Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 14

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

Hadouken! (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Band that's been deleted for non-notability too many times to count. 39 Google News hits over the last month, more in the archives, and some crazy buzz seem to indicate that this needs a proper look. No clue what was behind the most recent deletion, however - certainly some of the A7s were worthy, but I think this needs a proper hearing. badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak undelete and AfD. Seem to be getting some buzz in reliable sources, most natable NME. I'd feel a bit stronger about undeleting if they had more than just one single released though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, as I'm undecided. The last version (among others) was of the variety of Hadouken! is a British independent punk rock band. They release their singles on their MySpace page. with links to Myspace, Blogger, Youtube, and the sort, and might reasonably have met A7. While I can't say if the band would pass WP:MUSIC, if someone can create an adequate version, then it is much less likely to be speedied; alternatively, while using AfD as cleanup might not be proper, perhaps listing the "least-A7ish" version there will one way or another settle this once and for all. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete (basically just allow recreation since the article is currently protected, using whatever content from the deleted versions is useful). But the deleted versions looked to be referenced to official site, MySpace and a Youtube video... if that's not improved the article is AFD bait still. --W.marsh 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore for sourced expansion - GNews hits seem compelling, I think this one deserves a look. As per Kinu, it needs more than "a British band which releases on MySpace" though. FCYTravis 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - for the record, I do not mind taking the lead on this one if it ends up being restored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've unprotected for recreation - do you want the deleted revisions, or just start from scratch? FCYTravis 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A deleted history could work, as long as it's understood that I won't be getting to it for a few hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I didn't expect you to drop everything ;) FCYTravis 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Clearly they're the next King of the Slums. ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Somehow this article was deleted. Will an administrator please restore it? Thanks.—Who123 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not, and never has been, deleted. Petros471 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Since last I was there, the infobox on the right displaces the words so far down that I thought the article was gone. Can this be fixed? Thanks.—Who123 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All set. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I Lost on Jeopardy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I Lost On Jeopardy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (also recreated/speedied at this location)

Noteworthy, charting single by Weird Al Yankovic. Chart information was included, yet still inappropriately speedied. Keep in mind as well, A7 does not allow for the speedying of songs. badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore instantly. No basis of any kind for deletion. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete Even if CSD covered songs, that a single charted is a certainly a reasonable claim of importance. Anyway precedent is that we redirect songs by notable artists to the album if nothing else, but this is a relatively well known song with a claim of importance... nothing wrong with a standalone article here, unless you think we need to save a few kilobytes on the server (which we don't need to do). --W.marsh 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The fact that this single charted, and is by a very notable person means that there was no basis to delete this, I really doubt we need to run it through AfD either. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Charted hit by notable artist, but as I can't see whether the original article made any claims of notability, I can't judge whether the article should be undeleted or not, but I do support its existence. Corvus cornix 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on this, I'm changing my comments to overturn, but it needs considerable cleanup. Corvus cornix 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, no basis for speedy deletion. Article provided adequate information for a stub, indicated the chart position, etc. Tag with a cleanup or expand if needed to bring up to the level of all of the other Weird Al singles. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restored speedily per WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a clearly notable meme, and has been mentioned in the following sources:

• Daily Record
• Daily Star (in October 2005, December 2005, March 2006, July 2006, September 2006
• Leicester Sound's website - a full mention of The Game (Game) written by Naomi Kent.

This should not have been deleted. Blastwacher 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is notable, having been covered in the Southport Visiter back in April this year, a full article, and it was a non-trivial mention. it meets your web criteria. Drassan33 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The Southport Visiter is a local paper, and even if we ignored that it still takes multiple sources for it to have a snowball's chance at AfD. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, original AfD closed properly (consensus citing WP:WEB vs. one keep !vote which did not provide much substance). As for the recreation, the entire content was: "Avril Bandaids is the worlds biggest Avril Lavigne fan site." Indeed, speedy was justifiable as either a G4 and/or A7 for lacking assertion of notability, as it contained less than the originally deleted article. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• The deleted articles really weren't much, as has been said above. If this site does have reliable coverage, feel free to create a new article mentioning that. --W.marsh 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse nothing worth keeping DGG 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• One mention in one newspaper isn't enough to satisfy WP:WEB, so I can't see much point to reopening the discussion. Endorse deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, a single source isn't enough to sustain a full Wikipedia article. It may be worth noting that nominator is a single-purpose-account with only one edit (this nomination). I have some serious questions about the motivation behind this nomination. Xtifr _tälk 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

No consensus to delete. The consensus was to clean up. 84.70.25.207 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's probably worth taking a look at "Deletion - Pub Standards" on my talk page. I also note that I should have made a more detailed comment about being willing to userfy on the afd, as I was thinking at the time of closure this may well be the best solution. As I've since done this, and I don't believe the article should have been kept in its state at time of deletion, I stand by my closure of delete (of course if an improved article is produced, that should be considered separately). Petros471 10:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the article has no cited sources that would meet our notability criteria. Since its been moved to user space the author is free to work on it until it meets the notability criteria, at which time it could be moved back to Pub standards. Gwernol 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's own guidelines: Notability is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. *However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.* 84.70.25.207 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't just notability. Notability is more a side issue of verifiability, which is a core policy on Wikipedia. Petros471 10:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:V on one side, WP:ILIKEIT on the other. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was not to cleanup. The keep !voters provided WP:ILIKEIT votes and a few out-of-context block quotes of policies and guidelines without backing them up with WP:RS. The deleting admin was correct to discount those in favor of those who cited WP:V (i.e., the nominator and Scientizzle). The DRV nominator has not provided any indication that these sources are available, and there is no evidence that this AfD was closed in bad faith, or due to lack of such information. At any rate, it exists in userfied form, WP:SOFIXIT there and we'll go from there. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but allow recreation iff reliable sources are provided. Corvus cornix 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• endorse If it is notable, there will be sources & then it can be re-created. DGG 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a new article if reliable sources are provided. There were unsubstantiated claims at the AfD that reliable sources existed, but no examples were provided, neither there nor here. As it is, closer correctly based deletion on a lack of verifiability, which completely trumps any "I Like It" opinions. (I prefer the clear-and-simple "opinions" to the obscure and possibly-misleading "!votes".) Opening a deletion review without bringing us any of these purported sources to consider is simply a waste of everyone's time. Xtifr _tälk 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• As soon as the "numerous secondary sources" mentioned in the AfD materialize, the article can be recreated quite easily. Until then, I don't see that there's anything more to talk about. Endorse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Slava 7.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted as not having a source. But I remember that I traced source of a slava-related image (though I am not sure if this was the one) and in any way I think I can trace the source of this one. Could the image be undeleted so that I could see what it is and add the source? Nikola 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• This image has been deleted too long ago for being restorable. The upload summary is however still available, and says: "Slavski Kolach, Koljivo (Zito) & Slava Candle. From a Serbian Orthodox Slava." Tizio 11:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is the one. In other words, a perfectly valid image deleted with no good reason :( Nikola 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice against a re-upload with proper tagging (since undeletion is apparently no longer possible). According to the logs, this was deleted for the lack of source and/or copyright information. That is a good reason for deletion: a very good reason. We cannot allow images to sit around indefinitely, hoping that someone will eventually clarify their status, and since so many copyvios are uploaded on a daily basis, the presumption has to be copyvio unless a clear statement to the contrary is made. If you can provide a clear statement showing that this is not a copyvio and not a replaceable fair-use image, then you can probably upload a replacement, but without such a statement, it will simply be deleted again. Note: if this really can't be undeleted, there's probably not much point in keeping this review open any longer. Xtifr _tälk 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_REASON Magichar 06:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Originally entered article as "HarrisonGreenbaum" - reentered it as "Harrison_Greenbaum" when I realized that you need "_" for the title to have a space in it (first time ever writing an article!). Both got deleted because it was viewed as spam attempt. I should also emphasize that the subject is clearly notable; article's description of subject's accomplishments indicated why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magichar (talk • contribs) — Magichar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse deletion. No, the subject is not "clearly notable", the article makes clear he's still at college and the only references are his own website and MySpace. Magichar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is clearly the subject, and it would be pretty astonishing if ComedyFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) did not turn out to be the same person. Valid WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11, also fails WP:AUTO / [{WP:COI]]. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Looking at the deleted version, I would have speedied it too: it was pretty clear A&/G11, unencyclopedic tone, no reliable sources, etc... basically a textbook example of a speediable vanity article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/endorse my deletion: this was a classic CSD A7, the only references provided were to Myspace/Youtube, and there was no claim of notability other than "local comic" etc. The author-nominator's claim of "clearly notable" is trumped by lack of WP:RS, suspicion of WP:SPA/WP:COI, and using an admitted sockpuppet account to avoid additional warnings. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse yea a link to a myspace should make it clear. Bulldog123 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• So far the comments used to argue for deletion have been flawed: most entries about stand-up comics include links to MySpace pages, Bulldog, and the comic is notable (as evidence by the awards he has won). Also, the article was modeled on several comics; its tone clearly reflects the tone of other Wikipedia articles about comics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magichar (talk • contribs).
  • The Myspace link makes little difference one way or another (although it is a bit of a "red flag", perhaps). What does matter is that the article did not assert notability of its subject and presented no reliable sources. The closest the article came to assering notability was a vague "numerous magic awards" claim... if we do a little digging, we can find why it's so vague: this page claims the "awards" in question are Senior Stage finalist, Camper of the Year 2005 (!) from "Tannen's Magic Camp", which it turns out is a magic summer camp for kids and teens (!!). Come on, now. Please read WP:BIO, and it should be obvious why this page was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Sonshi did a one-to-one interview with the author, authorized by the author, and yet the link was deleted. Other similar links were also deleted today and the reason given was "spam" even though those links were SPECIFIC to the author articles and they link to SPECIFIC and AUTHENTIC interviews with the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs) -->

I removed linkspam, I didn't delete this article. This doesn't belong on deletion review. Should anyone care to see the link I removed, please see the above editor's contributions (filled with spamming that website into articles) as well as the deletion logs for Sonshi which the editor created five times. It was an article about the website he/she was spamming into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The links deleted weren't spam. They were legitimate links to REAL interviews with the authors. This is content. Your reason for it being spam because they were "numerous." Sorry but Sonshi.com had numerous UNIQUE interviews. Anyone who just look at the links you deleted can see it is content, not some promotional page. See page http://www.sonshi.com/wilson.html link that IrishGuy deleted. Is this spam? I don't think so. Since you brought it up, I created the Sonshi profile 5 times because I had no idea you were deleting them. Sonshi is a real group in Atlanta area like the other organizations in wiki listed now.

I did this deletion review because you suggested it. See our discussion on your talk page.

It just seems to me you only saw "numerous" edits and assumed they were spam but they're NOT. Next time I would suggest you check the links before you deleted all of the links added to the SPECIFIC authors' articles, authors who authorized Sonshi to do an interview with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

As noted repeatedly on my talk page (and another editor agreed) you were mass adding links to a single website to numerous articles. That is spam. I gave you a warning on your talk page every single time I deleted that article. You even replied to me. Don't pretend you didn't know I was deleting them. You were using Wikipedia to advertise that website. Deletion review is to review the deletion of articles, not the removal of links in an article. All of this has already been explained to you. IrishGuy ^talk 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation that I'm "advertising" the site is unfounded. I'm not associated with the site other than participate in their message boards. The links from each author's article you deleted goes to an interview on Sonshi.com done with the author themselves, like Wilson's here http://www.sonshi.com/wilson.html . Wiki users would want to know more about Wilson by this interview. But you are saying it's spam. Are you saying because there were many of them, you broadbrush it and say they are spam? Why are real human beings needed here? You might as well get robots to delete anyone who adds more than 3 links in the same day. But that wouldn't make any sense as your case right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

Again, this is not what deletion review is for. I have already pointed out the guidelines at WP:SPAM and we have had a long conversation on my talk page...where another editor agreed you were spamming. This is not the place for this. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Then tell me where I can get a review of you deleting the links!

Can people here please tell me that http://www.sonshi.com/wilson.html is considered spam? Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think I am. I found the interview to be very good and learned alot about the author. So I added the link on wiki. Sorry if you think I'm spamming wiki but really I'm not. I would request my prior deletions be added back. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

I've wasted 2 hours of my time dealing with this and the resolution process is cumbersome at best. I'm not wasting any more time here. You guys can do whatever. Wiki is not what it's cracked up to be that's for sure. IrishGuy, I know you mean well and I have nothing against you personally (I love the Irish because I'm one myself!) but I would strongly suggest next time you start deleting you check the links. If you think that Wilson author interview page is spam then your definition is much different from mine. Good luck to you.