Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 19

Anna Lo Pezza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted immediately after creation, no opportunity to establish notability, opportunity for discussion/feedback has been minimal. Discussion is here: User_talk:JDoorjam#Anna_Lo_Pezza_deletion (which content also attempts to establish notability.) But please observe — this opportunity to establish notability was not invited prior to instruction to pursue deletion review. (This is my first visit to Deletion Review, i hope this is proper procedure...) Richard Myers 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The content was userfied. By that text, I think it's a clear overturn. Her death was noted as a precursor to a number of events surrounding the situation, and I don't think that merits an A7. I admit, it looks borderline depending on how you come from it, but we shouldn't be speedying borderline cases. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the statement from the bottom, looks valid as an A7 now. It also looks like the article in the userspace asserts better, so I'd imagine we can simply move that in at the conclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The article was tagged as speediable under CSD A7, and I deleted it as such. As User:Richard Myers requested an opportunity to flesh out the notability of the article subject, I put the deleted content into user space here: User:Richard Myers/Anna Lo Pezza. FWIW, this is the page I deleted, though I suppose that comes off more as a confession that the article is better now than as a terribly strong argument to keep it deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lawrence textile strike; her only claim to notability is that her name is sometimes misspelled. >Radiant< 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true that her name has been misspelled. But through writing the article, I have determined a correct spelling, implementation of which is on hold during this DR process. As for "only claim to notability," may I observe that Googling "Anna LoPizzo" (in quotes) gives 263 hits which appear to refer to the same individual. Richard Myers 20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if precedent carries any weight in this decision process. If so, for comparison I'd like to offer: Allison_Krause. thanks, Richard Myers 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(Before clicking the link I was thinking of this one and had an eyebrow raised on your argument.) For a couple of reasons I won't tag it, but I think you're right about their similarity, and I question Allison Krause's notability too. JDoorjam JDiscourse 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• undelete if the article is improved, as it seems to be. DGG 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Berger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

several of us want it back; I came too late to second existing don't delete campaign--Svm2 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (sasha)

• I have moved this from the incorrect day. No opinion from me as of yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion deletion review is not here because you merely disagree with the deletion. The delete arguments point to the lack of verifiability, the book for which the publisher couldn't be verified to exist and the ISBN invalid etc. These are the things which you need to overcome before such an article can exist. --pgk 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No evidence has been presented to justify revisiting the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse NN teacher article with strong overtones of both libellous attack page and downright nonsense. Okay, kids, we get it, you hate your teacher. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise that fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and speedy close. No chance. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion. We're not a democracy, so it doesn't matter that several people want it back; it was deleted for lack of verifiability, which you have provided no evidence of. -Amarkov moo! 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, no reason given for undeletion. >Radiant< 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and preemptively salt. Considering Andrew Lenahan's comment, I think it's likely that this article will be recreated, and it's also likely that it still will fail WP:BIO, so it's probably best to just salt now and avoid another defaming article. — coelacan talk — 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebony Anpu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD, first try|AfD)

Out of Process, POV Pushing First AfD tainted by OP and out of process. 2nd AfD opened and closed by Jeffrey O. Gustafson with significant POV pushing on his part (my observation). Opened ANI on Jeffrey O. Gustafson and told by admins to open DRV. Please look into this closey. Let me know if you would like me to post diffs or quotes. Thanks. Captain Barrett 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note. The second AfD was not closed by Jeffrey O. Gustafson, it was closed by Coredesat. WjBscribe 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. AfD closed after 3 days, should have been five. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Unless Coredesat has a credible reason for the early close, overturn the closure and reopen the second AFD to allow it to run for the full period. I see no reason to discount the comments made so far in that thread, though. That discussion may be continued. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Does that include the comments made in Both AfD's? Captain Barrett 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why why why do you need to open this review before the closing admin even had a chance to respond? This is most likely a clerical errors and can be resolved without the need of a policy debate. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually Coredesat invited seems to have suggested DRV at WP:AN/I, see [1]. WjBscribe 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The AFD was transcluded on two dates; the 11th when the first try started and the 13th when the relisting occurred. GRBerry 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist 3 days is too early to close a contentious AfD. --Oakshade 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist as severely out-of-process and sine cathedra from the beginning. This needs to be done over by clean hands.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-19 23:28Z

• Yes, I did suggest the DRV. However, I am still endorsing my deletion, because the second nomination amounted to a relisting (the total time elapsed for both AFDs was five days), and there was a near-unanimous consensus to delete in it, disregarding open proxies in the first AFD. --Coredesat 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel this is a sustainable approach to calculation of AfD time. If the slate had been wiped on the 4th day at the 23rd hour, the clock for the next AfD could not be reasonably construed to end after an hour. It is most proper for each AfD to enjoy its allotted time, especially if there is even a perception of impropriety, whether founded or not.

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-19 23:35Z

Disclaimer: Yes, I did speedy keep the first AfD. But if that was out-of-process, the instant action is just as much so :x

—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-19 23:39Z

Very well, then, overturn and relist. --Coredesat 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I believe that Bleedman does meet notability, as the highest-viewed and arguably most profound DeviantArt artist. He is extremely well-known by digital artists, especially within the webcomic community, and the author of several full-length comic works. He also returns over 47,000 hits on google. In addition, Bleedman has been included in such online published review works as ComicAlert and DigitalStrips. The deleted article was, in my opinion well-written (despite being a stub). Request undeletion. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you provide those sources? --Coredesat 07:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can: Bleedman's DeviantArt, Short entry at ComicAlert, The Bleedman 9-11 controversy at DigitalStrips, A review and an interview with Bleedman at Creme DeLa Deviant, and 47,000 relevant hits on google. These are just SOME of the references. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh good. So how about some MORE of the references, this time non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 09:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• How are these trivial? It is just because you've never seen them before? But sure, Okay. Bleedman at ChoiceComics, Snafu - which houses his THREE full-length published works, and, simply because it should be said again, 47,000 relevant hits on google. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion valid AfD. It's not about popularity at all, and it's well-established that getting x hits on a website does not equal an article. We need non-trivial sources in reliable publications from which an article can be sourced. Also, Bleedman himself has stated that he doesn't want an article, and that should be respected. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see where he is not notable since he (a)is a "professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field", (b) "has been the subject of several published non-trivial works" and reviews (posted above). ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per lack of reliable sources with non-trivial mentions. Especially against a wish not to have an article, we need those. -Amarkov moo! 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind the fact that someone doesn't want a Wikipedia article is not enough reason to remove it. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't, but it is a reason to demand reliable sources even more than we otherwise might. -Amarkov moo! 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Notability is borderline. The fact that the person in question doesn't want an article pushes it past that borderline. JuJube 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, triviality of provided sources above is questionable. Hits on Google or deviantART do not necessarily equal notability, as WP:BIO does not have a criterion for website hits. --Coredesat 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Votes Channel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion with the reason "Inadequate info for an article", as it was only 3 sentences long. The initial flurry of votes were towards redirecting the article. However, the article was expanded and improved drastically during the course of the discussion, to the point that it was a decent and well-referenced non-stub. You'll notice in the deletion discussion that nearly 4/5 of discussion participants after Feb. 15 wanted the article kept. Additionally, three of the initial "redirect" voters changed their mind and opted to have the article kept, taking into account the improvements. I believe even more of the redirect voters would also have changed their mind had they taken another look at the article after it was improved. All this considered, I say the decision should be overturned and the article should be undeleted. --TheCoffee 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is not close to the article most of the !votes were based on. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as the closing admin, I didn't take the improvements into account either. I have no problem with another admin restoring the article. --Coredesat 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Struck out my argument to reconsider later. I need to re-review this. --Coredesat 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close. "The Everybody Votes Channel was launched on February 13, 2007" - that's, what, a week ago? Right now it's merged to a list, that looks absolutely fine to me. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Probably should have been relisted in the first place given the changes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse current merged state since Wii Channels looks like the perfect place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The deleted article was a well-written, full article, which is significantly larger than the small piece in the Wii Channels list. Even if it was never going to be expanded again it was suffient for its own page. Needless to say, there was plenty of space for it to be expanded in any case. Tim 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• What, from reliable secondary sources? Or from original research? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• From reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, can we just unprotect the redirect and close this? This is a content issue, not a deletion on e at this point. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Seeing as there was no actual deleted content here, and as I was the closing admin, I've gone ahead and unprotected the redirect. --Coredesat 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)