Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12

Warriors (book series) herbs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article Warriors (book series) herbs has been unfairly deleted. That article was very helpful and interesting. It told all the herbs and medicinal substances in the Warriors books and the uses for them. It was deleted due to it being "not encyclopedic" and because "most of these uses aren't specific to Warriors." Well, I can see where the person was coming from, but it was nice to have the information compiled in one area about the herbs used in Warriors. It was also very interesting to just look at the list. I am an avid reader of Warriors and I was highly disappointed when I discovered that this article had been deleted. I definitely think you should undelete it. Please consider my reasoning and undelete this interesting and useful article. Thank you. --Roseminty 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Usefulness is a very subjective criteria; I personally don't have a use for it right now. So, I can't consider that to be a valid reason to undelete it. It seems to me just to be a an indiscriminate collection of information, and the information doesn't seem to fit into what an encyclopedia is. Maybe if there is a Warriors wiki, it could be there, but not here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no valid reason for undeletion provided. There were no procedural problems, the AfD was clear and unambiguous, and Deletion Review is not AfD round two. Xtifr _tälk 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletioin, the closure was valid. Trebor 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not an inclusion criterion, even if it were useful, which I don't think it was. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate article per nom. --164.107.223.217 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I find no process problems in the AFD discussion. According to the edit history, this content was originally cut out of the Warriors (book series) article. Moving it to a separate page did not make the content more encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Procedurally valid closure and deletion based on well-reasoned and obvious consensus. -- Satori Son 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, not seeing the problem given that the information (the important part) is in the main article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and let me also suggest that there are other wiki sites that might be willing to accept the information of the article. Wikia.com is one idea. If you do want to pursue this, I suggest approaching an admin to undelete the content long enough for you to make a copy of it. Please note that Wikipedia content is subject to WP:GFDL, so you may have to rewrite things rather than make a simple transfer. --Kyoko 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD. This is an example of why "useful" isn't an inclusion criterion. List of DVDs owned by Andrew Lenahan would be very useful for me, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for it. As noted, most of the herbs and their uses are not exclusive to the book series anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I just don't get why the sudden rampage to delete the pages for American Idol contestants. Considering how many thousands try out for the show and the incredibly high ratings, anyone who actually makes it to the final 12 is a recognizable figure to many and has accomplished something few others have. Plus, I anticipate others just recreating these pages eventually anyway. Finally, because of American Idol video games that include videos of contestants and programs like American Idol Rewind that re-air footage from past seasons with new interviews, the publicity of these individuals has been augmented all the more. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rampage? It's just janitorial work. They have no independent notability, and will be forgotten by the time I've finished typing this sentence. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism as far as I'm concerned, as with American Idol Rewind still airing and many of them having website fan clubs future albums planned, etc., the final 12 all do merit pages. Cheers! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Which? Absent a specific case to review, this discussion will be closed fairly soon. GRBerry 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, the final twelve meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and have enough sources to squeak by. If anyone's speedying a finalist, it's improper. If you know of any that are being speedied, bring them here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following pages have been deleted or whatever unjustifiably:

• RJ Helton
• Christina Christian
• A.J. Gil
• Rickey Smith
• Leah LaBelle

Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm closing this procedurally. Those are individual deletions that need to be considered individually. Please also try to stick to the template for nominations. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Aly & AJ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CFD)

This category was CFDed and closed as "no consensus." This was one of 15 similar categories nominated at the same time and this was the only one not deleted. I renominated it and was advised to bring it here instead. So, since I think this was an aberration in the face of the other 14 deletions the CFD should be reopened/relisted for further comment to generate a fuller consensus. Otto4711 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, I see no reason to overturn the no consensus at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, one good reason is that based on his comments in closing the second CFD the closing admin obviously miscounted the !votes. He closed the second CFD with the comment take it to deletion review if you actually think two for two against constitutes consensus to delete when in fact there were three for deletion and two for keeping. Which is 60% in favor of deletion, and there have been categories deleted on closer !votes than that. Add to that the fact that of 15 categories nominated the same day, for

John Wayne

Rudolph Valentino

Barbra Streisand

William Shatner

Olsen twins

Marilyn Monroe

Audrey Hepburn

Mel Gibson

Hilary Duff

Steve Coogan

Sacha Baron Cohen

Ingrid Bergman

Fred Astaire

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers

it's Aly & AJ that survives? That defies simple logic. And there's the fact that in those 14 other CFDs, not to mention additional CFDs on following days for Alanis Morrisette and ZZ Top, the reasoning advanced for keeping Aly & AJ was advanced in a number of them and rejected and the closing admin apparently took no notice of it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to allow the category to be further discussed. I'm not suggesting overturn and delete, just overturn and relist. I don't see what's so awful about just relisting it and allowing the community to discuss it further. Otto4711 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The original closing decision of the March 4, 2007 CfD stated that the result of the debate was no consensus, which resulted in the category being kept. The community discussed the matter to the extent that it desired and the March 4, 2007 CfD matter was properly closed. -- Jreferee 16:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, again, no it wasn't, because the closing admin miscounted the vote. Otto4711 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist I've no problems with the no consensus call, but the speedy keep was crap. No consensus closures can be relisted any time. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian_Townsend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD) (3rd Speedy Deletion)

Almost every player who has appeared on GSN's High Stakes Poker has an article written about him or her. Sometimes, as in the case of Dr. Amir Nasseri and Fred Chamanara, this is all the article states. Brian Townsend appeared in several episodes of the 3rd season of this show. On top of this, he plays poker at the highest stakes online, and is successful. No one questions the notability of a poker player who wins a big tournament. But there are some players who choose not to participate in these tournaments but opt instead to play high stakes cash games online or in a casino. They are no less successful or notable than the tournament winners. Bunzobunzo 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo

• List the independent non-trivial sources from which an article may be written. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds for overturning deletion. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not how the speedy criterion works, though. Overturn, assuming that the GSN information was in the article at the time of the speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:PLAYSPOKER is not, as far as I can tell, an assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:PLAYSPOKERONTV is, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't rationale for overturning (actually, the way it's stated in the nom, anyone who wins any online poker tournament is suddenly as notable as someone who wins the World Series of Poker, and besides, a new article can just be rewritten from scratch with reliable sources. --Coredesat 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: why is Wikipedia overwrought with arguments like this? Your twisting the words of the nominator to make an invalid point. The way it's stated in the nomination, anyone who wins any online poker tournament anyone who is featured on several episodes of a nationally broadcast program is notable. --Romanempire 08:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Which is true. It's an assertion of notability, which is what the speedy deletion criteria looks for to avoid the discussion. The assertion is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• If the assertion of notability was there at the time of deletion, then overturn. If not, endorse. This is pretty meaningless, anyway, as any article about this person will require independent reliable sources to be cited. If that doesn't happen the article will die at articles for deletion later on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list for AfD The statement that he person appeared on 3 shows at the highest level is an assertion of notability, whether the word "assert" was used or not. It is arguable whether or not this article should be deleted, and the solution is to dispute it on Afd. (I have no personal opinion on that and will not !vote). The request for sources is an argument to make at AfD, not here--Speedy has been repeatedly rejected as appropriate for processing articles that are only unsourced. Speedy is for incontestible non-notability. Jeff is right.DGG 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, list on AfD per DGG. JoshuaZ 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per assertion of notability above. Catchpole 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse & redirect to High Stakes Poker, add information about participants there. >Radiant< 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on what, exactly? Please re-read CSD A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Based on WP:SNOW, and the general idea of WP:MERGEism. Please re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 16. >Radiant< 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So you're basing it on an essay that's been discouraged for use by ArbCom, and you then pointed me to an AfD log that doesn't mention poker or this guy. You appear to misunderstand speedy deletion policy on this matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
          • What point are you missing here? You're basing your opinion on inappropriate rationales, thus I call you out on them. If you don't want to be "badgered", don't make inappropriate rationales for endorsing poor decisions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I am getting the point that you are trying to win an argument by making ad hominems. We know that you consider some widely-accepted rationales to be "inappropriate". You know that we disagree. And yet you persist in pointing out your opinion as if it were fact at every opportunity. >Radiant< 11:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
              • No ad homs at all here. Your rationales are inappropriate, this is fact. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change what it is. If you actually understand the speedy deletion criteria on this matter, please demonstrate it as such and I'll be glad to apologise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• While I do not think that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies, there is a good-faith challenge to the speedy-deletion here. Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list for AfD, there is an assertion of notability through the television exposure, whether or not that notability is adequate is up to debate and thus makes A7 and WP:SNOW not apply. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten too long to transclude. Experienced, logged-in editors may opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia. New edtiors and IP editors may comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 12/Zorpia.