Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 13 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 15 >

Contents

[edit] 14 June 2008

[edit] Alien and Predator timeline

Alien and Predator timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|2)

Clearly no consensus reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination); all deletion rationales effectively challenged. Suggest relisting or reclosing as "no consensus." Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. I was the closer - this is a summary of what I wrote on GRDC's talkpage regarding why I believed the Keep !votes didn't stand up -
    • User:Colonel Warden - "no pressing reason to delete" (personal opinion)
    • User:Firefly322 - "It's verifiable" (not from secondary sources it isn't)
    • User:Tj999 - WP:USEFUL.
    • User:DGG - "Appropriate alternative way to present the material" (well fine, but I'm still not seeing secondary sources, and it's still duplicating information in other articles)
    • User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I don't understand your vote. You rail against "cruft" repeatedly throughout your reply, but the nominator didn't mention the word cruft at all. You say it's verifiable, but don't put forward any secondary sources. You say "The real world context is obvious", and then fail to explain what real-world context there actually is. You say "Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.", which is plainly taking 1P to mean what you believe it means. "(Wikipedia) is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three." - no, it doesn't mean that at all. I'm sorry but you really need to think about these !votes a little more.
    • User:Fordmadoxfraud - WP:USEFUL.
    • User:Myheartinchile - WP:ITSSOURCED. No, it isn't. Black Kite 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • And here is my reply regarding the deletes:
      • Now I know some of the above posted in good faith, but the bottom line is the actual unique arguments challenge each other and most of the deletes just repeat what others said (might as well have been "per nom" as in some cases the wording is practically identical). Sufficient enough disagreement and given the previous AfD that we are left with no consensus one way or the other and so should allow editors further opportunity to improve the article as many have expressed interest in doing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion Closing admin is giving no weight to keep !votes. This approach violates the good faith that a closing admin should show towards the reasoning of all keep !votes. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Why would I give any weight to !votes that cite no reasonable policy-based reason to keep the article? Because practically none of the Keep !votes do that, as I've pointed out above. Meanwhile, almost all the Delete votes point out the failure of the article to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT; and that is good reason to delete. Black Kite 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, there is plenty of policy that provides reasonable grounds to keep the article. Five pilliars especially. Moreover, the delete !votes like the closing argument suffer from a confusion between guidelines, policy, and "proof by intimidation." --Firefly322 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • "Practically none" is not the same as none. The delete (it is a discussion not a vote) most repeat each other and claim that it doesn't meet verifiability (anyone can see the movies or read reviews of them to verify the information), reliable sources (the films are reliable primary sources, the reviews of the film that discuss the overall continuity are reliable secondary sources), and also it is consistent with What Wikipedia is, all of which mean editors have raised concerns on both sides and there is significant enough disagreement, that while I will grant that it is not a "keep," it is at least a weak "no consensus", but not compelling enough for an unambiguous deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, but I can't weigh the issue on the basis of who shouts the loudest. In the end, it has to be policy that decides the issue. Policy says - no verifiability, no reliable secondary sources, mostly plot summary. All of these are deletion-worthy failures. Closing as "no consensus" would be the easy option, but it'd also be the wrong one. Black Kite 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
          • If we weighed it on who shouts the loudest, then it would be a delete. If we weighed it on policy then we have a serious disagreement. Closing as "no consensus" would be the right choice as the article concerns a notable topic that is verifiable within any reasonable standards and that a significant amount of editors were both working to improve upon and argued in defense of in two AfDs. Just because a handful of editors don't want others to improve the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to or that we can't. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I thought sgeureka was highlighting somewhere different policies for lists, which is what this is, in effect. It is a pity the only two sources are blogs or personal websites of some sort though. However, though not stricly RS it does invalidate arguments of OR. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not going to indent-reply to GRDC's second set of comments, because sadly they are not worthy of reply. Merely saying that something has been "refuted" without explaining why and how it has been refuted is (and I'm trying to AGF very hard here) really, really, unhelpful and insulting to a large number of people. I'm going to log out for the night now, before I say or do something I later regret. Black Kite 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    Problem is BK, like me and Neil, for that matter, you have a well-known opinion on these sorts of articles, so closing them will result in scrutiny by the 'other side'. Your opinion is such you should have voted rather than closed (even though the article does want for sourcing) if you find such questioning unwelcome. I should add that if I do close I fully expect my actions to be scrutinized and I have no problem with that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse as fair reading of a contested AfD, applying cold weightings to !votes based on strengths of arguments. However, maybe starting to see evidence that the closer cares too much, therefore is not necessarily impartial, and maybe should've left this one for someone else. A no consensus close would've been possible. Had I !voted, I might have tried to find a suitable redirect. I don't like seeing deletion of attempts to organise existing content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn closed on the basis of the admin own personal reading of policy. He should rather have joined the discussion. He seems to think that such an article needs secondary sources, though he's probably wrong about that. right or wrong, that does not in any event give him the right to throw out the views of those people who disagree with him. The only discretion an admin ought to have at a disputed afd closing is to discard the votes of those with no basis in policy whatsoever, not to pick which[policy he proposes to support in a disputed closing. Admins do not make policy, and their views on what is the correct policy have no more weight than anyone else's. DGG (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn as per preceding. couldn't have said it better myself.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Request temporary undeletion. Can we please have the article temporarily undeleted. The issue of whether !votes were properly discarded assumes a familiarity of the article in question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn The close did not follow WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. There was obviously no consensus for deletion and so the guideline When in doubt, don't delete applied. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, someone just restore the fucking thing. There's clearly absolutely no point in actually having a process if we're going to have DRVs that are based on who closed the AfD, rather than their actual rationale for doing so. Well done. You win. I give up. Black Kite 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The closing admin followed WP:DGFA#Rough consensus which states that "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." (emphasis added). Verifiability can only come through reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of Bollywood

Queen of Bollywood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Disambiguation page was improperly speedily redirected as "total nonsense, unreferenced, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as blatant POV and false," yet this was the title reported in each case by international news organizations as the BBC, CBC, Time, Newsweek, and The Hindu. Dab pages don't cite articles, they cannot be written "fanzine-style" as it is a list of articles with a common characteristic, and attempts to add the cited terms to the appropriate articles [1],[2],[3] have been quickly reverted by a particular fervent editor who subsequently threatened a block for 3RR. Dab pages cannot be POV if they merely contain lists of people who have been reported in the international press as having that sobriquet. The fact that reliable sources, namely news organizations, have reported people as being dubbed with that name, clearly show that A) the term is not nonsense and B) either a dab page or a stand-alone article is needed here. The dab page itself was prompted by a WP:RfD discussion of The Queen of Bollywood, which itself is a redirect to an article that was mentioned on the dab page. B.Wind (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - Almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It's full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a beauty pageant newcomer who is not even considered a talented actress. All of the mentioned sites are, though reliable, often written in a magazine style. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine.
Just a good aside note,
( The list was in addition to being redundant, was full of blatant POV and bias. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, why it's clearly isn't the case. Your list for example did not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity, especially considering they are also described this way, but you - either overlooked or didn't notice, which can happen quite often in this case. And that's only my simple list; someone can come tomorrow and wonder why another actress is not there. ).
Coming back to the matter, another important note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that?
It's by all means nonsense. I ould say, assuming good faith, that you have to familiarise yourself with some policies. This list, dab or whatever is clearly in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's check a few of the above assertions here. As stated below, omission is not a reason for the deletion of a disambiguation page - all you have to do is add the missing entries. A dab page listing the articles for actresses and singers that have been reported by international news organizations (not fan sites) is NPOV as long as the entries all meet a common criterion. Third, I urge the editors to revisit the Wikipedia definition of WP:NONSENSE - this clearly falls short of this. Using cited reference from reliable sources refutes any accusation of OR, and a one-sentence mention of such a cited, objective statement by the BBC, and so forth, is hardly undue weight. From this end, it looks more like a turf battle instead of an actual, valid, justification for a speedy deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That's your problem, you read only my last paragraph, ignoring the other. It is nonsense - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or some sleazy magazine. Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong disapproval of the page - "Queen of Bollywood" is merely a loose title occasionally used by the media to glorify an actress in a discussion. For an encyclopedia any "Queen of Bollywood" is likely to be subject to POV of the actress involved and it certianly should not be linked, if mentioned at all in an encyclopedia. I wonder how many actresses could be called a Queen. There are several, whether its Rekha, Hema Malini, or modern day Aishawarya Rai or Preity Zinta, Ther eis only one "Queen" so a dab page is highly inappropriate and not what this encyclopedia is about. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse, but not for any of the reasons the deleting admin cited. None of the pages on that dab use the word "queen" anywhere in the body text and all should've been removed. This would've left a blank article which could be deleted under A3. So deletion overall is a good thing. However, the reasons cited are nearly all bunk, with the exception of nonsense, which the cached version at least wasn't. The deleting admin and the tagging editor need to note this to avoid mistakes in the future, but in this case the end result is proper. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTES. 1) I brought this to DRV in an attempt for a wider discussion than the three or four people who actually saw it before it was hastily deleted. It would be nice, if not appropriate, to let the rest of the Wikipedia community actually see the disambiguation page that lasted less than three hours. The wider review is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. 2) None of the pages currently have the cited phrase as one of the editors above was particularly fervent in reverting without even looking at either the statement or the sources such as Newsweek, Time, the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, CBS News... and that's just a handful of reliable sources. Thus the reverting was clearly in bad faith, and rather than aim for WP:LAME, particular after a WP:THREAT regarding WP:3RR from the same fervent editor, it was more prudent to take the issue here. 3) Dab pages don't have citations; furthermore, they are rarely complete - omissions are reasons for editing, not deletion. 4) Regarding the comment about CSD#R3: good-faith edits cannot be vandalism (per WP:VANDAL), and the creation of a dab page is clearly a good faith edit; therefore CSD R3 cannot apply here. 5) Regarding Lifebaka's comments, the "nonsense" point is itself nonsense, as reported by international news agencies, as stated above. 6) As I pointed out in my discussions with both User:Shshshsh and the deleting admin, the fact that so many international news organizations globally have used the term in stating to that phrase having been applied to various Bollywood actresses and singers necessitates either a dab page to the various article of the people addressed by the reliable sources only or a stand-alone article covering the term Queen of Bollywood. 7) Denying both possibilities is also counter to Wikipedia policies - as to POV and bias, Shshshsh must be reminded of the difference between the POV of stating that someone is "Queen of Bollywood" in the form of a personal opinion and stating that a reliable news source has applied the sobriquet to her or has factually stated that it had been applied. For the time being, I urge a temporary undeletion so that the rest of the Wikipedia community can view the dab page in question so they can have an informed input into this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Haven't entirely worked out what's going on here, but cannot see why Queen of Bollywood is neither a redirect nor a dab page. It's a term in existance, has lots of google hits, including reliable sources, and it should not be a redlink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you also create an article for Hollywood? I repeat, it's just a way to praise popular actresses - and you can praise evewhere: newspapers, fansites. Every possible actress who saw success has been described the Queen.
  • It's POV and I can explain wby. Examples only:
A) That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example Hema Malini, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case.
B) It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but did not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the user who created the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress or just did not notice. Both cases show that such pages are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.
  • As for reliable sources - it's still fangush. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
  • BTW, if that's so important, would you find a source describing the term itself? Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Sons of Eilaboun

The Sons of Eilaboun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

horrible amount of sock-puppetering/meat-puppetering, however, please look at the merits of the film itself Huldra (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Yuck, that's a mess. And it really pains me to think that I have to !vote overturn to no consensus here, when the closing admin had such a hard job. I'm guessing he ignored the !votes of all the SPAs in there, but some of them had actual good arguements (namely, User:JFCK and User:87.175.1.42), which is enough to tip the balance off of delete. Not nearly enough to swing all the way to keep, but enough for no consensus. I'd personally suggest giving the article some time to be worked on before nominating it again, but mostly likely another AfD should happen in a few months to check if a consensus has formed, if people still want it deleted. It'd also be nice to get a few established editors who know Arabic in to check sources and such in the meantime. Also, you probably should've discussed this with the closing admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion I still haven't seen any evidence that the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria. WP:COI also a problem, as evidenced in the AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse as closer. FYI to Lifebaka, I allowed for a couple of the meatpuppeters making decent points but still interpreted overall consensus for the AFD was "delete". —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse – We aren't here to debate the merits of the film itself, only whether it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Right now, it doesn't. Perhaps after it's released we'll see some reviews or other coverage that would show how it's a notable film but, until then, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to note, it has actually been released. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn/relist. I think that in all of the meatpuppetry, some refutations of the delete arguments were lost (such as DGG's "Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film.") Other editors may have been discouraged from contributing due to the socks. MrPrada (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)