Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 9 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 11 October 2006 (→9 October 2006: archiving "Food products deleted under G11", already closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:33, 11 October 2006 by Xoloz (talk | contribs) (→9 October 2006: archiving "Food products deleted under G11", already closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< October 8 October 10 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

9 October 2006

Laura Bennett, Kayne Gillaspie, Uli Herzner

The three above people are all contestants on Project Runway season 3. On August 28, the articles for Bennett and Gillaspie were put on AfD; Bennett's was kept ("vote", inc. nominator, was 10/3- see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laura_Bennett) and Gillaspie's was a no consensus ("vote" of 7/4 in favor of keep, inc. nominator's "vote"- see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kayne Gillaspie). These discussions were closed on September 6 and September 8, respectively, by two different closers. On October 6, User:Alkivar deleted all three articles, citing failure of WP:BIO. I feel that this is an error, especially for the former two articles (Herzner's article was never AfD'd, but as she is one of the final four competitors on a talent-based reality show, there's obviously some claims to notability). I propose restoring all three, leaving Bennett's and Gillaspie's kept as is, and putting Herzner's on AfD to gather a consensus. -- Kicking222 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn all three and restore. We should not be deleting articles speedily that have survived AfD, period. That means that two of them were grossly mishandled. The third should go to AfD as a challenged A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • None of them were validly kept... the first was closed by a non admin who didnt take any account for sockpuppetry (which was obvious) or editors with only 1 edit. The second was kept by no consensus... not a keep, that does not mean it cannot be speedied! These people dont pass even the slightest bit of WP:BIO. They belong in an article on Project Runway sure... but they dont deserve their own articles.  ALKIVAR™ 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, Being a participant, hell being a final 4 finisher on a reality show does not make you a notable person. ANYONE, I repeat, ANYONE can make it on a reality tv show. Not all of them are notable. Do we have articles on EVERY SINGLE PARTICIPANT in American Idol... nope... Making the Band... nope...
To make you happy i'll address them all individually:
Kayne didnt make the final 4, the only claims the Kayne article put forth towards notability were "In December, 2005, he dressed the entire top five teens and the winner and first runner up in the Miss Oklahoma U.S.A. pageant." and the fact that he won an award presented by the design school he was attending... sorry there just wasnt anything there to make him pass our Biography guidelines. Look at it this way... in 2 months will people remember him, sure... in 2 years will people remember him, doubt it.
Uli didnt make a single claim to notability in her article... which I might add was exactly 4 sentances long.
  1. "Ulrike "Uli" Herzner (born 23 April 1971) is a German fashion designer, currently living in Miami, Florida."
  2. "She is a contestant on the third season of the Bravo network reality television series Project Runway."
  3. "Trained as a physical therapist, Herzner eventually decided that she wanted to enter the world of fashion. "
  4. "She cites designers Kenzo and Roberto Cavalli as her inspirations."
Please point to me where ANY OF THAT matters? Nothing there even remotely passes the sniff test for WP:BIO.
Laura also didnt make a single claim to notability in her article... hell one entire paragraph was dedicated to her husband basically. Her struggles as a housewife dont make her notable... that was another paragraph. The fact she went to multiple schools and achieved degrees there doesnt make her notable either... not every person with a graudate degree in architecture passes the WP:BIO standard (so scratch paragraph 3). The only thing even remotely close to claiming notability is that she showed during Olympus fashion week... this year alone there were 140 designers presented and not all of them are notable EITHER!
None, I repeat NONE, of these articles made even the briefest attempt at satisfying WP:BIO. They were all valid speedy deletions.  ALKIVAR™ 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your rationale; however, especially in the case of Bennett, you still went against a community consensus that had emerged one month prior. In addition, for Laura and Uli, while you believe that showing their lines at Bryant Park during Fashion Week is not a claim of notability, I disagree on this idea. Of course, like the rest of this discussion, the strength of that claim should be for the entire community, not just you and/or me, to decide. -- Kicking222 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted per Alkivar. Eusebeus 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I'm sick of having this conversation over and over again with each new series of each new "reality" TV programme. The jury is in: these people are absolutely not independently notable without some other claim to fame. And frankly most of them don't even have thisclaim to fame, since after their fifteen minutes are up nobody but their mother remembers them. Guy 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment From WP:N: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: (first bullet point) Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers." I think I've found enough stories in reliable sources to show that Kayne Gillaspie qualifies under WP:BIO. here is an interview with Entertainment Weekly, here is an interview with Out (magazine), this is an interview from Logo (TV channel) with Kayne and Robert Best, here is a story from The Oklahoman, and I found many other articles from prominent publications tailored to the homosexual community. If nothing else, Kayne has become notable among that (quite large) group of people. I have to leave right now, but I'll try to find some articles pertaining to the other designers sometime soon. -- Kicking222 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn all three - plenty of contrary examples where we have articles on reality stars. Absent an actual consensus to delete or a general consensus against reality stars, deletion is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy-deletion and immediately list all three to AFD. Failing to meet the criteria at WP:BIO is grounds for deletion but not for speedy-deletion. The prior discussions, even though they were inconclusive, were sufficient to establish that these are not obvious cases and were not eligible for speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A prior AFD does not mean something cannot be speedied as CSD:A7 "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I can now see at least SOME reason Kayne was a bad judgement call based on Kicking222's post above... but I still have yet to see anything provided for Uli or Laura based on their former article content that shows notability.  ALKIVAR™ 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion. I get the idea that few of the above people are at all familiar with the show and understand what it is about, or know what exposure its contestants receive. However, the easiest solution would be to just redirect them to Project Runway (season 3). All of the contestants are already mentioned in that article, and they have no independent notability. None of the deleted articles were so large that they could not be absorbed into that article. Far too many deletion debates are pointless where the real issue is not whether someone or something is notable, but whether it's independently substantial enough to be given independent treatment of its notable parent topic. Postdlf 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn all per Phil Sandifer. This !vote should be taken as evidence that WP:BIO is broken, and I for one am tired of getting into contentious arguments about non-notable goofballs just because they had fifteen minutes of "fame", a two-line blurb in Us Weekly, and a horde of teenyboppers who don't want their latest idol's article deleted (and then who don't even notice when you get the article nuked via a speedy tag 90 days later, since by that point they've moved on to some other idiot). Until we make WP:BIO policy or at least institute some sort of consensus so that temporal notability != permanent notability, we might as well let Misplaced Pages clog up with articles on every goofball who's ever uploaded one of their home videos to YouTube. --Aaron 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn all, as speedy was clearly inappropriate here. Turnstep 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn all, send to AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletions and list on AfD, the validity of the actions are contested and should be discussed there. Yamaguchi先生 06:53, 10 October 2006

Quasimoto Interactive

Quasimoto Interactive was marked for speedy deletion, yet met none of the requirements for such deletion. I have messaged the administrator in charge of deletion requesting a review. I've heard nothing back from the 16 year old admin. Please review this decision, and I will make whatever changes need to be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphanich (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Tphanich (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.

Comment Deletion log ] shows it was deleted under Proposed Deletion after five days, which is not speedy deletion. The deletion tag could have been removed any time in that five days. Note to Tphanich: User:Nishkid64's age is not relevant. More relevant is the fact that you left him a note twelve hours ago and he has not been on in that time. Admins are not necessarily on line 24-hours a day. Fan-1967 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion' and close this debate. This substub is the work of a single purpose account; if this was not self-evidently promotional in intent I'd suggest that rather than wasting time arguing over a single unreferenced pararaph the requestor went and made a proper article, but I don't want to encourage spam. Guy 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, close debate per Guy. Are SPAs even supposed to be participating in DRV? --Aaron 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't be the first time. . Not even the first time today (see #Z Games below). Based on the fact that this user uploaded the logo that went with the deleted article, it's the same SPA that created the article in the first place. Fan-1967 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I apologize for my failure to follow the procedure in this case. I guess I might have missed that, but I will definitely read up on Misplaced Pages deletion policy to keep my memory fresh. For this article, I deleted the prod after checking the company out on Google, and seeing the "what links here". There were no real links to the article, and I only got a few hundred G-hits, which is why I deleted the article. I acted a bit too hasty in redeleting the article per CSD G4 because I forgot that it only applies to recreation of articles that were deleted by AfD. However, if not per G4, it does probably fall under CSD G11, which is about blatant advertising. Nishkid64 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Google Sightseeing

Page was deleted on September 30th (I think without an Afd?) but has since been re-rewritten with poorer copy at Google Sightseeing. Original grounds for deletion were failing WP:WEB, however website has been well covered in the press (as detailed on the site's own Press Page) and has a high Alexa rank. Please consider for un-deletion. (Shreddies 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

..and deleted again as recreation of speedy deleted content. The site is a blog... period. Its not even a particularly famous one like Drudge Report, Boing Boing, or DailyKOS. Their sole claim to fame is they point out things that Google did... sorry riding google's famous coattails does not make you famous. Keep deleted  ALKIVAR™ 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Send to AfD - failing WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    Actually it is now part of CSD:A7. "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The article as deleted made no real claim to its notability.  ALKIVAR™ 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    Endorse outcome but not deletion summary, I strongly recommend mentioning CSD criteria when speedy deleting. CSD A7 is a policy about failing to assert notability, WP:WEB is a set of guidelines about what make a notabile website notable. It is possible to spectacularly fail WP:WEB while not coming under the speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    I dont see how an article on a website can fail WP:WEB, a notability checklist basically, and then still qualify as "asserting notability" as per CSD:A7.  ALKIVAR™ 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    This can happen in a few situations, e.g.
    • The article asserts things that aren't relevant to WP:WEB - e.g. "highest traffic website based in San Marino", "only website about greyhounds in Arabic". These need investigating to see whether they are notable enough - if there are no reliable English-language sources the second might get deleted as unverifiable.
    • by asserting things that are not true
    • the claim isn't as notable as it seems - e.g. if a website claimed it "won four national newspaper 'best website' awards", it would not be A7 speediable, but if it turned out that these awards were a daily feature in the Western Mail then the claim would be true but would fail WP:WEB. Thryduulf 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • To nitpick, I doubt there is only one website about greyhounds in Arabic, and the largest of them would probably be pretty large (if not encyclopaedically notable). Coursing is very popular in Pakistan, and consequently a significant proportion of coursers in the UK are Asian. (Admittedly the main language of Pakistan is Urdu rather than Arabic, but still.) --Sam Blanning 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Speedy Deletion and keep deleted per A7. Bastiq▼e 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, per both A7 and WP:VSCA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion because, frankly, we don't need this junk. Guy 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy A7 per above, and I mean, like, now. Hell, it really ought to get the shiny new G11 Award. --Aaron 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

X Is Loaded

I have written two articles (the first in pained detail) on the band X Is Loaded (called either X Is Loaded or Xisloaded), user name Miffsey, and have found that they have been deleted for no apparent or given reason - I tried carefully to follow your policy. Could you please review this deletion for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miffsey (talk • contribs)

Deletion log:
13:58, 9 October 2006 NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) deleted "X Is Loaded" (a7 content was: 'X Is Loaded*X Is Loaded are a 4-piece rock band from Bath, England.*They consist of:Jake 'Phoenix' Robertson - Lead Vocals, Backing Guitar,...' (and the only contributor was 'Miffsey'))
  • Send to afd - the article contained an assertion of notability: "They have released a total of 5 singles, and had one album release, called 'Raw Nerve', on the Music For Nations label." Although it wasn't linked (the article was not wikified), the Music for Nations label, does have an article. Ideally for them to have an article, the singles should have charted etc, but this deserves and AfD hearing. Thryduulf 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD, band articles that assert notability (verifiable or not) don't fall under A7. --Coredesat 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Z Games

The Z Games article was originally deleted due to Z Games not being considered a "notable company." Z Games is, however, quite a popular company, and their products have been downloaded many thousands of times. Here are some reasons of why Z Games is a notable company:

  • Z Games has all of its titles either pending or currently featured on Cnet's Download.com and Windows Marketplace.
  • Z Games products have been downloaded over 60,000 times. Here is the Z Games company page on Cnet's Download.com: Z Games on Download.com. Please note that 7 of the games are currently considered popular by Cnet.
  • The Z Games downloadable "console", PURGAMENTUM, won 2nd prize in the Game Maker Dev contest, which is held by a popular resource site for users of Game Maker. Here is a posting on http://gamemaker-dev.com that lists the winners of the contest: Game Maker Dev Forums.
  • Z Games products are highly popular in certain cities where the company has promoted its games.
  • Please check the news section of the official Z Games website, http://zgames.sitesled.com, for a more detailed listing of the history and accomplishments of the Z Games company.

There was also concern that the Z Games article was possibly being used as a means of advertising. I do not believe that the article was promotional, but I am willing to adjust it to make the article meet Misplaced Pages's standards.

Any problems involving advertisement or notability in the past were probably caused by miscommunication or misunderstanding by me. Please consider un-deleteing the Z Games article, and I will work with you to make the article satisfactory.

Thanks. ZGames

  • AFD's:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Z Games Delete 4 July 2006
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Z Games (2nd nomination) Speedy Delete csd g4 18 July 2006
  • Keep deleted.
    • Being listed on Cnet doesn't mean anything about notability. If Misplaced Pages listed every Cnet product and software company, Misplaced Pages's article count would double.
    • A few years ago, I uploaded a few games, programs, and files for a calculator to a far less popular site than Cnet. Since then, my files have been downloaded 31,000 times. 60,000 downloads on Cnet shouldn't be hard for a software company which creates games commercially to achieve (or, I should at least hope not, for your sake!)
-- Renesis (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Zgames (the same user as ZGames) was banned for blatant vandalism. This user is also the webmaster for the company Z Games and the only editor of the article being discussed. The article, talk pages, and deletion discussions have never listed a non-trivial published work of a reliable or reputable source, or a well known award. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Arichnad, process was followed in both AfDs. Some of the claims are still unverifiable. 60,000 downloads on CNet does not notability make. Even if these concerns weren't still valid, I'd be very wary of restoring the article based on the nom's username and edit history. --Coredesat 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

United States military nuclear incident terminology

User:Shell Kinney deleted United States military nuclear incident terminology with only the explanation "a5, transwikied to another project", leaving several broken links that need to be cleaned up. CSD A5 says:

Transwikied articles. Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded.

I asked the deleting administrator what the reason for deletion was, and the response was, "Since the page was a list of definitions and not an encylopedia article, each definition was moved to Wiktionary - when this was completed, the article was deleted." I have two issues with this deletion, according to this policy. I had not seen the page prior to its deletion, but according to Misplaced Pages mirrors its content seems to suit an encyclopedia better than a dictionary. I wouldn't even say that it is strictly a "list of definitions" but rather an article about a set of terminology (similar to many articles on Misplaced Pages). Second, the transwikification does not seem to have been properly performed:

  • There doesn't seem to be any discussion at Articles for Deletion (or anywhere else)
  • Several of the definitions do not appear on Wiktionary at all (I could only find one out of several that I tried)
  • It seems no effort was made to clean up references to this article.

Overall, this seems to me to be a sloppy deletion that has left somewhat of a mess and a hole in Misplaced Pages's coverage of a huge topic. This either needs to be simply undeleted and improved, or the content needs to be moved elsewhere, but it certainly isn't worthy of deletion without discussion. -- Renesis (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • In what way is this not a copy of a primary source? Guy 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn - list at afd I don't think these terms belong at Wikitionary and the speedy delete seems out of line with the CSD criteria asks that the issue should have been discussed at afd first. The article needs fleshing out, but there is much more to be said in the article. These are not simple dictionary definition terms, just like Air Force One and DEFCON etc. I wouldn't like each term to have its own article, but all in one article seems fine Bwithh 00:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. This was a mere list of codewords and their meanings with no reasonable possibility of expansion. Allow a temporary undeletion in order to transwiki any definitions which were missed or to transwiki the entire list to a Wiktionary Appendix (my preferred solution). The existing articles can be repointed to the Wiktionary appendix. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)