Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 25

User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

After Captain Obvious was deleted from the article space, I requested that an admin move a copy into my userspace (I wanted to improve it or find a good home for it) -- userfication of deleted articles is explicitly permitted in WP:Userfication. A couple of weeks ago, User:Orangemike speedied the userfied page, without notifying me. Apart from anything else, speedy deletion criteria don't apply within userspace. Orangemike also speedied several other user pages, which I likewise want restored: User:Tlogmer/Sleaze rock, User:Tlogmer/Effects of Christmas on the environment, User:Tlogmer/Death yell, User:Tlogmer/Book of spells of serpents. (He hasn't responded to a message I left him, so I'm taking it here.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: just to be clear, I'm asking that these be restored to my userspace, not to the main article space. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Fix't links to userspace pages and AfD to third nom, where it actually was deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note - This user currently has several other Userfied articles under consideration at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages. I would suggest we wait until that MfD is complete before proceeding further. -- Kesh (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Restore all. Technically the G4s weren't wrong, but since there doesn't appear to be any reason not to grant this request, we should. Note that User:Tlogmer/Sleaze rock was deleted by User:Rudget, not Mike. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Restore. I disagree that WP:CSD G4 applies to the userification of an article per WP:Userification, even technically. G4 is defined as the recreation of a deleted article. Since WP:Userification says moving an article to a user page fulfills an AfD, it's simply not a recreation and G4 just doesn't apply. (The fact that userified articles get an MfD, not an AfD, is also recognition that they've become something different). Interpreting G4 otherwise would flatly contradict WP:Userification. The Catch-22s created by rules that flatly contradict each other are unjust, and just plain annoy people. We should avoid such a situation at all costs. Please don't annoy the volunteers. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• restore per Shira. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest we mirror the outcome of the MfD. Don't think there's any point in divergence (unless the MfD is closed as delete and Tlogmer really wants a few particular pages restored). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mirror the other debate, as suggested above, per the same reasons --Enric Naval (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Wait for the MfD to conclude If those pages are kept, so should these be; if those pages are deleted, they can be added to the Deletion Review and considered here together. DGG (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment On reflection WP:UFY appears to currently be simply a proposal, it appears not to have been formally made a guideline. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Restore If he thinks he can rescue these articles, then in good faith I'll believe him. That's what user space is for. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Real person, real reason to be here 69.225.202.10 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you have no sources, then endorse both deletions per WP:BLP. --Coredesat 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• 69, read the afd discussion. The article was deleted because no reliable, substantial sources about him could be found. Find some and you might have a case for a reversal. "Real person" will not get you very far. See WP:BIO. 152.3.247.59 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• endorse deletion We need evidence that this person meets our criteria for inclusion of biographies. Right now, we don't have that. If you so us some non-trivial, independent reliable sources then we can consider it. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Sorry, but WP:BLP says no sources = deletion. If you can suggest some, that'd be great. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation if there's a third party source. The article as deleted had usable non-third party sources for the routine facts of the career. Such sources are accepted for things that are not in any way controversial, and there was not any. The problem as I see it is that there was no specific sourcing given for his regular performance at major venues, which would have shown notability. I have temporarily restored it for examination to my own user space as User:DGG/DR. If anyone objects to this, please let me know. It would not have done it for a bio with anything negative & unsourced. DGG (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation - A host on KLSX, one of the most notable talk radio stations in the US, and a regular at The Improv and The Laugh Factory most certainly is notable. BLP calls for the immediate removal of "contentious" material, not for the deletion of an entire notable person's article simply because what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" aren't placed in the article yet. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; any article can be deleted for lacking reliable sources; that's WP:V in a nutshell. --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• You must be reading a different "in a nutshell." An article topic doesn't fail WP:V if the content is currently unverified, but if it's completely unverifiable. The content, like this person being a host on KLSX, is easily verifiable (and here's the verification).--Oakshade (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources are generally required for verification - "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Guest9999 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources can be (and are) found on this topic. I guess you missed this one verifying the KLSX radio host part. Everything in DGGs stub can be verified. --Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a challenge to the veracity of the material, we do not require third party sources for routine bio material that is on an official page, or some similar responsible place. In this case, the radio station's page is sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well, firstly, I don't think WP:BLP is the main issue here, and the page was not deleted for BLP reasons. Looking at the the recreated article and the AfD though, it seems to me as though the deletion arguments presented last July are still valid. I don't doubt the accuracy of the information here, but generally if someone is notable there will be at least some mention of the person in an independent source, which I still don't see in this case. A websearch brings up basically the same results as 9 months ago. That being said, I'm not strongly opposed to this being recreated, but think at least some independent sourcing should be introduced if this is so (such as some sort of outside review of either his radio show or comedy performances). shoeofdeath 05:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation, due to some evidence of notability, but better sources must be found ASAP. BTW, this the first time ever that I have agreed to re-creation at WP:DRV in my 13 months at WP. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Current stub has no properly independent sources either. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Zero independent reliable sources, which absolutely falls afoul of BLP. -- Kesh (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The reason why this was deleted so many times in 2006 was because as a redirect it was a "cross-namespace redirect." At the time, the term userbox was not notable enough for an actual article - but 18 months later, userbox is notable enough for its own article. A Google search for userbox -wikipedia retrieves over 300,000 hits. My proposal (which got deleted today) was to write a [[Userbox]] article - for example: "A userbox is an infobox on a user page in a wiki community. It usually describes the user in a certain way. Userboxes can be organized in a userbox tower." Then along the top can be written For information on Wikipedia userboxes, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. When I became curious last autumn about userboxes, the first place I looked to learn more was Wikipedia. I was surprised to find no article, and no direction. There really should be something. Kingturtle (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, WP:ASR, the sheer number of times anything at all here has been deleted should tell you something. There is no way userboxes are notable enough outside Wikipedia that an article on them is warranted, and Google hits themselves tell you nothing. None of those hits appear to be relevant in the least. --Coredesat 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The sheer number of times this article has been re-created should tell you something :) Kingturtle (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• P.S. It may have been self-referential in 2006, but in 2008 it is not. Kingturtle (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• It still is. If you can convince me it's not by presenting reliable sources - that is, not just pages passively referring to a similarly-named feature they happen to have - maybe I'll change my mind. --Coredesat 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't have a change to expand the article or to collaborate with other editors because it got deleted. That's why we are in this forum now. Kingturtle (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would support overturning as this does not appear to be a correct use of the G4 speedy criteria as the original deletion debate quoted by the deleting admin was about a redirect not an article. However I doubt that there are reliable sources out there from which to write an article so see little point in overturning the deletion just for it to be quickly deleted at AFD afterwards; and also this might be seen as a backdoor way of creating such a cross name space redirect. If some reliable sources can be produced to demonstrate at least a shot at notability then will support overturning otherwise will have to say keep deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  For the record, I am not trying to get anything through a backdoor here. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that might have come out badly, was not accusing you of doing so, but the perception it might be could explain part of the reasoning behind the speedy and could be an argument of deletion used by others. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No !vote, but if it was improperly speedied under G4 (since apparently it wasn't actually a recreation of deleted material), then shouldn't it be undeleted so that a wider community can have a look at it and determine its notability? -- Kéiryn ^talk 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to a temporary undeletion of the article for the duration of the deletion review (but there is little there - 2 to 3 sentences), if nobody else objects I will do so. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, you should give the article some time to be written before it is put up for AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was around for five days before it was speedy deleted and if there was even one reliable source produced in the article or elesewhere covering userboxs anywhere near significantly would support overturning and would support giving plenty of time for a reasonable article to be written. What I was suggesting above was just temporarily undeleting the article (last four or five revisions so that non-admins could see what was being discussed here. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• overturn Does not meet G4 and is a reasonable topic for an article if sources actually exist. ASR doesn't mean we can't have articles about wikis, it is a style guide meaning that we can't have articles that say things like "Such as on this wiki". At some point I suspect we will have enough material to write a separate article on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, and that will be fine. I'll be interested to see if there is enough sourcing to make Userbox a real article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Do you have a proposed version? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  I wrote my initial stub version above, in my original post. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation, then. Doesn't look like an overturn would do much, but I don't know if a history merge with the G4'd version would be appropriate. The ref below is good enough for a short stub like that; if anyone really wants to know more, the link to WP:UBX will help a lot. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Citation. Unimpressive as it might be, I have found a non-wikipedia, non-wikimedia reference that discuss (albeit briefly) userboxes:

• A Guide to Wikipedia from Cornell University. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• If I'm not mistaken userboxes are also discussed in some detail in John Broughton's recent book "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual". JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Isn't that all a bit WP:CRUFTy? -62.172.143.205 (talk)

• Overturn As promised above, should not have been deleted as a G4 as I explained above and a source has been produced as a starting point for an article which addresses my objection. We should therefore overturn the deletion and give time to see if a reasonable article can be created. Davewild (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn never met G4. Has been here many times, and has never been actually deleted in a community discussion. The full text of the article is ":''For information on Wikipedia userboxes, see [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]].'' A '''userbox''' is an [[infobox]] on a [[user page]] in a [[wiki]] community. It usually describes the user in a certain way. Userboxes can be organized in a [[userbox tower]]." Assuming Wikipedia is not the only wiki in the world that makes use of these things, an article would seem appropriate. DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The key word here being "assuming." We don't know, because there are no reliable sources. -- Kesh (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm going to do what I usually do here: suggest that a version be created in Userspace first, with the proper sourcing. At this point it doesn't really matter if it was an improper G4. DGG already pointed out that it was simply an unsourced stub. If the subject is notable, a user sandbox version can be made and we can work from there. A mainspace version is unnecessary, and overturning this one will just turn into another mess at AfD that'll get dragged back here again.-- Kesh (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted WP:ASR and no case is made here for how on earth this is encyclopedic.--Doc^g 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:ASR. It may not say what you think it says. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn with the specific connotation of "Do not delete a valid article as a cross-namespace redirect". It's pretty clear that if you can find sources that document the userboxitis on wikis in general, this is a valid topic for discussion - if not, this article probably shouldn't exist and should remain a redlink. Anyhow, since the article isn't protected or anything, I guess a draft would be more helpful than discussion in DRV. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yes, Avoid self-references applies here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, self-referential. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This is the first time I use this page. A couple days ago when I stumbled on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages an editor told me to use deletion review so I am here now. When I checked the deletion discussion, it was clearly about 50-50 split between the "Keeps" and "Deletes" and the Keep people do have pretty convincing arguments such as the citation. The Publishers Weekly is not a trivial publication. It was ended as "Keep" but mysteriously another guy came in and "override"s it, making it "Delete" again. There seems to be so much confusion over it. So IMO it should be restored. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I overrode the closure and reclosed it as delete because a non-admin should not have closed that discussion; indeed, they shouldn't close discussions that aren't unanimous or obvious. I have no opinion regarding the article. --Coredesat 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist The nonadmin closure was incorrect--first, it shouldnt have been closed by a nonadmin when it wasnt really clear, and it shouldnt have been closed as a keep because there was no real consensus. --but the later closure seems not quite right either, for it seems to have had no consensus after an inconclusive discussion. No opinion on the actual merits of the article--this needs more discussion.DGG (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as "Neologism coined by the author of one novel", allow redirect to the novel. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There seems to have been some spa/puppeting on the keep side of the AfD; but even putting that aside, the close was a reasonable judgment call, based on the weight of the arguments presented. (This isn't supposed to be a second round of AfD, but I'd have recommended "delete" if I'd happened to notice this one.) Deor (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. There's nothing wrong with Core's closure; disagreeing with it doesn't mean we can overturn it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Keep arguments did not address policy issues with the article. -- Kesh (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• I am interested in topic how do I find out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stentie (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi-C (rapper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article has been speedily deleted a few times but I'm not sure if it's obviously non-notable. The article claims that he has recorded for some high-profile labels such as Hollywood Records and Tommy Boy Records, and appeared on songs for well-known rappers. A few of his songs are also in the soundtrack of Malibu's Most Wanted (although I don't think we should hold that against him). He also walked the red carpet (and was attacked) at The Source awards, which was a newsworthy occurrence. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep, needs cleanup If he was involved in the making of Malibu's Most Wanted, I'm going to vote keep based on this alone, as I found that film to be quite hilarious. I realize my bias however - as a former resident of Ventura County, I was exposed to entirely too many people who acted entirely too much just like the protagonist of that film. Some, almost exactly. So, I found it far funnier than most audiences. Also, this is doubtless part of the reason I now live in Arizona... I'll add that to the article with a cite from imdb, but I'm not really into rap music so I'll leave the rest of the cleanup effort for someone else.Zaphraud (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • DRV is about the process of deletion, not about the contents deleted. —Kurykh 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• overturn and list Claims of notablity appear strong, documentation I can't see. But not a speedy as the notability claims exist. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment So, the article was speedied on 3/20/08, recreated on 3/23, speedy-tagged but you declined and opened an AFD instead, then closed that and opened this DRV. What deletion are we reviewing? As terrible as the article is, given this and no delete votes, it's a valid if unsourced article -- so endorse your decline of speedy. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, to make it clear, I am claiming that the article should not have been speedily deleted in the first place, not just that the current speedy should be declined. It does not have to do with the AfD that I had opened, which I then closed because I was told that I was in the wrong place. ... discospinster _talk 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article exists, nobody is arguing that it should be speedy deleted now and see little point in debating whether the previous deletion was valid or not especially given how the present version is better than the one that was deleted. If anyone feels the history should be restored go ahead. (or ask and I will do it) Discospinster would you object to this just being closed as Refusal of speedy deletion endorsed. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, I have no objection to it being closed. ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's not been speedied this time, but it wasn't declined by anyone. If the older versions are better than the current, restore one of 'em, but mostly this seems kinda' outside what DRV's meant for. I'm goin' for close this, 'cuz we can't do anything with it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Send back to AFD. The claims of notability may be strong but we need to cite reliable third party publications to back up these claims, or remove them entirely, especially when dealing with WP:BLP (biographies of living people). (jarbarf) (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: artist is notable enought, his album have charted on national charts. Source. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)