Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26

Cristina Cruz Mínguez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I find it odd that the closer would close as delete with one keep vote and three comments. I am not an expert in the field of spanish film and TV and,yes, would have been good if there were more involvement but feel this is not the best way to improve articles. The main character in a (short) TV series? hmmm... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but allow new version. Looking at the article as it existed, and the comments, I think the closing admin was justified to delete the article for failing to meet the verifiability guidelines. While I endorse the deletion of the article, I also have no objections with allowing a superior article, including multiple references (even if they are in Spanish), to be created. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse my own close of the AfD. Ideally, an AfD debate will provide some hints about possible future sources even when those already in the article are not quite enough. Opinions may differ as to what is 'enough.' If her role in El Abuelo received any published critical approval, that might be enough for me. My own Googling did not bear fruit. WP:BIO seems to call for important and widely-recognized work, not just a few appearances on screen. No objection to re-creation if better sources are found. I agree that Spanish language sources would be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Poor sourcing presents BLP issues and we should lean towards deletion in those cases. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse BLP needs reliable sources to assert enough notability of person, which does not appear to be the case here --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:24.22.227.53 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This used to be my "anonymous" user page. My IP address changed (I moved), I went away from wikipedia for a while, and after a while it was deleted. I spent hours getting it to the state I wanted, and would like it to be undeleted (if this is possible) for a few days time (ie. until June 1st) so I can download it for nostalgic reasons. -Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• You appear to have a working e-mail. Would it be acceptable to e-mail you the content instead? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks (including the diff history, if possible). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• You could've simply asked the deleting admin... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could have asked you, but I discovered how to figure out who the deleting admin was after I read about the deletion review process :) (via the "logs" link from the DR template above).

Should such a situation ever come up again, I'll do that. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

LyricWiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD AfD2)

Wikipedia has a clearcut policy on linking to sites which violate copyright. It was made completely clear in the discussion prior to the keep decision that the people involved at LyricWiki know full well that they violate copyright, and have no plans to do anything to change that unless the rightful copyright holders of the songs whose copyright they violate specifically come to them and ask them to remove the infringing material. Wikipedia should not host an article which endorses such behavior. A decision to keep this article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies on copyright. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is an interesting case. A notable website for which we should provide an encyclopedic treatment, but to which we shouldn't link. :) Can this be solved by placing "nowiki" tags around the URLs? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah, endorse. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I guess, although referencing in the article should be improved. We have articles on a lot of sites that are objectionable... Stormfront (website) pops to mind. Not liking a website isn't a good reason to delete the article on it. Note that YouTube, as far as I know, and 99% of other websites, take the same approach... they don't remove any copyrighted material without a request from the rights holder. Then we have articles on sites like The Pirate Bay which mock people who come to them with copyright concerns. This DRV's premise seems quite a bit off. --Rividian (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Keeping the article is not a policy violation, the only possible policy violation is the external link to the website and even that's debatable. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wikipedia has plenty of articles on things of dubious legality and morality but that's not the same as endorsing it and I don't see why LyricWiki should be any different. -Halo (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse own closure. If the site is objectionable, then we shouldn't link to it, sure, but if it's notable, then we should have an article on it. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - the youTube article isn't going anywhere any time soon, despite its even more egregious violations of copyright and trademark. Happy‑melon 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse closure per RMHED and Rividian. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per others. Article is fine, link is iffy. --Kbdank71 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, just don't use a live link, use <nowiki></nowiki> tags around the link, with a hidden comment linking to the DRV so they don't get removed --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nothing new brought up, nothing to indicate that the AfD was handled improperly. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:FootnotesSmall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe the TfD for the page should be reviewed. I don't believe the input by other editors in the TfD was taken into account and I see no logical/"common sense" reason why all usages of the template should not be replaced by {{reflist}} then deleted. Rockfang (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect as the TfD ended, redundant to {{reflist}}, but may cause collateral damage if deleted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• The ca. 2000 transclusions of {{FootnotesSmall}} should be gradually replaced with {{reflist}} during the course of regular editing, but targeted replacement is probably not necessary. (On the other hand, there is Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. An additional 2000 edits won't affect performance, given that we receive 150-200 edits per minute.) Perhaps the replacement could be made a general fix in AWB? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Pardon, but why is this here? I'm not saying that Rockfang is violating policy, but I don't see what is going wrong with what's been done, so I'm simply confused. Dozens of articles on my watchlist have already had Rockfang's idea implemented. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I have already started changing the {{FootnotesSmall}} template to {{reflist}}. This DRV for the TfD is here because I believe the closer ignored the input given by other editors. Also, administrators are supposed to determine consensus and examine policy pertinent to the situation. Consensus showed that the template was redundant. Policy states that redundant templates should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where, precisely, does it say that a redundant template cannot be redirected? Gimmetrow 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment from closing admin: In this TfD, the rationales of the majority of the contributors (and since it's not a straight vote, the rationales are more important) made almost unanimous reference to the template's "redundancy" to {{reflist}}. The clear consensus of the discussion is that the functionality of {{footnotesSmall}} should be replaced by the functionality of {{reflist}}. A direct, but very inefficient, way of achieving this end would be to replace every occurence of {{FootnotesSmall}} with {{reflist}}. A very much simpler and more elegant solution, which was not explicitly suggested in the TfD but which is emminently sensible, is simply to redirect one to the other. Running an AWB script or bot to update the articles is simply unnecessary (WP:R#NOTBROKEN also applies very clearly in this instance). Happy‑melon 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How would switching the templates on articles using AWB be inefficient? Using AWB to switch them over allows you to do spelling fixes, formatting/style changes (to be inline with the MOS), etc, at the same time. It is simple and quite easy to do. I still believe the Delete part of the consensus, and established policy was ignored. --Rockfang (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand what the problem with the action that were taken is. The consensus were that the template were redundant and should be replaced with {{reflist}}. As Happy-melon said above, the easy and common way to do this is simply to redirect {{FootnotesSmall}} to {{reflist}}. The only "benefit" to changing via AWB/bot/manually is a bumping up of edit counts. Redirects are cheap. KTC (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You are partially correct. Consensus as I interpret it, was Delete the redundant template. This seems to have been ingored. Policy also says to Delete. I do admit that sometimes what needs to be done is sometimes against policy, but I don't think this is that type of situation.--Rockfang (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Substituting the template is not only unnecessary, those doing it are doing it incorrectly. In many cases {{FootnotesSmall}} generated notes at 100% font size. These should have been replaced with <references/>, not {{reflist}}. Gimmetrow 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A correction. Some were done incorrectly. All future ones done by me will be switched to <references/> if the size setting was previously at 100%. BUT, this shows a valid reason why the {{FootnotesSmall}} should be swapped for either <references/> or {{reflist}}. A redirect to {{reflist}} would change all previous occurances of {{FootnotesSmall}} to a small size regardless of original size correct?--Rockfang (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, the replacement process was done incorrectly because the dual use of the template was not accounted for. Were any of the TfD commentators aware of this dual use? Gimmetrow 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • In the first line of the TfD I put: "Delete. Seems redundant. We have both <references/> and {{reflist}} if people want different sizes. FYI, the template was previously nominated here. — Rockfang (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)". Whether or not they saw that first line, you'd have to ask them. There was also a link on the TfD to the Template's page. I would hope that people clicked on the link before commenting. That's not something I can control.--Rockfang (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{reflist}}, as I believe I stated in the TfD. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• No redirect - This is not exactly the same as {{reflist}}. If simple redirecting was done, many articles would lose their formatting as reflist and FootnotesSmall use different font sizes. Therefore, AWB (or bot work) sounds to be as the only sensible solution. Or, make FootnotesSmall a transcription (not redirect!) of reflist is also a good idea. As for the aftermath, I have no comment. --Deryck C. 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I follow. How could a trivial difference in font size alter the formatting of an article? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • From my personal experience, I've found that some editors don't find the differences trivial.--Rockfang (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Hmn... seems an "oops" is in order. I didn't realise that the template was used so regularly to display standard-sized references; neither, it appears, did Rockfang. An analysis I did a few days ago (forgot to post here then) revealed that approximately a third of all the transclusions of {{FootnotesSmall}} used |resize=100%. At that time, the template had 1,800 transclusions; it's now down to 1,189, so it looks like you're having fun, Rockfang! Given that it's a non-trivial task to identify which instances should be replaced with <references/> and you seem happy to do the task, I'm now inclined to let you get on with it. If there comes a time when the the template is transclusionless, then yes, it should be deleted. Happy‑melon 10:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Although I have not seen the article before it was deleted as I have only started long after it was deleted, but does 562,000 ghits mean the brand is not notable for this site Jay Pegg (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sure you really meant 2420 hits. Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - We can overturn the expired PROD deletion for you, but unless you've got some sources you can add it'd just be deleted through WP:AFD. Or we can userfy it to User:Jay Pegg/Merlin or something similar so you can work on sourcing it before moving it back to mainspace. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want help with anything. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• commentYes, it can be undeleted and I think an adequate article could be written, but you really do need to have some additional material available to put into it, such as some 3rd party reviews of their products. DGG (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

comment on above lot:Is there a way I can see the article, considering I have never seen the article before as I just started after it got PRODded off. I will take the userfy option first so I can work on it. Jay Pegg (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Userfied per above request. SkierRMH (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was copied by the Irish Higher Education Authority for use in a report, without crediting Wikipedia or meeting the GFDL requirements. Administrator User:Refdoc then deleted the article without checking in which direction the copying took place.

In July 2006, I was invited to contrubute to the Ken Pounds article by a user on my talk page. User:Tomber had made a start on the article, and I then substantially expanded the article using a number of sources, to which I provided links at the end of the article.

In September 2006, the article was archived by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine [1]. From this, it is clear that the Irish HEA have copied the entire article, with the exception of the date of birth, which is omitted. [2]

It is not possible for me to have copied the article from the Irish report as the latter was only published on 21 December 2006 [3]. In addition, if the administrator in question had checked the edit history, he would have seen that the article was built up and improved over a number of edits, which would not have been the case had it been copied in its entirity from the HEA report.

I have asked the administrator to re-instate the article, but he has refused to do so, and has also attacked my integrity as an editor. Please could the article be re-instated with its edit history? JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. You present your case well. I also find it very difficult to believe that you could have taken the text before it was published. At the very least an old version without the copyright issues should be restored, I'd suggest before the full DRV is concluded, which would have been the appropriate action on the part of the deleting admin. We should let the office worry about the GFDL violation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I looked at the deleted version that existed on the date of publication of the Irish report, and the text was at Wikipedia before the Irish report was published. While it may be fair to say that 9 times out of 10 copying is from the other publication to Wikipedia, this looks to be a case where it went the other way. Certainly the referenced report followed the publication of the Wikipedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Edit history and dates support the nominator's assertion that the article has been compiled from preceding sources in 2006 before the Irish report was published. CSD G12 actually suggests to consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia. As there doesn't seem to be convincing evidence to the contrary, I'd overturn. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and consider somewhere the unjustified explicit accusations of bad faith from the deleting admin. DGG (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The initial deletion of the article is somewhat understandable, mistakes are made. What isn't acceptable is that when you pointed out the error with evidence provided, the admin choose not to believe you and it seems didn't even bother to check the evidence you gave. RMHED (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn As the original deleting administrator I had a second look at the above. I agree that the evidence is as JRawle suggests. The basis for my original assumption of copyvio was the publication in a governmental media and when asked to review again, I remained convinced to a) governmental media + b) the previous deletions of multiple images submitted by the same editor. I accept the evidence and accept also the explanation given by the editor wrt the several images deleted. I wholeheartedly apologise for my assumption of bad faith. Refdoc (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating the article and for the apology. I accept that you originally deleted the article in good faith due to the (rather surprising) fact that a government publication copied from Wikipedia. Therefore I don't wish any further action to be taken against you. JRawle (Talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia has eliminated hundreds upon hundreds of unsigned artists whose qualifications equal or surpass Marina V for true notablility. For example, recently Justin Lanning was removed from Wikipedia, yet he had CD's selling throughout retail bricks&mortar chains, a billboard on Sunset Boulevard, far more youtube videos and hits per video, higher sales ranking on Amazon by far, airplay on mainstream radio stations, whereas Marina V only has internet radio airplay. How can you claim Marina V notability exceeds somebody like Justin Lanning? I am not making a case that Justin Lanning be reinstated because I agree with his removal from Wikipedia, he was more notable than Marina V, though not sufficiently notable. I am simply saying that you must be consistent in Wikipedia decisions and Marina V fails notability in virtually every aspect. Let me restate one last time: super low Amazon sales, ultra low youtube hits, no FM radio play, only internet radio play, no national media coverage (mostly her "hometown" Chicago local media, and that's NOT notable, since most unsigned artists obtain niche coverage in their respective hometown papers at the very least or in various peripheral mags or internet sites, e.g., Bliss???, MishMash???, Innocent Word????), no concert halls, mostly coffeehouses, seeking record label = advertisement, etc. She is no different (and no worse) than the typical relatively anonymous unsigned artist, most of whom will be throwing in the towel by age 30, but Wikipedia has removed so many unsigned artists who are at her level or better, so it begs the question whether or not she has a special relationship with a Wiki editor who is somehow keeping her listed even while so many others are removed? I argue for Wiki CONSISTENCY and your decision to reinstate undermines that consistency entirely. Most worrisome, it opens up a potential hornets nest since many previously deleted unsigned artists will use a keep decision here as precedent for re-opening their own deletion cases. Your decision would theoretically require reinstatement of HUNDREDS of unsigned music artists who were deleted over the past few years and it makes NO sense at all, since to reiterate one last time, listing of unsigned artists with primarily only an internet presence VIOLATES all Wiki notability requirements. From her bio, she appears to be a sweet girl but don't think "sweet" should become the determining factor for Wiki listing, do you?

-MusicBizLady

This DRV refers to Marina Verenikina and is a request to overturn the keep outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina and delete the page. No opinion from me, just clarifying the listing. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse my closure -- Marina Verenikina is notable for Wikipedia's purposes as the references provided in Marina_Verenikina#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of her notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which states in relevant part that

  If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

  Furthermore, there was a unanimous consensus for the retention of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina. John254 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Clear keep consensus at the AfD. Disagreeing with the closure is not a valid reason for us to overturn it. The two keep argruements completely rebutted the deletion rationale and improved the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. To refute the comments made by the requester of the review, BNET is (inter)national media coverage, so she has received coverage beyond the local media. Second, we already have an essay (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) discussing how each article is considered on its own merits—so while there may be a case for precedent in some cases, it doesn't always follow that if an article for an unsigned artist is deleted, that all articles for unsigned artists should be deleted. If User:MusicBizLady would like to start DRV for each of those articles, or at least the one's she's concerned about, she is more than welcome to get them considered for restoration on an article-by-article basis.

The only issue I possibly see in the AfD—which the requester did not mention—is that there were only two !votes at the AfD: one weak keep and one speedy keep. While it could be argued that the AfD should be relisted to get wider consensus, the comments at DRV so far here suggest that consensus will be wider and it will be to keep. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, sources found to establish notability making keep the only appropriate closure. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse and Withdrawal of Previous Objections

After reflecting upon the issue overnight, I am now inclined to opt for endorsement of Marina V listing, so I will now remove the label I affixed to Marina V's listing, and end this nonsense.
Although the Marina V keep definitely undermines previous Wikipedia standards relating to unsigned music artists, nevertheless, it is far past time to terminate the condescending and irrational bias against unsigned music artists long held by a collective of self-anointed "music experts" at Wikipedia, none of whom have a clue about the true nature of the music biz since most of them have never worked a single hour within The Industry. In the past, truthfully, I always felt most Wiki editors had no right to pass judgment on an industry in which they are so woefully ignorant.
It is very nice to see that I personally have inspired a revolution here at Wikipedia, one that hopefully will end the irrational bias against unsigned music artists in favor of label music artists-- and as far as I am concerned, most label artists are actually very undeserving of their "notability."
In the past, I often read negative comments from extremely haughty, ill-informed, Wiki editors about unsigned music artists, to the effect that many of their multiple sources were PAY FOR HIRE niche media. In reality, anybody who has been in the music industry knows that most media sources are PAY FOR HIRE, in fact, the worst culprits of PAY FOR HIRE sources are the record labels themselves. lol That is why I used to laugh at the idiotic and woefully obtuse Wiki editor comments that often accompanied unsigned music artist removals when it only proved those particular Wiki editors knew absolutely nothing about the realities of the music biz.
In any case, judging from comments placed here by various Wiki editors, it appears the keep decision will be endorsed, and to be honest, from a purely personal and business perspective (without any consideration for the insufferable and pompous concept of "protecting the integrity of Wikipedia," which I have found to be little more than sheer arrogance by various self-important Wiki editors who have less than impressive qualifications themselves), I welcome the decision, it's about time the severe restrictions against unsigned music artists were overturned by Wikipedia. I say one loud, "BRAVO!!"
Unsigned music artists have long suffered absurd restrictions by excessively demanding smirky Wiki editors who have long held inappropriate biases in favor of label artists. I am actually very happy to see this result, since I can forward the verdict to at least 20-30 unsigned artists of my personal acquaintance who were removed in the past year alone and who will be more than thrilled to use the Marina V "keep" decision as a precedent in overturning their own past listing removals from Wikipedia. You are about to open the floodgates in the unsigned music artist area, but hey, you certainly have my blessing, because over 50% of my current clientele are unsigned, it can only benefit my bank account in the end. :)) Sorry for the inconvenience, and I withdraw ALL objections, and again, I will remove the request to revoke the listing immediately.

-MusicBizLady
On one other side note, also withdrew request to delete another unsigned Russian songbird, named ELLY K, who actually has a much larger following than Marina V, and who also performs and is reviewed all over the world, and who outsells her and generally gets much higher ratings overall as an unsigned artist. You should fully reinstate Elly K immediately, and I will return with a longer list of unsigned artists who you MUST reinstate ASAP in order to maintain CONSISTENCY, now that notability requirements have been significantly relaxed here at Wikipeeia. BRAVO again for finally dispensing with the elitist and inappropriate restrictions against unsigned music artists foisted upon them for the past few years by largely ignorant Wiki editors who do NOT have a clue about The Biz, and I like to take the credit for being the one who finally broke down these longstanding yet nonsensical walls.

-MusicBizLady

One final request to Wiki editors: I would suggest you create a listing entitled, "Marina V and Unsigned Music Artists," that would show up when "Unsigned Music Artists" is searched on google, in order that this entire discussion be used as a precedent for establishing the new relaxed guidelines for notability requirements at Wikipedia. Then I can simply direct all previously removed unsigned artists to the listing, and they can begin the process of obtaining either original listing or reinstatement. No longer will their internet reviews, internet exposure, college paper interviews, peripheral media features, etc., be held to ridicule by self-important, yet ignorant Wiki editors; under the criteria discussed here (which I have copied for future reference), many previously deleted unsigned music artists have every right and entitlement to be re-listed. That is certainly good news, and I only hope the many Wiki editors who once aimed condescending arrows at deleted unsigned artists will have their noses rubbed in it as they so very much deserve. :)))

-MusicBizLady