Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 23

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

"I went to this page to get information on this computer computer game from my childhood; however, there is no information available now. It seems like if I'm interested in this game there would be others who would like information on it too." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.214.77 (talk)

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

Overturn and Rename: Change article name to 'Murder of Brianna Denison'. The article was nominated and voted for deletion when it was still a stub written in a quasi unencyclopedic tone - I believe the user who nominated the article for deletion, User:WWGB failed to give the article a chance. The article was also deleted by admin Bongwarrior immediately after a significant expansion and sourcing. This story has received prominent coverage in the U.S. news media. Though coverage may be fleeting, once notable is always notable, and I think it's got to that point already. As for the MWWS argument, there are plenty of cases in which similar subjects where considered notable enough. Considering that the kidnapping has received significant media coverage and that the perpetrator is still at large, the subject should be at least partially satisfied by an encyclopedia article. I believe this warrants an overturn. James Bond (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I just wanted to point out that the article was indeed vastly improved by the author, after most of the !voting had already concluded, which I hadn't noticed. I would not be opposed to a relist of the debate if necessary, but I'll leave it to the wisdom of others. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Generally crime victims, even murder victims, aren't notable enough for an article per WP:BLP1E. Any murder is going to get news coverage because...well, murders get a lot of press. Unfortunately, just being killed isn't notable. That said, sometimes crime victims can achieve notability (Chandra Levy, Jon Benet Ramsey, and John Wayne Bobbitt, for example), so I wouldn't necessarily rule this victim's notability completely out. We'll see if it's still being talked about in a few months, or if anything further develops that makes her notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Every single vote at the AfD was cast before a significant rewrite, expansion, and sourcing by James Bond, save for James's own vote. In other words, the article that was !voted for deletion was not the article that was deleted. I think the community should get a chance to see the degree of media coverage the article is sourced with before making any final decision. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  It isn't a vote, the question would be do the changes made address the issues the commenters had made. I can't tell not being able to see the article, but since they were issues like WP:ONEEVENT and nothing here has suggested that problem was overcome, the rewrite probably doesn't impact the validity of the arguments previously put forward. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  I left out the ! in front of the word "vote," but the point holds: no one's opinion was based on the full article. Also, WP:ONEEVENT is an extremely problematic policy, since it actually says that notability can be based on one event. Whether it's Laci Peterson or even Guy Fawkes or John Wilkes Booth, we have plenty of articles on people notable for only one event. The fallout from the event can make a person notable. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  It was the "cast" which prompted the response. Yes there maybe problems with WP:ONEEVENT (But this isn't the venue to address that, the fact that there are exceptions (and quite possibly numerous exceptions) doesn't magically make any opinion citing that as a reason invalid) and there were certainly problems with the none-opinion vote (for that's all it was), the question still remains, did the updates address those concerns or not? If they didn't then their opinion still holds, no need to restate what they already said (in fact there is nothing to say they didn't see the update article and it simply didn't change their opinion). This is quite normal, deletion debates last 5 or more days (normally) and people are encouraged to work on the article in the meantime if they can "repair" the issues, but just making major updates doesn't automatically put it into a "rinse and repeat" cycle otherwise there would be some articles being perpetualy updated just to try and sidestep deletion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  Well, when major updates are made at the very end of the fifth day, the community should have some chance to review them - otherwise, no one will ever know whether they "repaired" the issues. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  And the nom here, nor your statement, nor anyone elses does anything to suggest that those issues were addressed. If the article was deletable because of those issues, no amount of rewrites which don't address those issues make it any less deletable. We seem to have come to the end of any useful dialogue here, I was hoping someone would point out that the rewrite did indeed address those concerns, guess I'm wasting my time. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  How exactly is the nom here supposed to suggest that those issues were addressed if he can't reference his work because it's been deleted?? --66.214.221.166 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  What you reckon he's forgotten what changes he made? If I make updates to address some concerns, I definitely remember making them and would be able to repeat at least in outline what those changes were. Perhaps I just have a superhuman memory capacity? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We should remember the policy for a biography which says, "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime" and I certainly don't consider rape and murder to be unimportant, especially given the national news attention it got. Plenty of victims have articles, and there seems to be no reason for this to have been deleted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, not all rapes and murders are equally "important", at least not the way Wikipedia is using the word "important." Certainly we wouldn't write an article for every rape victim in the world. But when a murder generates the mountain of publicity and ripple effects that Denison's has - yeah, it's notable. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Restore The current version has sufficient sourcing, including FOXNews , CNN ABC , MSNBC and CBS News. given this, there will be additional. DGG (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Not sure whether the article should be renamed or not, some are saying this could indicate a serial rapist, but honestly this certainly seems to meet notability requirements. I did a brief Google News search and found whole articles about this on Fox News (apparently John Gibson talked about it on FNC), CNN, Washington Post, Seattle Times, LA Times, AP, and ABC News. I'd say notability requirements are more than satisfied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relist as the nominator asserted most delete votes were cast before the significant rewriting and referencing, so this needs more discussion. A rename can be considered after relisting; the deleted version has enough good sources to at least establish the notability of the event. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A really well written news story is still a news story. This is a news story, not an encyclopaedia subject, and Wikinews is over yonder. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at the AfD there's another problem, I don't think consensus could be reasonably said to have been met. The person who nominated it said it was MWWS and another delete opinion said people only start caring when a rich white woman goes missing, hardly reasons for deleting it and it suggests some level of bias. Another didn't even give a reason, just said delete. Then there's another whose only edit as a user was ON the AfD. There were only ten responses to the AfD with three keeps seven deletes and two of those deletes can't really be considered valid as one was a single edit user, that edit being the AfD, and another gave no reason. With two more showing an apparent bias and the only keep decision not made by an established editor gave significant reasoning for keep I'd hardly say the consensus was delete. It seemed to lack consensus, which means keep.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn -- WP:NOT#NEWS does not act as an absolute bar to the coverage of current events, notable as such, with no evidence of prior notability. Instead, it attempts to distinguish mere news topics from current events which are legitimate encyclopedic subjects by means of reference to the amount and substantiality of coverage available in third-party reliable sources. To quote the policy in relevant part:

  Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

  Furthermore, the general notability guideline provides that

  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  To properly evaluate whether news coverage of an article's topic is merely "routine", as disfavored by WP:NOT#NEWS, or instead constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources", as favored by the general notability guideline, an AFD discussion must necessarily consider all of the source material present in the article. Since it appears that substantial evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources was added to the article near the conclusion of the AFD discussion, and that all comments supporting deletion refer to a prior, far more sparsely sourced version, the AFD discussion may well have come to the wrong conclusion. John254 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've restored the article to what it was just before it was deleted in a subpage on my userpage (User:Smoth 007/Brianna) just to give people an idea to what it was. --James Bond (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Even if it's renamed to "Murder of…" this is really just another typical kidnapping/murder. There's nothing notable here, murders are reported all the time. Yes, even if the mainstream news picks it up for a few days, it's still not notable. The fact that it happened isn't at issue, but does this have any lasting notability at all? WIthin a year, will this be something people come back to reference/document/report on? I don't see it. -- Kesh (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"There is nothing so fearful as ignorance in action." [Goethe] It seems that ignorance has moved into action to delete the information by G. Edward Griffin. That is no surprise. Remember the 4 stages of any new idea: denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then it becomes intuitively obvious. Obviously, Griffin's ideas have been promoted to stage 3. Nothing new there, except it appears that Wikipedia is allowing censorship without requiring proof of error. --1215 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)1215
— 1215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 11:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• It seems this page has been deleted by someone whose agenda is not NPOV. Reasons for deleting have included "not notable enough" (untrue: has published many many books), "self-publishing" (so what), "conspiracy theorist" (irrelevant and not neutral). Do we delete Oliver Stone because some of his movies have conspiratorial leanings? No. I do not agree with much of what G. Edward Griffin has to say, but that doesn't mean that I should delete his wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takometer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I'm looking at the notability guidelines and I don't see anywhere that it says reliable sources have to be in the article, only that they have to exist. I fail to see how anyone could search him up and not find his notability. He was one of the founding members of the Liberty Dollar organization, which has been in the news a great deal, his book The Creature from Jekyll Island is cited by various critics of the Federal Reserve, he was interviewed for America: Freedom to Fascism on the Federal Reserve, and he's brought up on several alternative health sites for his book on Vitamin B17 for cancer treatment. It seems obvious the article was nominated by and called for deletion by people who simply don't traffic in the field Griffin is notable in.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see anywhere that it says reliable sources have to be in the article, only that they have to exist - That's a breathtaking bit of hairsplitting, there. But perhaps you could have brought these alleged reliable sources during the year between the article's first and second nomination, or, for that matter, at anytime in the last week you've been challenged to do so. Like now. Continued claims of reliable sources ought to be reality-based rather than faith-based. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion — while there were a lot of "keep" arguments, none of them (as you can see in the nomination) were based on policy. The closest one came is an argument that "sources exist" — however, at no point were these sources produced, and indeed the exact same argument had been used previously as a reason for keeping the article, and the sources never materialized. There were a lot of peripheral claims of notability, but none which addressed our rationales under guidelines. This deletion review does not point out any error in the closing, and instead attacks the nominator while blatantly misunderstanding guidelines. Deletion review is not "deletion round two"; which appear to be the case here. --Haemo (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• In the interest of truth and fair play, the page for G.Edward Griffin should be included in Wikipedia. He has published many books and is well known to a number of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth9898 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Truth9898 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse deletion Notability for wikipedia comes from significant coverage in reliable sources. Nobody in the AFD was able to point to such coverage and given that the article had existed since June 2005 without such sources being added it is likely they do not exist. The flood of single purpose accounts in the AFD were rightly discounted by the closer and did not produce policy-based arguments for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• endorse deletion being interviews by others from the same fringe causes are not reliable sources. Allow recreation if actual independent, non-trivial, reliable sources are presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - I never got a chance to see the article, but usually if we have a poorly-sourced article on a notable figure, we let the editorial process handle it. I have nothing but respect for Nihonjoe, but his suggestion that if an article fails WP:RS, it follows that its subject fails WP:V, is simply wrong. Overturn on the basis of good-faith misapplication of policy. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• So, why is he wrong? An actual train of logic would be helpful here. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just like the AFD it seems those in favor have a very vitriolic view of anyone who holds any conspiracy theories. I don't see how they can even be considered neutral. I pointed out several times that there are many sources which are available. I gave things that could be easily referenced. Searching the John Birch Society page for him will bring up several dozen results where his books are cited or he himself is brought up. It's not like I just said, "there are sources" and left it at that. I pointed out stuff that could easily be turned up in a basic search. Having just seen the Liberty Dollar page and how Griffin is connected to that as well, it seems the more I look the more sources I find to attest to his notability. It seems those who say they can't find sources are being incredibly selective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We have many articles about people who are fans of conspiracy theories such as Alex Jones, Lyndon LaRouche, Kent Hovind and Richard Hoagland. That isn't the issue. The issue is that we need reliable sources that talk about this man. For example, has ever been discussed in newspapers? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think his positions kept some from approaching the article with a purely neutral perspective. The people you mentioned are undeniably notable, but a person doesn't have to be blatantly notable to be notable. In fact, part of the justification for deletion was also misplaced. Many argued self-published sources shouldn't be used but the policy actually says they can be used to establish notability. It seems the policy is being misapplied here. Never mind that just searching for the actual stuff mentioned in the article would let those questioning notability see exactly why he is notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• It seems those who say they can't find sources are being incredibly selective - So it ought to be simple enough to cite some of those, yes? And yet, you haven't, in favor of vague references to The International Journal of Because I Said So. So, how's about a few of those

I didn't make vague references. I gave explicit subjects. The John Birch Society page is a "vague reference"? Are you saying you can't do a simple search on their site? Are you saying you can't type in the name of his organizations, films, or books in Google? Do you want me to name some to assist you? Accusing me of making vague references is just ignoring everything I've written so far.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Many argued self-published sources shouldn't be used More hair-splitting: no, it says they can be used if they are "relevant to their notability," not to establish it. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Except one of these sources mentions him winning a Telly Award which goes directly to his notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, there is a dedicated group of Wikipedians who try to remove as much conspiracy-related material from Wikipedia as possible. That's no secret. Their favorite tactic is to claim that any source that would mention a conspiracy is necessarily unreliable because it mentions a conspiracy, and thus it's impossible for any conspiracy-related article to meet WP:RS. This interpretation of WP:RS is a sneaky backdoor way to get around WP:N; even where something is clearly notable with thousands and thousands of sources mentioning it, the thinking goes, if I think it's codswollop I can simply declare all those sources "unreliable." No policy on Wikipedia is as routinely and thoroughly abused as WP:RS. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my nomination for deletion. I made its second nomination in large part because of its year-long unfulfilled promise of reliable sources Real Soon Now, and the massive wave of sock/meatpuppets flooding the AFD and trying to recreate the article has only confirmed for me the validity of that choice. Continued vague handwaving about how, no, there are actual reliable sources attesting to his notoriety, impact, notice and/or influence are out there, really, no, we mean it this time fail to convince (the comment, "'self-publishing' (so what)," certainly shows a basic misunderstanding of what's needed or desired). And the less said about the new made-up stories involving mindreading editors's motivations, the better. Put forward some actual, actionable reasons for overturning, or it's just pointless typing. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Upsidedownpiano (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)RESTORE!! - I cannot believe that this page is even being considered for deletion. He is a noted author, documentarian, and founder of various organizations including Cancer Cure Foundation, Freedom Force International and Reality Zone. He is the president of American Media. He has served on the board of directors for National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends. Is any of this up for debate? His books sell on Amazon, you can easily find his biographical information on any kind of simple search. He's been interviewed plenty of times, one search of his name in google will produce plenty of interviews he’s had, one in particular that can easily be found is on NaturalNews.com. Is that source a "fringe cause?" You can't possibly say it's not independent, trivial, or unreliable. I completely agree with one of the previous posts that the more I search for him, the more credible evidence I find! He’s won a Telly Award for excellence in television production, he’s listed in the “Who’s Who in America” How are we quibbling over whether he has been discussed in newspapers (previous post). Simply entering his name in google elicits 315,000 results! There's been scores of people commenting on this forum with multitudes of sources of information including his books and films. Who or what, then, is considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia? There are plenty of lesser-known authors allowed on Wikipedia! I personally was introduced to him when he was a speaker at the 4th Annual Artivist Film Festival in Los Angeles. He is an incredibly enlightening individual and if it weren't for his newsletters, I wouldn't be able to find out about many (under reported) current events - his site provides links to all kinds of “credible” news sites such as CNN, USA Today, ScienceTimes, Financial Times, etc. And I can't even believe we would argue over the "conspiracy theorist" accusation. First of all, that title is COMPLETELY subjective. It is wrong to even disallow someone just because someone else has called them a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, that argument seems utterly non-existent. If one attempts to research G. Edward Griffin for just a few minutes they will discover an overwhelming abundance of information on his notoriety and impact. This is truly censorship if this man’s biography and work is not allowed on Wikipedia. Upsidedownpiano (talk) — Upsidedownpiano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The amazingly blatant sockpuippetry by the subject or his supporter aside, I've yet to see any substantive reasons beyond 'But dood, he's so totally the man now dawg! We gots to be all up in dat!' We haven't seen sources outside of his own little walled garden of the 'net, and I doubt we will. That we have seen promises of RS unfulfilled says to me that such sources do not exist, and will not. keep it deleted, keep it salted, and for heaven's sake, please IP block till this is over, they're all certainly socks of the same person or persons following an agenda. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• G. Edward Griffin is a dispassionate, professorial, writer and teacher, who only publishes after he has done significant due diligence. I recommend his writing as must reading for anyone who wants to learn about the Federal Reserve. His book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" should be mandatory reading in every high school, college and graduate school in the U.S. and around the world, not mandatory from a state-imposed viewpoint but from a moral viewpoint and in the name of academic freedom, etc. Griffin is a man of character, patience, self-control, and diligent research. He should not be dishonored by deleted from wikipedia. He should be honored for putting very important information out in the public domain so the average person can learn important items not taught in traditional schools or modes of communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonome (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — Theonome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 11:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The lack of reliable sources turned up during the AFD discussions seals the deal, despite the ardent claims of the flood of single-purpose accounts that have turned up for the disucssions. Policy says that reliable sources are required; if none are provided, then we have a problem and the article should not be around. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion of the article. Please be sure to also read the discussion going on here. I wasn't aware of this DRV discussion until now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Looks like a perfectly valid decision to me given the lack of reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion nobody has addressed the major problem here - namely that there is a lack of third party reliable sources. No amount of sock/meatpuppetry is going to change that. Hut 8.5 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Policy was followed here, whatever the contents of someone's hosiery drawer might say to the contrary. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Conducted in line with policy, whatever Lord Socky McSockson of Sockville Hall has to say. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Education in The Simpsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Comment - second AFD that resulted in deletion is found here. Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While this article may have not met certain criteria or guidelines some of the information in here was salvagable and could have been moved to relevant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhowden (talk • contribs)

• Endorse. If you want to salvage the info, then ask an admin for it. But that's not a reason for undeletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/Userfy You're not looking for the article to be recreated, but rather for access to the content. Charles Stewart (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question The information can't be moved to relevant articles unless the article history is restored for GFDL compliance, right? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That would depend on the information and how it is reused. Simple lists of facts don't qualify for copyright protection (no creative element) so don't qualify for copyright protection, so no issue with those. Other information if a direct copy maybe an issue, fully rewritten to fit with the destination and again there is no issue (much the same as us telling people instead of cut and paste from a website, rewrite in your own words...) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Right, which I wouldn't interpret as "moving" so much as revision. :) I'd support the userfying of this so long as it is clear that material can't be copied & pasted unless the article's history is restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy and allow re-creation if article is improved. There are scholarly sources that discuss this topic, such as [1] and [2], so a good article about this topic is possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Userify The obvious course is to userify. and we do need some efficient way to handle the GFDL issue. I suppose the simplest is to restore and substitute if the article can be rewritten adequately, or restore and change to a redirect otherwise. DGG (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - closing admin correctly interpreted the second AFD (found here). Nothing here that indicates any need to change that result. Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)