Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 9

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

Intuitor was speedy-deleted last month by JzG with the summary "WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). Fewer than 600 ghits, and the top ones are for a completely different site!" I can't view the deleted article, but an archived version does assert that Intuitor's "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" feature "has been cited on popular websites such as Fark and Slashdot, on radio programs throughout the U.S. and Canada, and in major print media." I get 35,000 Google hits for "intuitor", and 8 of the top 10 relate to the site. It doesn't seem to meet A7, so I contacted JzG, who referred me here. Tim Smith 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as nominator. Tim Smith 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  History restored for deletion review. GRBerry 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• List at AFD I am unsure if the article will pass WP:WEB, but I see an assertion of notability, so I believe it should be listed. I suspect reliable sources that are independent will need to be found in order for it to survive AFD, because the article currently uses no independent sourcing. GRBerry 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, list if necessary, per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• List at AFD - It asserts notability, therefore doesn't fail A7. It needs sources badly to pass AFD. Fresheneesz 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and List at AFD until a decision is made there - I have found it featured at pcmag.com and here at compadre.org. I'm betting theres more, but noone can add any sourcing if its locked. Fresheneesz 05:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A much more in-depth source here. Fresheneesz 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, good site, bad article, deserves a better one but deletion unnecessary. Article claims major media coverage, which makes it ineligible for a7. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

123 Pleasant Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I have tried to contact the closing admin before bringing this to DR, however the closing admin has not responded to my thoughts on their talk page, hence I proceeded with the process. I believe that the closing admin had not followed the Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

While I was the only person who had made the decision about deleting the article, I do believe I was correct in my thoughts. The only sources provided are links to the club's webpage, a homestead.com page which has been disabled, a personal angelfire.com webpage listing the owner as a missing person (which is a direct copy of one of the external links from doenetwork.us) and finally a blog from a band that played there years ago. When I pressed for Multiple, Independent, Reputable, Reliable, Third-Party, Non-Trivial Published sources, the only link was to a local news article that spoke only of the missing club owner but said nothing about the club at all. There were no sources provided about the club. WP:LOCAL was brought as the reason to keep but no one could provide any sources that satisfied WP:V. As for WP:LOCAL it states:

If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.

As it is, There are are not enough Reliable and Verifiable information sources to validate an article. We can't ignore the fact that there are no news stories on the club itself. What I am saying again is, WP:V can not be ignored. Where are the articles primarily on the club? --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. As I've said way too many times before, notability does not matter without verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Britt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

Bill Britt is a notable person. Bill Britt is one of the top most distributors in Amway/Quixtar. Britt has above 1 million people in his downline.He is currently serving as a Presidents Cabinet Representative on the IBOA International Board. http://www.iboai.com/IBOAI-PresidentsCabinet-BillBritt.asp

Britt is mentioned in the Forbes Magazine, December 9, 1991 http://www.amquix.info/forbes_december_9_1991.html

Britt was mentioned in nationally televised news documentary on the Dateline NBC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#_note-20

The Triangle Business Journal reports a scam involving him. http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2003/08/11/story1.html

The Burlington Times-News reported about Britt's involvement in fradulent investment schemes, and about his impending separation with his wife. http://www.amquix.info/forbes_december_9_1991.html

A lawsuit involving him is mentioned in an article in "Time Out". http://www.rickross.com/reference/amway/amway9.html

A lawsuit involving him is mentioned in an article in "The Legal Intelligencer". http://www.amquix.info/aus/hanrahan.htm#articles Knverma 12:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• The link for the Burlington Times-News information is here: http://www.amquix.info/britt_separation.html -- Knverma 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletions but there is room for creation of a new article. The articles have not made use of and cited the sources. I see enough sourcing that an article that actually used and cited the independent sourcing would stand a chance at AFD, although some of those sources are trivial and others may not be deemed reliable. The historical versions are eminently deletable. I recommend writing a new article at a user subpage or on our own computer's text editor, citing independent and reliable sources using your citation templates and references system, and then creating the article. GRBerry 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  While I continue to endorse prior deletions, I think the new article should be moved into main space from userspace. GRBerry 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse undeletion if article contains significant sources. I marked the article for DB when it did not contain these references. They do assert notability and it appears a worthwhile article may be created. -Will Beback · † · 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Deleted 5 times. First was an attack page only, so ignore it. Second time was the first AFD; his own site was an external link and there were no other sources. Third was a dubious G4, but applied to something not an encyclopedia article and with no sourcing. Fourth was a G4 during the second AFD, same content as the third, no sourcing. Fifth was an A7 immediately after your {{db}} tagging, no sourcing. Only source in any of the five deleted versions was his own website, Britt World Wide, at http://www.bww.com. GRBerry 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Have a look at a new preliminary version at User:Knverma/Bill Britt. So what is the next step?

  The page is not protected deleted, so the new article can be moved in. I believe that it is not A7 eligible because of the references to news coverage and not G4 eligible because it is far more extensive than prior versions, and has independent sourcing. I think you'll get the move button in the next 24-48 hours (it is only available to those who have been a registered user for at least four days). GRBerry 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Version in Knverma's user space also reads as advertorial. The fact is, Amway people are usually not significant outside of Amway, and the majority of sources are not independent. Admittedly I am deeply suspicious of terms like "Crown Ambassadro level" in pyramid MLM schemes. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Let me clarify. Am I adversiting Bill Britt? What about the criticism and lawsuits section? I am citing newspaper articles, are they not independent? I cited the IBOA site only as proof that he is crown ambassador and that he is on the IBOA board. OK, Amway people are not significant outside Amway, but Amway itself has 3-4 million distributors. Why are all these newspapers talking about them? Britt is not just another Amway guy. There is a small chance of him being called "the most significant" distributor (this is open to contest). -- Knverma 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  The term crown ambassador is an official title amwarded by Amway. It just indicated that he is among the select few people in the eyes of Amway. Hence I see no ground for any suspicion. -- Knverma 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I moved the article to main space. Also, my intention is to have the same page for Bill Britt and Britt World Wide. I will work on this. -- Knverma 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? You wrote the article, nominated it here, and then moved it to mainspace before consensus was reached? -- Kesh 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he nominated it here, I told him (above) that I endorse the deletion because none of the prior articles used source. Because he'd shown sources here, I also told him that he should write a new article in userspace. A bit later, he moved it into main space. Guy and I disagree about whether the new article is good enough to keep or not. But since the page has never been salted; deletion review does not have to give permission for the new article. Only when both 1) a page is salted or protected redirected and 2) we get asked does deletion review have any say over creation of new articles. GRBerry 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you for clarifying. I was wondering what the heck happened. -- Kesh 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Generation YES (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• UNDELETE. The company is well-known among the educational technology field, According to WP:CORP, the company has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. These sources are referenced and the article was not copyrighted, as suggested by the person who did the delete. They were reading a past delete that was more than 1 year old and completely unrelated to this article. This company is significant throughout technology education, and further content can be added to prove as much. Freechild 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT. I deleted this because the article did not appear to establish notability and was close to advertising with phrases like all Generation YES programs improve the use of technology in the school as a whole. A claim of 100% success needs to be verified. If notability is accepted either here or at AfD, the article needs a bit of NPOV work. I noted that a previous editor had deleted on copyright issues, but I did not take that into account since I was not deleting on that basis, I just mentioned it to User:Freechild Jimfbleak.talk.07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore for review, I can't find a google cache, and recent deletions have made me inherently suspicious of all G11s. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• List at AfD. Not a valid A7, not a valid G11, so no reason I see. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• List for AfD. It does have references although the references section is missing, making it not show up in the article. ColourBurst 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Send to AFD for more discussion. It does assert the importance of its subject. >Radiant< 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, AfD if necessary. Obviously not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• List at AFD The phrase that the deleting editor mentioned above is a quote. At first glance it looks to be cited, but on closer inspection, the url for that quote is malformed. The article cites enough sources that I think cleanup is possible and notability is likely. Cleanup is, however, needed. GRBerry 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Jencka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The composer is well known among students and associates of American composer Stanley Hollingsworth, and was regionally very well known in Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Canada in the late 70's and throughout the 80's as a member of the Flauto e Basso Baroque Duo. Significant within the world of modern harpsichord music. Morphixnm 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Do you have any sources for all this? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless independent non-trivial coverage by reliable sources is shown. Only new information is that he was in the Flauto e Basso Baroque Duo, which may not be notable either. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus was clear at the AFD. With no data (sources) on the Baroque Duo, it isn't significant additional information. GRBerry 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT. The fact that information is not available by googling is not an accurate measure for past or even present significance. The documentation for Flauto e Basso is available only by looking at microfilms of press articles, reviews, and public radio (WDET) broadcast records from twenty years ago, all pre-internet. I don't have the time or resources to put all that material up on the internet for the sake of this article. Public concert performances of Jencka's chamber music compositions have occurred in San Francisco, Atlanta, Toronto, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Detroit, and other cities, but not to large, attention-grabbing audiences. At any rate, the direct connection with American composer Stanley Hollingsworth would convince anyone who knew much about 20th century classical music that the serious work of one of his long-time students was worth noting in a brief entry such as was deleted.

Note that the citations don't have to be on the web, but they do have to be properly cited in the article. That would at least allow others to find them and verify them, even if it's not as easy as a web search. -- Kesh 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pentagon_precollapse.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The picture had a source, and fair use rationale - yet was still speedily deleted without giving me notice. Fresheneesz 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• A fair use image that is not used in an article is eligible for speedy deletion. --Peta 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was on the page The Pentagon before it was admittedly erroneously removed.

Also, this page (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1015pentagoncollapse) suggests that Jason Ingersoll released his pictures from that day to the public domain. This page (911review.com) says the image I uploaded came from Jason Ingersoll at 10:05am. Fresheneesz 03:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, that first link shows that those particular pictures in that link are public domain, not that all pictures by that photographer are public domain. We need proof of something being PD, not conjecture. So keep deleted. >Radiant< 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not all pictures by that photographer are likely in the PD. However, his 911 photos *probably* are - and the image also provided fair use rationale even *if* it isn't free. Your logic is incomplete, do you think that there isn't sufficient rationale to keep a unique and very informative picture? Fresheneesz 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just here to say that I was the one who accidentally deleted it and, if it is properly licensed, belive it should be un-deleted and used again in the article for The Pentagon. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|IfD)

Did a search of the last two weeks of IFD, no listing, no notice on talk, nor on image as far as the last week or two. The image just up and disappeared The image was tagged and sourced. PPGMD 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Noncommercial image incorrectly tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}) per the logs. ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption, the image was uploaded 2-3 years ago as noncommerical when that was acceptable, and was changed recently to Copyright Free use in order for the page to be promoted to FA status. PPGMD 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's restored, I think we're done here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, No (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted via avowed trolling by Gay Niggers of America 71.250.215.101 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also can the nominator provide any evidence that the GNAA has anything to do with this? --70.48.108.229 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion, AFD was valid - despite problems with its nominator, other editors in good standing agreed the article should have been deleted, and there was a consensus to delete. The article was not salted, so the article can be recreated if the new article can show that the subject meets WP:WEB. Possibly speedy close this, no new info was provided by the nominator. --Coredesat 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, no plausible reason for undeletion given, just an unsubstantiated allegation. >Radiant< 10:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Meadowridge School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I_Authorize_reproduction_of_Meadowridge_website_content_I_am_web_administrator_www.meadowridge.bc.ca Wakeling2 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A wikipedia only release is not free enough for the content to be used. it would need to be released under the GFDL by the holder of the copyright.Geni 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have to say that on the site itself; anyone can lie and claim they're you. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If this wasn't a copyvio, it would be a General-11 as blatant advertising. If the school does merit an article then it should be written in neutral, encycloapedic language. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning, no prejudice against creating a better article in its place. --Coredesat 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)