Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 20

Digital Paint: Paintball 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was originally deleted because it did not achieve an optimal level of notability. Digital Paint: Paintball 2 has recently satisfied the general notability criteria (WP:N) by being featured in the PC Gamer UK magazine, as seen here. The article was deleted by User:Eluchil404, the following was his response to my restoration request, which was denied:

You requested the restoration of Digital Paint: Paintball 2 citing a new source. However, the article has not yet been published and does not seem to meet WIkipedia's reliable sources guideline, though it probably will if it released in the actual magazine. I suggest making a formal request at WP:DRV after the publication of the article. I won't favour restoration until two independent, reliable sources covering the game can be cited but am happy to submit the article for wider consideration.

The article itself has been published, and it now meets the general notability requirements. Here is the original, informal, deletion review.75.13.160.9 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - A single source is not enough to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. You need multiple independent sources to cite. Is there anything more than that? -- Kesh (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nothing wrong with the AfD. It'd probably be easier to start from scratch anyways. I dunno' about anyone else, but I'm kosher with a WP:STUB on the subject. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Editors may also want to consider this earlier DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 1) as well as a prior AfD at a different title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Paint: Paintball 2.0). As I said when asked (and am quoted above) I still don't view the proffered sources as adequate but don't have any particular stake in the matter. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Deletion cited "content was Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance". I don't believe either of these are true. Modernista! is not a real person. It is an advertising agency that is among the top 60 ad agencies in the U.S. and top 20 independent ad agencies worldwide (as of 2007 according to AdvertisingAge [1]), and its significance and importance is evident in that is the agency of record for automakers HUMMER and Cadillac. Further points of significance were described in a "Notable Work" section. Do a Google or Google News search and you will find dozens of references to the significance of the company from highly reputable sources.

The company has come under the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community recently due to prominent linking to Wikipedia from its new website. This is the reason for the large amount of vandalism activity over the past few weeks. There may be some portions of the article that do not belong on Wikipedia, but the agency is certainly important enough to have an entry and join the rest of the American advertising agencies with Wikipedia entries.

I believe the current article (referencing Los Sietes Modernistas) has been hijacked by a prankster with a history of vandalism.

Thanks for your consideration. 68.236.98.2 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete current version and Restore the original - wow, these guys are pretty damn big and handle some very high-profile accounts. There's some buzz right now about their site (and with the current page makeup, going to their site and clicking Wikipedia will make a lot of people go 'wtf?!', which - considering they're getting the buzz - could be bad for us in general) at present, and plenty of Google News Archives hits. Here's a full-length New York Times feature on them from last year; that certainly gives them a level of external coverage. I think A7 was a very bad choice for this article - it expressly asserted notability in the list of clients that was in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn A7s. Just looking at the info above, it clearly isn't an A7. I'll bet that a vandal made the page look like an A7 and then the speedy tag was added before it could be fixed. I figure it doesn't matter if we delete the current (except to history merge), as long as the old version is visible. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sorry, someone removed my last comment while not logged in. User:DustyjXXX has taken over the new Modernista! article and is highly vandalizing it. He added sections questioning the morality of using an exclamation mark in a name, and something about Wikipedia being 'ired' by Modernista! for using their Wikipage as a website. I'm removing both sections. I'd like to call into question the reliability of his other additions. I think this may be an issue of sabotage, corporate or otherwise. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Edit I just discovered that Modernista! is using nothing but a little red bar that directs people to Wikipedia and Facebook as their website. [www.modernista.com] [2]--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It would probably be helpful if we could indicate that alongside our external link, WP:ASR be damned. Sourcing to a pro blog would be fine with me but not others. psfkmarketing vox and adrants of course. --Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Update - Apparently, the article on the band has been deleted, and a new version discussing the ad agency has been started. This is getting more confusing now. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If they are a notable organisation and have references to show it, and permit a NPOV article to be written, there is no reason why they should not use the WP article as a place to refer people looking for information about them. I sure other organisations (and probably people) link to the WP article about them somewhere on their own site. Is there any technical way to look for this sort of thing? I'm not aware of anyone else who has done it in quite the same manner, though. I'll admit it sounds intrinsically wrong,but i cant really find a good argument against it, except the need to be extra careful about COI. The way they do it though does seem problematic. Instead of just linking to the article, they reproduce it. They are essentially hosting this particular article on their own site, with their overlay. That would be fine--GFDL certainly permits such use--but they also copy the interface and the trademark, which is not so fine--I don't know what our policy is about such hosting. We might need some sort of a tag for the particular case. As for what DustyX is doing, he is playing games with us, but is not actually being destructive. Given the Business Week item -- an editorial blog from their staff editor. . [3] they almost certainly are notable--but then they apparently did the design for BusinessWeek, so that isnt fully independent. Considering the articles appearing about their use of it this way, we probably need a more general discussion somewhere. DGG (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

• Comment I share these concerns. I guess you could call it going commando. It would be interesting to see if they continue to do so if the article is fully NPOV and includes critical material, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:The ad agency appears notable - [4], but that link to their "website" should go away, since it just links back to the Wikipedia page, with their own links added in the upper left hand corner. It needs reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreated article to stay and restore history I suppose is the way to go here. I think the 20 March deletion was not really borne out by the existence of sources and assertions of notable client work in the Google cache from 19 March. That said, the list of clients was pretty much completely unsourced, and we need to observe WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 09:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like people to note that the Modernista!'s website does not just link you to Wikipedia. It also links to Facebook, a playlist on YouTube, a search website, Google News, and a job application search. It also lists their contact information. I find just as fair to say that they are "using Wikipedia as a website" as it is to say Google and Yahoo are for linking people to it. Even if it is rather viral and unconventional, its basically a website that fits into the top of your screen that links to other websites. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Well known mobile social network with a few thousend users developed in Germany. Please could you undelte it? Tuckatucka (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. If the nom can demonstrate notability of the subject through sources, feel free to recreate it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The A7 looks fine from here, given what you've said (a few thousand users isn't a lot). If you can provide a better reason why this should be overturned rather than recreated, I'll reconsider. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Original admin who deleted has been idle since January. Deleted by a few individuals, original creators and those maintaining the free non-profit codebase never notified. Would like to recreate to share information about the MUD codebase and fix broken links in wikipedia and else where. Nathan Winters (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse close of AFD (the link to which I've fixed above); no good reasons for keeping were provided in the discussion. No problem with someone creating a new article as long as it's verifiable based on reliable sources - which the previous article most definitely was not. Source it or it'll get deleted again. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do, could an admin please restore?

Recreating and restoration are sorta' mutually exclusive. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. No good reasons to keep, and the merge !votes were just "keep under this other name because that's what it's actually called" (my bad if that doesn't read civily). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Article was Speedily Kept by User:SynergeticMaggot, a non-administrator. AfD discussion fails Wikipedia:Speedy Keep guidelines, because nominator has not withdrawn the nomination, and a second Delete !vote appeared before its closure, (spa accusation notwithstanding) Closing non-admin invoked IAR in their closing statement, which is inappropriate. Discussion should be relisted and allowed to stand the full five day discussion unlss and until the discussion correctly passes Speedy Keep guideline RoninBK _{T C} 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• But there's no actual policy-based reason for deletion in the deletion request. It reads as if a group of people who are apparently not happy with how the article looks saying that because it won't be shaped unto their designs want it deleted. The nominator claims inaccuracies - but in the delete request says that the articles that meet WP:V are the inaccurate ones. That's a touch confusing. All told, the deletion nom (not the DRV nom) gives me a feeling of bad faith, and I don't actually see a valid deletion reason there. Endorse keep Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Confusing but true. The innacuracies in the "reliable sources" are the cause of the innacuracies in the article. I still endorse the decision to speedy keep though. Z00r (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Valid WP:SNOW/WP:IAR keep. Initiator showed no real arguments on why the article should be deleted (and it has been already Kept on the earlier AfD with more resounding arguments for potential deletion given) CharonX/talk 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The link you followed was for the first AfD. The second was closed by me. I've also reverted a few attempts at vandalism to the page, as well as page blanks. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was intending to nominate the deletion of the second nomination. I attempted to correct myself after the template substitution, and only screwed up further. If anyone could correct the nomination, please do. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The keep was a perfect example of when snowball makes sense. The arguments for deletion were lacking, and only a single purpose account supported deletion (aside from the nominator). While an admin probably should have closed it, the result would have been the same. Justin ^chat 16:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse blizzard keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Maybe the close was technically wrong, but I see absolutely no reason to reopen this on a technicality when the result is obvious. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Someone please speedy close this obnoxious nomination. Eleven Special (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - Same logic as above. Mac Davis (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep -The nomination was done on the grounds that a faction of Anonymous (which is a non-centralised ideological collective) didn't like the fact that Wikipedia policys where beeing implemented on their article, and because it made the claim that varafiable sources where inacurate, and accurate sources where unverifiable. The nomination was not a good faith one because the nominator of the AFD has encouraged vandalism of the article [5] prior to the nomination.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and Speedy close. Partly for the irony, but mostly because the close was fine. We are not slaves to process, and this was an obvious snowball keep. As this DRV is looking to be. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Only delete !vote was from a WP:SPA, and it's pretty clear that the nom had no reasons to delete in it. Editorial issues shouldn't be handled in AfD.
  As an afterthought, does WP:NAC work on DRVs? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's generally considered bad form in DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

reliable source IMDB listing now available. Pin Young is a new stage name and took a while for IMDB to add the new listing. Her birth name and stage name accounts are currently being merged on IMDB. Her IMDB listing is at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2953440/ 70.187.173.176 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean it's being merged with Pin Chen? In any case, while IMDB is generally accepted for confirming such things as roles played, it really isn't sufficient by itself for notability. Keep deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Automatic restore. Uncontested PROD, we overturn these. Please be aware that it can still be subject to an AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)