Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 22

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

Article was falsely claimed to be unreferenced, when it contained text from Dwelly's dictionary (no, it's not purely a "dicdef"), and is definitely not a hoax. Furthermore, it was not listed properly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland, which is the area for people with some knowledge of Scottish subjects. Note also, apparently Scottish folk traditions are "not notable", which is big news to us... --MacRusgail 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - in most cases, the encyclopedic articles from Dwelly's dictionary were originally sourced at the bottom of the page. This sourcing was moved to the talk page, which I believe may be the source of the confusion in many cases. --MacRusgail 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. I looked at the deleted article and I can understand why people thought it was a hoax, but given the low level of participation in the AfD, and the sources referred to by the nominator, I think we can restore the article and give knowledgeable editors some time to bring it up to standard. (It can always be listed for AfD again if notability can't be established.) Walton^One 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Disagreement with the unreferenced and dicdef assertions should have been done at the AfD. Listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland is not a requirement for a proper AfD listing. Comment The only reference I found regarding big bonnet was in the content of large hats. I did not find anything regarding "struileag." This "Dealbhan dìleab na dùbailteachd" article mentioned something about "boineid" but not "mhòr." I did not find "big bonnet", "boineid mhòr", or "Struileag" at Appendix to Dwelly's Gaelic-English Dictionary. Wikipedia:Notability is about sufficient relaible source material, not importance or fame. No objection to recreating the article if sufficient relaible source material can be located. -- Jreferee T/C 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No evidence yet presented that this can become more than a dictionary definition. WP:NOT#DICT applies, as far as I can tell. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that someday somebody will find sources other than the one used (see {{Dwelly talk}}), but the only source used was a dictionary, making it content for Wiktionary rather than here. Any article would likely not belong under an English title anyway, unless there is evidence that there is a common English term for the concept, not just a literal translation of a non-literal meaning. GRBerry 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Irmo Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as no consensus, even though there was four votes to delete and one as a weak keep. The weak keep was because they won a middle school state championship, in which there aren't any sources. Overturn and Delete 131.94.22.243 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse — eh, it looked pretty borderline all around, and the sources at the end could reasonably push it over the edge for a closer. --Haemo 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse sources provided establish notability. Alansohn 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Slight endorse. Mandsford's !vote seemed to be "tentative keep," and Isis4563's seemed something like "probably slight keep, though I don't really care." The sources listed at the end don't exactly flatter the school with high-profile attention, but it's common and reasonable to enforce WP:N somewhat less stringently for schools just as we do for mountains and the like -- they have some inherent notability so there isn't such a big issue with verifying their notability. I'm not saying it's an obvious keep, as the inherent notability is not huge, but it seems pretty borderline. I wouldn't have complained if this AfD was closed as delete, but I think Maxim's closure was fair enough. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, arguments for deletion were clearly stronger. Sources provided were not about the school itself and did not address any concerns. --Coredesat 07:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Isis4563 was the only editor to address WP:N and no one challenged the reliable sources, so it appears that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee T/C 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are local news stories that people got shot in front of the school, nothing about the school in general. 131.94.55.107 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  They weren't stories about a shooting at the school. They were stories about a seventh grader sexually harassing and threatening to rape six girls. I would appreciate it if you actually read the stories before judging this. Just to add to the number of stories about the incident, there was also an article about it on the state newspaper's site (no link). I don't know if it was in the paper itself, but I don't see why it wouldn't be. --Isis4563 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  Users commenting here may also want to look at this, this ,and this. There are other, less recent stories here and here. --Isis4563 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  Isn't it also likely that reliable source material was generated for the topic when the bond was being passed to raise money for the school, during the time the school was being built, etc. Reliable source material includes government documents, which most public schools are the subject of, so there is no reason someone can't tap into those. -- Jreferee T/C 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This article on a reputable Japanese video game developer was unfairly shut down for "questionable notoriety". It presented an unbiased overview of a fan-favorite company, while hundreds of other developers still exist on Wikipedia. Gutsdozer 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please find reliable sources to verify notability. The subject may very well be notable, but without adequate sources we can't really judge it as such. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided - The deletion was based on an outdated prod and the article may be restored based on a resonable request. See proposed deletions. If consensus thinks the above request is reasonable, then the article should be restored. -- Jreferee T/C 08:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Motorola E770 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was closed as a keep by a non-admin. I see no concensus for that keep, with six deletes, four keeps and a merge. The keep side was very weak with comments such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and keep and source, even though there has been two weeks while the debate was open that the article could have been sourced, but didn't. One of the sources listed in the article is spam, while the other one lists all the facts about every cellphone, not substancial sources. Overturn and Delete 131.94.22.243 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete. Nice catch, 22.243! -- Mikeblas 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse/Overturn/whatever as no consensus. Definitely wasn't a consensus to keep, but not really a consensus to delete either. I don't see what's wrong with this source, and there are plenty more available to be added. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. Phoenix 15's AfD argument, "more sources could be found" was shown above by XDanielx to be a simple google search task. No one overcame this argument at AfD, so the closer could not conclude that delete was the rough consensus. There are a few other sources from which material for the article may be gathered: 11/16/2005 press release, 12/08/2005 press release, 02/24/2006 press release, 06/05/2006 news article, 11/07/2006 news article. -- Jreferee T/C 08:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • All these sources are just trivial mentions of the phone, none of them talks about the phone in detail. 131.94.55.107 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Should have been a No consensus rather than a Keep (and therefore not closed by a non-admin), but Wikipedia is not about rigid adherence to procedure. Reliable sources were provided by participants in the AfD, which counteracted most of the arguments for deletion. Walton^One 16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Non-admin should not be closing AfDs where the decision is not absolutely straightforward and uncontroversial. DGG (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree in principle, but is there really any point in having another AfD only to end in Keep or No consensus? Seems to me that the outcome was correct, even if the process wasn't. Walton^One 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that non-admin should not be closing AfDs where the decision is not straightforward and uncontroversial. However, with little opposition, someone keeps amending Non-administrators closing discussions to let them do it . -- Jreferee T/C 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. A Keep closure was not appropriate here. While I would accept either No consensus or Delete as being within admin discretion. Therefore I recommend relisting to gather a clearer consensus with admin closure. Eluchil404 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Meets WP:PORNBIO because i don't think it has reached concensous in the AFD discussion.UnknownMan 00:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, keep arguments did not address the article, they simply said "she's famous". Saying someone is notable is not enough, you have to prove it. The article contained no sources and only an assertion of notability, which saves articles from A7 but not AFD. Valid close. --Coredesat 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. As for substantial new information, the only new information I could find (items 1-3) included little information and the known information (items 4 and 5) seemed more like blog material: (1) New York Times August 24, 2004; (2) Richmond Times Dispatch October 10, 2004; (3) Adult Video News; (4) Undated Kianna Dior Interview at blog?; (5) undated blog post. Her website^{(not work safe)} didn't list any news coverage. -- Jreferee T/C 02:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. "She's famous because I say so" is not evidence of notability. All AfDs brought as non-notable are considered non-notable unless proven otherwise. Smashville 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As closer. This was a close call because the arguments of both sides were weak and mostly consisted of bare assertions. But in the end, we delete articles without sourced claims to notability. If reliable sources can be found an article can and should be created, but until that time deletion is proper. Eluchil404 06:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the closer's reasoning. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. "She's famous" is a very weak argument for keeping. While XfD closures should usually follow consensus, they must also be compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which is why XfD isn't treated as a straight vote). Walton^One 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Based on what the closer said above, there was no consensus, so he decided on his own. That is not the role of the closing admin. the role is not to cast a tie-breaking vote, but decide on what the consensus is in the discussion. It would have been more appropriate for him to have joined the discussion and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The clarify further, my reasoning was not that she failed WP:PORNBIO and should thus be deleted, but that the keep arguments provided zero sources or backup for their bare assertions and could be thus completely ignored rather than simply given less weight. If DRV finds that an abuse of discretion fine, I certainly agree that admins should determine consensus not impose their opinions. But I just want to be clear that I evaluated this close based on the arguments and the evidence not my personal opinions of the subjects notability. Once could also argue that my axiom we delete articles without sourced claims to notability is wrong or improper but given A7 and the pattern of outcomes on AfD I will stick to it. Eluchil404 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dedication 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think this should be relisted because I don't think any consensus was reached in the AfD. Four people voted (included the nominator), no one ever responded to the points I raised, and the bit in the admin's closing comments about Da Drought 3's "controversy" wasn't mentioned by anyone in the debate (the closing admin's role in AfD is just to interpret what the consensus is, right?). I don't think this is a tyrannical misuse of administrative power or anything, but I don't think any consensus was ever reached. P4k 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly with regard to Dedication 2. Comment There is not much information at All Music Guide to write a Wikipedia article. There are a few other mentions elsewhere, (1) Hip-hoppers do their part to rebuild community; (2) Mixtapes Mix In the Marketing That Fuels the Hip-Hop Industry. The references to Dedication 2 seem to be in passing. Without much WP:RS material to develop the Dedication 2 article, this topic seem best covered by Lil Wayne. -- Jreferee T/C 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• To me there wasn't any debate. Like I said in the AfD, there were more sources in the article itself, and I'm sure it was covered in Hip Hop magazines. It was also reviewed in slate and the Washington Post. This New York Times article states: "it appeared on the Billboard hip-hop and R&B charts and was widely reviewed in the mainstream press. (Kelefa Sanneh of The New York Times chose Dedication 2 as one of the 10 best recordings of 2006.) As the R.I.A.A. agents boxed up Drama's stash of Dedication 2, the CD continued to sell well at major retailers like Best Buy and FYE (a national chain of record stores) and also at the iTunes Store online." Sanneh's top ten list is here, and he also mentions it briefly in this other NYT article. It was also on Sasha Frere-Jones' 2006 top ten list[1] and these alt-weekly top ten/top twenty lists, the first of which contains some commentary too.[2][3] Tom Breihan talks about it here and in some other places. There's probably more out there! I'm sorry I didn't dig up all this before the AfD closed; I'm lazy and I guess I assumed It wouldn't be closed before more people had weighed in.P4k 03:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is a five day AfD window and the AfD may be closed after that. You can still build a Dedication 2 draft article in your user space using only material from the references cited. if you do that and come back here to DRV, you will have a much stonger basis for having the article restored. -- Jreferee T/C 08:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that consensus was reached in this AfD anyway? "closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly with regard to Dedication 2" isn't an explanation.P4k 09:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Actually fuck it, I'm sure we both have better things to do than continue talking about this.P4k 09:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Relist I think the closer's interpretation was OK (although I probably would have !voted to create a clearer consensus instead of closing this), but P4k has marshaled enough evidence of the Dedication 2's significant notability that I think we came to the wrong conclusion here. If this does close "endorse", I'll be happy to userfy to facilitate a rewrite.--Chaser - T 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist to obtain consensus on this specific article. Eluchil404 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)