Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 10

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

As we all know, Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica have had their differences in the past, and these differences are obviously still here.

The article on Encyclopedia Dramatica was originally deleted on or around December 18, 2004, nine days after the domain was registered. At the time of this deletion, a Google search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica" only brought up 8 hits, according to the discussion. The article was deleted mainly as being about an un-notable website, which, at the time, it undoubtedly and 100% was.

Fast forward three years and one month. A Google search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica" now returns a respectable 23,700 results and have gained significant media coverage following the RFJason Craigslist prank, which received coverage by BBC.co.uk, The Register, Metro.co.uk, MSNBC (on national television), and the New York Times. They have also influenced many online communities, popularizing the phrase "lulz", which has entered mainstream internet use.

I also propose that if Uncyclopedia is allowed to have its own article, Encyclopedia Dramatica has every right to have its own as well.

"But if we re-create it, it will be constantly vandalized!", you say. Well of course! But a legitimate article being constantly vandalized should never be a cause for deletion. If you believe it is, how about we delete the articles on, say, George W. Bush, Scientology, Armenian Genocide, or articles on any parts of the body commonly associated with sexual intercourse. In addition, the Uncyclopedia page is commonly vandalized as well, with many joke redirects being created that lead to it. If you can manage the page on Uncyclopedia, then you can sure as hell manage a page about Encyclopedia Dramatica.

What do you think, Wikipedia?

EDIT: User:SamuelRiv has a page and User:Mrmattkatt has one as well explaining why Encyclopedia Dramatica is notable. Please read this before discussing. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Again, the reliable sourcing just doesn't seem to be there. The only source that mentions ED is the MSNBC video, which simply mentions it once as a website where something was posted to. This is trivial coverage. While I'm not sure the coverage of Uncyclopedia is any less trivial, although it's probably more numerous, one bad inclusion doesn't justify another. --W.marsh 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked over the two pages listed above under the "EDIT:" paragraph. The NYT source is again, a trivial mention... "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansites like Encyclopedia Dramatica". That's it. Several thousand words about Wikipedia and a sentence fragment about ED. We could never write a meaningful article with these sources... it would say "ED is a Wikipedia anti-Fansite that the New York Times says is snarky, pictures of men related to a craigslist prank were once uploaded to ED". The current notability standards exist largely to preclude articles where there would be no, or no meaningful, article once everything is attributed per WP:V and WP:RS. I'll add that I don't believe that we should delete an article because it's often vandalized, notice my argument here is just about sourcing and policy. I also think deletion discussions like this should be allowed to run their course occasionally... I'm sure people will want to close this early, but if we have nothing to hide here, there's no harm in another review. --W.marsh 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Same reasons as last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, and... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. The dearth of reliable sourcing about the site itself remains unaddressed. Kudos to the nominator for making a polite and reasonable sounding request but the sources given simply don't have any material that could be used to create an article on ED rather than on the incident in question. WP:V is non-negotiable, no dice. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted all coverage presented thus far appears to be of the "trivial" variety. JavaTenor (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The subject is a well-known (if controversial) Norwegian artist, who has been the subject of a lot of media attention, and should easily pass WP:BIO. The article was speedy deleted and protected and probably oversighted in March last year, and I am not disputing that decision since there were serious libel issues at the time. (It is related to the P3 interview, and people should not add the names which Aulie named to this article.) Nonetheless, I think Aulie is easily notable enough to have an article, and I am requesting the protection be lifted so that an article can be added. I have made a draft here. The sources I have used are all in Norwegian, but should pass reliability requirements, even for BLP articles. The fineart source is a biography written by an art gallery. NRK is the primary Norwegian state-owned television channel. Aftenposten is one of the classical newspapers and is as well respected as The Times. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unsalt and allow recreation. The intro of the proposed version could use some work, but it appears that it resolves the libel issue. At the very least, it provides a version which can be reverted back to if libelous information is again introduced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Allow new article I trust Sjakkalle, and the draft looks good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures more popularly known as WWE CLASSIC SUPERSTARS is Jakks number one selling product in the entire company and has become the number one selling wrestling action figure line in history. After reading the debates on deletion and the guidelines sent to me by an administrator, I find this page has been inappropriately deleted. As seen often in the deletion debate for this page, many said it had no real relevance. I challenge that. This page offer a wide variety of info on a series that spans over 222 figurines. The page offer a history, explanation of the creation, a well organized list of the figures that were released, and explains why there are several versions of one figure, why some were held back and what is too come.

What I would like to argue is that if this was Barbie or GI Joe this would not be a debate. Who has the right to truly say what is relevant, what is impacting and what should remain. The page was well source’d, well versed and many people posted in the debate to keep in alive. The series line is the most dominate wrestling action figure series of this time and the most popular seller in years. This series alone resurrect Jakks Boys division as the Vince President Jeremy Pawder quite often says with no shame. My feelings are this page was deleted based on ignorance and a lack of understanding. I do not blame the administrator, but I feel the people who gave their opinion to have the page deleted did not understand the importance of the figure line and did not take any time to research before they gave there quick rebuttal to delete. I believe this page should be reinstated and I am hoping this case gets second chance at review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdanielaiello (talk • contribs) 00:12, January 10, 2008

• Endorse. AfD was properly closed. Keep !votes were ignored because they didn't cite policy or refute the delete arguements. Also, DRV is not AfD round 2. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The "keep" arguments did not refer to policy, and failed to take into account such concepts as notability and reasonable sourcing. Barbie and GI Joe are well-known, well-covered by sources, and hence encyclopedic subjects. If you can provide sources that "WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures" deserves an article as well, then by all means provide that, and the outcome might be different. But based on what was presented on that AFD, I will have to call the "delete" outcome correct. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunate Endorse closure. Had it been argued differently, the debate could easily have gone the other way, but unfortunately the keep voters chose half-assed incivility ("Find something else to do with your time" and "Do you guys think your cool") instead of strong policy-grounded debate. This is a notable toy line we probably should have an article on, and is certainly verifiable... within 3 feet of me is a November '98 copy of Lee's Toy Review magazine with a Jakks WWF figure as the main cover story. However, since nobody bothered to stop calling each other stinky doo-doo-heads long enough to find some actual sources, there's no way this could have been closed any other way, and thus must be endorsed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure (as closing admin) and note that the article was since recreated and speedy deleted by a different admin. This DELREV addresses the first deletion, which I did as a result of the AFD. I reviewed the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE_Jakks_Classic_Superstars_Action_Figures, upon the expiration of it's 5-day comment period. Having reviewed the comments and recommendations, I evaluated what the rough concensus was. Determining rough concensus is not a vote-count. Instead, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough concensus is used. As the administrator closing the debate, at no time do I scrutinize the actual article or formulate my own opinion of it's merit. I rely solely on the arguments made by those who participated in the AFD, including the policy/ guideline/ precedent they cite. I stand by my closing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• endorse closure but allow recreation if sources are presented There's not much we can do without reliable sources. I am however very concerned by Jerry's statement that he doesn't look at an article when he is closing an AfD. Looking at the articles is an important stopgap and reality-check against possibly bad deletions (this is particularly the case in examples like this one. Sometimes the article meets WP:V and has the sources in the article even when the people arguing for keep don't say that). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, of course, check the article to determine if bad faith remarks or inherantly wrong statements are made. Like if somebody says the article has no sources cited, and it really does have 17, or if the person says that the article does not provide any assertions of notability and the article clearly states the person is the first and best in the world at something and has been featured on the cover of time magazine and was the subject of a a blockbuster documentary film in 8 languages... this is also a good time to check to see if the article has been radically improved since the comments were left. What I meant was that I do not use my own subjective analysis of the article to override the existing concensus of the editors who participate in the deletion debate. On those occasions where I disagree with subjective statments in a deletion debate, I participate in the debate as opposed to closing it. I hope this allays your concerns. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll endorse the close, but lament that no clean-up tags were ever applied to the article, nor any citation tags. We need to give people more opportunities to understand our processes. An article needs to be sourced. We don't expect that from day on, but we do expect it at some point, and some topics are expected to demonstrate it sooner than others. Hiding T 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would like permission to recreate the artical with valid proofs and sources. If I am granted this permission please contact me- mrdanielaiello

• Endorse close based on information available at time of close and then Overturn & Relist The first AFD was closed correctly if the keep arguments were halfarsed and abusive but if there is clear evidence of notability and a reliable judge says there are sources available then the article will meet our notability and verifiability guidelines/policies and should be allowed to exist. All that is required is that sources exist, not that they are added to the article so if the sources do exist then we must allow it to be recreated. I think the circumstances suggest we confirm the correctness of the close but then overturn and relist on the basis of new information. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am be perfectly amenable to that outcome, and am relisting it, accordingly. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Notable musician in Indonesia: I created the page of Nial Djuliarso. Although he is not notable in the US, he is a notable jazz musician in Indonesia, because he's a child prodigy of jazz and has created a number of recordings which won awards in Indonesia. Deletion of his article is regretted. Again, I am really sad that Wikipedia uses American standard for notability, while ignoring people from developing countries. We can see categories such as Indonesian Journalist, Indonesian Musician, and Nial Djuliarso is one of them. (Sorry for the late comment regarding this matter because I was away to give birth of my son) Chaerani (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)