Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 3

John Gore (theater producer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article with the title "John Gore (theater producer)" was speedily deleted by administrator User:Ryulong on the basis that "no importance" was asserted for the subject. I feel this merely reflects a lack of knowledge of the live theater business. John Gore is a London based prodeucer of live stage shows who on January 25, 2008 acquired the company BROADWAY ACROSS AMERICA (BAA) previously a subsidiary of Live Nation. This acquisition and its consequences was extensively reported on in The New York Times, The Wall St. Journal, Variety, Stage (UK), The London Times, many other major newspapers and over 75 regional papers including Canada and Japan. By acquiring BAA Gore has become perhaps the central figure in the American Broadway Theatetr. BAA is the most active investor in and producer of Broadway shows, and operates touring productions of Wicked, The Producers, The Lion King, Light in the Piazza and may, many more. They are responsible for presentations in 42 cities across the country, many of which are muicipally owned and operated by non-prifit arts foundations. By virtue of this acquisition, Gore has become a figure of note and the many parties interested in knowing more about the new CEO and owner of the company would find this article useful. Gore's predecessor as ceo, David Ian, has a Wikipedia page [1] and he was an EMPLOYEE of the company whose production credits are largely derivative of his role as the CEO. Gore, by contrast is the OWNER as well as the CEO. An original version of the article started by being based on Gore's website and was then extensively revised. It was speedily deleted for being derivative of Gore's site - the intention had been to provide background information for the story that was about to break. Subsequently an article was posted by Key Brand, Gore's company, describing the deal. The article was subsequently ammended to include bits about his earlier career -- this article, which did NOT overlap Gore's website was speedily deleted as well.

Link to New York Times coverage: [2]
Link to Variety coverage: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfeing (talk • contribs)

• The above request for deletion review was added to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4. I have moved it here. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. If his involvement with this company is covered in the NYT i.a., there is at the very least a sufficient claim of notability to avoid A7. Listing at WP:AFD is at editorial discretion. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn passes A7 based on assertions listed above. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rapid Overturn Does not merely assert significance, but seems to actually show it. See [4] for the deleting admin's explanation.-- I've left a notice thereabout this Deletion Review discussion--it should have be left right at the startDGG (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I really don't care what happens to this deletion. But, the article had been deleted twice before as John Gore (theatre producer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for copyright issues. The images have also been deleted multiple times. But, as I said before, I really don't care what happens here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I was involved in both the speedies for John Gore (theatre producer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which were necessary as the author had twice lifted text verbatim from John Gore's website [5]. The 'new' article which has been speedied once again was a better attempt, used different images and rewrote the text. It still needs work but I suspect the subject meets notability critera (which was never the issue in the previous speedies). Suggest overturn and monitor the editor closely for copyvio and bias issues as there is a suggestion (not least by the pushy tone) that this article is driven by PR or promotional agencies on the part of the subject. Dick G (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Apologize for "pushy" tone. Thought I was supposed to make an argument. First time I've commented this way. I'm not PR flack - a hedge fund manager who follows Live Nation/Viacom/Time Warner etc. Actually more familiar with Gore's partners which is how I got interested here.--Benfeing (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it's not your argument here that attracted comment, it's more your earlier actions and argument in defending the copyvio problems of the previous articles and deleting tags arbitrarily - without making efforts to respond to comments on your talk page or teh talk pages of the articles. You're obviously learning your way around WP which is great but do try and have some perspective and step back once in a while. Without prejudice to my overturn vote, the article still needs plenty of work to neutralise and bring it up to scratch - look at WP:BIO for ideas. Dick G (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Sufficient claims to significance to not be an A7 speedy deletion candidate. Davewild (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Feloni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Procedural nomination. The first AfD was speedily kept by a non-admin (User:Brewcrewer) after 2 hours. Another editor (User:SatyrTN) opened up a second AfD a few days later. The whole deletion process has been botched on this one, so I wanted to have some other people look this over before making a decision. Caknuck (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as I nominated the article for deletion, it was more "nomination withdrawn" then speedy keep (if that makes a difference).

Secondly, I would like to explain my rational for closing the discussion. After the nomination, I was shown this link. Although not a reliable source per se, it was a solid reference point for other sources for notability. And this is what I found:

• According to the Real Detroit Weekly Magazine, "Feloni is a Queen Latifah for the new millennium and "Feloni has made her presence felt in Detroit, with radio play and concerts"

• The Los Angels Music Awards nominated Feloni for Best Rapper

• Feloni was featured on an episode of Coming Out Stories on MTV's Logo

• On the TV show, Feloni is introduced as a "rising performer in in Detroit's hip-hop communuity."

• Grand Prize Winner of 2007 Broadjam's Rap Lyric Contest?????

• In to GO Magazine, Feloni is featured in "Out Artists on the Rise" and Artists we love: Checking In

• Davey D's Hip-Hop Daily News is quoted as stating: "She is a true MC in the purest form. Her CD, A Woman's Revenge is one of the best rap CDs I've heard in years."

The refs provided, in aggregate, established notability. That is why I closed it as a keep. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment What's a "procedural nomination"? What procedure says this should be bought here in this case. The only confusion I can see is that the first AFD was closed by the nom as keep rather quickly, it appears to be the nominator withdrawing rather than anything else. I can't see any problem with the second AFD other than you deciding to close it and bring it here. Just exactly what is being asked here, what is being reviewed? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose closure Regardless of the circumstances that the first AfD was closed, or those surrounding the renomination, the Delete !votes in the second AfD clearly show that there is not consensus regarding the article, and that AfD process was terminated too early. Even if you treat the first nomination as "Withdrawn By Nom", the second nom by a different editor should have run its course. Deletion Review should be reserved for deleted articles, since the "appeal" process for an article which survived AfD is renomination (which was attempted in this case, and thwarted prematurely). -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this interpretation. Per WP:DP: If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This pretty clearly states that DRV is meant for all types of questionable closures. Caknuck (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected on the letter of the policy, but I still disagree with the closure of this AfD. I feel that closing the nomination simply because the DRV had not been completed would be improper, because unfamiliarity with the process should not preclude a legitimate objection from being raised, (WP:BUREAUCRACY). I do however see that your closing was much more nuanced. but a relist would have been better than to close and bring to DRV. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And I would also invite User:Brewcrewer to add in those references prior to the relist, so that the article gets its fairest shake at AfD -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily relist, the first AFD was withdrawn by the nominator; the second one should not have been closed early due to arguments for deletion by established users. I will notify the closing admin of the second AFD. --Coredesat 13:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy relist: the closing admin of the second afd brought it here, for some weird reason. It should be re-opened or re-listed and let run it's course as an AfD. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy-relist how bizarre. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The second AfD wasn't closed early, as it already had run its 5-day course. Given the circumstances, there wasn't enough of a consensus to delete. My chief mistake here was not recognizing the 1st AfD was indeed a withdrawn nom rather than a non-admin mistakenly doing a speedy keep. My point in nominating this is that the a second AfD shouldn't be opened less than a week after the first one was closed, that's really when this should have been either a) reopened or b) sent here (see my response to RoninBK above). Finally, I'm fully in favor of a relist for another week so we can clear up the reliability of those sources and establish a clear consensus. Caknuck (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relist The two discussions need to become one in order to form a consensus. Innocent mistake, but the upshot is that no consensus is visible and trying to form one is the right thing to do. GRBerry 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Doherty's controversies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedily deleted out of process, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus whatsoever. Article was exhaustively sourced with a great deal of WP:RSes. Admin claims it "must be deleted". Info cannot be added to the main Pete Doherty article as it would bloat it massively, yet the information is so central to this person's fame (or infamy) that to not include it is basically censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion appears to have been a WP:BLP issue. Looks like the main points are already in the Pete Doherty article anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the deleting admin. Article was a coatrack which compiled every single instance Mr. Doherty had ever been in the tabloids for any reason whatsoever. FCYTravis (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clear coatrack. No reason to exist per WP:BLP. --Coredesat 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, redirect, and protect the redirect for GFDL reasons. That we should not have this sub-article is clear. Unfortunately, discussion at Talk:Pete Doherty#Controversies section, again and Talk:Pete Doherty#"Controversies" article convinces me that material from that article has, at times, been merged into the main article, so we need to preserve the history for GFDL reasons. A protected redirect is the proper way to do this. GRBerry 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an acceptable resolution, and should the DRV be closed "endorse," I will carry out that task. FCYTravis (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• No objection to that outcome from me. --Coredesat 11:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was about a brand from a very large company, which should at least be sufficient for a claim to notability, but it was deleted as an A7 speedy. This happened just after I removed a prod tag from it, but I can see no way that this meets the A7 criteria. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete major product line from a huge company, which was apparently quite successful. A quick Google news search shows a claim that, in 2000 Trium had a 28 percent market share in Japan, one of the hottest mobile markets in the world. Definitely not a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation (meaning no point undeleting; you can do that without a drv petition) - article was two short sentences with no sources or assertion of notability. It's still in the google cache if anyone needs to reference it. I suggest to Random Fixer of Things or anyone else wanting an article about the subject that they can create a new stub article with at least a source or two and a claim of notability (e.g. the 28% market share) and the new article should pass muster. It's a pain to find sources on mobile phones because unless you know exactly where to look you have to figure out a way to do google searches that filters out all the press releases, product announcements, and other random junk and actually gets to an article about the subject. Wikidemo (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The article did not contain any assertion of notability whatsoever, so speedy deletion under A7 was entirely appropriate. But I have, of course, restored the article since the deletion is contested. — Satori Son 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying that being a brand of mobile phone made by Mitsubishi is not an assertion of notability?!?! A7 was cleary NOT appropriate, especially as it does not even cover products! Please review WP:CSD before making any more deletions. In my opinion this is a howler and made worse by the fact that you still defend it. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Simply being a product manufactured by a notable firm is not an assertion of notability that meets the inclusion requirements of WP:CORP. Notability is not inherited. Other administrators are more than welcome to review any and all deletions I have made. RFOT, I know you've been active on Wikipedia for a good three and a half weeks, but let me assure you that it is you who manifests a fundamental misunderstanding of our notability criteria for article subjects. — Satori Son 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I'm sorry but it is you that misunderstands, on two very important points. Firstly, products do not fall under A7 and failing WP:CORP is not a criteria for speedy deletion. The definition of the A7 criteria clearly states that only people, organisations and web content are eligible under A7, and that questions of notability (e.g. WP:CORP) are distinct from questions of whether there is an assertion of notability. Your comment about how long I have been here is not only extremely arrogant, but is been used as a way to distract attention from your understanding of policy - the facts are the facts regardless of the experience of the person stating them. I strongly suggest that you read the policies again, and stop assuming that you know them simply because of how long you have edited here - because you clearly don't, and the misunderstandings involve fundamental issues. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Products most certainly do fall under A7. Otherwise, we would have an article on every fast-food chain food product ever produced. A subject must assert its own notability. The iPhone didn't get an article because it's produced by Apple; it got one because it's a notable product by itself. The same applies to any other product. -- Kesh (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to retract my previous statement. Apparently at some point, A7 was altered to much more narrow wording (which I strongly disagree with). However, I still see no reason to undelete. With no assertion of notability, the article would result in being Deleted at AfD anyway. Notability is not inherited. So, while it may not qualify for A7 speedy, the result would be the same. We are not slaves to process, so I would suggest writing a new article in userspace which demonstrates notability with cited sources. -- Kesh (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not even close to being an definite deletion at AFD. It is not up to individuals to decide that articles can be speedied because they consider that it wouldn't survive at AFD. This is not being a slave to process, it is about not being so arrogant as to assume that you know what everybody else would think. The article has rightly being restored. If you are as confident about its deletion at AFD as you were about your understanding of the A7 criteria, perhaps you would care to nominate it at AFD. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting me by calling me "arrogant," especially if you're trying to persuade others to your point of view. As it stands, the article is an absolute Delete at AfD: no assertion of notability, zero reliable sources, and it's barely even a stub (being only two sentences long). If you were to expand it to solve those issues, I'd grant it might survive an AfD. In its current incarnation? Not a chance. I'm also not going to nominate it for AfD while it's still in an open DRV. Baiting me isn't very cool. -- Kesh (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy deletion Deletion was out-of-process, as no speedy deletion criteria would apply. Specifically, WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to products:

• WP:CSD#A7 - An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
• WP:CSD#Non-criteria - Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Failure to assert importance but not an A7 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Notability clearly asserted. That you don't think it is inherited or will pass AfD is not a reason for speedy deletion. –Pomte 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is absolutely incorrect. In fact, the restored article even still does not assert notability sufficient to meet WP:CORP. It's a shame that other, brand-new editors insist on using their energies to create childish drama, attack others, and perpetuate process wonkery instead of actually making some constructive contributions and bringing the article up to standards. — Satori Son 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close and List at AfD - The A7 technically was out of process, but I believe the end result would be the same: deletion. Since it has already been undeleted by Satori Son, an Overturn is kinda moot. The DRV should be closed, and an AfD opened on the article afterwards. -- Kesh (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems Andrew Lenahan-Starblind above has found some info that meets WP:CORP, it's just that no one has added it to the article. An AfD is probably not called for at this point. — Satori Son 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)