Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 28

Kent State shootings in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Yet another "X in popular Culture" article deleted, in this case one that's actually well written and well sourced. The argument given by the closer, that the list constitutes OR, is a little unprecedented and wasn't discussed as a reason for deletion at all. That a lot of the references were to primary sources may be a valid point, but certainly is not something that could not be fixed if the article was restored. Artw 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's comment - I knew this might be controversial, since I didn't close it strictly by the numbers. However, AfD is not a majority vote, and closures generally need to be in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Keep !voters didn't put up a strong argument other than WP:ITSSOURCED, and while it was sourced, the sourcing was all primary and wasn't adequate to justify the article's existence, particularly since most of the sourced stuff is already covered in Kent State shootings. Also, note that I closed without prejudice against re-creation - so if anyone wants to rewrite it with reliable secondary sources, they can. Walton^One 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn closed by personal opinion--should have joined the debate instead. There was at least one secondary source, "Memorialising May 4, 1970 at Kent State University: Reflections on Collective Memory, Public Art and Religious Criticism" by Mark W. Graham Literature and Theology 2006 20(4):424-437; doi:10.1093/litthe/frl042 Abstract DGG (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore article. Definitely no consensus to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Editors' consensus cannot supersed Wikipedia policy which requires that articles avoid being original research. See the deletion guide for administrators. The guideline also goes on to state, "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." So the question is whether the closing admin concluded that it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy. I'm open to changing my position on seeing discussion on this point. -- Jreferee t/c 06:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The main keep arguments are "well sourced". Most of the deleters, including myself, said be this could be re-added to Kent State shootings (that's where it was originally taken from), it's OK as a section, not a stand alone article. What's wrong with that? Why bring this to DRV when there appeared to be an alternative? Crazysuit 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely endorse. The main principle of AFD is that it isn't a vote. Major commendations to Walton One for the sensible closure. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Just because some information can be sourced and could possibly be included in Wikipedia doesn't mean it needs a separate article. There is not enough information to warrant a whole separate article. That said, the info in the Kent State shootings article should be attempted to be turned into prose, to avoid trivia type sections. Wickethewok 16:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and a good closure. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

After reading your WP:RS guideline, I'm not sure about qualifying internet sources (and am certainly not aware of all publications he has appeared in). I know he's been mentioned in 'The Other' newspaper, as well as several university newspapers. But, I don't see how i could possibly 'prove' those since I tried searching for them but couldn't find them. If it's any help, two of the reviewers for Croix (Alec Trelawney and Nicole Wyman) worked for The Other I believe, but I couldn't find anything on them either. Is this absolutely essential? I mean he is fairly well-known *edit* - in modern experimental music circles, maybe something comes up there. Hbartel81 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Is a notable artist, having published two albums and having multiple references throughout the internet, in addition to fan sites in the u.s.a., japan, and the philippines. is there *special* 'criteria' for being included in wikipedia, even if the article is of a notable artist? Hbartel81 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please cite some of those references? I can't see any, certainly not any that meet the WP:RS guideline. Endorse speedy deletion without prejudice to sources being found. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Important/significant does not equal Wikipedia notable. It's all about previously written, verifiable facts. As for qualifying internet sources, if it's on a dead tree, you likely can use it. If it is on a website run by people who also print on dead trees you probably can use it. (e.g., nytimes.com) If the information is somewhere else (usually a blog or the topic's website), it is unlikely to meet WP:RS requirements. If he was fairly well-known, then someone would have already written about him. You might find material in the alternative weekly newspaper near where he lives/is based. Foreign language sources are fine, so long as you are in good standing with Wikipedia and vouch for their content. -- Jreferee t/c 06:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Jreferee ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

One book published, another to be published in three weeks time, with extensive media coverage of a newsworthy topic Hew BG 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn having written multiple books with ISBNs, major publishers and a notable co-author is a reasonable claim of importance, so A7 didn't really apply. --W.marsh 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support W Marsh. To be fair to Pedro, I'm assuming he means Conflict of Interest and that is - ahem - a fair cop. That said, I hope the text of the page is as neutral as possible. The content is also verifiable from the Macmillan Author Page referenced or, indeed, by googling the name. As you say, notability is not an issue here - merely the CoI. If we can agree that the article merits inclusion, then please edit or suggest revisions - it's just the instant deletion (I didn't even have time to add the hangon tag) that seems a touch harsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hew BG (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - I'm new to this game. Hew BG 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hew BG was premature in bringing this here but has now contacted me, post listing at DRV (not a problem, of course). On balance I still feel my A7 deletion was justified due to the lack of assertion. However reviewing it the notability is implied by authorship with a notable co-author. I have currently userfied the article and would seek to work with Hew Bg to bring it up to standards and then restore. Is this acceptable to all? Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying someone has written a book with a notable publisher is an assertion... CSD doesn't specify all claims must be in sentence form, just that they must be there. The wording is kept very general for a reason. The article as written, in my opinion, stood on its own. --W.marsh 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with Pedro's suggestion. Apologies also for using this forum immediately. As I say, I'm new to wikipedia: I was simply surprised by the speed with which the article was deleted and followed what I could find out about the process from there. To be honest, assertions as to the notability - especially as regards the Leiths Techniques Bible - would have made the conflict of interest worse. I'd be delighted to work with you to improve the article for restore.Hew BG 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh. No worries, I accept that there is an assertion and I apologise for the speed of deletion. I was too quick. Are you happy to speedy close this DRV? I'd quite like to work with Hew BG to tidy the article prior to restoration (e.g. per WP:MOS and also fixing some broken wikilinks) Pedro :  Chat  15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep this in sandbox until the article of a sufficient standard to be restored. Where and how do we go from here? Presumably we do this in the talk page at the sandbox article? Let me know how you want to progress. Hew BG 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on users talk page - going offline now so apologies for no further input at this time. As discussed will work with user to tidy article and then commit to restore to mainsapce when done. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Reason given for deletion is 'lack of notability' of the ad agency HHCL. However, the deleted entry cited articles from major UK media (including the Guardian newspaper and the Financial Times) attesting to the importance of HHCL both culturally and as a business, as well as major articles from the key trade publications relevant to the sector in which HHCL operated. There has been no explanation from the editors involved in the deletion as to why these sources collectively are not considered to confer notability under WP:CORP. Darrellberry 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Trivial to grab random Google News results such as "HHCL, one of the best-known agencies of the 1990s" and "HHCL, one of the most successful ad agencies of the 1990s". Profile here. There are a dozen results in current Google News, a remarkable thing when you consider the agency has been merged and wholly renamed (although how smart it is to get confused with a soccer club, I don't know). There are numerous in-depth Google Books results. Clearly a ball was dropped somewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, no arguments at all given by delete voters to counter the demonstration of notability given by Darrellberry. Kusma (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Dhartung. Article was a bit awkward and had some spammy overtones, but in this case it was a reason to improve it, not delete it. --W.marsh 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DRV is not the place to re-argue the points raised, and the AFD was valid. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion these sources were raised at AFD, considered, and rejected. Carlossuarez46 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question. Considered at what length? Rejected on what basis? It seems to be the rejection was entirely incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The sources were brought to the attention of the debate prior to the deleters delete comment, and you are charitable to suggest that one-line passing references to the company constitutes significant coverage - why bother having WP:CORP since nearly any business could muster a passing reference or two in a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn the sources were adequate, and apparently not fully taken into account--there were a number of major newspaper stories about the companies work. DGG (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, possible relist at editorial discretion. The AfD does not appear to be valid to me, since it was created by Darrellberry (after an AfD tag was placed on the article by Rapido), who wanted to keep the article, apparently by accident--that is, without a full understanding of the way the process normally works. Without a normal nomination message, the AfD is confusing, and I'm not sure it can be considered to be within process. Chick Bowen 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, to Chick Bowen's point: any action of mine (subsequent to coming back to do some improvements to the content and finding it tagged for Speedy Deletion) which contributed to the deletion of the article, were *completely* accidental. I wasn't aware until his note above that I HAD contributed in any wiki-process sense to the deletion. Mea Culpa! (I'm not commenting here on the merit of the entry itself and its content, which is a matter for others to decide!) Darrellberry 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Stifle and Carlos ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reverse per DGG and W.marsh, plus I agree with Chick - the AfD was out of process, and subsequently deletion was both premature and unnecessary. Subject is notable enough to merit an article. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)