Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 5

OpenStore for File Servers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable

User:MisterWiki seems to be on a speedy deletion rampage as is evident by his talk page User Talk:MisterWiki. I'm not sure if this shouldg be a deletion review, or an admin intervention, so I thought I'd start here. Xaminmo (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate for WP:ANI. -- Kesh (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close as no action required here. If the page is deleted then a review here would then be in order if requested. BlueValour (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

PRODed under "no evidence of notability; multiple issues". It appears to be notable and it is difficult to discern or correct the other reasons for deletion without access the article. Hazel77 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Traganje za rentom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) (userfied to User:Kubek15/Traganje za rentom)

Also included in this review:

• Rawlsova teorija blagostanja (userfied to User:Kubek15/Rawlsova teorija blagostanja)
• Teorija drugog najboljeg rješenja (userfied to User:Kubek15/Teorija drugog najboljeg rješenja)

Foreign language articles improperly speedy deleted before could be given the chance to be translated. When confronted about it, admin moved articles into another user's userspace rather than restore the articles and allow them to be listed for the proper two weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Putting articles in userspace only really allows that user to work on translation of the articles rather than any user who speaks the language. I want to see the articles restored in article space and relisted at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, giving them the proper two weeks for anyone on the translation team to translate them. Redfarmer (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While that is procedure and I would hope that future articles are treated that way since WP:CSD#A2 specifies the circumstances under which foreign language articles are to be deleted, all three articles have been userfied as indicated here. Other editors may work on the articles in userspace, so I'm not sure if there's compelling reason to move them to article space for that work to take place. I can't endorse the deletion, since it was done out of process, but I don't see that there's anything to overturn specifically, since the articles have been undeleted already. I haven't really encountered the deleting admin very often (that I remember; names are not my strong point :D), but based on the note left about the deletion here, I'd assume s/he is a reasonable, cordial person. I wonder if refreshing his (or her) memory on the appropriate section of CSD would have been just as beneficial; I think it's possible that she (or he) would have returned them to article space with the {{notenglish}} tags if it was explained that there was some concern about access for the translation team. (Who, yes, do fabulous work. I've turned to them often.) (For responders who are, like me, new to the conversation, I'll link the current ANI thread for convenience. I'll also note this there and inform the admin in question of this conversation.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I only brought it here because this is where I should have brought it to begin with I realized. The ANI thread was closed abrubtly by an admin who accused me of being "out for blood" and seemed to imply I was making frivolous complaints. I'm not asking for much. I don't care if the admin in question is reprimanded or reviewed. I just want to make sure these articles are translated and I'd feel better about their chances if they were in main space and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Redfarmer (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't doubt that you're operating in good faith here. :) I know that the admin had been approached about this already, and obviously you weren't satisfied with the outcome of that conversation, but it is possible that additional conversation could have brought you into accord without the need for outside intervention. In principle, I agree with you; it's great the first editor has access to the material, but if he or she should choose not to pursue it, then they are as good as deleted as long as they languish in userspace. It's probably better to let the translation team have a crack at them and tag them with the appropriate deletion criterion if the articles don't measure up. In reference to your note below, I wouldn't feel that comfortable listing an article in userspace at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English myself, particularly since that page says that it is for listing articles and these three are now in a different space. My point is primarily that, reminded of policy, the deleting administrator might very well repair this him or herself (and could still). That's why this page is for situations "where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question". It's just a more congenial approach when possible and can save a lot of unintended drama. :) Maybe when the deleting admin notes this conversation, he or she can weigh in. If I were in your position (rather than in my own effectively monolingual one (dead languages excluded)), I'd wait to see what the deleting admin does and possibly ask the user in whose space they are userfied if he minds them being listed. If not, I'd list them with a note as to why the procedure is irregular in these cases. While I'm running on, let me point out that in the ANI thread, 6SJ7 is suggesting proposing in village pump a new system for processing foreign language articles for translation that sounds like a good idea to me. I hope s/he will decide to follow through and that it will prove viable. You might want to keep an eye open in case a conversation occurs there to which you can contribute on the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • I didn't realize someone had reopened the AN/I thread. Thanks for linking! Redfarmer (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Fie on this absurd process-wonkery. These three articles had foreign-language titles, foreign language text, no links, no references, no formatting and no hint of what they were about. The deleting admin was approached by the original author and, as far as I can see immediately undeleted and userfied them. How much time, precisely, is the community expected to waste in order to keep something that an English-speaking audience has no hope of understanding? It's not as if it were in Spanish or Italian or some other language which is understood by large numbers of English speakers - in fact, it doesn't even give us the most basic information, the language in which it's written! As far as utility to the English Wikipedia goes, these articles score a big fat zero. Wrong language, wrong format, wrong title. No credible reason has been advanced for demanding that we let this unintelligible (to an English audience) material sit in mainspace. We can't even validate that it's not an attack of some kind. It's not that we've failed to meet the creator halfway, we have been particularly helpful and userfied the content to prevent wasted effort. Does the person who requested this review understand the content, at all? I could not find an online translator that rendered it as anything other than gibberish. At the very least before we insist on moving userfied content back to mainspace you would think we might be entitled to know what it's about, hmm? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's beside the point. The point is it should have not been taken out of main space for two weeks. One of the articles has something to do with the philosopher John Rawls, an area which I may have an interest in. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You say it should not have been taken out of mainspace, but the only argument you've provided so far is that it somehow prevents others fomr working on it, which it doesn't. If one of the articles is about John Rawls, then the content should have been placed at John Rawls, the English title - except we already have a much larger article on John Rawls. So, if you know for certain it's about Rawls, link it from talk:John Rawls. We have not deleted John Rawls, we have userfied something that none of us can understand and which you now tell us is about someone on whom we already have a decent-looking article. So I return to the basic question I have had right from the beginning: what purpose is served by leaving this unintelligible (to an English-speaking audience), context free (to an English-speaking audience) text in mainspace that can't be served every bit as well by leaving it where it is? Guy (Help!) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • If you really feel this way, that no good can come out of translating foreign language articles, then why don't you advocate the elimination of translation? The fact is, there's no way to tell if there is context or not until it is translated, and this is best served if it is listed at articles for translation, which normally does not happen unless the article is in the main space. Are you saying the Rawls article is perfect and there's nothing which can possibly be gained from allowing the translation team to translate the article? Redfarmer (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say that at all. You seem to think that mainspace is the only place these things can ever be. Why? There is no practical or technical reason why they need to be there. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• If they are in main space, they can be linked to from articles for translation. I have no doubt that the user who received the userfication has the best of intentions of translating the articles. However, if their real life gets in the way of it (as mine often does), it could be months before it is determined if the articles have any useful content. If they are in main space and linked to from articles needing translation, more editors will be aware of the existence of these articles and be able to assess them independently. Let's face it: if I hadn't tagged one of the articles {{notenglish}} and watched the pages to see what happened, I would have never known this issue existed. The only people who would have been aware would have been the original admin and the user who received userficiation, which would have meant no community say on the articles and no awareness on the part of other translators they existed. Redfarmer (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• They can be linked to articles for translation from userspace as well. But do tell me: why should a user expect to be able to dump unformatted foreign language text at a foreign language title, give no links or clues what the subject is, and then have someone else translate it? If the user understands the content, then he should at least put it at the English title. You've advanced no credible explanation of what utility these articles serve in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's what we have the translation page for: to determine what foreign language articles are about. As I've said on the AN/I discussion, if you assume good faith, the least we can do is help the user, who, in these cases, are almost always new editors and are probably confused about the Wiki they're creating their article on, to transwiki their articles to the proper Wiki. If we can translate them and find there is something useful we can use in our articles, all the better. I've seen Arabic articles with no trace of what they're about be translated and we get a useful stub about a Middle Eastern village out of it. The point is you don't have any clue what we're getting until we translate it. Redfarmer (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: the editor who objected to the deletion and in whose userspace these articles now sit doesn't seem to be the creator; they are attributed in history to this user. I've left a message asking the admin if there's any objection to moving these to article space where they might be tagged {{notenglish}} and processed through Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Seems like a meta discussion on handling foreign language articles prior to translation is due. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just because the articles are in userspace does not mean that only the user can work on them. Anyone can. And what does the location have to do with being able to list it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English? Mr.Z-man 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So are you saying I should list a page from another user's userspace? Seems like an invasion of their work to me. No one else can work on it if no one else knows it exists. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't see the issue here. If someone has them in their userspace and is actively working on them (as would be required to be an invasion of their work) then there is no need to list, if they aren't working on them, then where is the invasion? Userspace is not private space, it is intended for further use in building the encyclopedia, working together with someone in "their" userspace seems an excellent example of that. Regardless a quick note on the user talk page asking if they mind it being listed to possibnly get further resource looking at it, I would suspect be generally quite fruitful and certainly eliminate any appearance of impoliteness --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment These seem to be foreign-language (Croatian?) forks of Rent-seeking, A Theory of Justice, and Theory of the Second Best. It's hard to imagine how they are useful as articles here. They don't appear to have articles on Croatian or Serbian Wikipedia, so if anything they should be moved there. --Reuben (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If that's the case I'll accept that. Really, that's all I've wanted all along is for these articles to have a fair shake. Redfarmer (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn if we have rules, we should follow them until there is consensus to change them. Trying to have a regular way of doing routine things is not process wonkery. Discussing the merits of a potential article here is not the purpose of Deletion review. Deleting things contrary to process produces confusion, engenders unnecessary disruption, & is therefore harmful to the encyclopedia. We have enough problems discussing real issues. DGG (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG. The deleting administrator has been editing but evidently does not see the need to respond further to my request that s/he consent to the restoration of these articles to article space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As I suspected, userfication has not solved the problem. The user whose userspace the articles were moved to, Kubek15, is now looking for someone who speaks Croatian to translate one of the articles, as evidenced by the comment he left at the bottom of the page here. As I said before, I'm sure Kubek15 has the best of intentions, but it's really not solved the issue. Redfarmer (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Fie on this absurd process-wonkery who says that a userfied article can't be worked on by others? To leave an article in mainspace that we do not even know what it is about or what it says or what language it is in, is unacceptable. If somebody told us what it was about and gave us some assertion that is was notable and gave us reference surces, then we could allow it to remain there for two weeks or more. But for all we know this is copyrighted material, attack material, objectionable material or a hoax. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Then we should change the policy, because this is the standard way we handle foreign language material and this particular material is no more likely to be copyrighted, attack, objectionable or hoax than any other foreign language article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also, like DGG said, deletion review is not for discussing the merits of an article; it's for assuring that deletion policy is followed, and it was not in this case. Foreign language articles are not speediable in and of themselves. They must fall under one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The deleting admin has never asserted that they fall under one of the criteria and, in fact, his deletion summary indicates that he deleted them solely because they were foreign language articles, contrary to policy. Redfarmer (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

R. J. Danvers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD was closed as a keep, but I did not see how the subject of the article met the general WP:BIO or the WP:PORNBIO criteria. I contacted the closing admin to find out what criteria were met, they stated "I believe that WP:PORNBIO was satisfied; specifically, he starred in a blockbuster feature, acknowledged by those awards the film won and also because there are a few sources stating his participation in the film." By the closer own admission the sources in the article only support that the subject appeared in the film, not that he starred which is what the guideline calls for. It seems to me that a reliable source would be needed to support that he starred in the film, especially considering the claim was originally made by the subject of the article. By the closer's reasoning, definitive proof would need to be provided that he did not star in the film for the article to be deleted. I'm not sure how that could be provided and it would seem to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. BlueAzure (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse for now. It looks to me that the subject squeeked by on notability and verifiability. There were other arguments supporting notability than "starred in film". As much as I regret these articles being here at all, not for me to say. Dlohcierekim 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, because I really want to understand want I am missing. BlueAzure (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

When RJ appeared in mainstream media, Genre Magazine. That constitutes notability as well. Appearing in the groundbreaking, award winning film. Basically all you want is an article from a reliable source that says that RJ STARRED in Grunts. I think at least one of the sources claims he starred.--71.196.38.47 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One magazine appearance is not enough to meet WP:BIO or the third criteria of WP:PORNBIO. None of the reliable sources in the article support that the film was groundbreaking or a blockbuster. BlueAzure (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. IMDB indicates that Grunts won 10 awards and received an additional 14 noniminations. Sounds like a blockbuster to me. This fellow has third billing, which would suggest a starring role. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That IMDB listing appears to be alphabetical by last name. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That's a good point. Not being used to IMDB standards on porn listings, I didn't even think to look for that. :) Danvers does, um, feature on the back of the box, I note, for what that's worth. (See here, but oh so NSFW.) He's in the second row, if that makes a difference. I wonder just how many happy military men this movie features. Looking below, it seems Fleshbot claims he has a starring role, and while the use of blogs is questionable by WP:V, this particular entry was contributed by Rod McCollum, aka Rod Mac (note that the personal website is the same), who is an official contributor according to their "about". This certainly implies editorial oversight. I wouldn't regard it as sufficient sourcing to prove that somebody is killing puppies or for other BLP violating controversial information, but it seems sufficient to me to verify the claim of "starring". Whatever that means in the context of porn. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. Blockbuster (entertainment) refers to financial success of a film. The film is award-winning, but that is not one of the criteria. The Fleshbot article does not claim the he starred or had a starring role, but that he "gets star billing". According to billing (film), star billing refers to a name being listed before name of the film in the credits. Therefore, the article is not making a judgment on the importance of his role in the film but mentioning where the maker of the film placed his name in the credits. The box art you linked to is for one of the parts of the film, the box art for the whole film (See here, but again oh so NSFW.) has 21 people on the back. Its entirely possible that all 21 people received star billing, would they all be considered a star of the film and therefore met WP:PORNBIO? BlueAzure (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you taking this a bit too far? Everyone else sees that RJ met the requirements. As a Raging Stallion Exclusive, he becomes one of the STARS of the film. During the credits, it claims : Starring.... and lists the exclusives. Following the title of the film, it then details the rest of the cast. Like another person pointed out, I think you just don't agree with the decision, and are trying desperately to get everyone else to see this issue your way, when clearly, they don't. Numerous sources show his notability, he appeared in three award nominated films, one including best picture, and if you want to claim that BLOCKBUSTER means financial success, then the film BROKE RECORDS by being the MOST PROFITABLE film of the past five years. Tell me, what needs to be established for you to leave this issue alone? Seems to me the consensus is to keep the article, and you are the only one to disagree. You opened the first article for deletion thread, it was labeled keep. You open a deletion review. Everyone endorses the original decision. Am I the only one seeing this??--71.196.38.47 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This DRV will be closed by an uninvolved admin based on policy and consensus. No offense please, but even if BlueAzure is still not satisfied, as long as the admin is the keep will stand.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are notability guidelines and requirements for reliable sources. Appearing in award winning films is not a criteria for WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. No reliable source is provided for "film BROKE RECORDS by being the MOST PROFITABLE film of the past five years". No reliable source is provided that he was a star of grunts. I do not doubt he received star billing, but from your message it appears that everybody that is exclusive with the films production company receives that credit no matter the extent of their role. I really don't think that meets the WP:PORNBIO criteria of starring. BlueAzure (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Well, it seems to me that BlueAzure has a vendetta against this article. I added a source from Fleshbot, a very reliable porn news website, in which they state RJ received star billing in Grunts. Not sure what else needs to be done to satisfy BlueAzure, short of deleting the article. Maybe he should consider just letting it go???--Rockstars721 (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is a blog, blogs are generally not considered a reliable source. BlueAzure (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fleshbot has long been considered a reliable porn news website, comparable to AVN. --71.196.38.47 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another source has been added, claiming star billing. Let's see if this one is acceptable to BlueAzure's super strict standards.--71.196.38.47 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, it some sort of shopping search engine. BlueAzure (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to satisfy you. Can we cite the movie itself? It states in the credits... STARRING RJ DANVERS.--98.203.125.219 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Close seems well within process. Keep looks reasonable, if it had gone no consensus I probably couldn't argue with that either. Going further seems like we're turning this into AFD part 2.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. It seems that the DR requester simply disagreed with a deletion debate's outcome, which is against policy. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think this subject meets all guidelines. Trying to split hairs over a "starring" role in a porn flick is a little silly - what guidelines do you use? Speaking lines? I'll stop now before I devolve further. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Page was salted after being repeatedly speedied (A7). Page has been recreated as "Brooke Skye", with better sourcing than before. I hesitate to speedy a page with halfway decent sources, but if "Brooke Skye" sticks around it should be moved to an unsalted Brooke Skye. (I'm not convinced the page should stay.) Deleting admin and salting admin recommended DRV. Fabrictramp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I found an article about the lawsuit and melissa midwest incident at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/bubba-the-love-expunger/ . I don't know much about the New Times to gauge it as a RS but I recommend undeleting and unsalting the article. Vinh1313 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Both the adult and regular press have are running the story too. (AVN, XBiz, Lincoln Journal Star, Tampa Bay Tribune, Court TV) I'm not quite convinced she's notable, but she certainly has WP:RS coverage now. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then that definitely seems to satisfy the WP:BIO general criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. This isn't a CSD#G4 anymore. I'd call notability premature to borderline, but I suggest taking the improved article and the new evidence back to to the editors for consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete and unsalt. I believe there has been enough coverage (listed by Gene93k) to establish the subject's notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and Keep Salted No real grounds for establishing notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete and unsalt - As recreated it wasn't a speedy deletion qualifier. --Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Previously discussed at AfD here. Unless something has significantly changed with the actress since then, I see no reason to have another AfD discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• There has been new sourcing subsequent to that AfD in 2006. --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My only concern before I vote overturn would be whether the new sourcing satisfies WP:PORNBIO or not. I'm afraid both versions of the article have been speedily deleted so I can't tell. Redfarmer (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)