Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 16

Harrison Greenbaum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV)

I'm not sure what the concern is about this page, but I tried creating it (I found the Don't Touch the Foot article, which referenced him, and felt he should have a page, as I knew about him from the NY and Boston comedy scene. After Googling him, I found several articles about his pioneering efforts to bring stand-up comedy to Harvard: [1]. [2]. He also, interestingly (and to my surprise), came up as the co-author of a book: [3]. I'm not sure what the original problem is, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for the page being protected now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.152.89 (talk • contribs)

Comment so the articles you point to are from the Harvard Crimson and the book is authored by "Staff of the Harvard Crimson", I somehow doubt these count as neutral/independant. I also notice yours is a Harvard IP address. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Restore and list at AfD The Harvard Crimson, unlike many student newspapers, is accepted as a RS. I still dont know if this will pass AfD, since he is only one of a number of coauthors, but asserting a published book is enough to pass speedy. It was published by St Martin's a reputable publisher. It has a review in Booklist, which is considered relevant for notability. It reached a second ed. It passes speedy, despite any COI. DGG (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The deletion has already been endorsed so I won't opt to overturn, but I unprotected per request. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• The article appears to have been recreated. I have sent it to AfD. Shall we close this discussion? --Kinu ^t/_c 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List of LGBT couples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Agree BLP concerns are an issue, but then again they are for, um, living people pages all across wikipedia. Page had begun to get sourcing and uncontroversial refs could easily be found for alot more. Clearly notable topic and individuals satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people -i.e. list need not be exhaustive. Closer closed page with 7 keeps and 7 redirects and cited issues correctable by removing controversial material as reason. Finally, I note no mention of AfD on this page Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment as closer. If BLP issues are an issue for other pages, that fell outside the purview of this AFD, so is irrelevant. The notability of the page was not clear - only two of the "keep" votes even attempted to address the notability concerns. The closer closed the discussion with 7 "keeps" and 7 "deletes" (not "redirects"), so my closing judgement largely fell on strength of arguments. Those given to delete were far stronger than those given to retain the article. And there is no mandatory requirement to mention AFDs on Deletion Sorting that I am aware of - that is not a reason to overturn a deletion. The BLP issues within the article, the failure of any of those calling for "keep" to address the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY raised, the fact only two "keeps" even tried to address the notability issues, and the massive BLP problems meant this was pretty obviously a "delete". Endorse my deletion. Neıl ☎ 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ummm..BLP stuff which is an issue can be, erm, removed as it is with any article which has contentious material. This is generally how it's done. Not by removing the article. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people also covers it nicely. The aim of wider listing is in the spirit of gaining wider consensus. This is important in cases where consensus is not obvious. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Keep opiners neglected to discuss a significant policy based reason for deletion, leaving it unrefuted, and so far as I can tell it is not refutable. By precedent, we can have a list that was a sub-article of main article. However, there is no main article for LBGT couples. There are articles for Same-sex marriage, Civil union, and Registered partnership (which is probably excessive redundant repetition there), each of which could support sub articles. But they can't support this sub-article. The "Marriages" and "Civil unions" subsections could easily have been split from this to the viable pages thereunder. But the bulk of the list has no viable place in Wikipedia - nor would a listing of heterosexual couples. The deletion sorting argument raised by the nom is indeed bogus; there is a procedural problem if an AFD isn't on the daily log, no other listing is required. GRBerry 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• comment - Same-sex marriage or civil unions could very well be referenced as the main articles for this list, since they're not legal for most couples on the list. LGBT rights, LGBT social movements, Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures, Gay community, or a couple dozen other articles could also be considered "main articles" for this list. Certainly the issue of LBGT Couples is covered within those. Torc2 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, there was no consensus to delete (7 for, 7 against). If the closer thought that some arguments were stronger than others, then participating in the discussion would have been a better course of action than closing. Fireplace (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By that logic, no AFD discussion would ever be closed. Neıl ☎ 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist for continued discussion. I in fact !voted to delete at the AfD, but it seems that there was no consensus. It was not a correct reading of consensus. The concerns of the closer are his own, not those of the discussion. DGG (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per Fireplace. Torc2 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist I agree that more should be discussed. It didn't look like there was clear consensus either way. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - editors were making a good faith effort to correct the problems in the article, and should have been allowed to continue. BLP violating material can easily be removed from a list -- there was no need to sacrifice the whole list -- and by the time the discussion was over, the editors had nearly half the list sourced, and were intent on sourcing the rest. Compelling arguments were provided explaining the meaningful association relating the couples on the list, making it more than than a collection of loosely associated items. (See List of known slaves for a similar example). The blue links on the page make it a valuable navigation aid for accessing related Wikipedia articles, rather than a directory. Notability is tied-in with sourcing, and concerns about lack of notability are generally solved by sourcing, so most of the keep votes did address notability, contrary to the closer's claim. And there is no requirement written in blood that an article of the same topic must exist. The closing decision should have been Keep or No consensus, default to keep. The Transhumanist 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - no consensus to delete. If there are issues with Laurel and Hardy being included, tag it for sourcing or remove them. Otto4711 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - per agruments above. And I would like to point out that referencing an article with so many people on it is always a lengthy and onerous task, time should be allowed for a good faith effort to be obvious. And stop sodding voting to delete our articles with "unreferenced" - it's not a reason to delete under any policy Wikipedia has. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I have been told that the article I wish to publish is referred to as a company listing , of which there are MANY company listings on wikipedia.com. But in order to be included, the company must be the source of secondary coverage, to make it notable. The problem comes in with this quote direct from wikipedia.com: Quote - "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." - end quote. BUT more importantly: Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations ." First of all - let's point out that the admin who deleted the article titled Cedar Networks, doesn't think companies should be listed on an encyclopedic website - at all. In general I do agree that company listings have little or no place on an encyclopedic website, but the fact is - it was Wikipedia who opened the door for company listings. So, companies are welcome and should be included - this is not an interpretation, this is a stated fact - as quoted above right from wikipedia.com. Now, insofar as "significant" or "notable" is concerned - it says the company must be the subject of secondary sources, and we all know that means newspapers, TV shows, or other reliable sources. But what about "...and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations" - like getting their names listed in secondary sources, which is easy for big companies to do, and maybe not so easy for other smaller companies. This is a clear bias favoring larger organizations. Now, Cedar Networks is not a small company - we are a multi-state telecom service provider, we are a multi-million dollar per year company, and we have set a whole new standard in telecom. We do not advertise and we do not encourage any secondary source coverage - in fact we restrict publications from using our name without prior written approval. So what am I to do - Cedar Networks is most certainly significant, we have literally thousands of customers, that is the definition of "attracting notice". In addition to my points above, I have cited three (3) examples, of our direct competitors, who are MUCH smaller and MUCH less significant - with no references either, yet there they are - listed. Here are three (3) reasons / examples why Cedar Networks has every right to be listed:

• Cbeyond
• BroadVoice
• Choice One Communications

If these articles are listed and valid, then - Cedar Networks has every right to be included. All we want is a company listing. Not a spam page, not a place to advertise - just a simple company listing. Why is this so important to us - ?? Because as I have mentioned before to certain admins, Wikipedia has now become much more than an encyclopedic website, because they have allowed company listings - wikipedia.com has now become a place for people to validate a business, if the business is not listed with a company profile on wikipedia.com - buyers/purchasers/decision makers - may elect to pass on that business in favor of a more validated business who is listed. How do we know that - ?? Because we just lost a significant business customer who came right out and said "...partial selection criteria included our ability to reference the company and/or the company profile on a significant Internet publication such as Wikipedia..." Another admin mentioned "myWikiBiz" or "myBizWiki" - something like that, anyway - while I do appreciate the suggestion, the reality is - that site is completely useless UNTIL OR UNLESS all company listings are removed and/or ported over. Then, yea sure - no problem. Until then, useless. I'm sure we will go list an article on that site anyway, but, it will not suffice versus a listing on the real wikipedia.com. Patrick.rogan (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:UCS since without reliable, third-party sources to establish notability it'd never make it through it an actual AfD. That said, slap the closer of the AfD with a wet trout for such blatant misuse of G4. To the nominator, I suggest you recreate the article as a subpage in your userspace (at Patrick.rogan/Cedar Networks or some such) and have me or another editor look it over before reposting it. You'll need some good reliable sources to cite the information in the article (note that the company's website is fine for general facts), and a few good sources other than the company's website to establish notability. Feel free to ask me for help on my talk page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• The speedy-deletion under criterion G4 was inappropriate since the content was never, from what I can tell, deleted as a result of an XfD discussion. However, I endorse both the deletions under criterion A7. Neither the article nor the nomination provided any evidence of external sources or indication that this company meets the project's generally accepted inclusion criteria. The nominator is also strongly advised to read our policy on conflict of interest. When your company is demonstrably appropriate for an encyclopedia article it will always be better to wait and let someone else write it. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but a recreation would be entirely welcome if it cited "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:NOTE. Although a Google News search doesn't fill me with hope. --Stormie (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD There was no reason given for speedy deletion. Deleted twice as an A7, although there is a clear claim in the article of a large service area over multiple states. And deleted once as a repost, which applied only after XfD, not speedy. I am not sure it will pass AfD, but that should be discussed there, not here. The article is sufficient to warrant a discussion.

That people judges importance by WP notability is not our intent, but it is inevitable. Perhaps if we had actually objective criteria for how important a company ought to be, we would be somewhat better suited for the role that seems to have ben thrust upon us. 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

• Endorse the deletion under A7, with (self-admitted) advertising intent and WP:COI; I'm involved insofar as I deleted a userpage which had the same content as the deleted articles in mainspace. I received multiple e-mails from the complaining user, threatening in no uncertain terms to take legal action against me and/or wikipedia (and can provide these via e-mail). I am very sorry that you lost a customer because you had no article in wikipedia. I'm not against having an article if it corresponds to our policies, but the arguments above strike me as wikilawyering, with some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thrown in for good measure. Lectonar (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• What Lectonar said, threatening emails and all. east.718 at 01:49, January 18, 2008
• Comment - the article states that this is an ISP that operates in two states. This is on the cusp of indicating the significance of the subject. However, I don't see this DRV as the best way forward because it wouldn't help the nominator for the page to be restored only to be deleted by AfD. My advice is the same as that of lifebaka, namely to create a sourced article in user space, get it peer reviewed and then move it across. BlueValour (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wargames Research Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

prod reason given was "Spam". This article was about a group of people notable in the wargaming hobby for their research approach. It still exists as a publishing company for its titles so may appear to be advertising, however it's main products were a series of well researched and regarded books on historical armies mainly pre-1500 AD. Article may need work in regard to showing notability, but that shouldn't be too much trouble now someone knows it is required. --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)