Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23

Jeffree Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article on Jeffree Star should be restored because he is a major celebrity. Right now, he has an EP that is #1 on iTunes dance. There is an article on this EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, as well as it's single, Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?). Since both these two articles exist, I think this calls for Star's article to be restored. He has obtained celebrity status and has over one four hundred thousand friends on his artist page on Myspace. Nateabel 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The fact that someone created some articles on his songs does not mean that the article should be kept; maybe those articles should be deleted too. And notability comes from reliable sources, not Myspace friends. There was another DRV not that long ago, but I can't find it. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Previous deletion review here. Unless information not mentioned there is forthcoming, this should be closed. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• This kills me. When the hell can we update our reliable sources so we're actually up to date? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. Speedy endorse unless information attributable to reliable sources are presented soon. As far as I can tell, this is the seventh DRV on this subject (and the fifth one I've endorsed), and none of them have presented any. --Coredesat 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Coldsmith Briggs III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was under major construction and was deleted by someone who did not realize this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazeedriver2005 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

• Not for here. The redirect is not a deletion decision, and can be reversed. With such small input into the AfD and the fact that there's nothing really to review (nothing was deleted), there's nothing for us to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The reasons are the following

This was a page about an online game that have been deleted some days before: 11:20, 20 March 2007 ChrisGriswold (Talk | contribs) deleted "Booty Master" (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7).

As I could not seem to understand why the page should have been deleted, I contacted the administrator through his talk page and asked why. He responded: The reason that article on your game was deleted twice is because your game is not notable, or if it is, you didn't show that at all in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I do not feel that this is a right reason for deletion and I have not found any rule mentioning that popularity of a subject is to define if an article is suitable or not. I mentioned this to the administrator but he hasn't replied to me again. You can check the talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisGriswold#Booty_Master

On to further defense of the article I posted, I have to add that the page was deleted without any prior informing. I believe that this is not right too as the page have been there for 20 days and there should have been some , even minimum, time for me to attempt to correct anything not assorted correctly.

Additionally, I find it weird that other articles that refer to similar types of games like mine, and that are far less "notable" and consist by a far less encyclopedic value, manage to stay undeleted, while my article was deleted. Its my first time to post an article in Wikipedia and I am trying to learn all the rules etc but I have to say that this type of administrating does not help.

Finally, I would like to get an answer on why my page was deleted as I am left uncovered by the administrator response. Also, I would like a restore as I clearly feel that this was an unfair decision. Lastly, if it is judged that my page was against the rules, I would still like the page as it was before deletion, in order to correct what should be corrected.

Thank you Panagiotb 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. You don't seem to dispute that the article didn't assert notability, and not asserting notability is a reason for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#A7. If you think that other articles should be deleted too, nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid WP:CSD#A7. Article makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this one is proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• (EC) Endorse deletion. Wikipedia just isn't the place to promote someone's webgame. The editor should probably familiarize him or herself with WP:NOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and maybe WP:COI. ~CS 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I read about the notability thing now. But since its a website, isn't it difficult to assert its notability? It has 300 unique visitors per day currently and growing every day. I guess I will re-write the article sometime later when many more people visit it daily. No way to get that text written eh ? thank anyways and I wasn't aware of the notability thingie. Panagiotb 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Number of hits are irrelevant to whether a website can have an article. Having multiple independent reliable sources to base an article on is what makes the difference. See also WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The notability criteria for websites are located at WP:WEB. And are you saying that you're withdrawing this nomination?Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse pretty clear A7-speedy candidate, and would never pass an AFD vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Southern mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Erroneous claims of HOAX or doubts about existence of the subject. OR, ATT, DECDIF, COPYVIO and SYN issues addressed in subsequent rewrites.

• Endorse deletion. Assertions that the consensus was incorrect do not make it so, and nobody seemed to be convinced that your rewrites really did fix the problems. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD is valid and no reason to challenge it. The statement that it is not OR might be more persuasive if thie were not a monograph. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - rewrites completed late last night; deletion occurred early this morning, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version. --MBHiii 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• • *sigh*. Could we get it restored under a DRV tag? -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Everything from the AfD tag onwards is now in the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Request Could you do same for Unholy Alliance? --MBHiii 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was a strong consensus to delete this, author made numerous edits to the article during the AfD process in an attempt to resolve the concerns brought up but as the debate shows none of these edits succeeded in making this article any better. As with Unholy Alliance I would suggest to MBHiii that if he wants to create an encyclopedic article on this subject his best bet would be to create something in his userspace and have it reviewed prior to moving it to the mainspace - trying to contest an AfD decision when you were the only person arguing to keep it is really grasping at straws and dragging the issue needlessly out. Arkyan 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question If someone goes to Unholy Alliance or Southern mafia and finds nothing, what's the most direct way of notifying him of a proposed article? ... a note on the mainspace saying something to the effect that a proposed article, open for review, debate and edit, resides at XYZ? --MBHiii 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer There's a {{drv}} template; the standard usage is to undelete all the history, replace the page with {{drv}}, and protect (in cases where the history is requested, such as this one). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Request Could you do same for Unholy Alliance? (same reason: rewrites completed late; deletion occurred early next day, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version.) --MBHiii 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Done. Check the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Afd consensus was crystal-clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question How could it be without reflecting upon the latest changes made? --MBHiii 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy. Nevertheless, you have to understand that while the guidelines are just guidelines and not hard and fast rules, they have to be followed to a certain measure. From the time an AfD is listed it has about 5 days worth of discussion - 5 days is ample time to resolve the problems that had been brought up. It it highly unlikely that a last-second change would have swayed anyone, particularly given the volume of changes that the article had already undergone during the discussion. Finally, the closing admin has to excersize a certain amount of discretion - you cannot expect that a closure will be invalidated due to changes just prior to closing, otherwise a disruptive editor could drag an AfD out indefinitely by constantly making minor changes to prevent closure.

Please do not take the deletion of an article you created as a personal affront - remember that no one owns the articles they create, and the decision that the content did not meet criteria is in no way an assessment of you as an editor. The article as it existed was heavily flawed. I will reiterate - if you feel you have an encyclopedic topic and have the research to support it, start anew rather than trying to salvage the previous content. However if the consensus of the other editors is that it is not encyclopedic, there is no sense in endlessly pursuing the issue. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Admins please note a novel argument is presented above by a self-professed deletionist: "the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy." Please read the article(s) and decide for yourselves. --MBHiii 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seen the argument of something "inherently" not being inclusion-worthy before, and I don't find anything wrong with it. Sometimes, the odds of something having enough reliable sources is so low that that they can just assume they don't exist. Furthermore, whether someone is deletionist or not doesn't affect how much their !vote should be considered, as long as they supply a good reason. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That one refers to "all the sources" being unreliable and that's not the case here, right? (for either article) I still say that those who take material positions before a debate should not engage when that position could influence and ought not to. --MBHiii 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So... anybody who has any opinion on anything shouldn't engage on any debate related to that thing? Then you should recuse yourself from this debate as the page creator. I'm not saying I agree with your policy, I'm just saying that it can work both ways. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a matter of degree that should be perfectly valid to discuss. It all depends on whether the position "ought not to" influence the debate and how material it is to the debate. Any page creator can be assumed to have an interest in developing it further. If that interest appears to become a hinderance, there's nothing wrong in saying so.--MBHiii 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure, but simply being an inclusionist or deletionist shouldn't preclude one from engaging in AfD and DRV debates. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from debate; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing the log, as a matter of WK policy. --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's kinda absurd. It's like saying "You're not allowed to vote because you're Republican!", which nobody to my knowledge has ever seriously suggested. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from voting; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing the log, as a matter of WK policy. For example, User:Akyan nit-picked both my articles to death using official WK policies (much of which I was unaware, so good on him, so far) but then when I'd addressed his and others concerns, he falls back and punts with "the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy." an idea that was unexpressed by anyone, until now, and a misapplication of WK policy, to boot. As an expert nit-picker he would have known that the policy, Reliable Sources, defines as "unsuitable" those articles for which "all the sources" have "low reliability" which is clearly not the case, in either article. This is evidence of inherent bias, hidden agenda, (or incredible sloppiness) on his part. No one (including him) had made this argument, yet he asserts it as "consensus." His previously stated deletionist position should be given great weight by you all. --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Look. You completely missed the point in the criticism regarding the sources - I never said they were unreliable, merely inapplicable as none of them provided evicence of the existence of a Southern Mafia. I don't know how many times someone has brought the point up that bringing up examples of someone using a term, regardless of how many, regardless of how "reliable", is not what WP:ATT is all about. Demonstrating that people use the term "Southern Mafia" does nothing to actually attribute the material of the article - all you are doing is digging up evidence to back up the use of a term. The complaint being made was that none of your sources established anything regarding the definition, history, evolution, or any other material information about the term other than it exists. That something is true/exists does NOT an encyclopedia article make! Furthermore, accusing me of having inherent bias or a hidden agenda is precariously close to a personal attack and I ask you to refrain from doing so further. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Arkyan squirts ink like an octopus and retreats to another position. Rather than meet head-on the criticism of his baseless claim above "consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy" and its official interpretation, then acknowledging it was inappropriate for him to make, he moves on to ATT which was more than adequately addressed already during AfD discussions and rewrites:

Weak Delete - appears to violate WP:ATT, but if attribution and notability (and existence) can be established, I'd be inclined to change my opinion. --Mhking 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It does little more than establish the existence of the term - the point of WP:ATT is not to simply find quotes but to tell us something, which this doesn't. Arkyan 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Southern Mafia" simply does not exist beyond a mere term of use and just can't be expanded beyond a dicdef - nothing out there seems to support anything more than that, and no amount of sourcing in examples will cure that fact. ... Arkyan 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that, still, you don't believe it exists, so I added the case about which Hume wrote. --MBHiii 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the Southern Mafia doesn't exist... without substantive statements discussing what the Southern Mafia is, where it came from, how it developed, etc. the article is nothing more than a dicdef ... Blueboar 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note ... addition of areas of operation and summaries of operation from key refs cited. BTW on the discussion page, you said "The issue is whether such a thing as a 'Southern Mafia' actually exists." ... --MBHiii 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

From the above it's clear that Blueboar argues like Arkyan, ignoring or brushing off recent statements they make and replies to them in order to keep attacking, using other (even previously addressed) critiques. (Again, see latest versions of both articles.) Arkyan's and Blueboar's opinions should be severely discounted by you all. --MBHiii 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist The AfD was noteworthy for detailed debate of the sort that would normally be found on a talk page. I think it is by no means certain what the consensus was. The fair thing is to relist and let people see if there is any progress.DGG 06:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you do the same for Unholy Alliance for the same reasons? --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Request display of latest versions of both Unholy Alliance and Southern mafia with protection from edits for six months, so all discussion can proceed normally on their talk pages. Arkyan, I'm afraid, shows no sign of reform (see User_talk:Mbhiii#Please_keep_discussion_impersonal) and is likely to keep repeating what he has done here. --MBHiii 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is simply not done. Articles that don't survive AfD are removed from public view for a reason. If the AfD did get overturned (which seems unlikely at this point), there is also no reason to protect the page from well-meaning editors. If you wish to continue working on the page, I again suggest that you create a working draft in your userspace, where it can be reviewed to see if it addresses the concerns of the AfD. I find it odd that you haven't yet done so.
  • Arkyan's comments in the link you provided seem entirely appropriate. I can only echo WP:NPA and his advice to comment on content, not on the contributor.
  • On a final note, since I have not previously expressed an opinion in this DRV, I must endorse deletion as the AfD was clearly valid. – Þ  02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - an editor who uses a bad form of argument, refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps harping on old, long-since addressed and now irrelevant points, should not be assumed to be well-meaning. Note, this last person, previously critical of both articles, seems to care nothing about Blueboar and Arkyan using bad forms of argument.

Repeat, these articles need protection from a couple of otherwise well-spoken, but seemingly disingenuous editors who abuse the deletion process with bad arguments to blank subjects they find "inherently not inclusionworthy." (Read the articles.) --MBHiii 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is drifting from the subject of the DRV, so I'm going to reply on your talk page. – Þ  01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, irrelevantly cites WP:NOT#IINFO and never addresses central point on the bad form of argument used by at least two editors. These articles need protection from editors who persistently argue in bad form for deletion after useful criticism is addressed. -MBHiii 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

John Stallings (model) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Overturn - the reason offered for deletion was that the subject did not pass WP:BIO. However, the subject does pass WP:BIO as a television personality who was involved with well-known television productions. The subject was a featured participant in the television show Manhunt and in two seasons of the high-rated show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency including the Christmas with the Dickinsons special. Stallings is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of him. The only rationale offered for deletion was failing WP:BIO but the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. No valid reason offered for deletion. Delete !votes were based on: "vanity spam" (in other words, WP:COI) which is not a valid deletion criteria and, since the subject was not involved with editing the article does not apply anyway; and on an incorrect understanding of WP:BIO suggesting that the subject must "offer (something) special" or be "prolific" or "establish a dramatic character" to qualify for an article, which is not supported by policy or guidelines. Mulitple independent sources were linked in the AFD and in the subject article. The AFD should be overturned and the article restored. Otto4711 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the sources presented in the AFD do not indicate notability (they're just interviews). In fact, the interviews are almost the same, and the second one assaulted my computer with pop-up windows, which makes me wonder if it's even a reliable source to begin with. --Coredesat 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• What, specifically, at WP:RS do you believe supports the notion that interviews aren't reliable sources or that interviews which are accompanied by popups are not reliable? Otto4711 07:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist, I don't really know why that AfD was closed with only three opinions, when none of the keep !voters commented after your sources. I'm not convinced that he's notable, but I'm less convinced that it's so clear-cut it shouldn't go through AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid close, allow re-creation if multiple non-trivial independent sources can be found. Two sources were cited in the AfD but one was clearly not reliable. The other was an interview, not a biography. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD, valid close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I think there's a good case for continued discussion. I think interviews may or may not be RS, depending on who does this interviewing and whether it is more than just an opportunity for the subject to display his own accomplishments. Might be a good idea to discuss this. DGG 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A) It's not expired, B) Even if, it would be noteable because of a sounding history and because great technology often vanishes, a reason to keep in noted at least for one or two decades, especially if there are still hundreds of companies using it Metazargo 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Expired prod" means that some editor "prodded" (proposed for deletion) this article, and that at least five days had passed since the start of that "prod" without comments or opposition (the prod has then expired). It does not mean the product (the subject of the article) has expired. Having said that, I'll undelete the article (per WP:PROD: even after deletion, a reasonable undeletion request should be followed). The article is still a candidate to be deleted though, if someone decides to take it to WP:AfD, the formal deletion process. This deletion and undeletion have no impact on that discussion. Please check out WP:ATT (our general policy on sourcing) and WP:CORP (our guideline on which companies and products shouldn and shouldn't have an article) to see if this article does fulfill these requirements in your opinion. Fram 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)