Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 29

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

In November 2007, Tibbit was nominated for deletion. At the time, there was no suitable page for this article to be redirected to, so based on the consensus, AA deleted the article. I have created a new page, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which would be a proper destination to merge and/or redirect the article to. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? I asked AA about this, but this user appears to be on a wikibreak and inactive. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting; Pilotbob put this article up for deletion, and Doctorfluffy voted to delete; shortly after this AFD, both users were found to be meatpuppets of each other. BOZ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restore and redirect per nom. -Pete (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and redirect. Noncontroversial request. I can't seem to find a mention of Tibbit in List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, otherwise I'd just make a redirect myself and ask for a history merge. BOZ, I suggest you add Tibbit where it oughta' be before this request is fulfilled. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - it is a first edition monster, but it's part of a large category that has yet to be added. I can include just the tibbit though, when I get a moment. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done so - it's at the very bottom of the page. BOZ (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You could've just done it yourself, but that's fine. I just created the redirect, and a history merge is probably in order. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, if the history could be restored that would be great. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted the history but haven't closed this since the closing admin hasn't commented yet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) I don't know when the closing admin will be back online, but thanks again! BOZ (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertas (lobby group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedy deleted as spam (WP:CSD#G11), which it clearly isn't. The topic is quite notable, and it's surprising that an article doesn't already exist. Libertas is a political organization that has garnered a substantial amount of coverage in Ireland. For example, a Google search reveals over 30k results, including 228 articles on the site of Ireland's national news organisation alone. The article could certainly warrant further content -- which I was in the process of adding before it was deleted. Adxp (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I speedied this. One sentence followed by a link to the homepage looks like linkspam, and in any case the article is deletable as lacking substantive content, and not providing independent verifiable sources to notability (it's not clear to me that the second link is either of these.) If there are better references, recreate with them. WDR seems a waste of time for one sentence. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It was one sentence because it was deleted. Give it a few days, and see how things look then. As shown above, it's a notable topic. --Adxp (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no access to the deleted page so I can't comment on the deletion. However, there is no policy restriction on sensible recreation. The way forward, rather than using time and energy here, is as suggested by the deleting admin, simply to write a better article. BlueValour (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, extremely notable organization in Ireland in the Treaty of Lisbon debate. Completely not spam. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate with references per Jimfbleak and BlueValour. --Kbdank71 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate with more and better references (and a better name, since the name "Libertas" has probably been used by lobby groups in other countries; try "Libertas (Irish political group)" or something). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just recreate it already We have already killed more bytes discussing this then were expanded in writing the thing. This time please add some actual content and references. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and tag as needing expansion and references. Article should have been stubified instead so it could be expanded. The deleter just didn't know that the society was notable because of lack or references --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Recreate. Speedy was correct. Read like spam, had no assertion of notability and could also have met A7. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, Speedy was not correct. Subject is about a very notable lobby group campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty which can be found in various media coverage. The delete admin should have done research on the subject more thoroughly. @pple complain 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, the job of admins patrolling CSD is to check if an article meets our speedy criteria, not do research into the subject. The deleted version doesn't give any assertion that subject is "a very notable lobby group.", which is why it failed CSD. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I'll admit up front that this is a rather odd sort of DRV, the sort which I did not imagine filing. And yet, recent events have persuaded me otherwise. A procedural summary is that I am challenging the deletion of Aliza Shvarts, as being without consensus.

This isn't just consensus in the deletion debate itself, however. It is consensus amongst our contributors and amongst our policies. There is a definitive lack of logic in the present incarnation of WP:BLP1E, and it is functioning to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I've had a number of conversations about this with the case of Miss Shvarts in mind; one particularly insightful one lies at User:Avillia/A_Talk_With_A_Cat, which I suggest you read now, so as to better understand the logic which follows.

In summary:

• It is patently obvious that, at some given combination of the notability of an event and of a protagonist of that event, that an article regarding that person is justified -- although a biographical article may not be. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seung-Hui_Cho_(2nd_nomination).
• While Wikipedia policy cannot reflect every possible situation, it must be written to best reflect the intent of the policy, and the intended result of its application. If we accept the previous statement as true, WP:BLP1E does not meet that test.
• Not only does it fail that test, it fails that test in the context of what is, due to both Wikipedia's legal liability and ethical responsibility, one of the most key policies of the project.

Now, it may be that BLP1E is simply inappropriate in the context of the BLP policy, or in any policy document (as compared to a linked essay), or it may be that the problem can effectively be resolved by modifying the section to reflect the above common sense exception; regardless, I believe the current version cannot reasonably be seen as having the level of consensus it requires. As the majority of the arguments for the deletion of Aliza Shvarts reference BLP1E, many of them without further interpretation, we must decide if that lack of consensus compromises the consensus reached within the debate.

The article, at the time of deletion, did not violate any Wikipedia policy and, with the exception of 1E, fully complied with the BLP policy. It clearly established its notability with multiple references to respected major media (the Associated Press[1], the New York Times[2], etc), and it takes a minimum of research effort to show that it has further mainstream and legitimate coverage than what was referenced within the article (the Huffington Post[3], the Chicago Tribune[4], Fox News[5]...). The question of the article's existence, as such, lies entirely upon the merits of 1E.

You decide. My vote opinion is Overturn, by the way. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure I'm not the only editor who substantially agrees with you about the misapplication of BLP1E, but this may not be the venue for having that discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If Seng Hui Cho gets his own article for the Virginia Tech. massacre, then why shouldn't Aliza Shvarts get her own biographical article for her controversial art installation? The difference between the two is one of degree, rather than substance. Both Mr. Cho and Ms. Shvarts committed actions that were widely condemned. Neither Cho nor Shvarts would be notable but for a single event. Therefore, if one gets a biographical article, the other should too. My opinion is to overturn this deletion, based upon the aforementioned reasoning. Quanticle (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relist at least partly on the basis of the continuing coverage. There are no BLP concerns. She designed her project to attract publicity, and got it. BLP1E does not apply when the event is sufficiently notable--it needs either rewording on removal. DGG (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - if Avillia had the common sense to either a) ask me as the deleting admin, rather than proceeding straight to deletion review, or b) checked the deletion log, he would know the article is currently userfied and being worked on (see User:Skomorokh/Aliza Shvarts). Additionally, policy discussion needs to take place at WT:BLP, not here. Recommend speedy closure. Neıl ☎ 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - From Neil's talk page: "Did I delete your page? If it was through Articles for deletion, and you knew about it, kindly proceed directly to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'll just direct you there anyway." With that defense to my disregard to common sense aside, I now direct you to your closing summary for the deletion, which cited BLP1E as the primary reason for close, and stated that "Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced"... are particularly weak." The userification changes nothing, as no user's influence can change the fact that Miss Shvarts is notable for one event, and one event only. The issue is the notability (quality) of that event outweighing the quantity of events in which she is involved. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - From Neil's talk page: "Did I delete your page?". Had you asked, I would have given you the above information. Skomorokh explains it better than I have, below. Neıl ☎ 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close per Neil. DRV is wrong venue. -Pete (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I voted hastily, a complex issue. Have to look closer -- sorry. -Pete (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

but Neil's advice on his page is in fact wrong. It's his obligation to at least listen in good faith. He's making unnecessary work for all of us here--just like now. Quite apart from discouraging the newbies. DGG (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from article creator I just came here looking to relist the article. It would have been courteous to have been notified of this debate so I could have saved everyone a lot of wasted time, but here is the proposal: the article was deleted as a WP:BLP1E, with a strong minority of keep/merge/move/rework !votes. I propose to recreate the article (currently userfied here) as 2008 Yale University abortion art controversy or similar title on the grounds that the event (or controversy if you will) has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, to put it lightly. The only major policy-based deletion rationale was BLP1E, so I do not think this should be contentious. Thoughts? Skomorokh 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Rethink the framework. By itself, the present text has not one iota of biographical information, and so the article shouldn't be titled 'Aliza Shvarts'. However, the present text is excellent, and deserves to be in mainspace somewhere. Either the editors need to add bio data, or the article needs to appear within some other context. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  I have no objection to the present text being moved back into mainspace under the title Skomorokh suggested - it is now, rightly, about the event not the person. Neıl ☎ 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, do I need consensus here for this or can I just go ahead and boldly take a BLP1E deletion as an endorsement of the notability of the event? Skomorokh 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that as deleting administrator, I can say "go ahead and do this". So, go ahead and do this. Recommend if this is done this DRV is closed as moot and anyone wishing to continue a discussion on BLP1E take it to WT:BLP as they should have in the first place. Neıl ☎ 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In the title, could we drop the blurb for 'Yale University' please? Neither that nor "2008" are particularly suitable key terms. What, for example, did the press call the affair? Or generalize to something like "Aliza Shvarts performance art controversy" or even "Aliza Shvarts art controversies"? The latter would also give the older controversies room to development in. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If the college newspaper had done a better job reporting on the subject in the original article about her art project, she might never have made the national news in the first place. I don't think we should allow underreported and oversensationalized coverage in college newspapers to set the agenda for us. The comparison to Seung-Hui Cho is completely unreasonable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

but the college newspaper did say what it said, and she did make the national news. Don't try to delete on the basis of your preferred rewriting of history. DGG (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The consensus was clearly tilting toward delete, and even with a mixed consensus the closing admin made the right call by deleting on WP:BLP1E grounds and general non-notability. At least one of the keeps amounted to "this person clearly exists and so should have a Wikipedia article" which is absurd. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• overturn It is fundamentally unreasonable to use BLP1E when there is a) no consensus to do so b) the individual in question clearly sought publicity and c) we have no reason(if anything quite the opposite) to think that this person would prefer not to have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I believe it's worth noting that this "art" project has become part of the art world's dialectic about the direction of modern art. I'm not an expert on modern art by any means; it's clear that while Piss Christ had defenders in the main stream art world, this doesn't really. But it's nonetheless a topic of conversation. This recent column in the Wall Street Journal from a Williams College art professor is what I mean by part of the dialectic. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: That a number of editors don't like WP:BLP1E is apparent, but AfD is not the place to debate its existence or applicability. When you throw in such sterling arguments for Keep as "The individual clearly exists" and a mere "Keep this article," there you have it.  RGTraynor  12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse redirection to event article - The fact that there is nothing out there on her beyond this single event and its fallout, makes this person/article this a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Write an event on the article, not the person. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you had actually read the page before opining, you might have noticed the prominent Recreated title just below indicating this is a fait accompli. Skomorokh 06:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm simply endorsing said conclusion. FCYTravis (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse redirection the recent redirect to a proper name has already addressed the BLP1E deletion, and the encyclopedia has recovered a good article *feels tempted to invoke WP:IAR*. The article has a good bunch of sources and is clearly notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remark: it should be renamed to "Yale Art Student abortion art controversy" or similar, since the most relevant fact is that she was a Yale student, notice how only the Post Chronicle source uses "Aliza Shvarts" on its title. I urge closing admin to perform this move when closing. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreated

Since the latest !votes have completely missed the point, I have, with the closing admin's permission, recreated the article in a modified form at Aliza Shvarts abortion art controversy. Feel free to renominate for deletion, but note that this is about the event, not the individual, so BLP1E is irrelevant. Suggestions for renaming are most welcome on the talkpage. Skomorokh 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This page was removed with no warning or opportunity to correct the referencing, the page needs a few small alterations, please let it be reinstated so that these minor changes can be made. The administrator, Rama's Arrow, was contacted and made no reply whatsoever regarding the deletion. Thank you" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaiHeath (talk • contribs) --> Fix listing, no comment on merit TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn. Unless I'm mistaken, the lack of an AFD makes it appear this was a WP:PROD; in which case, it should be overturned without further need for justification. (Unless it was a speedy delete instead, in which case an admin with access to the logs should make the call.) -Pete (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Anyone can look at the log, using the "logs" link in the DRV template (or by going to the article's history and following the "view logs" link at the top of the page). This was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. The admin that deleted it is not active, nor an admin any longer. I agree that this fits A7 as an article about a group of people that fails to even claim any importance or significance for the group. Endorse deletion GRBerry 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• OK -- not being able to see the contents, I have no opinion on whether it meets the criteria. But thanks for the clarification on how to evaluate this. It seems to me that we should, at minimum, restore to user space, since the fix for an A7 can be so easy to make; and if Travellingcari can formulate an assertion of notability, he/she should simply recreate the article. -Pete (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, the article indeed did not make any claim of notability for the group, and seemed to be intended mainly for boosterism and exposure of said group (which renders it a likely candidate for G11 as well.) The person requesting undeletion has not given any indication of how (s)he intends to address the reason for deletion or what assertion of notability does exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy. This article is about a student club at a university which organizes volunteer projects in foreign countries. Although their activity may be worthy, student organizations at a single school are generally non-notable. Searching for Google hits appears to be unfruitful because there appear to be other organizations by this name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, page did not assert notability. If you have references or sources for the group that establish its notability, let's see them. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Looking at the article, I think i would probably accept it as a G7-club. If anyone can actually find sources for notability they can of course recreate it, but Id be pretty surprised. DGG (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  I guess I was under the mistaken impression this was a music group, not a club. (No way to know, I think, without seeing the article?) In any event..is there a reason not to restore to user space? I guess I'd just respect any decision admins make, as they're able to see the content in question and make a call based on that. -Pete (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's a college club, and looks like a G7-club to me as well. According to the article's last state, Cai Heath, the user who wants it revived, is also the President of the club and the original (possibly only) author of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think that addresses my question. If he's the only author, that means they're his words. He may not have a copy anywhere else. He may want them. Even if the words have no future as a Wikipedia article, I'd think that we should give a copy back to the author due to WP:BITE. Of course, maybe he doesn't care. But I don't see a compelling reason to refuse such a request if it's made. -Pete (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

of course I will send him a copy he if asks me.DGG (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was misunderstood; I never object to sending somebody an e-mail of their own text! I'm just a little dubious about creating a userpage for something when it's such a blatant case of COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think we're all on the same page. Sorry if my comments seemed nitpicky, I'm trying to better understand how things work here as I just had an RFA in which some people questioned my understanding of areas like this. Glad to know that's how you'd treat it. Happy now to endorse deletion. -Pete (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)