Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 22

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amarkov (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 23 December 2006 (→[]: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:27, 23 December 2006 by Amarkov (talk | contribs) (→[]: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< December 21	Deletion review archives: December	December 23 >

22 December 2006

Victor Celorio

Several deletion votes were changed to keep (including mine) after the requested evidence of notability was added; no new delete votes came in after the info was added. Why ask for the evidence if it's going to be ignored? Dicklyon 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

- Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation Looks like two people changed to keep - Dicklyon and the nominator, Dave6 (changed to weak keep, and looks like he made the final comment; too late to withdraw nomination after substantial discussion). By my quick count, I see then 6 delete !votes and 3 keep !votes (counting the obvious single purpose accounts as one !vote). I'm not sure what "new evidence" was presented, but if a much-improved well-referenced article can be built in userspace and then re-added to the article space, I think that might be okay. Bwithh 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To see the added evidence of notability you'd have to look at the deleted article. I believe it is true that nobody voted to delete after the references to publications about Celorio were added. Dicklyon 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Geh.jpg

Image:Geh.jpg – Restored per request – 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Geh.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`deleted history`)` Image was orphaned after Google Earth Hacks was deleted. That article was restored, but the image was not. I don't really even know what the image was. --- RockMFR 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Geh.jpg – Restored per request – 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image was orphaned after Google Earth Hacks was deleted. That article was restored, but the image was not. I don't really even know what the image was. --- RockMFR 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of big-bust models and performers

Overturn. Consensus was largely in favor of keep, list was cited as subjective, but concrete definitions are in place for listing qualification Charlam 00 18:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- For some reason the AFD link here points to the incorrect discussion, the one I'm citing is here: 3rd nomination
  - Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Overturn - consensus was indeed heavily in favor of keeping the article. While some of the votes were very WP:ILIKEIT-ish, most of them were valid arguments. --- RockMFR 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. With no authoritative definition of 'big', violates WP:NPOV, and with no reliable sources in the list or AfD, violates WP:V, both non-negotiable policies. Presence of redlinks violates WP:BLP and WP:NOT a directory. --Sam Blanning 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- - Comment. - Big was defined as DD or larger in the article, that's a definition no? Charlam 00 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    - And how is this an authoritative definition of 'big'? --Sam Blanning 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion precisely as per Sam. It doesn't matter how the articledefines it, we have to have an external definition from a reliable source. Plus, the stats given out by the porn business are slightly less reliable than a kleptomaniac crack addict. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- - - Comment. - To quote another user from the debate "I haven't brought out WP:IAR in a while... if I recall correctly, this is one of the most viewed articles on Misplaced Pages. Keep solely to bring more people to the project. Yes, I'm serious" an exampe here of the ammount of views generated by this page Charlam 00 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Overturn The consensus at the discussion was overwhelmingly and quite clearly for Keep. Those arguing for Keep gave rational and coherent reasons for their recommendations. The few delete recommendations made no valid argument beyond, "How do we decide what is big?" And that question was clearly answered in the article. This renewed debate is pointless since it has already been gone over in the first discussion, and the consensus was clearly Keep There was no justifiable reason to delete the article. Dekkappai 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Overturn: consensus was largely for keep. the article provided objective, verifiable, standards for inclusion -- if there were unverifiable performers on the list, then the solution is to remove those performers from the list, not to delete the entire list. notable industry and a notable characteristic by which actresses in the industry are categorized (by the industry, consumers (see breast fetishism and by the performers themselves). Interestingstuffadder 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Overturn Deletion was out-of-process and contrary to consensus. Suggest that deleting admin be referred to ArbCom for possible de-sysopping due to this and several other abuses of administrative powers within the past few months. —Malber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the Overreaction Of The Year award still accepting nominations for 2006? --Sam Blanning 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
He was blocked by the same admin, so it's not a total overreaction to just this. -Amarkov _edits 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Overturn. The list was explicitly for people billed as being big-bust performers, so WP:NPOV concerns are irrelevant. These things are why I sometimes wish "admin discretion" didn't exist. Oh, and whack Malber for bringing up desysopping in DRV. -Amarkov _edits 00:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunnyside Royal Hospital

Sunnyside Royal Hospital – One revision restored, AfD optional – 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sunnyside Royal Hospital (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`deleted history`)` Valid entry for Scottish psychiatric hospital. Article had been moved from Hillside, Angus and put into new article. A further editor correctly complained of the copyviol issues; article was tagged {{hangon}} and rewritten. However, article was still deleted. friedfish 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I restored the non-copyvio revision. This article still needs to be sourced though, or it might be sent to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sunnyside Royal Hospital – One revision restored, AfD optional – 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Valid entry for Scottish psychiatric hospital. Article had been moved from Hillside, Angus and put into new article. A further editor correctly complained of the copyviol issues; article was tagged {{hangon}} and rewritten. However, article was still deleted. friedfish 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored the non-copyvio revision. This article still needs to be sourced though, or it might be sent to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bill Rane

Bill Rane – Contested prod, restored and sent to AfD – 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Rane (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`deleted history`\|`AfD`)` Bill Rane, article concerning important American Artist, 1927-2005, has been deleted for lack of notariety. This indicates a lack of understanding or research in regard to Mr. Rane. The removal does not contribute to Misplaced Pages but, rather, weakens Misplaced Pages. Bill Rane is likely the most respected artist to emerge from the Taos Art Colony in many, many years. This can be objectively verified with proper research. Note particularly, the many article concerning Mr. Rane and his Gallery in the Taos News and the Taos Horsefly newspaper. Since Misplaced Pages recognized the historic importance of the Taos Art Colony (remember that Santa Fe and Taos together comprise the third largest art market in the United States (3 billion per year) outdone only by New York and Los Angeles, does it really make any sense to dismiss Mr. Rane when within that Art Colony is not simply noted but perhaps most noted. Even the RC Gorman, more recognized beyond Taos, credited Mr. Rane as he favorite living Taos artist during his life. It is not possible to delete Mr. Rane from the history of the Taos Art Colony. You need to remove your article on the Taos Art Colony if you believe that Mr. Rane is not notable. Obviously, Misplaced Pages is concerned with general knowledge but you cannot deny the importance of Mr. Rane and his work to the Taos Art Colony. Mr. Rane is likely the most notable artist to come out of that community in a long time. Since his death, the Taos Art Colony has, if anything, redoubled its appreciation for this artist and his reputation since his death has not diminished there but is, rather, growing rapidly. Mr. Rane's deletion from Misplaced Pages will not diminish his significance in the American Art World nor will it harm Mr. Rane's reputation as an important artist who may one day be regarded as an extremely imporant American artist in the last half of the twentieth century working in one of America's premier art communities. However, his deletion will diminish Misplaced Pages because it will demonstrate the lack of knowledge of, and understanding within, the American Art World. You need to carefully review your decision on this one. You need to find someone whose knowledge of the Taos Art Colony you respect in order to clear this up. You cannot delete this article without exposing a lack of knowledge for the Taos Art Colony and its importance to American Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.122.142 (talk • contribs) Proposed deletion, I'll send it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bill Rane – Contested prod, restored and sent to AfD – 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bill Rane, article concerning important American Artist, 1927-2005, has been deleted for lack of notariety. This indicates a lack of understanding or research in regard to Mr. Rane. The removal does not contribute to Misplaced Pages but, rather, weakens Misplaced Pages. Bill Rane is likely the most respected artist to emerge from the Taos Art Colony in many, many years. This can be objectively verified with proper research. Note particularly, the many article concerning Mr. Rane and his Gallery in the Taos News and the Taos Horsefly newspaper. Since Misplaced Pages recognized the historic importance of the Taos Art Colony (remember that Santa Fe and Taos together comprise the third largest art market in the United States (3 billion per year) outdone only by New York and Los Angeles, does it really make any sense to dismiss Mr. Rane when within that Art Colony is not simply noted but perhaps most noted. Even the RC Gorman, more recognized beyond Taos, credited Mr. Rane as he favorite living Taos artist during his life. It is not possible to delete Mr. Rane from the history of the Taos Art Colony. You need to remove your article on the Taos Art Colony if you believe that Mr. Rane is not notable. Obviously, Misplaced Pages is concerned with general knowledge but you cannot deny the importance of Mr. Rane and his work to the Taos Art Colony. Mr. Rane is likely the most notable artist to come out of that community in a long time. Since his death, the Taos Art Colony has, if anything, redoubled its appreciation for this artist and his reputation since his death has not diminished there but is, rather, growing rapidly. Mr. Rane's deletion from Misplaced Pages will not diminish his significance in the American Art World nor will it harm Mr. Rane's reputation as an important artist who may one day be regarded as an extremely imporant American artist in the last half of the twentieth century working in one of America's premier art communities. However, his deletion will diminish Misplaced Pages because it will demonstrate the lack of knowledge of, and understanding within, the American Art World. You need to carefully review your decision on this one. You need to find someone whose knowledge of the Taos Art Colony you respect in order to clear this up. You cannot delete this article without exposing a lack of knowledge for the Taos Art Colony and its importance to American Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.122.142 (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion, I'll send it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Young Hot Rod

Young Hot Rod is certainly a notable artist. You say being signed to G-Unit Records is not notable? You say having your single played on BET, MusicChoice, and Journey's Fashion Stores (which does not play very much hip-hop) is not notable? You say being on the cover of XXL's first ever DVD mag is not notable? I say it is. There are several rappers that are less notable such as VL Mike, Glasses Malone, Spider Loc, and so on that you do have articles on. Having every G-Unit artist up except Hot Rod makes him stick out like a sore thumb. Preferrably restore, but if you cannot do that, then at least Unprotect so that someone with more "notable" info can recreate the page. Thank you. Tom Danson 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD added. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Overturn. Apparently has a music video at MTV. This really toes the WP:MUSIC line, and the latest example as to why it needs reform. The nom is absolutely right in his argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted for now, AFD was proper, his "debut album" is scheduled to be released next year, but WP:NOT a crystal ball. >Radiant< 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam

The article was deleted despite a lack of clear consensus to do so in the AfD, by an admin who admits to lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The article in question is of the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, piloted by that series' main character. If any mecha from the series are notable enough to merit an individual article (and the results of the mass AfD indicate that some are), this one is. Redxiv 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closure, which was very well-reasoned and took account of the different arguments for different elements within the AfD. I hope that if I ever close a mass nom I would do it that well. Lack of familiarity is a good think in closing as it prevents WP:IHEARDOFIT from intruding on the assessment of the quality of arguments. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I find the message that Redxiv (talk · contribs) left on Talk:ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam absurd: "How many times do I have to say this? The Destiny Gundam is the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny. It is piloted by the main character of the series. The decision by the admin involved in the AfD that there was consensus to delete it (a conclusion I can find no support for in that AfD's discussion) makes no sense, and strikes me as rather arbitrary. He admitted on the AfD page to not being familiar with the subject matter, and his seemingly random selection of which articles should be deleted and which should not apparently reflects that unfamiliarity." Add to that the edit summary of the recreation: "As the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, it's clearly notable. Thus, I'm restoring the article." Even if you disagree with an AFD closure, that does not give you the right to simply recreate the article. A ecis 13:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure again We reviewed and endorsed this AFD closure once already this month, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6. There are no claims to Misplaced Pages notability in this request for review; notability for Misplaced Pages purposes occurs when multiple independent reliable sources choose to write about the topic. The series is not independent. GRBerry 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are no claims of notability in my request for review? You're kidding, right? That's what this request for review is. Anyway, "ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam" gets 32,400 Google hits and "Destiny Gundam" gets 168,000. Four action figures and two model kits have been made for it so far, one of which IIRC was in the top 3 best selling toys in Japan for 2005. It seems to me that its deletion was a case of the polar opposite of the "WP:IHEARDOFIT" (which BTW doesn't actually link to anything) bias that Guy refers to. It's something that seems all too common when fictional items get nominated for deletion: people deciding that since they haven't personally heard of it, it must not be notable. Redxiv 22:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I considered speedy closing it in light of the overwhelming endorsement Doug's AfD closure got. If that's the recommendation I won't let it run for long. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Googlehits do not prove notability, and if it's notable, then people other than fans should be able to find evidence of that. -Amarkov _edits 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Phajje ke Paye

Phajje ke Paye – Deletion endorsed – 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phajje ke Paye (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)(deleted history)— (AfD) Possibly notable, but difficult to ascertain due to multiple possible translations of the name into the English alphabet. Apparently another remade it without going through the proper channels, but I still think it might be notable enough to actually be included on Misplaced Pages, it's just that it's difficult to find sources due to translation issues. The user in question provided the following links, though and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine, Vercalos 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I suggest bringing this up at the Misplaced Pages:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. They might be able to find more sources, or assert its (non-)notability. A ecis 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep All the links show it is notable, especially this one from Pakistan's most well wisely read newsmagazine and this one. Phajja is even mentioned in two well known Pakistani songs: Ara Pajama by Ali Haider, and Lahore Lahore Ay by Tariq Tafu! --Barastert 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Please be reminded that canvassing people to vote to keep this article on wikipedia, as you have done here, is strongly frowned upon, and rightly so. A ecis 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realize this was a problem. Won't happen again --Barastert 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Besides, I already posted the links you provided.--Vercalos 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) By the way Aecis, he was following your advice, only he didn't do it correctly, so don't be too harsh on him.--Vercalos 09:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Endorse deletion I could only find reference to this place in a few of the links, and these mentions were very trivial. I think the deletion due to lack of notability was correct. HighInBC 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Keep - per Barastert. Canvassing? I think Pakistani sources would know the best on whether it is notable. Phps, an urdu newspaper or something may mention this song.Baka man 05:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Leaving a message like "Please vote to keep the article" qualifies as voter canvassing, which is controversial to say the least. A ecis 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Endorse deletion I'm seeing only passing/unclear mentions in the links provided, most of which are unreliable sources. Bwithh 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Notability = being the primary focus of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources cited, the only one which looks to me to come within sniffing distance of reliable is a passing mention, thus trivial. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Phajje ke Paye – Deletion endorsed – 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Possibly notable, but difficult to ascertain due to multiple possible translations of the name into the English alphabet. Apparently another remade it without going through the proper channels, but I still think it might be notable enough to actually be included on Misplaced Pages, it's just that it's difficult to find sources due to translation issues. The user in question provided the following links, though and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine, Vercalos 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest bringing this up at the Misplaced Pages:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. They might be able to find more sources, or assert its (non-)notability. A ecis 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep All the links show it is notable, especially this one from Pakistan's most well wisely read newsmagazine and this one. Phajja is even mentioned in two well known Pakistani songs: Ara Pajama by Ali Haider, and Lahore Lahore Ay by Tariq Tafu! --Barastert 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please be reminded that canvassing people to vote to keep this article on wikipedia, as you have done here, is strongly frowned upon, and rightly so. Aecis 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Sorry, didn't realize this was a problem. Won't happen again --Barastert 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Besides, I already posted the links you provided.--Vercalos 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      - By the way Aecis, he was following your advice, only he didn't do it correctly, so don't be too harsh on him.--Vercalos 09:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion I could only find reference to this place in a few of the links, and these mentions were very trivial. I think the deletion due to lack of notability was correct. HighInBC 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - per Barastert. Canvassing? I think Pakistani sources would know the best on whether it is notable. Phps, an urdu newspaper or something may mention this song.Baka man 05:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Leaving a message like "Please vote to keep the article" qualifies as voter canvassing, which is controversial to say the least. A ecis 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion I'm seeing only passing/unclear mentions in the links provided, most of which are unreliable sources. Bwithh 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Notability = being the primary focus of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources cited, the only one which looks to me to come within sniffing distance of reliable is a passing mention, thus trivial. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.