Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 16 September 2007
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
For the above and associated talk page. I don't want this to become another White Cat situation, however I'm not sure it's appropriate to delete these redirects to new userpages (Wikihermit changed name to CO) when there isn't a privacy issue (whuch I'm assuming there wasn't, as the request was made publicly, and it does show up on a log, and all). Users do need to be able to tell who this user now is, especially since there are old incoming links, and the log is rather obscure: someone seeing a link to a red userpage, no talk page, and no edits would be VERY confused. What do we do here? --ST47Talk·Desk 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Closing decision:I understand the nominator's concerns but there is sufficient precedent to allow for the pages being kept deleted. I won't name names, but many of us know of at least two users who have done similar things, with the exception that a rename wasn't involved... indeed, here, there is a direct line between A and B for CO, and the talk history still exists. There is no attempt at obfuscation to avoid a prior controversial editing history, and I believe forcing the redirect would set a precedent that could violate other user's right to vanish for those users who have abandoned accounts and taken up another for reasons of privacy. There is a small potential hurdle for users willing to contact the user through the old link, but it is not insurmountable, and in comparison to more extreme cases of renaming or right-to-vanish is well within the realm of acceptability. Another way to look at it is, Yes, this user did not change names for reasons of privacy that we know of and all the history links trace back to his new account and the change was made publicly, so why not force the redirect in this case? Because, the appropriate deletion criteria, CSD U1 applies, even for the talk page as the history still exists elsewhere, but then again, maybe I have long been partial to that particular criteria. In any event, the pages will remain deleted either per CSD U1, and/or because there is no malicious intent to hide anything and the potential hurdles in keeping the pages red are minor. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I know what you're thinking...it's not that...bear with me. This page is protected from re-creation. A similar title (Angry Video Game Nerd) redirects here, and it's the same guy. I ask for quick unprotection so a redirect to the same target can be put in, then the page can be protected again. UsaSatsui 23:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article is not a personal view of the company, but was about a website listed by Forbes as a top ten consumer complaint site. It has received national attention from a variety of sources and is noteworthy in the respect that it denotes an early forerunner of the online consumer complaint site. Furthermore, the purpose of this article was in no way to comment on Ameriprise or any of it's activities, as this would be redundant as negative information about the company is listed on the Ameriprise page in wikipedia. I had listed several other company specific websites on the page as additional examples of what has become a thing in and of itself for the online community. In point, these online sites have become an issue for those in the marketing and business communities to address. The legal cases that these sites have spawned are rapidly becoming major benchmarks of free speech issues faced by American citizens and companies. As these issues are sociological, legal, and economic in nature they are worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. }} Donating intellect 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I know that these discussions are not votes, but c. 8 keeps to c. 4 deletes means that a majority of the community does not think the article should be delete; this one is a no consensus at best. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Booking photograph (mug shot) of notable subject, which was released as public data pursuant to a state statute after involvement in an incident of significance, was deleted based on an improper reason, deleted against consensus for use of image in article under fair use guidelines and not channeled through the images for deletion process. Proposed article: Larry Craig The image in question was improperly deleted against consensus. The image was included in the article because of its significance, which was also the object of coverage in the article itself. The discussion about the image can be found here, here and here. No discussion occurred to my knowledge about the deleting or keeping the image through the IfD process. The image history included both a full rationale (including licensing and basis for the license) for using the image in the article, and a deletion dispute tag that stated the reason against deleting the image. The nature of the proposal for deletion was that an editor thought that the image was improperly tagged as "public domain," and when consensus pointed to the belief that use of the image should be allowed under fair use guidelines, that same editor shifted to WP:NFCC #8 as the deletion rationale, citing "image used as decoration" as the basis for deletion. Days later, an administrator removed the information from the article, and then deleted the image, using the a POV rationale that the image was "disparaging" -- a basis that is not found among the reasons for deleting an image and nothing included in the article that disparages the subject. Coverage of the incident was stated as reported by various news sources without analysis to maintain neutrality. The same administrator mentioned that a "free" image was available (the subject's "official" U.S. Senate photograph), discounting the fact that the booking photograph was taken in connection with a specific incident of significance on a specific date. In one instance, the administrator who restored and then finally deleted the image expressed misgivings by way of a message on the talk page for the image about the rationale provided by another administrator who previously deleted the image. Neither administrator nor the editor who first brought up the deleting the image introduced a discussion beforehand on the article's talk page about whether the image should removed from the article, let alone deleted from Wikipedia. →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There are two issues here: 1/ is the image licensed suitably for Wikipedia, 2/ should it be used in the article. (If it is not suitably licensed then it should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia, of course, if it is then it's fine in Commons even if not in the article itself.) The question I think comes down to WP:BLP, and what the article is about. The reason he is notable is first and foremost because he is a politician, not because he is a famous criminal. The article states he has had such a controversy. At most, if he was famous, then the mugshot would be fair for that section. Although that section is long (as current news often is), it doesn't seem the central part of his bio, and to re-centre his bio around the legal incident would still probably be undue weight. This aspect would be an editorial issue, not an image licensing issue. I'm not yet convinced the mugshot is useful in that section, reading it. The point is already made by the facts of the text. Concur with User:JzG in essence. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Proposed article: User:Pro crast in a tor/Paul Addis The article Paul Addis was a contested AfD speedy, then up for DRV, but the article was exactly one sentence long. A completely different article also existed at [[Paul addis]], which had been previously edited by 3 or 4 other editors (none of which took part in the DRV). I came across the article today, cleaned it up, and when attempting to rename it to Paul Addis, found the AfD and DRV. Hmm. I talked to Anetode, the deleting admin, who (I believe corrected) then deleted Paul addis. Given that the article is much different and more comprehensive than the old one-line article, I thought I'd try DRV again. Reviewing the AfD and DRV, it appears that over half of the comments do not appear to apply to the new article. My apologies in advance if y'all believe this is a rehash, but it seems different enough to justify another shot. I believe notability is based on the extensive national and international media coverage of the arson, and now multiple interviews and articles about Mr. Addis himself in big-name papers. Media coverage of his other activities over the years, specifically NPR pieces and reviews of his playwright/actor performance, are nice windowdressing. Anecdotally, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I can't tell you how many times I've overheard his name in stores, cafes, and on the street. He's been the talk of the town for weeks, and I'm sure will keep coming up as his charges proceed through the courts. I think WP would be best served by having a page about him that can be referred to. Rod Coronado comes to mind as a similar WP:BIO with an ethically-motivated arson charges. There are 56000 hits in google for "Rod Coronado", whereas a combination of "Paul Addis" and "Burning man"' has 85000 hits in google. Yes, google is not a measure of notability, but it does illustrate that coverage has been in hundreds of papers worldwide, and throughout the blogosphere. Also, another comprable WP:BIO is Cathy_Wilkerson, who was a bit player in the extensively covered Weather Underground explosion in Greenwich Village, and who also has a Wikipedia page but did nothing else of note.Pro crast in a tor 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Was speedily deleted by User:FisherQueen a few days ago, citing CSD G4 - since the article was deleted in December 2006 for lack of sources. In the time since then, more sources were found, and a better article was written. CSD G4 explicitly states that it does not apply to substantially revised content, or when the re-created article fails to address the reasons why the first article was deleted... As the entire article was rewritten from scratch with sources, the material was improperly deleted per CSD G4. Userfied version of the deleted article is at User:Chardish/FFR.
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was originally deleted and protected from creation in March because the article dealt with a minor, never-seen character in a soap opera. The character has since debuted on-screen and is involved in a major storyline. The article is currently located at Pretty Crane (Passions character), but the disambiguation is cumbersome and makes searching for the article much more difficult. Charity 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |