Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 14

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

Speedy deleted as advertisement, but I disagree as (1) the author did incorporate secondary references based on talk page suggestion, and (2) the prose was not overtly advertorial in nature - how can an article on a software (such as MSN Messenger) omit details of the software? Resurgent insurgent 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse While the article wasn't completely hopeless spam, I have a hard time imagining that something launched on the 5th of September (about a week ago) could possibly have had the impact and historical importance to justify an article. The article as written was mostly just a feature list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse with no prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. Wikipedia is nothing more than the ladle that helps us drink from the fountain of knowledge. Yet, all these business PR people come to Wikipedia to be the fountain of knowledge from which everyone drinks. Reliable sources are the fountain and footnotes citing those sources are the ladle. Please rewrite the article using only material from these (or other) sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ditto. If pfingo becomes a major feature of computer users' lives, then describe it NPOV.

If so many other pages link to [[pfingo]] that there needs to be a page there, then recreate pfingo with as much text as needed without it getting spammy. Anthony Appleyard 02:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, unquestionably advertorial, virtually every edit of any substance is by a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• EndorseWiki is a universal reference and I believe that pfingo, as a new breed of integrated services needs to be in the wiki,, while the original was quite lopsided, actually after a few rounds of editing I do believe its quite neutral and should be retained, I do disagree that its still quite advertorial, if you point out specific items that need correcting, I will improve it. Also to answer starblind pfingo has been around since 2nd april and I only uploaded on wikipedia in september.Iqbalsiraj 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The close on this debate was premature and inappropriately indicated as a Keep when it is at best No consensus. Recommend reopening the debate for more input. Nondistinguished 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as keep. If we count !votes, which we don't, it's three to two or 60%, unless we assign fractional !votes to a weak keep. On balance the keep arguments were strong enough and half the AFD was taken up with the sockpuppet back-and-forth anyway. To look at the actual strength of the arguments, that is, the notability question, one sees numerous citations to reliable sources commenting on the subject favorably and unfavorably, so I believe the keep voters were on track. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• There's no real difference between a "keep" and "no consensus" closure... --W.marsh 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we should indicate that there is a difference - keep being that there is substantial support for retention, no consensus for no substantial agreement either way. Corvus cornix 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Except in practice, the difference in wording doesn't seem to matter much. Articles closed as a "keep" might be redirected a day later, articles closed as "no consensus" might be around unaltered for years. --W.marsh 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think we went over this same issue before at DRV. The real issue is the time between you can post AfD#2. If a Keep close should have been a non consensus close, it is unlikely that anyone at AfD#2 is gonna speedy keep because the AfD#2 was brought too soon. In that sense, it doesn't make much difference, so there seems to be no real reason to reopen a closed debate so that the Keep may be changed to no consensus. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer. The discussion had been open for more than 7 days when I closed it, so I don't think it could be classified as a premature closure. A fairly detailed explanation of my closing rationale is available in this diff, on Nondistinguished's talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. The only way I can see getting rid of this article is consensus that it is a BLP hit piece (the criticism section is as big as the "biography" section, which isn't really a biography.) No one brought this up at the AfD (assuming the banned user didn't). Like it or not, David Talbott is here to stay. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep since I can't really imagine it being closed any other way based on the discussion. However, definitely looks like it needs attention/cleanup: when one of the article's references is to something someone posted on Usenet, that's a bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep and it is time we did differentiate keep by actually having a fixed length of time before AfD2, absent new evidence of copyright or blp. (I've been suggest 3 months , better 6).DGG (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitterside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD#2 was posted in favor of keeping the Bitterside article while AfD#1 was pending. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitterside was prematurely closed and I ask that it be relisted. AfD#2 should be deleted as an improperly posted AfD and since it does not requst that the article be deleted. Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever outcome as long as there's only one. I had no intention of short-circuiting discussion, there was simply one AFD too many, and I merged the deletion rationale, so if you really think it's that important, merge it back the other way and make sure the article points to the open one. It's that simple. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

He has a Top 40 single right now; I think that's notable. ۝ ۞ ░ 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation per [14] and apparently having a #11 and rising top 40 hit [15]. Apparently facts have changed since this was deleted. --W.marsh 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• The page is still blocked. I can't edit it. ۝ ۞ ░ 03:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional note by closer: In addition to the problems noted below, the article had crystal ball violations. It asserted that the band released in 2008 (next year) their third album. It is unclear whether the band is notable to Wikipedia's standards for inclusions; it is clear that the article didn't make an assertion of notability. GRBerry 02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE/restore This entry meets notability, Cosmic Nomads are listed in Chris Spencer's Who's who of Australian rock n roll The founding member of the band is 54 and has been playing since he was 12. He has released 4 new age albums, 3 blues albums, various singles, been on Countdown Revolution and MTV and now Cosmic Nomads are in the studio recording their 3rd album. Cosmic Nomads is a 5-piece progressive rock band based in Melbourne Australia. The band was originally formed in Sydney in 2003 by Hammond organist, singer, award winning composer Ray Vanderby, who in 1991 won the WROC/BMG Australian National Song writing competition out of 2,500 entries. Raymond Henry Vanderby born in Holland, based in Melbourne Australia. Hammond organist, composer, professional musician. Youngest semi-professional organist in Australia at age 12. Qualified piano tuner, award winning songwriter. Sought after side man who has toured and recorded with some of Australia's top stars: Marcia Hines, Doug Parkinson, John English, Steve Wright, Blackfeather, John Paul Young, Band of Light. Founding member of Australian progressive rock band Cosmic Nomads.Hetha Griff 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse deletion I had a good dig for reliable sources and really didn't find much. I'd be happy to be proved wrong in this case, but based on what's available I don't see them passing WP:MUSIC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• We certainly have an inconsistent result here: Hetha has also edited articles on some of the band's albums, and uploaded artwork, so either all should go or the band should be restored. As to which, I think that as Andrew points out we'd need more sources to overturn deletion. Actually on checking all revisions to this and all linked articles appear to be by single-purpose accounts, make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there is a desire (not mine!) to post the article because Cosmic Nomads song No Suicide is being blamed for these suicides. See Beisler, Rebecca. MX newspaper (June 22, 2007) Song adds to grief. Apparently, the mother of one of the deceased girls sent the band an angry email about this.-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bad reason for an article. Wait a month. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• There is no song called 'No Suicide' by Cosmic Nomads, that information is wrong, Cosmic Nomads have not recorded or released or performed any song whatsoever called 'No Suicide' and Cosmic Nomads have nothing to do with the suicide of these girls. The song has been totally withdrawn as per the wishes of the parents of the girls. Please – your comment was far and away from the truth and was irrelevant for this discussion/review. The song you refer to was written well after the incident and as a CONSEQUENCE of those suicides - not being BLAMED for! It was written with the intention of making young people aware of the terrible waste and unnecessary action of taking their own lives…….and to bring to people’s attention the fact that there is help out there for young people suffering from depression. Obviously you never read the lyrics. In reference to the MX newspaper article and headline – this was purely a 'media' interpretation of a situation - not a trusted and reliable source and certainly not one to be believed. The Cosmic Nomads article in this site was certainly never posted for the reason you give – the sole reason being because the band warrants a page up here! Hetha Griff 02:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• A point I was trying to make (but was not so clear) was that if Wikipedia has a Cosmic Nomads article, it is only a matter of time before it is filled with "song blamed for suicides" information. Since there is very little reliable source material on Cosmic Nomads, the "song blamed for suicides" postings or something akin to that likely will be a main focus of the article, creating a WP:BLP problem. Wikipedia should not put the family of the girls and the band members through that. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy delete - The importance/significance of the 5-piece progressive rock band was not asserted in the article, so WP:A7#A7 speedy delete applies. The article's assertion of the importance/significance of Ray Vanderby is not the same as asserting importance/significance of the band. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my speedy deletion, per Jreferee. Daniel 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Entry meets notability, prominently mention in other articles on Wiki. 686,000 hits on Google.Alexa indicates traffic for Shoutwire rising while Digg.com, which IS listed on Wiki, is falling.[16] To be honest, I don't see why Wiki has much much smaller sites listed but Shoutwire gets deleted. TruthCrusader 06:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• In whihc case it will be trivially easy to provide reliable sources supporting notability, something that none of the multiple deleted revisions quite managed. Note that there is an off-wiki campaign to reinstate this article linky. Usual crap, really: there's an article on Digg, so there must be an article on every single social networking site regardless of their significance relative to Digg. Looking at the Alexa charts, the rise in traffic seems to coincide with the advertisement on Wikipedia - who'd have thought it? Guy (Help!) 07:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really hope you aren't implying I am somehow 'sent' by Shoutwire over this. I have been at Wiki far too long for that sort of nonsense. As far as notability, links were provided and the entry was deleted without nomination or discussion. I will dig up those links again. 86.49.106.84 11:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice job with the incivility there JzG. They probably won't be reading your comments anyway. Kappa 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking for sources is incivil? Man, break out the smelling salts and pull your great-grandma's Victorian fainting couch out of the attic, it's going to be rough. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe it's considered incivil to warn people that there's an stroturfing campaign going on, or that the site owners' statement thinks we're an "index" and that we should have an article on them because we let Digg have one. But maybe it isn't. As to why Digg gets an article and Shoutwire doesn't, here's a hint. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of use with poor English language skills, I was commenting on the phrase "usual crap". Kappa 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh the irony - "for those of use with poor English language skills" and then accusing me of incivility. My command of the English language is probably rather better than the average, albeit I cannot type to save my life. I have a British public school education, and was granted a place at a thousand-year-old school primarily on the grounds that at the age of ten I was already reading Tolkein. Silliness. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the phrase "usual crap" was actually civil, as you claim. The problem appears to lie with my English language skills. Kappa 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle or beam meet moat. You chose the metaphor. The point is that your own civility could do with the odd tune up from time to time as well and perhaps you should address that yourself before berating other users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that Guy is being uncivil, it's a pity you would concentrate on attacking the person who is pointing that out. Kappa 10:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ... but thanks for the endorsement of my English language skills, I was getting worried. Kappa 10:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No assertion of meeting notability guideline for web criteria. Still no independent, non-trivial reliable sources. Notice how "Google hits" and "rising traffic on Alexa" are not criteria.-Wafulz 11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, usual crap. We get it all the time in OTRS from people whose spam articles have been deleted. "How can you delete my garage band, you have an article on The Beatles!" or variations on that highly unoriginal theme. And deleted websites also commonly put messages on their forums protesting in identical terms, and asking their members to come and ask for it back. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have asked this user on his talk page [17] to justify repeated use of the phrase "usual crap". Kappa 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

...It turns out he does actually regard it as civil. Perhaps the policy needs clarification. [18]. Kappa 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case where it's the usual crap. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kappa, I admire your efforts to make Wikipedia friendlier but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill in this case. We're dealing with a fair amount of traffic from a website where many of the members don't care about their civility or our policies, with many coming here to "fight the man" or some equivalent.-Wafulz 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if incivility is acceptable in cases like this, then the policy needs clarification. Kappa 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to bemoan the civility policy or the actions of others, particularly in a case as mild as this.-Wafulz 00:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe next time I see someone being unpleasant to outsiders I will just bite my lip then. Kappa 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per WP:WEB. No assertation of notability, and even if there were, no reliable sources to back them up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Guy. And for those at the site whinging about other articles on Wikipedia -- about sites with actual notability and actual reliable sources -- they need a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Calton | Talk 15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until they bother to actually provide reliable sources instead of whining and threatening to vandalize other Wikipedia articles. Corvus cornix 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I suggest writing a draft article in your user space using reliable source material and then returning here for a review of it. I also suggest calling the draft article Shoutwire.com since that is what the reliable source material seems to call it. Between all Shoutwire.com's press releases and news sources mentioning Shoutwire.com, you should be able to created a sourced article. Providing a sourced article is much easier than trying to force an unsourced article into Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A Shanty No Lemon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1|DRV2)

Multiple sources are now available to show that this podcast has a signficant relevance to the Columbus gay community. Please see the following link. [19] Ironhide1975 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral comment Moved this from the article's talk page. --Coredesat 04:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• That's just the local weekly newspaper, is there any other sources that indicate national notabilty, until then, Endorse Deletion Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the source (singular) does not offset the problems with the article. Suggest a userspace rewrite. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please see QNation.fm for National endorsement. Seriously what the heck do you guys consider something in order to get placement. Check out the Feast of Fools Podcast and you will see it uses the same grammar and tone for the article. Please reinstate this page.
  • Here is the secret. Write a sentence, put a footnote at the end. Write another sentence, put a footnote at the end of that sentence. Keep going like that until you have at least 1,500 characters in the article (excluding footnotes) and you will have created an article that is unlikely to be deleted. This article is one I recently wrote. Note how there is a footnote at the end of each sentence. That is because I got the material for the sentence from the footnoted source. I let the reliable source material tell me what to put in the article. Easy as pie! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:WEB. A local weekly newspaper is a pretty weak source, and certainly nowhere near enough that it would stand a chance at AfD. Ironhide1975, why do you feel the need to DRV this so often? This is your 3rd attempt at it this year, and it's always been unanimous to keep it deleted. Suggest that next time you come back only when circumstances have really changed and with a sourced rewrite to show us what an encyclopedic article on this topic would look like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nothing at news.google com, only 139 google hits, and the first ten pages had nothing coming close to a reliable source. It's simple, provide reliable sources and then we can reconsider this. Corvus cornix 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all above unless more than one reliable source is provided. The source given isn't enough and is probably too weak. --Coredesat 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again In fact, for the third time. I am convinced now that the nominator has a conflict of interest, as he has been the nominator all three times. A userspace version was suggested previously. I note that A Shanty No Lemon Podcast, by the nominator, was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 earlier today. Until an article is written by someone following the guidance at WP:FORGET, this one isn't likely to fly. Source need to be independent and reliable, and preferrably would be non-local. GRBerry 19:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Offbeat reliable sources still are reliable sources. However, you need enough of them to source material for the article. The only thing I could find was this article discussing shanties painted lemon yellow. You might want to check some of the alternative weekly newspapers near where the A Shanty No Lemon is known. One or two reports in the alternative weekly newspapers might provide enough material to create an article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)