Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 3	Deletion review archives: 2008 June	June 5 >

1 4 June 2008

[edit] 4 June 2008

[edit] Image:01622200.JPG (closed)

Image:01622200.JPG – Inspecting the newspaper(s) where the picture was published will show whether it was, or was not, credited, but in the absence of such information deletion must be endorsed. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. All we need to know is in the image itself, which is obviously from a newspaper published shortly after the event it depicts. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why not just upload these to commons? That's the place for free images anyway. MrPrada (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone will restore them, I'll do that. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. I've linked the PUI entry above. Without a source, there's no way to be certain about the copyright status. The chance that this is {{PD-self}} as claimed is vanishingly small, especially given the uploader's other deleted contributions. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- So why isn't it either EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine? -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  - "Anonymous" isn't "we don't know who made it", it's "nobody knows who made it". Uploading an image you find on some website somewhere doesn't imply the latter. —Cryptic 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    - How can you ever know that there is nobody in the world who knows who made a photo? We are talking about photos that are scanned from a newspaper. I doubt that Czech newspapers at the time identified the photographers of news photos. So the odds that anybody happens to know this information is much the same as it is for any photo under EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine. There's always the possibility that someone, somewhere, knows; so according to you when can we use these tags? -- Zsero (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      - When there's some shred of evidence that the author is in fact unknown and the image not just lifted from a random website and uploaded to Wikipedia with a falsified {{PD-self}} stuck on it. At bare minimum this would be when and where the image was first published. Like, y'know, the fine print on both {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-Ukraine}} ask for. —Cryptic 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        
        Where the photos come from is obvious just by looking at them - they appear to be scanned from newspapers, and were therefore published shortly after the events they depict. Presumably a newspaper reasonably local to Munkach, since neither the funeral nor the ME's meeting with Benes would have been that newsworthy anywhere else. So unless Czech newspapers in the 1930s were in the habit of identifying the photographers of news photos, one of these two tags should apply. Oh, and what oart of the fine print on PD-Ukraine do you mean? -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Image:Munkacs benes.jpg (closed)

Image:Munkacs benes.jpg – deletion endorsed – Shereth 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. We know approximately when the photo was taken and published, what more do we need to know? -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As above, endorse. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Gamma Beta (closed)

Gamma Beta – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm having a difficult getting this page to pass. The organization is a fairly new organization, and the admin that requested the deletion of the article says there is not enough evidence that we are a real organization and not a group of people. I've listed articles to show evidence of the organization but they were rejected. One was a newpaper article and the other the university's website that recognizes us. Another thing is there are a couple of other organizations who have articles on wiki and yet have less evidence that they are a real organization than we do. I feel like since they were able to start their article at an earlier time it was easier for them to stay and since we are trying to start an article now its been very difficult. hawee talk

Endorse deletion - very spammy, probably nn too, jimfbleak (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. The problems with this article are that the 'new' version was substantially similar to the deleted version, the tone of the article is excessively spammy and self-promotional, and the sources given do not establish notability. Also, bear in mind that saying other articles like this one exist is not relevant. We have fairly stringent notability guidelines that must be met in order for articles to be kept - you might want to review the guidelines and see about pulling together sufficient reliable sources to back up the article before trying again. Arkyan 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, the AFD had a consensus to delete and DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments about why the decision was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse The question is not whether or not this organization exists, but whether or not the article asserts notability. No verifiable, reliable sources have been provided that have shown that the subject meets notability. Despite the bizarre and inadequate nomination statement on the AfD, the outcomess per the AFD, the PROD, and two speedy deletions have been correct. Dloh cierekim 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion See WP:N and WP:COI. Coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources are required. If these can be found, then request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Ivobank (closed)

Ivobank – Deletion endorsed. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A new independent online bank has just launched called Ivobank, but new page entries have been deleted. Given that online banks don't launch everyday and the online community will wonder what it is, like I did, I think it deserves its own page. Please can we create one? --AbbieG (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

~~What is the name of the page that was deleted? It's hard to help you without it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)~~
Nevermind, found it. Fix't nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment This page has been salted as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, both previous versions of this article were indeed overly promotional in tone, and had the character of an advert. Unless the nominator can produce reliable sources to indicate notability and demonstrate that an article can be written in a neutral manner, I don't see any reason to unprotect/recreate. Arkyan 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The company is probably on its way to being notable, as it has recently sponsored a PGA tour event. I would suggest userspace creation first before we unsalt it. MrPrada (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion; the version in the cache is overly promotional and rightly deleted as a G11. I have been unable to track down good third party mentions, other than the golf sponsorship mentioned above. I agree that notability is likely in the future but not just yet. Smile a While (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created a one line explanation of what Ivobank is in my Sandbox, surely it's ok just to have this. Then at least people will be able to find out what it is? User:AbbieG/sandbox --AbbieG (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to above. And no, I'm afraid that is not okay. That little stub there meets CSD A7 and would be very quickly deleted if you created an article with just that. You would want to include some references or external links to places that establish that it is non-trivially covered in multiple places, what we call notability and make sure that these sources are reliable. Hope that helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not ivobank.com. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per above fine arguments Article did not assert notability. I am unable to locate verifiable, reliable sources asserting significance. Per the article, subject is new and has not yet achieved notability. As what we have so far is overly promotional, moving it to the creator's page would not be beneficial. It would need a total rewrite if it did achieve notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we should not have an article about every business that hopes to become notable. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. No, we do not cover new and interesting things unless someone else covers them first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Jones Lang LaSalle (closed)

Jones Lang LaSalle – ~~Contested speedy deletion.~~ Undeleted by acclamation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC) – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Being quite familiar with retail, I know that Jones Lang LaSalle is quite a prominent shopping mall management firm. A quote from the article read "The company has more than 32,000 employees, approximately 170 offices worldwide and operates in more than 700 cities in 60 countries", which I believe is a rather valid assertation of notability. Furthermore, there seem to be plenty of reliable sources found in a Google News search. One of them even calls the company "the leading global real estate services and money management firm". Furthermore, one of the companies that was merged to make Jones Lang LaSalle has been around since 1783. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Overturn/restore per the above links uncovered by fine mustelidian research. There does appear to be enough material out there for this to cross the threshold. Arkyan 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Overturn & restore It was never a valid speedy A7. Not with 32,000 employees--that's a rather clear assertion of importance,.DGG (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I speedied this - although it's probably notable, it lacks any independent refs to support the data. However, I don't object to restoration. I think that once this is finished, if not before, the creator should have an indefinite block on that username. jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see User:Joneslanglasalle isn't the creator but just did one and actually the last edit, which doesn't seem to be sufficient for a block per Wikipedia:Username#Company.2Fgroup_names. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy overturn 32,000 employees is a reasonable claim of importance. WP:CSD doesn't call for "independent refs to support the data"... just that an assertion of importance be present. Note that this company is even listed on the NYSE (symbol JLL), and gets 22,700 Google news hits which confirm the stock listing and probably much more. --Rividian (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and restore; the version in the cache includes several indications of importance and was not a valid A7. The grounds for an A7 explicitly state that the lack of reliable sources, which may well be fatal in an AFD, is not a criterion. Smile a While (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speedy overturn - that's a huge company and would survive AFD, not to mind a speedy. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Restore 32,000 employees, operation in 60 countries and a revenue measured in billions of dollars is an assertion of significance, even without the references given above. Hut 8.5 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
overturn and Restore Asserts notability. Verifiable sources locatable by a Google Books search and as noted above. Dloh cierekim 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Overturn Well known company. Erroneous deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Overturn. Sufficient claim of notability to beat Wikipedia:CSD#A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and admonish for improper speedy delete. Article made clear assertions of notability for a company that is unquestionably notable. Alansohn (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

[edit] NBA Championship Templates

This nomination is procedurally bizarre, as I am the closing administrator in this debate, which can be found here. The debate has been closed as delete. However, due to the potentially vast scope of the deletion, and the certainty of this review being opened, I have gone ahead and filed it. My closing statement is available on the TfD page and should be considered to be my formal statement for this debate as well. I realize this is unorthodox, and I believe I have correctly applied policy in this case, but the work required in undeleting would be very great indeed if my close were overturned, so I simply have not taken that step as of yet. I am personally uninterested in the outcome, so do not expect much participation on my behalf, it would be wise to contact me on my talk page if any more direct participation is desired. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some recommended reading:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Templates - The Football Wikiproject has loong maintained that only current squads have navboxes, the only historical ones are World Cup winning squads. Note that the World Cup occurs only every four years and no player has ever played in more than three, much less on three winning teams (to my knowledge). This guideline has been used as a successful argument in previous deletion debates:
Not soccer, but same principle:
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_30#Template:CZE-Summer-Olympics
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_17#Template:Czech_ice_hockey_team_at_WCH_2006
Recent deletion debates:
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_2#Hockey_Captain_templates
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:1915_Vancouver_Millionaires (same level of championship added by Djsasso (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

I hope these are helpful. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I was an active participant in the discussion, so I will refrain from endorsing the decision here. However, I do want to repeat some comments that are buried in the extensive discussion on the TfD page and might be overlooked. I believe that the "right way" to replace these templates is threefold:
1. Add links to pages such as 2007 NBA Finals from the infoboxes on player articles
2. Ensure complete rosters are included on all pages in Category:National Basketball Association Finals (as they are for the 2007 page)
3. Ensure all player articles currently transcluded from any of these templates have complete infoboxes
After all of this work is complete, then the templates should be deleted. I suggest further discussion take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Defiantly not disagreeing as I think all of the above should be done. That being said the rosters were already added by someone to all the finals pages. That being said they need beautification but they are there now. -Djsasso (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly dispute the outcome of this afd because I do not agree with some of the assessments made by the closing admin. First, the statement "Many of the keep arguments center around the fact that the templates are nothurting anything, and that they are helpful" is incorrect as I gave many reasons as to why the arguments made by the deletion side are invalid. An exploding numbers of this type of navboxes isn't really a valid reason at all per WP:NOTPAPER, a policy. I agree that the deletion side has not provide sufficient policy evidences to support their position. The only guideline they could provided is WP:EMBED, which I think is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, the keep side has made some strong arguments. I think WP:IAR will back that up because deletion of these navboxes is clearly not going to improve Wikipedia, but to do quite the opposite. IAR also tells us to ignore bad policy that prevent improvement (in this case is WP:EMBED). IAR is also a policy whereas WP:EMBED is just a guideline. This should have been an easy keep. Definitely not no consensus. —Chris! _ct 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not to get into the same arguements as the tfd itself. But deleting the templates significantly improves Wikipedia and keeping them significantly hurts the encyclopedia. I think based on the huge amount of precedent in past tfd's and projects scopes that an WP:IAR arguement is not all that valid as there is significant belief in the community that removing them helps the encyclopedia and keeping them does the opposite so I don't believe you can state that it "clearly" will not help the project. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply to the exploding number of infoboxes as its not size that is the issue, its the massive number of insignificant links that end up on an article masking the truely relevant information. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to reiterate my reasoning because I already done that over and over again. All I will say is that WP:IAR is an important policy here in Wikipedia. Your negative response toward WP:IAR makes me think that you simply dislike this policy. If so, bring that to the IAR discussion page.—Chris! _ct 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No I believe IAR to be a great policy and think its important to have. I just believe you misunderstand what it is. IAR is for situations where it is obvious that ignoring a rule helps the wikipedia. What I am saying is that it is not obvious that that is the case as many people obviously feel the templates are hurting wikipedia. IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. This is definately not the case in this situation. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also many people who obviously feel that these templates are helping Wikipedia. You are right, IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. The current situation about these templates clearly fits that description and I have explained over and over again why that is so. I think the only reason this dispute continues is that the deletion side refuses to accept what is right and blindly follows WP:EMBED.—Chris! _ct 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For Chrishomingtang and Djsasso, please note that deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision to delete. I don't think this continuing debate you are carrying on is appropriate for this forum. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize this, but it is appropriate to point out that the closing admin didn't ignore their arguements is it not, which was my point? That is the point of DRV right? To determine if an admin did or didn't close a debate properly? Based on his comments he is saying the admin didn't close it correctly, I am allowed to put forward a case starting that he did close it properly. Ideally I would have prefered that no one involved in the afd would have comented one way or the other. But y'all have. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I think it's ok to leave one comment and move on. Back-and-forth debate isn't helping. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually hadn't intended to comment again till you commented. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to continue any argument, but I just want to note that I know deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision.—Chris! _ct 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)--Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Just read through the TfD, and I come to the same conclusion as RyanGerbil10. It's clearly a valid close, thought some might disagree with it. I would suggest going with Andrwsc's suggestion of moving the information to pages on the teams for each year and adding more detailed information to each player's article as well. Perhaps before deleting, since it'd be easier, but I'm sure someone would be willing to batch userfy them so the same thing can be done after deletion. Also, kudos to Tikiwont for relisting this; it's the first time I've ever seen that at DRV, I think. Cheers all. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment FWIW, several FIBA World Championship squad templates were recently kept at TFD. See [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Mu I wonder how many folks have been skipping this one because they just don't care, or how many have been skipping it because it is quite hard to figure out what the right answer is. I've finally reviewed this myself, moving me from the first list to the second. The right close of that TfD definitely was not keep; there was no such consensus and actions are only justified under WP:IAR if when later challenged and discussed there is consensus that the action is an improvement. (Which means that you can't prove something is an improvement by citing IAR, nor can you disregard the opinions of others because of IAR.) So it wasn't keep. What was it? Ryan asking for DRV opinions as a "higher court" is a bit odd. It seems he really felt there was not a clear consensus, but couldn't stomach that answer - and sometimes the stomach test is an important one for admins to use; I've done it myself once when closing a DRV and I couldn't stomach the clear call the DRV editors had made, so I did something similar but different. Ryan's paraphrase of the embedded list guideline is accurate; the community as a whole wants the normal position for links to be inside the text of the article, not stick around at the bottom. I believe the amount of objection would likely be higher had the close been implemented. My DRV mentor, Xoloz, has said that in uncertain cases if the community looks like it is not done discussing something, it should be kicked back to XfD for further discussion. But here, I don't think another TfD discussion would do a great deal to reach a consensus, because TFD doesn't get enough attention (not that DRV gets more, really, just different folks). So I'd like to see this kicked to a centralized discussion of some sort. I certainly wouldn't object to Andrwsc's suggestion; to me it seems more useful to have very team's roster on the seasonal articles and then each player have a link to all their teams than to only have championship teams linked. GRBerry 03:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 4 June 2008

[edit] Image:01622200.JPG (closed)

[edit] Image:Munkacs benes.jpg (closed)

[edit] Gamma Beta (closed)

[edit] Ivobank (closed)

[edit] Jones Lang LaSalle (closed)

[edit] NBA Championship Templates

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search