Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14

List of celebrities who were obese in childhood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as it's not "listcruft" (what a wacked-out term that is!) and it doesn't violate Biographies of living persons either. It wasn't original research, and it should be undeleted because there ARE sources that assert the fact the people listed were obese in childhood. This article should be undeleted, relisted and sent to a wider forum for discussion - it's not remotely controversial, let alone a violation of any policy. Gleggsord 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as just plain wrong. I could see a category such as "Formerly Obese Celebrities" or something (assuming the claims were sourced) but a list as an encyclopedic article seems to violate WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -N 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Even if the BLP speedy deletion may be questionable (and I don't have the article history to examine this), it is beyond question that the subject of the article is a bad idea. Some users raised WP:V and WP:OR in the discussion, and I would add WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Per what defines "celebrity". Also, pointless. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOT#INFO. This is canonical listcruft. When policy and consensus are this clear waiting 5 days to delete is pointless (and potetially detrimental). Eluchil404 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse how do we define obese? Let alone, how do we define fat? Anyways, my point is along the same lines as Kwsn. Plus, it is a hornets nest for BLP violations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, what would be the encyclopedic merit of such an article, even (and I'm not at all convinced this is even possible) if it were written without writing WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:V all at a shot? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• List of lists that should be kept deleted --BigDT 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion per all above, completely useless and unencyclopedic, plus "celebrity" is a subjective term. Inherently brings up WP:BLP issues. --Coredesat 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse, inherent BLP landmine. Will ^(talk) 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per N, really - it is just wrong. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the many reasons given above - BLP concerns, trivial information, OR problems, but hey, this is DRV, so it's sufficient to say "consensus was clear, no procedural problems with this deletion". Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:QueenSky.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Book cover, with notable photo, used in article covering author's being fired for publication of said photo and subsequent writing of book (the title of the book, Queen of Sky is a redirect to the author's bio). Since book covers are considered quasi-automatic fair use when discussing the book, and the cover photo itself is also mentioned in the article I fail to see how this fails fair use. -N 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question If the book "article" redirects to the author article, and the article substantially discusses the book, is there precedent that we don't consider that sufficient fair use? Does the position of the photo matter, i.e. if it were in a section about the book instead of at the top? If a book article with an image were merged with the author article does the cover become automatically unfair? Or was this simply a case failing to have a well-argued rationale? --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well... the article is mostly about the events that lead up to the writing of the book. Talking about the book itself would be duplicative of this material (the book is basically her story or in other words the story of the writing of the book, if you get my drift). I'm not sure if the article could be re-written to give more weight to the book itself. I'm not sure about the rationale, I suppose I should have looked at that better *before* the deletion. -N 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, fair use book cover can't be used on article about author. Unless she's dead, somebody could, some day, get a photo of her, and that could be used on her article. Corvus cornix 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I've said, the author's biography is basically the story of the book. You cannot separate the two. The picture is not being used to show what she looks like, it a) shows the book she wrote and b) shows the photo Delta fired her for. -N 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article the image supports is basically about how the subject got fired from her workplace, Delta airlines, for blogging and for photos placed on her blog; E.S. is famous for that; that is why there is an article about her. After being fired, she wrote the book (this image is the book cover) based on her blog. The image shows her on an airplane, one of the photos that got her fired, the title of her blog, and the book that resulted from the blog. The title of the book is also the title of her blog. In short, the image is a many-purpose illustration for the article, and it seems to me to be an ideal illustration. I can't say I understand the nuances of wikipedia image policy, but to me the deletion of this image seems quite strange. Far better to keep the image, but perhaps add a caption that tells what is going on with the image. Bdushaw 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse image deletion. The subject's primary notability is not from the book. It is from the larger issues about employer rights over employee blog content. — Athaenara ✉ 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Image was not being used for critical commentary of the book. The same picture, without the book cover, would probably pass FU, and is available on the same blog. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  That hurts my brain, especially in regard to WP:NFCC#2. Someone (possibly her) gets revenue from blog hits. Taking the original image and putting it on Wikipedia can be seen to damage the commercial opportunities in that respect. Using the book cover, on the other hand, does less damage to commercial opportunities, since, the book cover is "out there" because it may incite someone to buy the book. -N 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin. The book's title (as seen in this footnote) is Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog. It does not appear to be redirected in any way to her article. According to the article, Queen of Sky (which does redirect) is her nom de plume. The entire content of her article discussing the book appears to me to be in the last sentence which reads (without footnotes), "Simonetti has written articles for the news media including The New York Times and CNET, adapted her blog to a published book, and now works in real estate." Mentioning the book in the article is not enough to establish fair use. The image had no rationale for it's usage in the article, although it was uploaded in April 2007. Since Simonetti works in real estate, it should not be overly difficult to obtain a free image or to request that she release one under terms that would allow it's use without fair use justification. ~ BigrTex 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to state the reasons for the deletion. I think I see what the issue is now; ya learn something new everyday on wikipedia! Bdushaw 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

New links to address deletion issues were provided in the page recreation, but page was "speedy deleted" as spam, possibly due to the time frame from the original deletion and the recreation. DarkNation AG 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:America album.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted because no fair-use rationale was given. Since it's an album cover that does have a proper fair-use rationale, and since I'm not able to find a suitable quality image to use, I'll gladly provide said rationale. fuzzy510 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted so that you can write said rationale. I suggest you be quick about it, and remember that we need a source for the image as well, which appears to be missing on first glance. -- nae'blis 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, now that rationale has been provided. Fair use seems to be adequately stated; this is an album cover, and a fairly well-known one at that. It would be absurd to claim that reproducing the album cover in an article about the album would hurt the label's ability to sell the album. Heather 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2

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

Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for Dawn_Yang, a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse this sounds like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since both are notable for their blogging activities and the Dawn Yang article is more encyclopedic in nature, a more encyclopedic entry can be written about Xiaxue that is not based mostly on POV. However, please note that the reason that lead to deletion, "it is unencyclopedic" is also listed on the "arguments to avoid" page. Therefore, the article's deletion is questionable. - January2007

Another admin, Vague Rant, undeleted the article per my request on IRC. Having won several prestigious blogging awards and been frequently mentioned in the Singaporean press, Xiaxue's clearly notable. A post on her blog, dated 11 June, indicates that she is unhappy with the deletion. I e-mailed her to notify her that the article has been undeleted; she replied requesting I help her rewrite the article. All I need is someone with Newslink who will e-mail me lots of Straits Times/New Paper articles on her, and I can start rewriting the article based on information found in the newspaper articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Recommend close article is already undeleted and AfD is already underway. -N 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball special abilities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made —Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse. Second AfD. Article was listed for just a few hours short of the full 5 days, and somehow I doubt 3 extra voters would have appeared in that time to swing the numbers. This endorsement is, of course, without prejudice should someone find any reliable third party coverage of the topic. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • AFD proposals are not opinion polls. Voting is irrelevent. At any rate, "third party coverage" is, in this case, synonomous with "fan coverage". Thus it is impossible to use as a source.--Marhawkman 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I said "reliable". -N 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Based on that argument, there's not cause to overturn.--Chaser - T 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The main reason for the creation of the list page was so that the information could be moved out of the character pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dragon_Ball_special_abilities for a more detailed explanation.

• The article's primary source is the Dragon Ball/Z/GT manga and anime. Which, as far as I know, is considered a reliable source.--Marhawkman 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Per WP:NOT#INFO. Kwsn^(Ni!) 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So how does that apply?--Marhawkman 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's probably the reason it was deleted, and the reason it should stay deleted. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, sound closing judgment, problems identified with the article were real and not addressed either here or in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak overturn IFF the list's material is to be merged elsewhere. If I'm misunderstanding Marhawkman's comments above, (which I did, on first read) then endorse as there will be no GFDL violation. -- nae'blis 13:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if the article's only source is the manga and anime, but no third-party reliable sources have covered the subject, we shouldn't have a full article as that would be original research. Fan Wikias tend to allow that type of thing, such an article would probably be a better bet there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's silly to suggest that the closure was improper because it didn't wait exactly 5 days. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the consensus demonstrated by the AfD. Process is the servant of consnsus not vice versa. Eluchil404 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse it was closed after 4 days instead of 5. But only one person had posted a keep rationale by then, & it wasn't a very strong one--it amounted to keep because this stuff is so little known that this is the only source, & I've done a lot of work on it. No reason to think anything more would have appeared--a trivial violation not affecting the result. But the closer should learn not to close early, because waiting another day would have avoided all this fuss. DGG 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I really think a reasonable article on this should be possible, but I wholeheartedly dismiss the undeletion reasoning presented by the nominator: the AFD being closed a day early matters not a whit. We aren't a beaurocracy, and we don't override consensus because of a matter of hours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't post an undeletion reasoning. I should have, but I was in a hurry. It's going to be a long one....

Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research The article fulfills the criteria of both of those.

How? Reliable sources DO NOT need to be third party. Sourcing the anime and manga is permissable by Wikipedia policy.

Original research is defined as: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

None of those applies to the deleted article as a whole.

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

That got thrown around as the primary reason for deletion both times, and yet has nothing to do with the article.

Why? There are ten things listed in there and this isn't one of them.

Wikipedia:Fancruft That got thrown around a lot in both AFD, but is at best slander.

Why? Well it basically states that the article violates one of the above mentioned policies.--Marhawkman 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:NOT#IINFO applies, and to have this kind of an article, you not only need primary sources, but reliable secondary sources as well. See WP:RS. (→zelzany - is one angry user) 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you explain why you think WP:NOT#IINFO applies? I read it. I don't see any reason at all. Also WP:RS does NOT say anything about a requirement of secondary sources.--Marhawkman 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps WP:N is the best link. People often throw around policy links for the general principles they stand for rather than their exact wording. As a general rule details about fictional worlds only verifiable from the fiction itself and not covered in reliable third party sources are deleted. This may or may not be clearly written down in any specific policy or guideline page (they are editable by anyone too) but is firmly established practice. Eluchil404 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The subject HAS fulfilled that requirement. However the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from those sources. As far as I know there is no rule that requires this.--Marhawkman 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The relevant topic isn't Dragon Ball in general but rather this specific article. If the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from reliable sources it will be deleted per WP:N or WP:OR. Eluchil404 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Um, Notability requires secondary sources. However Reliable sources are not necessarily secondary. the article is composed of information that would be considered derived from a Primary source.--Marhawkman 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Generally, looking at a primary source and interpreting it oneself is original research, which is prohibited. If secondary sources are not available to which such interpretations can be attributed, we should not have the article. That's why sources independent of the article's subject are required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• there's a fine line between research and original research. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. " Note Where it says "unpublished". That's the distinction between research and original research. This was just a collation of things published and organized for easy reference.--Marhawkman 01:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru
• Endorse. Just because the debate didn't last five days doesn't mean it should be overturned. One 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per User:N. --Iamunknown 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)