Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 20

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

I am doing research on undergraduate beer-brewing organizations and would like to request a copy of this article's source code be sent to me for review off-Wiki Spf7 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I have e-mailed a copy of the article to this user. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe this article has been wrongly deleted and would like to request a copy to be sent to me—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandilks (talk • contribs)

Declined. Patent nonsense. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It is disappointing that this AfD was allowed to pass so easily, as the nominated article was nearly identical to others such as International response to Hurricane Katrina, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Katrina even has a third layer (Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina, Dutch response to Hurricane Katrina, French response to Hurricane Katrina, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina, New Zealand response to Hurricane Katrina, Russian response to Hurricane Katrina, Singaporean response to Hurricane Katrina, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina) of notable articles, because there was simply that much quality coverage available. And while there were allegedly keep votes cast in the tone of WP:ATA, this is an essay rather than a policy. In addition, the same argument could be used to discount the opinions of those who voted delete, such as WP:UNENCYC.

A pie chart illustrating the number and ratio of those supporting and opposing the AfD nomination (as indicated in bold)

I do not appear to be alone in having felt that this AfD would not do Wikipedia justice. To quote one seemingly upstanding Wikipedian:

Without this article being separate, the original article (already with an aid pledge section) will become very long and unwieldy. Without this section at all, Wiki administrators may have to decide whether a new policy will have to be drawn up, for I suspect the international reaction sections were becoming something of a standard following events. If this deletion goes through, then this "consensus built standard" will fall under question indeed. I say "keep" doktorb _words^deeds

WP:NOT#NEWS

I intend to demonstrate in the following word-for-word dissection that this article is beyond the written context of WP:NOT#NEWS:

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events."

• The aforementioned article was not a "news report"

"News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own."

• This was an event that claimed the lives of 40,000 people

"Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."

• The article did contain "announcements" but they were arguably beyond the scope of this statement. In addition, the article did not have sufficient time to mature, as seen in essays WP:POTENTIAL and WP:INSPECTOR.

"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be."

• All of the primary subjects in the article were either governments, international organizations, or major multinational corporations

"Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)"

• Does not apply, the article was not about an individual

"Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."

• This is not a restriction

Notability requires objective evidence

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."

While this would appear to rationally disprove notability for Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, it could also revoke the notability of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks by the same rationale, which presumably would be considered notable by a very large percentile of contributors. This policy is also circular in nature, as it traces its roots back to WP:NOT#NEWS which I have already attempted to disprove under these circumstances.

Final words

Before making a final decision on the status of this article, please take a moment to reflect on WP:IGNORE.

I would like to make myself clear that I do not seek to be disruptive in this request. While I cannot guarantee that this article is truly notable, it is my opinion that there should not be a double standard regarding notability of articles that relate to how the world reacts in times of disaster. I would also like to recommend that an official policy be created that directly applies to the subject, as this is an increasingly popular topic, and in the opinions of many, encyclopedic.

Please forgive me if there are any discrepancies with my provided rationale(s) or logic, as I prepared this in a hurry, and lost a bunch of sleep last night. This is below my usual quality standards.   — C M B J   23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it really sounds like you're just upset because the discussion did not go the way you wanted it to; DRV is not AfD2. You attempt to discount the WP:ATA argument by stating it is just an essay (see WP:ONLYESSAY). However, this is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion. WP:ATA exists to point out extremely weak arguments which should be avoided in deletion discussions. Such arguments are not valid and are not constructive to finding consensus. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an equally weak argument. Finally, the decision of the closing admin does not preclude the creation of another article on the topic. It seems the major issue in the discussion was the type of article. At the time of the discussion, it appears the article was simply a list of various government agencies expressing condolences. If you can address the issues raised in the AfD, there's nothing preventing you from writing a new article. Redfarmer (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that I fully addressed the issue raised in AfD, being WP:NOT#NEWS. I was aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS prior to making this request, and while it is a weak argument in many circumstances, the aforementioned articles are not similar they are identical. I do not understand why you have opted to take an aggressive stance against me.   — C M B J   23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you're interpreting me as being "agressive." I'm simply interpreting the data as I see it. I did not participate in the AfD at all but it appears the admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Redfarmer (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The reason I suspicioned aggression is that you alleged that I was merely requesting this review out for emotionally driven reasons, and that "DRV is not AfD2." As you will see on the related AfD, I was not belligerent whatsoever. This is not an isolated topic, and a review such as this could help pave the way for an official stance on similar articles in the future. Further regarding WP:ATA, many opinions in both spectrums could easily (and perhaps rightfully so) be discounted by this essay. I fully understand that essays are illustrations and generally accepted interpretations of policy.   — C M B J   00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I did not say you were doing anything emotionally. I simply said I believe you brought this to DRV because you did not agree with the outcome of the AfD discussion, not because you disagree with the admin's rationale for closing the AfD or because you believe the deletion was out of process, which is what DRV is here to judge. Redfarmer (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • By "emotionally" I was referring to "it really sounds like you're just upset because the discussion did not go the way you wanted it to." Don't worry about it, you and I are both here to make Wikipedia a better place. I felt that this was the best outlet to bring forth the concern, perhaps it could achieve something like WP:OUTCOMES. If you feel that it was highly inappropriate of me to bring this to WP:DRV, I could instead expedite the subject directly to CAT:PRO or similar for consensus. (Not just about this article, but concerning past and future)   — C M B J   01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • No, no don't withdraw on my account. I'm just one person and I've been known to be wrong in the past. It's just my interpretation of the evidence before me; someone else may see something I didn't. Redfarmer (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, Redfarmer, are you citing WP:ONLYESSAY to show that WP:ATA should not be discounted? Since WP:ONLYESSAY is a subsection of WP:ATA, that's rather circular. Deletion should be decided based on WP:DEL. While WP:ATA definitely has useful advice to keep deletion discussions useful, it should not be used by admins to discount some editors' contributions to the discussion. Admins should make their decision on the points made in the discussion as they relate to WP:DEL. Klausness (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, I wasn't citing it to show that WP:ATA should not be discounted; I was citing it to show why I believe essays should not be discounted simply as "just essays" without a compelling reason to do so. WP:ATA may not be policy, but it does highlight some of the most common weak arguments which are used in deletion arguments both ways and asking to have a deletion discussion overturned simply because WP:ATA is not policy and the nom is wanting us to follow WP:IGNORE instead is a weak enough argument. Redfarmer (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And besides that, why shouldn't admins ignore invalid arguments? By that logic, if someone casts just a vote, we should count the number of votes, no matter how compelling arguments are on the other side, and go with whichever side has the most number of votes, since WP:ATA is "just an essay." Invalid arguments do not build consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course admins should ignore invalid arguments. But citing WP:ATA doesn't show that an argument is invalid. Bad arguments are ones that have nothing to do with policy or that are just badly argued. Klausness (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as there were compelling enough arguments to keep in the AfD that suggest a "no consensus" closure would probably be most accurate. In any event, certainly not a slam dunk delete and I don't think I've ever before seen such a thorough rationale in one of these DRVs that it even includes a pie chart! I'm tempt to ask if the initiator of this thread could make me pie chart I can add to User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn to permit merging, even though I largely agree with the closing admin's rationale. While the "Government response" section most likely does not merit inclusion (the characterisation that it consists of a list of condolences is mostly accurate), some of the content in "Responses from organizations" should probably remain in some form (in particular, the information about financial and other assistance pledged to help victims of the earthquake). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say, without being aggressive, that it does seem highly unusual that no move has been instigated to delete, for example, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina, whilst finding this article so instantly disagreeable. That is not to say I am using WP:OTHERSTUFF, merely observing as close to an equivielent as I can find. I am of no doubt that the deletion was made in all good faith, but the deletion article showed a split in responses, rather than consesus. And as I have been quoted, may I back up my view that now one article on this matter has failed its deletion process, Wiki editors may need to review the whole process of international reaction articles and sections. A way forward on this bt posting in the Recentism article yielded no responses. doktorb _words^deeds 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to admit I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if we could get an admin to restore the history so we could see what this article looked like? Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • MERGE I'm still intent on merging, and will most likely do so if people do not argue. Important Note: to anybody who wants restoration or something to merge, I have a copy of the article as it looked like on 00:52, 17 May 2008, here.--haha169 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's a far cry from how the article actually looked at the time of deletion. I've gone ahead and requested over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for an admin to restore a recent copy for public viewing.   — C M B J   04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • What about this: [1]? --haha169 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Excellent. That was the most recent revision.   — C M B J   05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Just so you know, DRV is in fact where you should request userfied copies or history restores. You don't need to open a separate thread. You can also ask the deleting admin personally. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think the closure was accurate, though I don't dispute that there are strong feelings on the other side and, of course, it's all technically sourceable. My personal objections apply to most of the other articles that CMBJ lists, although I'm less annoyed by lists of actual relief responses than to the condolence guestbook appearance of this article. "Oh, how nice, Eritrea stopped by." It just smacks of an international-level WP:MEMORIAL. If we could get away with it, we could put one or two significant or eloquent expressions of condolence somewhere in the main article, but it seems we instead get bulleted lists of every country's kind words, which serves little real purpose (did we think anyone would say something mean?). Anyway, I see no argument for overturning the AFD on process grounds. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist, there was no consensus either way, debate should have closed as "no consensus". MrPrada (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, I do not believe the closing admin misinterpreted this debate. Arkyan 13:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, per Arkyan MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to Hurricane Katrina MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse (and yes, I was the original nominator) - clearly the nomination provoked healthy discussion from both sides, and both had good arguments. However, the "keep" side largely failed to address the "delete" side's points, and its arguments, as the closing administrator noted, were not that persuasive. This is just one of those cases where administrative judgment has to come into play over the raw numerical count, and while I can see why some may be disappointed, I don't see compelling cause to overturn. Biruitorul (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist A clear case of non-consensus. Even if one actually uses the criterion of being part of formal history, its pretty clear that it will be. Impact on international events is pretty clear. Mick McN brings up the afd on another article which was kept, and yet he wants to endorse this deletion. DGG (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not a closed Afd, it's one I've just opened. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn or at least Relist. It looks to me like consensus was tending towards "Keep", though it could also be seen as no consensus. In any case, there certainly doesn't appear to have been consensus to delete. The closing admin cites an essay pretending to be policy as a reason for discounting most of the "Keep" !votes. Klausness (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. As quite a few people above have said, the AfD was closed just fine. The keep arguements were somewhat less than persuasive, and didn't measure up to the delete ones. I also can't see any reason in this nom to overturn, other than the nom disagreeing with the close. Personally, I agree with the closure, having perused the article. There's no reason we can't have an article on the subject, since it is clear that there is a precedent for doing so, but such an article should contain actual responses, not just "A expressed condolences" sorts of things. The version deleted was mostly the latter. There's no reason someone couldn't take the current history and remove all that sorta' content to have a decent and workable article right now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • But if there's no reason we can't have an article on the subject, then the article should be kept and edited. Articles should only be deleted if they shouldn't exist in any form, or if they're in such bad shape that fixing them would essentially amount to deleting the article and starting again. An article on a notable topic that can be fixed should be kept and fixed, not deleted. Klausness (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a bad article can be deleted even if a different article on the subject might be appropriate. I'm fine if consensus doesn't swing this way, but if that's the case someone should still go through and thin the article down to actual actions. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. No consensus means keep, not decide for yourself. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, totally inappropriate decision. This is a topic of very high notability, so much so that I find deletion almost incomprehensible. Everyking (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is extremely highly notable infomation because ...., because why? Why will it be needed 2 years from now, or 5?, or 10? Just what is historically significant about this information that makes it notable? In fact who needs it right now? Is it highly unusual for countries to give aid and assistance during a natural disaster? Or as I have raised in the related Afd above, is just the general topic title 'international response to {notable natural disaster XYZ}' just an inherently notable subject on it's own? Articles don't inherit notability from a parent article just because of their size. It strikes me this view is just a confusion of the concept of 'newsworthy' with 'noteworthy'. There is nothing really remarkable about the listwise recording by every single country of the number of aid packages sent, number of planes, doctors, donations etc etc, that can't be distilled to the most unusual responses, and a summary of the rest, in the main disaster article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and perhaps relist. This was a no consensus result, the article should have been kept. Additionally, editorial decisions such as splitting and merging articles are not really under the purview of the deletion process. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In the absence of Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, someone has created a new version. The new article will require merging with the original, as the "international" label creates unnecessary discrepancies regarding the status of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Tibet, and the Vatican.   — C M B J   03:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tagged for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material. I don't know who created it, but they seriously need to wait for the conlcusion of this Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have contested the deletion. While the topic is the same, the content and format are not substantially identical. Moreover, merging/redirection is preferable to outright deletion in this case (at the least, the title is a plausible search term). Finally, although the creator really should have waited for the conclusion of this DRV, given that the article has already been created, I think we can afford to wait. If this DRV endorses the deletion, we can address the recreation then. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This clearly goes against the deletion policy, how is it not a substantial copy?, it's taken less than a day to be created, it's clearly been copied and modified from the Afd'd copy, which is against policy. Anyway, its moot now because it would be patently stupid to Afd this one now, I don't think you've encouraged good behaviour here at all. Perhaps at close of this Drv we might have 3 or 4 copies to merge. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Compare the old article with the new article. I do not deny that the contents of the new article are similar to the deleted version, but they are not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Much of the 'useless fat' of the old version has been removed and there is not the same feel of a directory of condolences. If you (or anyone else) would like to restore the deletion tag so that it could be evaluated by an uninvolved party, or to redirect the article (at least until the conclusion of this DRV), I will not object. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as deleting admin. Instead of just referring to my closing comments, I'd like to address two points made here:

• I did not discount some arguments based on the essay WP:ATA, but because they were ill-grounded in policy and precedent, as conveniently described in WP:ATA.
• Also, my closure did not determine the topic as such was not notable. It determined that we do not need an article that is mainly a long litany of boilerplate condolences. I.e., all are free to recreate this article as long as it is not mainly a list of condolences.  Sandstein  21:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion should not be used as an alternative to cleanup, rather vice versa.   — C M B J   21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. I, too, am surprised by Sandstein's decision given the number of "Keepers". Axl (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Afd is not a vote. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, but it is consensus-driven. Consensus is about collective judgments, not individual ones. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I know that AFD is not a vote. In this case there was no consensus to delete the article. Axl (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Consensus is mEaningless when the 'keepers' as described above give extremely weak arguments, and in the end even try and invoke ignore all rules, which is completely irrelevant to this article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: The related AfD has now concluded, resulting in a consensus of keep all.   — C M B J   11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not quite what the result was, but I have a feeling that's going to be ignored looking at the progress of the alternate article that sprung up [2]. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and/or relist. I say this as someone who would have !voted 'Delete' on the AFD if I'd noticed it at the time, but the result of it looks pretty clearly like 'no consensus' to me. Especially in the light of the recent AFD about reactions to other disasters (linked above), there seems to be a growing consensus towards keeping these articles, which makes me think relisting on AFD would be appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Looks like a no-consensus to me. _{1 != 2} 12:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete this article. RMHED (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Ace Hood has had a semi-successful single, and he is the first artist of DJ Khaled's music record label, We The Best Music. He is also scheduled to be on DJ Khaled's next album, We Global. Reference to his single: http://www.mtv.com/mobile/video/detail.jhtml?videoId=10142391&channel=&from=index You can also find his music video on youtube, by looking up "Cash Flow by Ace Hood". This is also his single: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_Flow_%28song%29 Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and unsalt. It appears the single, Cash Flow, made it on the Billboard charts[3], meaning it has passed at least one criteria of WP:BAND. His song is being featured on BET and he is signed to a subsidiary of Def Jam Recordings, a major hip hop label. Reliable Sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Sounds pretty notable to me. Redfarmer (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and unsalt - Is the in depth subject of multiple secondary sources and has charted single. Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Oakshade (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Unsalted per this discussion and request by User:Y5nthon5a —Travis^talk 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I'd just like to see what it was that got deleted, can someone restore a copy to my userspace unless it's total junk? Thanks. Rividian (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It's pretty much total junk - nothing encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment virtually zero reprintable content - the XLink may be of interest: http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625828 WilyD 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks, the deleting admin restored it to my userspace and I agree there's nothing much useful... this DRV can be closed now. --Rividian (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The article for ResCare was deleted. I would like the article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review. It was deleted with copywrite as the stated reason, but this article was approved by ResCare and is not copywritten material. I asked the admin to take another look on 5/2/08 and have not heard back. Rackfast

• Endorse deletion please do not write an article about a company you are employed by, per WP:COI. The article read like a sales brochure and even if the text isn't copyrighted it could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Business if you want more information. Hut 8.5 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I will point out that we do not delete articles merely because they are written by a staff member of the company, but we certainly advise against it. In practice, they rarely do a good job, & it ends up sounding like PR & gets deleted accordingly. If you must do it, put it in your user space and ask someone to look at it. DGG (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that even if the copyright holder "approves" the copying from their website, they need to follow procedures such as those listed at WP:CP#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia to verify that they are, indeed, the copyright holder. Corvus cornix_talk 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Close We don't restore copyvios. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)