Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 25

Damn New Thang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

South African Defunct Magazine Ethnopunk 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• As a contested prod this should technically be undeleted, but a fanzine that lasted 2 issues has a, shall we say, less-than-stellar chance at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Process tells us to undelete this one. Common sense tells us it would just wind up being deleted at AfD again. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is, i suppose, possible that those two issues were somehow highly significant, but I don't belive it, the article doesn't in any way imply it, and no one has so much as hinted at any such situation. The best outcome here would probably be for Ethnopunk to withdraw his request. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• I, too, would prefer a withdrawal outcome. However, the history of the user's contributions makes me think it is unlikely. Since January 19th, he has only edited on three days. I am refraining from acting in hopes of a return to review this discussion, while being doubtful that it will occur. GRBerry 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Yeah, technically it was a PROD. However, it seems to me that WP:CSD#A7 applies here. And in any case, the article was about one sentence long, if someone wanted to build a quality article it wouldn't be much help. Mangojuice^talk 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A7 doesn't apply to magazines. I don't see any of the WP:CSD that really does apply. If this had not been delted, but the prod had been contested in time, I think that the only option would be AfD, unless someone did an IAR deletion, which i don't think would be warrnted. DES ^(talk) 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It applies to companies, that's how I was seeing it. Mangojuice^talk 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ignore the rules and keep deleted - Policy only gets in the way of completing the inevitable. And you really can't reverse a PROD after it has taken effect.--WaltCip 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • actually you can, and in any case even slightly more likely to survive an Afd I would have undelted already. as it is, i'm torn. DES ^(talk) 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• technically, any admin could undelete it right now. .DGG (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  And I note that several of us are choosing not to do that, despite the fact that PROD contests, even after the fact, should automatically be overturned. If this goes five days in that status, I think WaltCip's (and other's) IAR argument will be shown to have consensus for now. GRBerry 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

the reason I chose not to do so was respect for communal decision, since it was being discussed, even though I think deleting it out of process was altogether wrong. Not following process when process is available leads to arbitrary decisions. Had I said in my RfD in reply to the semi-obligatory question that IAR was to be used whenever the result would be right, I hope I would have been rejected. DGG (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, there's hardly any point in process for the sake of process here given the obvious non-notability of the subject. And yes, I was the one who originally PRODded it. I couldn't verify the magazine's existence, for one thing... --Coredesat 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ethnopunk added the following comment into 27 July DRV log, which I deleted and reinstated here (Duja► 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)):

  Admin opened the debate without referring to the person who created the page. I believe there should have at least been an opportunity to discuss the deletion. I can't even follow the rationale for deleting the page, other than somebody objects to the title of the item in question. Please review this deletion and give South African's a chance to participate in Wiki. We don't all have high bandwidth, or live in a first world country.Ethnopunk 08:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• And what is their rationale? "Useful" or "harmless"?--WaltCip 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete/WTF. The above refusals are ludicrous on so many levels I'm not even sure where to begin, and a borderline abuse of power:

• Process demands a contested PROD be undeleted because PROD short-circuits the typical requirement that consensus be formed before content is deleted. The "consensus" to delete this article was the opinion of a single editor. DRV is for discussion of process, not content, and yet the entire discussion so far has been about denying the community the opportunity to discuss the latter by trampling all over the former.
• I'm told that this article is a snow delete, and yet, unlike in a real AfD, nobody that's not an administration can verify this claim. Since this article presumably does not have any WP:BLP or copyright problems, excluding all regular users from contributing to consensus is extreme abuse of process.
• PROD is meant to be a weak form of deletion, weaker than ordinary nomination, and not a super-sneaky way to speedy-delete articles when no reasonable WP:CSD argument can be articulated.Evouga 08:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's too much controversy for IAR to be a good idea here, so I followed process and restored it as a contested prod, then nominated it for AfD. Suggest closing admin not use WP:SNOW due to controversy here; let it go for the full five day's, the drama's not worth it. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cage the Elephant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This band is an upcoming band and have been the artist of the day on spin.com [[1]]. Jmaurer2 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article failed WP:MUSIC - no evidence of notability. - Philippe | Talk 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This band has played at such notable places as Summerfest and are scheduled to play at Bonnaroo [2] and Lollapalooza [3]. --Jmaurer2 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok at this point the band does not meet the criteria but will I be able to add them later on without issue? --Jmaurer2 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'll be glad to userfy it for you - place it in your userspace. Then, you can continue to work on it. Once you have it to a position where you think it meets the criteria, let me know and I'll glance at it and tell you if it meets WP:MUSIC. How will that work for you? - Philippe | Talk 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, thank you for looking into this and taking the time to do this. --Jmaurer2 05:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and you'll find the address on your talk page. - Philippe | Talk 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Missions in 3-D Pinball Space Cadet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deletion, though valid, did not take steps to allow the creator to userfy, preserve, or Wikify the article content. It is with boldness and the assumption of good faith that I wish the deleting admin to seek a better interpretation of the consensus, or allow the creator to restore the page for userfication. WaltCip 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's notes See this diff on my explanation to the author on the deletion. He hasn't responded or objected to the deletion (it's his space we're dealing with, so it's his choice on whether he will agree to a compromise) so nothing can be done in the meantime. DRV is probably not necessary here; discussion on mine or the author's talk pages would have been more suitable. Sr13 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then I am mistaken. Speedy close per above.--WaltCip 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

If he's going to make an ass of himself and file FEC complaints [4] people should know <BLP violation removed - Corvus cornix 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)>. 74.134.253.87 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was very well-sourced, all reliable verifiable sources, all arguments for deletion claim he was not notable as a sportsman, which is patently true, but he is indeed notable as per media coverage as a possible professional sportsman. Claim of non-notability based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than verifiability and reliability of sources; it leaves a vaguely fancrufty flavor in the mouth. Already undertook a delete which was overturned in DRV, and this new AfD was closed by one admin as weak delete delete when it was obvious there was no consensus and should not have been deleted to allow consensus to form. Cerejota 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn what a bad closing. The "policy" he refers to is only a guideline, and it's only one plank of a guideline, another more important plank of that guideline allows inclusion if there's multiple non-trivial sources covering the person. The entire basis of his close is just embarrassingly incorrect. --W.marsh 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The player may not have coverage as a athlete specifically, but definitely passes the general criteria, written above the section. Nevertheless, it was a bad closure which should have been closed as no consensus. Sr13 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I see that I've misinterpreted and I'll restore. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

INCONSISTENT_POLICY

My entry for AudioSparx was deleted and protected from recreation. This is patently unfair, especially considering that you continue to list the page for another very similar site (SoundDogs). Our two sites were started at around the same time...in reality ours began operations prior to SoundDogs.com, and while they have a larger client base, we are still and currently one of the largest sites on the Internet for licensing and publishing all forms of digital audio content (especially sound effects).

Our site, AudioSparx.com, was previously named UltimateSoundArchive.com. UltimateSoundArchive.com domain was purchased in 1998, however, the site had already been in operation for over two years by 1998 as a sub-web under Advances.Com domain name. To substantiate this, here's a link to the Advances.Com home page circa 1998, which has a link to our "sound archive", which when you follow that link (http://web.archive.org/web/19981212033703/www.ultimatesoundarchive.com/) you will see the original cover page of the Ultimate Sound Archive, with a link to the home page of the Ultimate Sound Archive circa 1998 (http://web.archive.org/web/19981206211452/www.ultimatesoundarchive.com/MAIN.cfm).

Here's a reference that was created in 1998 that further substantiates what I'm saying: http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/docsrch.pl?TYPE=Film-&-Video-Production (search for "ultimate sound archive" there)

I've included additional supporting information below. The bottom line is that this is a site that should be covered in Wikipedia because of the historical significance of being one of the first, if not the first digital audio sites to ever operate on the Internet. Or if you still really feel that our site is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then please maintain uniform standards and delete SoundDogs from the site, or please explain to me why SoundDogs should be permitted to remain on Wikipedia and AudioSparx shouldn't be....what's the difference??

Thanks,

Quinn Coleman quinn@audiosparx.com

Here's other links from the web to the original site: http://www.sbs-baseball.com/sbs481.pdf http://www.bib.umontreal.ca/ss/media/enregsonores.html http://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/soundeffects.html http://www.theatrecrafts.com/sound_links.html http://www.d.umn.edu/~mharvey/websitesound.html http://www.horton.com/html/toolslist.aspx?CatName=Media:%20Clip%20audio http://www.amptone.com/effectslinks.htm http://home.carolina.rr.com/charliehughes/Links/Links-Fr.html http://www.cult.tpu.fi/sound/english.htm http://home.howstuffworks.com/question153.htm http://www.virtualrealms.com.au/vrml/tute01/links_resources.htm http://www.clickopen.co.uk/links/index.php?s=12&type=Sounds&subtype=Search http://www.triskelian.com/Favorites/sound.htm http://www.proxyroxy.com/Neighborhood/index.htm http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/resources/powerpoint.php http://www.u4eamusic.com/links.htm http://www.xomreviews.com/ultimatesoundarchive.com http://web.pitas.com/apathy/06_18_2000.html http://www.lamezoid.com/ http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/audiolist/musica.htm

WHOIS RECORD FOR ULTIMATESOUNDARCHIVE.COM

  Registrant: Make this info private
  Navarr Enterprises, Inc.  
  7810 NW 4th ST
  Plantation, FL 33324 
  US 
   
  Domain Name: ULTIMATESOUNDARCHIVE.COM 

  Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :   
  Navarr Enterprises, Inc.  
  admin@audiosparx.com 
  7810 NW 4th ST
  Plantation, FL 33324 
  US 
  Phone: 954-727-3189 
  Fax: 954-252-2352 
   
  Record expires on 30-Jul-2007  
  Record created on 31-Jul-1998 
  Database last updated on 05-Oct-2006 

WHOIS RECORD FOR ADVANCES.COM

  Registrant: Make this info private
  Advances.Com  
  7810 NW 4th Street
  Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 
  US 
   
  Domain Name: ADVANCES.COM 

  Administrative Contact :   
  Administration, 
  info@ADVANCES.COM 
  Advances.Com, Inc.
  7810 NW 4th ST
  Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 
  US 
  Phone: 999 999 9999 
  Fax: 999 999 9999 
   
  Technical Contact :   
  Advances.Com  
  support@ADVANCES.COM 
  7810 NW 4TH ST
  FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33324-1904 
  US 
  Phone: 954-452-8466 
  Fax: 954-452-1139 
   
  Record expires on 22-Oct-2014  
  Record created on 23-Oct-1996 
  Database last updated on 05-Oct-2006 

Qdogquinn 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Two separate admins deleted this as spam. I can't see the cache, so I can't tell what the article looked like, but if Odogquinn wants to create a new version in his/her User space which is not in ad-speak and contains reliable sources and claims of notability, then allow recreation. Corvus cornix 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the creator of the subject of the article, Qdogquinn has a clear conflict of interest and probably shouldn't be the one to recreate the article, even if it's done less "spammily." He does have a legitimate issue though, in that Sounddogs, the competitor site he mentions, is an unsourced article that doesn't do a great job of asserting notability. Quinn, that article needs improvement and currently doesn't meet our policies; its existence doesn't equate to community approval of its status. Leebo ^T/C 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• allow re-creation if a decent article is written in user space, as . Corvus cornix suggested. it is reasonable to ask to see it first because of the possible COI problems. DGG (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• As one of the two to delete this blatant spam (identical text posted by two separate single-purpose accounts, of which the requester is the second) I am highly sceptical that the requester could write a neutral article, especially given the admission that they are tied to the site in question. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn Definitely borderline, but from my reading of the text, a little of this is salvageable (thus does not meet G11). Recommend removing most of the text as spam, but some of the intro is not written in a promotional style. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

See also: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13#Image:Past Doctors.jpg or Image:Past doctors.jpg - clear consensus that both images were used for different purposes, passed WP:NFCC, and consensus to keep the image. Will ^(talk) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The consensus was clearly to keep. Since it involved copyright, its not just the consensus, but the strength of the relevant argument that needs to be considered, and the arguments to keep were soundly based on policy. Deleting this was a personal view based on what was nececessary in he articles by an editor who admitted unfamiliarity with the subject. DGG (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I refer you to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item 3a: As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. The kept image could easily serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the deleted one, so there is no real reason to use both. Perhaps the deleted one makes the point slightly better than the kept one, but the kept one is adequate enough. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • now that is a matter of judgment, and individuals can differ. When its a matter of judgment, the independent views of different wikipedians does carry weight and consensus is not irrelevant. DGG (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is non-negotiable and policy trumps consensus every time. Have you actually read Human Nature (Doctor Who episode)? I think it's good that I'm not familiar with the subject matter, because reading it now, with only one image, it still makes enough sense to me (well, as much as possible considering my lack of knowledge about the Doctor Who universe). Do you honestly believe that a small portion of this book image is necessary for understanding the article? I'm not even really convinced that the overall image is required and if it were totally up to me, I would have deleted both. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's arguments were the most in-line with policy and there were a lot of WP:PERNOM arguments as well as speculation about the nominator's motives and/or credibility. The goal of this exercise is not to find the solution that makes the most people happy, but how to make the article conform best to policy while still being comprehensible. Leaving the one image accomplishes that. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Consensus should determine what minimal use is. This close disregarded that consensus. IronGargoyle 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn When I first examined the case, I was incline to agree with Howcheng. However, each image is used in the article in a different context. Although they are similar, one relates to the broadcast episode, and the other was supplied by the BBC on-line. Each does merit its own critical comment. This special set of circumstances means that NFCC 3a does not apply to these uses: each is necessary in a different context. Xoloz 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per DGG and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)