without hard labour. This comes from refs 20 and 23 to Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice, 1795-2005: a literature review. Gordonofcartoon 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse retention. He may not be exceptionally notable, but he is notable enough. A book published in 1850 included a 60-page regurgitation of his trial, showing that the movement considered the trial of Pearce an attack on homeopathy itself. The case was covered by the London Medical Gazette and the Journal of Health and Disease as well. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! At last, some good information that wasn;t present at teh AFD. Gordonofcartoon 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my own keep closure at AfD. As I tried to explain to the DRV nominator, his disagreement with the consensus interpretation of the significance of the ODNB is no reason to overturn the debate. The matter was fully considered, his position was distinct minority, and deletion was in no way compelled by policy. No other reasonable close of the AfD was possible, under the circumstances, and no new arguments are raised in the DRV nomination here. Xoloz 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if you, or any of the others who voted Keep on its signifcance, have actually read the entry. Which bit of what I said did you not understand? Everyone in ODNB's parents are mentioned, whether they're surgeons, seamstresses or streetsweepers. Their notability has to be determined independently, on its own merits.

Yet there was no sign of that happening. The decision was made purely on his presence there (even though you tried to fob me off with some yarn about your closing statement to that effect being obiter dicta - see User_talk:Gordonofcartoon#Pearce).

Arguments also were made on the basis of embroidered details, continuing even here, like inflating the coverage (the reality of "four lines" in the ODNB mysteriously grew to "a paragraph") and inflating the seriousness of the offence (as above).

If ultimately you're saying that it doesn't really matter because there was a consensus anyway, it just boils down to majority vote. I wasn't aware that was policy for AFDs. Gordonofcartoon 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If one's arguments are poor enough, majority vote alone is enough to defeat them, yes. Yours are. Xoloz 15:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean majority vote, but consensus is how we decide things. See Deciding whether to delete. For example, This AfD that I nominated is going to be a keep because of consensus, even though policy says it should not be kept. Usually consensus and policy match up, but occasionally they do not. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse retention Given the above information, there isn't any reasonable doubt about his notability, which renders the nominator's point about his son irrelevant. Dominictimms 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep: The people who opposed vaccination are kind of important. The DNB, and I say this as a fan, has a conservative bias from its 1898 positivistic beginnings. For the most part, that conservativism is inherently good and something we should emulate, but History has changed, and cultural history and the discontents of a historical moment are more interesting to us today than they were in 1900. As the article stands now, it's ok. More primary research would be nice, but that's not our job. Geogre 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the original closing decision since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. Here's something you may want to ponder. Charles Pearce may not be notable, but the topic is Wikipedia:Notable. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Wrongly Deleted, no reply from deleting admin. If you will not restore, please email me a copy. I believe the discussion about Doug Rokke's background on the page to highly relevant, because Rokke makes some controversial claims about his qualifications and portrays himself as an expert on depleted uranium munitions, which is a controversial subject. Thank you. Jim hoerner 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jredmond ] Jim hoerner 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this a speedy delete as I can't find the AfD discussion? If it was a speedy it sounds like it probably should be overturned. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The deletion log calls the page a thinly veiled attack. And I agree that speedy deletion criterion G10 applies. Whatever his level of notability, any article must be well cited to reliable sources and refrain from unsourced negative statements. Eluchil404 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, looks like an attack page to me. --Coredesat 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: At [ http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Rokke ] Web Archive shows a version that seems rather unbiased, but I think there were more recent version that were much better. Why delete if reverting to a previous version is more appropriate? Wiki says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

If you will not reconsider, could you please email me the article? Thank you Jim hoerner 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Though undocumented, it is simply negative and controversial rather than downright libel, and I do not think it will be misused, so I have emailed the article. Probably it could be used if every statement were sourced & the judgemental aspects removed. DGG (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you DGG. There are many web pages out there that reference this wrongly-deleted wiki page. I have no malicious intent, but I cannot help it if Rokke is controversial. The censors, I mean admins, can do what they want. Best regards, Jim hoerner 03:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

North Carolina Tigers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to have the Protected redirect removed from this project, I am a member of this team and would like to make edits to the project and since other teams in the league have their own project pages, we should have the same ability. SpaceCowboy9 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Permit re-creation The AfD was over a year ago. It can of course be argued that the other pages should be deleted also,and in fact the deletor proposed "so this may be a litmus-test for similar AFL related teams - WP:AFL". Those other article, however, seem never to have been challenged, and a least a few have been improved beyond the stubs they were at the time. The last version of this article was not a stub . And I am not satisfied by the arguments at the AfD, which do not seem to confirm to the usual highest national level rule , and i think the result might well be different.DGG (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Tigers which is a valid AFD, without independent, reliable sources out there 2,000 google hits, nothing much other than the own website [1], I would have endorsed the Redirect, but because the AFD was over a year ago, Relist in AFD with the rest of the teams in the league. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Relist all teams in league Seems like most of the articles should go. If some of the teams are more notable than others list them separately. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy view. The nominator's AFD rationale was excellent. I am happy for the article to be userfied to enable a sourced version to be created if the appellant considers that he can establish notability but I see no basis to allow recreation at this stage since I am highly sceptical about any notability for Aussie rules football clubs in the US. The concept, suggested by others, of listing all the other teams has much merit. Bridgeplayer 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Status quo: I really, really, really, really don't see the advantage to userfication. One of the things we're not is a free web host. I'm not accusing anyone when I say that, but, let's face it, "Because I'm on the team" is more of an Angelfire rationale than a DRV one. I can't see any indication whatsoever that these clubs are doing more than providing an admirable fun and social outlet for their participants and fans. Geogre 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry, I don't want to appear argumentative, but I don't see the problem with userfying. As I say above, I very much doubt if a notable article can be produced but if an editor wants to try why not help them, it's not as if we can stop them working an article up from scratch in their sandbox (nor should we IMHO)? If it hangs around in the user space too long and it is thought that it is being used as a free webspace then that can be dealt with at the time. Bridgeplayer 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• The problem is the appellant's (?) (nominator's?) argument. He essentially said that he wanted to add to it because he's a player. I'm not trying to indict, and I don't want to be mean to anyone who plays Aussie football (obviously tougher than I am, as I find Checkers to be a violent sport), but that reasoning is private reasoning and not article-building. I never have a problem with sandboxing an article before putting it in article space, and I've actually helped someone in the past who was doing a very borderline anti-Zionist Jewish group, but that didn't seem to be the reasoning. Additionally, I cannot imagine, literally, how a passing article could emerge without some really significant change in history. If I were trying to file this information, I'd say it would be a section entitled "In the US" in the Australian rules football article, in a section of that for "leagues in the US." I'd be happy to be wrong, but, in this case, I don't see how I could be. Geogre 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jameskim-people.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (Image:Jameskim-people.jpg|cache|IfD)

Consensus not reached on deletion In the discussion for deletion there were more people wishing to keep the image than to delete it, consensus was not reached. Rugz 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The IfD is here. There were two delete !votes, both extensively argued and from experienced admins; and two keep !votes, one by the uploader User:Rugz, and one by an IP, 64.111.46.44 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), who didn't make any substantive arguments and who suspiciously looks like a meat- or sockpuppet of Rugz, sharing with him the same interests in precisely the same two articles, James Kim and Not From Space. By the way, IfD is not a vote. Same goes for the next case just below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: And see below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - especially at IFD, administrators should be making decisions based upon a balance of policy and consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no procedural problems with closure. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(restore|cache|IfD)

consensus not reached on deletion In the discussion for deletion there were more people wishing to keep the image than to delete it, consensus was not reached. Rugz 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm the admin who closed the case. Actually, two users said that the image should be deleted, and only Rugz said he thought it should be kept. (An anon that made few outside edits also chimed it with a vote and no explanation, but I ignored that.) Rugz' reasoning was that it's a screenshot, so it must be okay. The other commenters reasoned that it's a photo of a living person, that it doesn't show anything that can't be adequately conveyed with text. It was really a pretty obvious decision. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry for correcting you, but that was actually not quite what Angr and I argued. Because incidentally he isn't a living person; the whole article is actually about his death. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Oops, my mistake. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• On today's main page is a featured article about Jake Gyllenhaal which includes a screenshot of Gyllenhaal in the movie Donnie Darko, please explain how this is any different than showing screenshot of James Kim on TV show. The fair use info on the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg should also be in question using your rationale. Rugz 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per my reasoning on the entry above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no procedural problems with closure. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Image is valuable per NFCC#8. It gives us important information about Kim's appearance on the show, the appearance of the show itself, the style of dress and demeanor of correspondents on such a show at the relevant point in media history. Some of these points are directly relevant to the topic of the article, while others are the sort of supllementary information that can only be conveyed visually and which readers of reference works find valuable for historically and culturally contextualizing specific topics.—DCGeist 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was speedily deleted on August 12th, with an edit summary of "(CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance". According to the deleting admin this occured after it was tagged by another user for speedy deletion citing that same criteria. I feel that this deletion was out of process because

1. The speedy deletion criteria referenced states the following: "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The Talk page for Capital IQ contained statements from several users indicating their belief that the company was notable, and I feel that this is sufficient evidence to indicate that deletion of the article would be "controversial" and therefore should have been listed at AfD.

2. The notability guidelines referenced include this step related to dealing with advertising in company articles "Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead." While it does not directly relate to this article I believe that it demonstrates a consensus that, unless articles are blatent advertising, they go to AfD.

I have asked the deleting admin to review their decision but there has been no response to my most recent request (3 days ago), which is why I am raising here. I would ideally like to see this article restored and listed at AfD, as that would at least allow myself and other interested editors to address the notability concerns. If it is then deleted by consensus, I'm willing to accept that decision. My concern here is that an article with some decent content concerning a company with the potential to be notable was deleted without discussion or any attempt to get interested editors to address the concern (such as with a {{Notability}} tag). Richc80 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation as Capital IQ (a division of Standard and Poor's is almost certainly notable enough to easily pass WP:CORP with a properly written and cited article. But I don't see how this step is currently prevented. The article has a history of poor implementations, it seems, so it isn't surprising it keeps getting speedied. In any case, the primary concern in a speedy is the criteria, not how much people are going to object, and I don't see a process issue here with Jaranda (talk · contribs)'s deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If, as pointed out below, the deleted article had a clear assertion of significance, then my vote is also overturn. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Overturn Overturn - Significance was clear in the article, speedy delete was too speedy. There is some copyvio, but that can be removed quickly. No need to list at AfD since sufficient reliable source material independent of Capital IQ avaialbe to develop the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Further comment - The copyvio could have been removed quickly. Now that the article is deleted, the admin restoring it will be the one posting copyvio material on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It is doubtful that the deletion was procedurally correct. The subject matter appears to be notable. Dominictimms 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Neutral Without being able to view the deleted article myself, I must default to a view that our rigorously vetted admins will make the right calls on these decisions most of the time. - Crockspot 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - you can view the article; click on the cache link above. Bridgeplayer 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I didn't realize that. After review, I'm not satisfied with the sourcing, and copyvio may still be an issue, so switching to neutral. - Crockspot 19:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn view - this is a good example of pushing a speedy well beyond the intended boundaries. A7 is intended for vanity articles, obviously NN groups and organisations etc. not for the subsidiaries of highly notable corporations. Bridgeplayer 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion I deleted it maybe the wrong reason, but there is a copyright concern which the whole history has and thus it can't be restored, also it wasn't a contervesal deletion, there was nothing on talk page, no protests etc. A recreation is fine as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with you, but there were comments on the Talk page, as shown by this cached version, from users regarding the notability of the company. One user even asked to be notified if the page was to be speedily deleted, which did not appear to happen this time around. Richc80 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn You mentioned no copyright concern in the deletion rationale; like everyone else, I can see no other reason for speedy in the article. DGG (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea I would have overturned my deletion, I was about to before the DRV (couldn't earlier as I was busy) but the copyright concern Jreferee mentioned is a valid concern though, there is no point in having the article recreated and deleted again, as the whole history is affected. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly the concern with restoring the article now is due to a copyvio. Would it therefore be acceptable to start the article over again using the previous content minus the section that is a copyvio? If so is there a way to get the code from that previous version so that it does not have to be retyped? Richc80 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, explain this to me. The deleting admin didn't mention the copyright violation when initially deleting, and therefore it can't be deleted as a copyright violation? Hogwash. It's copied from https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/Brochureware/CIQPressRelease.aspx?pressReleaseId=6. Endorse deletion, it's a copyvio. Corvus cornix 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Maybe nn, but doesn't deserve some Speedy Gonzales foolery. I'd prefer to take this through a full VfD (or whatever they call it these days), lest we end up like User: NedScott. 69.143.236.33 07:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We can't restore a copyvio because the copyvio involves a possibly notable subject. It makes no difference that the deleting admin deleted on an alternate basis: this is not a court of law in which every possible conceivable reason must be raised and articulated or be waived. As we know most articles are speediable on multiple grounds and so a spammy article about a non-notable company that gets a G11 deletion comment needs also to show not subject to A7 otherwise the moment it gets restored it'll get so tagged and deleted and we'll have wasted a lot of effort for nought. Common sense, folks, please. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The Glamazons (US) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Also Sideswipe (performers) and The Glamazons (US). IMHO improper speedy deletions. Making the Top Ten on America's Got Talent is at *least* an assertion of notability, making A7 deletions invalid. The Duttons have already gone through one AFD with a no consensus result. IMHO these should be deleted through AFD or not at all. TexasAndroid 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• The initial afd for The Dutton was improperly closed no consensus. Consensus was there to delete at that time. None of these articles had valid references, secondary sources of any kind. None of them had any claim to notability outside of America's Got Talent. The closest claim to notability The Duttons have is a pair of self produced television shows. Self produced tv does not equal notability per WP:BIO guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  My argument is not that they would survive AFD. I don't know that they would. My argument is that it only takes an "assertion" of notability to invalidate A7 speedy deletion, and that their appearances on AGT satisfy that assertion. Whether they truly meet the requirements, and all your other points, are issues for AFDs to decide. Once the assertion threshold is past, A7 speedy is no longer valid. All IMHO of course. - TexasAndroid 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AFD view - each of these articles has at least a slender assertion of notability which is enough to avoid an A7. The lack of sources will, no doubt, be influential at the AFD but is not pertinent to the speedy process. Bridgeplayer 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  A7 was not the only deletion criteria of The Glamazons or for Sideswipe, those were primarily deleted as G11 advertising.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  G11 is aimed at quickly getting rid of spam. These pages are not obviously written as adverts so G11 is not applicable. The speedy process, since it allows deletion without consensus, should only be used in obvious and straightforward cases. Where, as here, there is room for doubt as to the appropriateness of speedy deletion then it should be listed. Bridgeplayer 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list - The Duttons had a prior AfD closed in its favor. G11 advertising seems reasonable, but the articles have enought in them to be just above advertising (not by much). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  The initial AFD was improperly closed as no consensus. There were 4 rationalized deletes, 2 keeps from regular users with valid albeit shaky rationales, and 1 keep/merge from an anon ip. By my count thats 4-2... not a no consensus. Closed by a new admin who'd had the mop less than a month.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, but we don't overturn AfD closures with which we disagree or that we think to be plainly wrong (for my part, I'm not certain that I think The Duttons' AfD to have been wrongly closed, and I would observe that closing AfDs is one area, inasmuch as it is not at all technical, in which one's being an inexperienced admin is no grand problem; in fact, I'd suggest that a newly-minted admin, having recently had his sense of judgment and conversance with policy examined at RfA, is more likely than an older admin to command the community's confidence relative to his closing AfDs—one's capacity to close RfAs properly, at the very least, does not necessarily grow as he gains sysop experience) simply by reversing them; that's why we have DRV. Joe 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn A claim of notability was implied (the last thing we want is every article to start "X is notable because", which is not how good reference works are written. Dominictimms 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. The assertion to notability may have been slight but it was there. Whether or not they are sufficiently notable should be up to an AfD to determine. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD - Survival of a previous AfD discussion precludes an article from being speedy deleted. So the Duttons was an improper speedy. Might as well relist the other two along with it. It gives the community a chance to build consensus. - Crockspot 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)