Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 18

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

History-only undeletion -- currently a bad recreate, then a redirect to the wrong page.

According to the log, it has been speedy deleted twice recently:

• 2008-04-09T00:48:54 VegaDark deleted "Halloweentown (film)" ‎ (G3: Vandalism)
• 2008-04-09T00:46:56 Mww113 marked Halloweentown (film) patrolled ‎
• 2008-03-30T20:52:47 Jeepday deleted "Halloweentown (film)" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: source http://www.episodeguides.com/scripts/getshow.php?s=0x49f9&p=205&m=html&remote=)

Unfortunately, there are a lot of links to this popular film page. My 'tween nieces are upset. Although I don't know much about it, I'm sure it can be improved to the level of the other related film pages. I'm sick in bed this weekend, and I'll try to at least fix it to a minimal level using the prior content.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• The latter deletion was correct (article contents were "This page is a bitch") but the earlier looks like reverse infringement. The content on episodeguides is an exact match for the Premise section of the version as of 15:12, 8 October 2007, except for formatting (which is badly lacking in their copy). The first revision (17:22, 20 July 2006) by Jakz34 is mostly the same, but the differences were added slowly by a number of editors over the intervening fifteen months (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Overturn. —Cryptic 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Not being an administrator, I cannot see those Special:Undelete links, so I have to wait for the actual history undeletion. There are now more links to the page -- I've disambiguated a dozen or so "Halloweentown" disambiguation page references in the meantime.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Restore history under current revisions. Request is reasonable and I see no reason to decline it or do anything more. It might be easier just to write a good version, though I can see why you'd want the history to do that. Drop me a line if you want any help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination) closed as "delete"; however, I think it was more a "no consensus" per my reasoning at User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_major_secondary_characters_.282nd_nomination.29. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment' wouldn't it be better just to somewhat expand the description in the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters ? DGG (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to such thing, but to do so, we could restore this article, merge what's relevant over and then redirect it, even if it's a protected redirect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Restore history and leave as a redirect Editors can very easily look at old version on the history to find the information they need, and even make a link to the preferred old version on their user page to use as a bookmark --Enric Naval (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't that kind of defy the point of deleting an article? Guest9999 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• In this case, as the article is not a hoax, not a copy vio, not libel, has a good deal of support for being kept, has a redirect location, etc., there is no real "point" in deleting the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to create that redirect now. But, per WP:NOT#WEBHOST, we don't host content that has been determined to be outside our project scope, no matter how convenient it may be.  Sandstein  06:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm asking for a redirect without deletion; the content was not satisfactorily determined outside of our project scope. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Clarification to my !vote Closing admin should evaluate whether the deleted article had content worth merging. I am not an admin, so I can't check it myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as deleting admin. No argument has been made why my closure was wrong. I'm not opposed to a restoration of the content so as to allow a very selective merger, once it has been demonstrated that there is consensus for such a merger. But the point of a deletion is to remove content from sight, and I don't see why the community's consensus for that outcome should not be respected here.  Sandstein  06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no clear or overwhelming consensus for deletion, though. As indicated many of the deletion arguments were weak and there were sufficient keep and merge arguments for a no consensus. A merge and redirect without deletion would be a fair compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm afraid I don't understand the nominator's (LGRdC) arguments re whether the closure was correct. The reasoning presented is presumably this diff, and seems to be that if a) the article is not a hoax, libel, or a copyright violation, and b) there isn't unanimous consensus to delete, then we should default to keep. Do I understand the argument correctly? Jakew (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a combination of that and that in the discussion many of the reasons for deleting were weak, while there were sufficiently strong arguments to keep or merge that there simply was no consensus for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Reading the discussion, I'm afraid I can't agree with LGRdC's analysis. It's true that there were some weak arguments, for deleting as well as for keeping. However, the strongest policy-based arguments, identified by the closer, seemed to centre on the redundancy as well as the "lack of secondary sources about the characters" (note in particular the influence of comments by Collectonian and Graevemoore on the discussion). This wasn't a straightforward AfD, but in my view the closer read consensus correctly. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When there are strong arguments to keep we have a "no consensus", not a delete. The two arguments you cite were actualy relatively weak. Claiming it's redundant with another article is really cause for redirect, not outright deletion. Claiming Wikipedia is a work in progress and that the article can be recreated suggests that it has potential and is also not really a reason for deletion. Many of the other deletes were outright votes or "per nom" in nature. If you remove those who therefore just voted add in those who worked on the article in the keep category, coupled with those who argued in the AfD in December that closed as Keep, then it is apparent that consensus in this case is not clear. Reasons for keeping include: AfD is not for cleanup, forks of this type are quite reasonable, and defined in WP:FICTION, it passes Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verfiable list associated with notable franchise; title even says "major" in it), etc. Thus enough valid reasons to keep that we have a no consensus, but all I am requesting is a restoration and redirect, which allows editors to see again if anything can be merged, have the ability to much more easier improve the article should additional sources turn up, and allow for editors' contribution history to this non-hoax/non-libel/non-copy vio article to remain public. Thus, whereas as I see plenty of benefits to restoring the article and then redirecting, I do not see any gain from outright deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn AfD should have been closed as no consensus, as per Le Grand's arguments. Article should be restored at least to merge relevant info to the main character article. GlassCobra 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse — The Keep comments were not based in policy: they were either "It's useful" or citing sources that do not fit WP:RS (fansites). There's no need to restore the history, and I'm disturbed at the frequent requests of late to do so for articles that are not being merged anywhere. Per WP:BEANS I won't elaborate, but there are ways of exploiting this off-Wiki that seem abusive to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually the keep arguments were much better grounded in policy than the delete arguments which were mostly of an "I don't like it" nature. Clear lack of definitive consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Flatly stating that they were better grounded in policy isn't terribly helpful, LGRdC. Perhaps you could explain what these policy-based arguments were? You listed above some arguments based upon WP:NOEFFORT (an essay), WP:FICTION (a proposed guideline that, according to you, lacks consensus, so it is puzzling that you should now refer to it), and WP:LISTS (a style guideline). Where are the comparable arguments to those regarding a "lack of secondary sources" (ie., verifiability issues)? Jakew (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • They may be essays and and guidelines, but at least they're valid. The thing is there are nevertheless no valid polcy or guideline based reasons for outright deletion. For merging and redirecting without deletion, maybe. For a no consensus closure, okay. But not for a definitive deletion. And flatly stating that the delete arguments were better grounded in policy, when I see nothing convincing to that end, isn't terribly helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus to delete, proper closure. Deletion Review is not AFD part II. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There was clearly no consensus to delete and yes, deletion review is indeed a continuation of reaching consensus. Anyway, another reason to restore the article is that one of the participants of this AfD listed above has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. He commented at least three times in that discussion. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend relisting these AfD and perhaps at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 12 deletes to 6 keeps is a consensus to delete, period. "No consensus" should be reserved for cases where the !votes are tied or run something like 7-6 or 6-7. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe in a vote, but AfD is not a vote, period. "No consensus" is used whenever the ARGUMENTS are significant to suggest that the article has potential. In this case, one AfD closed as "Keep, Consensus is clear" and as for the second AfD, whereas the keeps had original policy baased reasons for keeping, the deletes were "per so and so" and in some instances did not even have a reason for deleting. Another delete rationale was a per the banned sock account, which means that the sock account did in fact influence the discussion which is simply unacceptable. Other deletes lacked seriousness, such as "Cruftwagon departing, all abbooorrreed..." which of course fails WP:ITSCRUFT, anyway. Otherwise the deletion arguments were that the material is duplicated, which just means we could merge and redirect it without deleting. Bottom line is "no consensus" was reached and the discussion was clearly tained by the sock's participation as in addition to needing to discount his comments, well, we would also need to discount the others who said to delete per him, which means in actuality it really is a lot closer to 7-6. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wallace Collins, Esq. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Valid page Hermit711 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The page in question is Wallace Collins, Esq.. Fix't above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nom has given no reason to overturn deletion and AfD was closed properly. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Overturn Please ,In both Talk and again in the page itself his Notability was expressed He has been the attorney of many people already listed on Wikipedia and has many Articles written about him in the Press. This was noted on the page i created and in the Talk about Wallace Collins Esq.

His whole family has been Lawyers and his Grandfather was a famaous Lawyer during the Prohibition years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit711 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) --Hermit711 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wallace Collins, Esq.

      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wallace_Collins%2C_Esq.&action=edit&redlink=1> 

His Notability is evident in that he has been cited in Major Newspaper and Music Trade Pubs, and he has made case Law in the Copyright and Trademark arenas.

Please look at his page if i did it wrong then i need someone to put a Wikipedia page up that knows what they are doing this is all very confusing to me.

http://www.wallacecollins.com/

Under his legal victories you can see the articles that have been reported on him such as; http://www.wallacecollins.com/la.html

Making Case Law

http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw5.jpg http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw4.jpg http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw3.jpg http://www.wallacecollins.com/whoomp/wcaw2.jpg

These are just some examples. --Hermit711 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

His Notability is evident in that he has been cited in Major Newspaper and Music Trade Pubs, and he has made case Law in the Copyright and Trademark arenas.--Hermit711 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also as stated elsewhere i have put up just some of the Cites here also i have stated he was a recording artist and here is that information :

His band was THE DYNOMITERS They were featured in 16 Magazine and other teen magazines and got press in the trades we were signed to Epic Records in 76 the most notable song was "Rock & Roll President"

--Hermit711 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse: No assertion of notability, badly written, only 2 references, no internal links, no sections... Need I go on? (The notability and references are the biggest concerns)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have listed His band i have listed the Song. I have listed just 4 of Articles about him there are more i would put into the page if it were still there. I have listed the page where all the articles i have for him are, all by Major Publications, The Times the Post , DMA , etc this is not enough? As to form yes i need help writing the page BUT the Notability issue is very well covered just in what i have written here, he is at least as Notable as his Clients, that are listed in Wikipedia. If you are saying it is bad writting on my part then so be it i have asked for help, and i was NOT done writing it i ran out of time. But i will take any help i can get, to do that however, i need the page put back up. And i do not Understand what is meant by Assertion of Notability His winning Cases alone cover that "Whoomp there it is" was a major Sampling case. And he was in a music group in 1976 as stated above is that not enough? --Hermit711 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Whoomp there it is" Case which i believe i provided links for in the original article was Notable it made case Law on Sampling in copyright and that was not the only one, and maybe his music group was not wonderful by todays standards, but then it was covered and He would not be the Only 1 hit wonder covered in Wikipedia. If i did not write the Article correctly, I thought i was following the guidelines and over a week or 2 figured i would get it right, there are people who will help me fix that. But his notability Can Not be questioned by your Own Guidelines, As a 1 hit Wonder he is Notable by Wikipedia standards, or many other pages should be deleted. --Hermit711 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion His song was not a chart hit or anything as far as I can tell. If you can cite the reliable sources you have, then maybe I'd ask for an over turn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment The logical first step would be to try to write an acceptable article demonstrating notability for the band. DGG (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the AFD was validly closed. The way forward is for the nominator to write a new article in user space and then come back here with a request for it to be moved across. Smile a While (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid closure, nothing out of process, consensus was 100% in favor of deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AfD consensus was clear, and was correctlt determined by closing admin. Musical notability is not demonstrated in the article, and in the legal framework even if his clients were notable, this notability does not carry over. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Please provide citations to the caselaw. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Simpsons Opening Credits Circus Couch Gag.ogg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Media DID contain the correct source and info, but was deleted under CSD I4 anyway Adammw (talk - please email me for contact) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Restore and tag Did have a source, didn't have a bot-recognizable tag, and was processed by one of the image admins that deletes as if they were a bot themselves. The admin should have fixed instead of deleting. GRBerry 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Simpsons Movie Opening Credits.ogg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Media DID contain the correct source and info, but was deleted under CSD I4 anyway Adammw (talk - please email me for contact) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Restore and tag Did have a source, didn't have a bot-recognizable tag, and was processed by one of the image admins that deletes as if they were a bot themselves. The admin should have fixed instead of deleting. GRBerry 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)