Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 December 30
2008 January 1 >

31 December 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Imaginative Sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a notable book, since it was a kind of pioneering early BDSM manual, published about 15 years before the term "BDSM" itself was even invented (as was discussed in the introduction to the republished 1996 edition by Pat Califia). This article was suddenly and seemingly rather arbitrarily deleted by User:JzG, even though any problems with article were certainly not severe enough to trigger a unilateral speedy deletion without discussion. It was definitely not an "advertisement" by the book author himself, since he rather notoriously never uses the Internet at all... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. See also Whatlinkshere "Imaginative Sex" -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, add some references and a claim of notability, I have nothing against the book, the problem was an unreferenced (since forever) article with a strongly promotional tone created by a WP:SPA. Want it back in place or userfied for rework? Drop me a note. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the "Single Purpose Account" that you claim was used? Since the revision history is now deleted, I have no way of examining your claim. Also, while I'm willing to do what I can to revise the article, unfortunately, my abilities to fix things will be limited, since I don't have access to the Pat Califia introduction to the 1996 reprint, which apparently contains much relevant information. If I had access to the Pat Califia introduction to the 1996 reprint, then I would probably have already significantly revised the Imaginative Sex article long ago. Furthermore, I would like to know what you claim to be "strongly promotional" about the article... AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You shouldn't need the book itself to prove it's notability. By definition, you need a source outside of the book to do that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it's not the text of the original book itself, but an essay by another author (published as an introduction to a reprint of the book), which sets the 1974 book in its original context... AnonMoos (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on Guy's comment here. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that someone who conducts a unilateral out-of-the-blue deletion on a long-standing article apparently not even marked with serious problem templates should be required to give a much more detailed and specific deletion rationale. If he's not required to give a detailed and specific deletion rationale, then something seems to be broken in the deletion process. It would have been much easier all around if he had simply raised issues on the article talk page which could have been dealt with in a normal manner, instead of going to the immediate nuclear option. That way, I wouldn't be completely and utterly in the dark as to what he's talking about when he refers to "single-purpose accounts", and the specific features which he considers to be "promotional" could have been discussed and dealt with in a normal way... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree, this thread is about improving the encyclopedia, not about Guy and if he made a mistake (which I have no idea having not seen the article but I assume good faith) then his comment here have fully made up for it, I am sure if you now create a good article it will stand. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a read of the deleted content. It really does read like a publisher's book summary, or something that one would find on the book's dust jacket. The only major contributor was its creator, 209.244.214.97 (talk · contribs). Most other edits were wikification and formatting, and some editorialization that was reverted for being factually incorrect. The article was marked {{essay-entry}} on 2007-02-01. I reserve comment on the deletion, but I do think that, if you have sources to hand (there weren't any cited in the article) you could probably do better from a standing start, and would have had to rewrite the article from scratch anyway. Try page 1359 of ISBN 0933833385, for starters. There's also a magazine write-up by Rick Umbaugh. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if that's the case it was either a copy-vio or simple advertising. In either case one would expect the article to be deleted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Deleted with the rationale "nevr sourced, no sign of notability, looks like an advert" The first is not a criterion for speedy, the second is not applicable to books, and the third is not obvious to me in the least and is probably fixable. Seems descriptive. The essay given is probably a RS, but there ought to be others. Speedy is not where there is reasonable cause for disagreement. But all that is really needed is to carefully re-create it. DGG (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list per DGG. However, I believe that if an editor in good standing (the deleting admin, for one) believes the article should be deleted, we ought to at least have the community take a look at it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) -- yes, any registered editor can bring an article to AfD. No problem about that. DGG (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. Seems to be a questionable speedy, and there is a legitimate objection to it. I say discuss it, and possibly give a chance for some sources to show up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD This doesn't fit any CSD criteria, nor does original deleting admin argue that it does. No compelling reason for speedy deletion given, so this article deserves five days on AfD as per normal procedure. Xoloz (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn' i dont see books anywhere at the speedy deletion page. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Overturn partly based on DGG's analysis and partly on the the basis that books by notable author's have enough notability to avoid a speedy. List because I can't find any reliable reviews and hence an AfD review is appropriate. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. Listing is plain silly, the deleted content was trash, AnonMoos wants to write a proper article from sources, I have offered to undelete or userfy to facilitate that, Uncle G, perpetual saviour of all that is redeemable, has pitched in - we don't need to jump through hoops here, let's just apply a little WP:CLUE, eh? I'll userfy it, that's the simplest thing. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a pretty severe misstatement to call this "trash." It's bad now, but could be made into a perfectly respectable stub in ten seconds, if someone found a source. Given that we've got a source (the critical essay -- it's unspecified, but I AGF that it exists), I think five days at AfD is a very fine idea. If you're anxious to avoid extra time, I could speedy close this DRV as "overturn and list" right now. You could also close it with that result by reversing yourself. Xoloz (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & off to AFD I believe A7 is not an exhaustive list, but this was a closer call that may, as Xoloz states, benefit from a good airing at afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Xarchiver – Undelete. Substantive improvements have been made in the sourcing of the article, which was the primary concern of the AfD. Relisting is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Xarchiver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted at AFD after concerns about the sourcing. A copy of the source was requested and the requesting editor has subsequently recreated the page after adding some sources - but I'm not persuaded that these sources are sufficient. Really this should have come via here first so I have undeleted the history and added a dlerev tag on the article. Grateful for comments on whether this new article with sources passes muster. As the deleting admin I have no opinion at present Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore. I reviewed this during the original AFD, and made a "weak keep" recommendation. After the article was deleted, I thought the topic was worthwhile enough to attempt to correct the perceived flaws, essentially no demonstrated notability. Since this is Linux software, with the expected lack of commercial support, notability is more difficult to show than with many other platforms. Nonetheless, it was easy to locate many references to Xarchiver, and to find a few with actual substance. Virtually every aspect of Xarchiver can be found with at least brief details on the web, and a couple of more substantial reviews are cited. The program has been adopted as default archiver for Xfce, a desktop environment for such systems, and this is also documented. This, I think, at the very least, is sufficient to show notability for an item of Linux software. This is not a terribly important piece of software, but it is sufficiently notable to be worth an article. (And, please accept my apologies for not following expected protocols in setting up the new article. I plead great ignorance, now remedied.) Tim Ross·talk 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate and Relist. There is enough of an improvement for a recreation. However, the sources still look pretty thin to me (the first one doesn't mention the software by name, the Italian Linuxpedia is a Wiki which is not a reliable source etc). I think that it should go to a further AfD so that the experts in the field can take a further view. BlueValour (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Deletion after AFD was clear cut. Any recreation needs to be sufficiently different than the deleted version to avoid speedy deletion under criterion G4. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You're quite right, Carlossuarez46. The AfD was clear cut, and significant changes were needed for correction. The problem, though, wasn't with the words of the original article, which described this little application reasonably well, and which have been little changed in this new version, but rather the need for a better demonstration of notability, which I've attempted to do through the much improved sourcing. BlueValour is also right. The sources are still a little thin, and a couple are virtually transparent. Best I could do, but, I think, it's enough to adequately show notability for a Linux application. Tim Ross·talk 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DJ Wonder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was originally deleted due to "conflict of interest," yet all references were verifiable and all content was unbiased in nature. I am a fan of DJ Wonder and all DJ's originally from my state of Delaware. Can you please reveiw this deletion, as I believe it is worthy to be relisted. Thank you. 71.242.105.28 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The AFD addressed a lack of non-trivial reliable sources and failure to meet WP:MUSIC not just the COI issues. Just for the record, please declare any connection that you have to this subject? Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the question of whether the sources were enough to establish notability is a matter for the AfD, not here, and the Community decided that they weren't. The AfD was properly closed but I would just make the point that closing admins really should provide a rationale when closing. BlueValour (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the proper procedure to get this relisted then, if that particular group in the Afd thought that the sources were not enough? Is this not the place to go for further review? Spartaz - I am a fan of DJ Wonder.
      • This is the correct procedure for a review but we only consider the process; we don't substitute our judgement for that of the participants in the AfD. The way forward is to find better, more reliable sources then come back here for agreement to recreate. BlueValour (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to provide a closing rationale for this discussion. So:
  • From the original AFD, One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) explained that the article was speedily deleted once as a non-notable DJ, and was proposed for deletion the second time. Starblind (talk · contribs) and Gtstricky (talk · contribs) also expressed opinions that the article should be deleted. The only opinions to keep the article came from Esticks (talk · contribs) and 209.196.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Esticks hasn't made any contributions outside of that article, while 209.196.192.7 is registered to Sirius Satellite Radio. Since there were three opinions in favor of deletion, and one opinion in favor of keeping the article, I took that as a consensus to delete it.
  • I'll also note that in the original AFD, the author of the article made several attempts to address concerns made by those who wanted the article deleted. While that's fine, nobody changed their mind and said the article was worth keeping at that point.
  • Also, some history about the article: The first version of the article was deleted on December 4, under WP:CSD G11 (article consists only of advertising). I deleted the article on December 15 after the AFD was closed. Gaslucky (talk · contribs) recreated the article on December 25, and it was deleted on December 29 as a reposting of deleted content. Gaslucky (talk · contribs) recreated the article again on December 30, and it was deleted on December 31. At that point, Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected the article against being re-created (at 11:20 UTC). This DRV was submitted on December 31, 14:27 UTC.
  • I get the feeling that someone would have created this article for the fifth time if someone hadn't protected the page against being re-created.
  • I don't have any strong opinion personally about the article or the subject, but I'll note that with the article being created four times (and deleted four times), and with the submission of this DRV, it seems like there's an inordinate interest from some person(s) to have an article on this DJ. That sounds like someone wants to use Wikipedia for promotion, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Bflomoms – Sorry - copyright violations are non-negotiable. We simply cannot host copyrighted text. UncleG's advice is well worth reading. – Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bflomoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

the copywrited material is mine. I am the owner of the group of which the page is being developed. Bflomoms (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, we can't deal with copyright assertions through the Deletion Review process. You need to follow the process at WP:CP to prove that you are who you say you are (since anyone could create a Wikipedia account and claim to be the author). I would, however, also caution to you carefully read our policy on conflict of interest and our generally accepted inclusion criteria for organizations. If your mom's group is truly independently notable, it's almost certainly best to let someone else write about it. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Rossami said, we have no way to determine who you are, and no reason for doing so. I suggest not even attempting to prove that you own copyrights. Copying a subject's web site into Wikipedia is not the way to write an encyclopaedia article. Find multiple independent sources that discuss the subject in depth, and write an original article using solely those sources as the bases. If you cannot do that because no such sources exist, don't write. Uncle G (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Naked Women's Wrestling League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been trying to deal with this for a few days now. The Naked Women's Wrestling League (NWWL) had its entry info deleted. We were warned about the deletion, and at that time I changed the content. At that time, I contacted wikipedia and informed you of this. I got an e-mail confirming that you got my message, but the page got deleted anyway. As the creative director of the nwwl, I can assure you that the content on the NWWL page is accurate.

Would you please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.59.210 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_31&oldid=1141925985"