Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 June 7
2007 June 9 >

8 June 2007[edit]

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

The old article was created by someone who was banned. I am not that person, I am not banned, and I didn't know that, but that was the reason that it was deleted before, and because of that it was deleted again using TWINKLE. Besides that, there was no reason to delete the article. I wasn't even done writing it yet! Shaymus22 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted TWICE at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife (2nd nomination). While it has seen a modest jump since then at the WebComic list from #224 to #192, it is still not notable. —Ocatecir Talk 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid G4 deletion. If you have new information (like reliabe sources) please present that. Otherwise the article is likely to remain deleted. Eluchil404 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as notability goes, ExtraLife returns 330,000 search results on Google. To give a good frame of reference, "Leo Laporte" returns 859,000 search results. MY name returns 40 search results - THAT is non-notable.

As for reliable sources, I have these, pasted from my saved text-based copy of the article:

Also, keep in mind that I wasn't done writing the article. If you want more sources, I can easily get them for you.

--Shaymus22 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through all of this before in the previous AFDs. None of these meet the requirements of WP:WEB and represent a "death-by-papercuts" attempt to establish notability. No substantial independent works from reliable sources are given. They are all either trivial mentions or links to other webcomic sites. —Ocatecir Talk 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq is not trivial.
Are all of those >300k sites trivial?
Also, why is a webcomic site not a reliable source? --Shaymus22 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq contains plenty of non-notable webcomics. The Joystiq article says nothing about the notability other than the webcomic exists. A google test is useless because Extralife is a common term in video games. Even on the first page of results you get pages that have nothing to do with the webcomic. Also remember, notability is different from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".—Ocatecir Talk 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ExtraLife" is NOT a common term in video games. "Extra Life", which is what you are thinking of, is not even a common term in video games anymore.

Even so, if a google test is useless, how would you suggest that I prove the notability of ExtraLife? By telling you, perhaps, that they're featured on ustream? That they're sponsored by Godaddy.com? That they've interviewed Veronica Belmont of CNET? Perhaps I could tell you about how Scott Johnson created the largest World of Warcraft guild, of which Leo Laporte is a member? Would it be notable enough if I was to tell you about how Scott Johnson will soon be releasing an ExtraLife TV (video podcast) in which he will interview the creator of the "Will it blend?" Blendtec commercials?

I can go on (and on and on), if none of these are notable enough for you. You see, I would have written about all of this in the article, but for one problem - it was deleted. That is why I'm here, typing this, arguing with you. I'm certain that I'm right - just tell me how I can prove it to you! --Shaymus22 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless whether it is "Extralife" or "Extra Life", a quick browsing of the results show a produce preserver, a heart website, and a book all in the first 5 results. The only way to prove notability is to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, which I don't believe have been satisfied yet. Has the webcomic won any awards from the Web Cartoonist awards? That would be enough to establish notability. Who someone interviews doesn't make them notable. My high school paper once interviewed Al Gore, they are not notable. Sometimes things just aren't notable no matter how hard you want them to be. —Ocatecir Talk 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Spoilers rated them as #9 on their "57 best webcomics" list
  • ExtraLife Radio has a perfect 5-star rating on iTunes
  • The Pisstakers gave ExtraLife Radio 5 out of 5

There's more if you want me to dig it up. That, and there's also all of the magazines and articles that they've been featured in...and no, they're not high school magazines. --Shaymus22 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 constitute trivial coverage as well (blogs and itunes ratings are not reliable sources). I would be interested to know what magazine covered extralife, though. —Ocatecir Talk 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation as the grounds for the original deletion seem no longer to be applicable given increased notability since then. A new AfD could be filed if necessary, but hopefully it should not be (one of the top 200 webcomics should be a Keep). I have become convinced that our fundamentally negative attitude toward webcomics and related media needs reconsideration. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be allowed to be recreated as DRV is for reviewing process and this discussion has strayed from that. A new AFD can be introduced for the recreated article. —Ocatecir Talk 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Unlawful enemy combatant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Closing admin's decision conformed with policy, but current events, I believe, have caught up with the consensus, and, I believe, show the wrong choice was made.

Peter Brownback and Keith J. Allred dismissed all the charges against the two remaining Guantanamo captives who faced charges before Guantanamo military commissions -- because of the distinction between "enemy combatants" and unlawful enemy combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 only authorized the DoD to charge "unlawful enemy combatants", but none of the Guantanamo captives had an AR 190-8 Tribunal convened to determine that they were unlawful combatants.

IMO, Events caught up with us. IMO, those who argued that the distinction was not noteworthy would probably all now agree that they were mistaken.

The article could be rewritten. But given that a perfectly good article had already been written, IMO, it should be restored.

Unfortunately the closing admin can't be reached. Unfortunate, because this is a current event, and it would be good if the wikipedia could flexible enough to restore this article ASAP. Geo Swan 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and done- . (subject to further discussion on this page, of course)DGG 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • High-Frequency Gravitational Waves – Nothing to review, article is not deleted choosing to redirect is an editorial decision. If the material is verifiable, sourced etc. it could be integrated into the Gravitational Waves article (given appropriate weight via WP:NPOV, or if the amount an editorial decision reached via discussion on that articles talk page to branch it out. – pgk 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not O.R. and the current article Gravitational Waves only deals with low-frequency GW, so by the wieght rule High-Freq. GW is needed to balance that out. Please restore the page. Csblack 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Eskilstuna – Closed, article was not deleted. Removal of items from a list is outside the scope of DRV, the correct forum would be the article's talk page. – Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskilstuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

there were several links in the 'notable natives' section that have been removed -- for some reason the above general link doesn't work, but if you directly use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eskilstuna&action=edit&section=2 you will get there 217.67.138.100 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not Spam, Not COI and no discussion, was done by a user that was upset because, I afd two of his article, this product is noteable, as defined by wiki. Saying that this is a confilt of interest article, is like saying I cannot write an artilce about DSL because we sell this service or I cannot write an article about MS Windows because I work for a store that sells MS Wildows. Since the article was new, it was not very long and I was hoping others in the SEO world would expand upon the work. Akc9000 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the other editor. Akc9000 and I have discussed this and I offered to help him recreate the article. I've got a copy at User:Jehochman/Sandbox and will do a bit of expansion, check for NPOV, and then recreate the article in a day or two. I listed this article at WP:COIN because there was an appearance of COI. Unfortunately the article was speedied before Akc9000 had a chance to clear up the confusion. I intentionally did not tag the article for speedy. Anyhow, I will help him fix this, and make sure the new article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Akc9000 still appears to have zero mainspace edits other than this article and linking it. AKC is listed as one of dynamic software's corporate domains, the contact name is Al, User:Akc9000 says on his user page that he is Al. [1]. And from the request (his second) it is pretty evident that he is tied to the product, but doesn't think it's a problem. I do think it's a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy, what does any of this have to do with whether the article should be restored or left deleted? Even WP:COI doesn't forbid editing by an involved person if they can follow NPOV.--Chaser - T 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's certainly not spam, since the version I'm looking at says its a worthless waste of money at best. If Akc9000 is happy with the version, we can presume that he's not associated with the company. So that would mean no COI, unless he's working for a competitor or is a disgruntled employee, which we can't assume. I don't see why the article can't have its day in court at AfD. Herostratus 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Herostratus. The sandboxed article has references that at least justify a trip to AFD, if not outright undeletion. The award is a possible indicator of notability, though we'd have to assess the award some, too.--Chaser - T 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is now a copy of this article in my sandbox. Using it to learn how to build a software OS release template while you decide. While I am here I must point out that I did write other articles. This article was just the first or second one I ever wrote. I did not know what I was doing too much at the time. Still do not think it should be deleted (of course), I would like it restored and still don't think its COI. You could say it was COI (maybe) if the company I work for wrote the whole thing but we did not; we maintain it, sell it. Just as many companies maintain and sell the Windows operating system. Yes, there is a website that sells this product that I registered the domain name for it. It is one of thousands of websites that sell maintain this thing. If you search for Dynamic Submission on Google you will see: 4,960,000 results for the product name. So my one website is making a real big difference! Wiki uses the nofollow tag anyway so I have no idea why you think this is COI. What can I gain by listing the product? It will not boost the products PR in Google, where the sales come from. I just don't understand why this issue came up, beside the fact that another editor (Jehochman) posted the article on the COI board and I only think he did this because I afd two of his articles. I actually do not have a problem with this editor and we spoke and I explained what the issue was with his article and this same editor asked that this article I wrote not be deleted. Furthermore, I cannot see how it may be deleted, the more I read and learn about Wiki, the more I see that what was done here is outright wrong and should be reversed. Before you even ask, if the article is not undeleted, I will still be here writing articles but I will always think what was done here with this article was unjust. Gessh! I have found articles that have no cite's no references nothing and they are not deleted, and instead of removing them I am looking for reference for them. This article, has cite's it was not only in the first edition of SEO for Dummies but it is also in the second edition as well and it one an award from PC Magazine. What more does an article have to have to be listed? Yup! You guessed it! I am defensive about this article, not because of COI but becuase I think it belongs in Wiki. --Akc9000 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charlie the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please undelete this wiki, it is very informative. If admins are going to be hardcore about the 'reasons behind' why articles exist, than why do articles like "What, What in the butt?" exist. Come off it and restore the article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.84.221 (talk • contribs)

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

The Review that bared the article was a mass deletion where the result was decided because only the Wiki Project members wanted to keep and fix the articles. i find it very wrong that the votes of the project members were ignored because it send a message that some projects are not worth listening to i feel that references to something that may be obscure in the english speaking world deserve to be in the English wiki This info was not transwikied beyond the answers.com copy of the article i did every thing i could to cite the article and merged some of the other notable versions of the unit in to one Article. If given a chance and some time withe the project it would be up to standards. I demonstrated in the new opening how often this very model appers in the gundam universe. Jeffpiatt 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... see also this deletion review here. I don't exactly think this is the place to debate the AfD process. The "votes" of the members were not ignored, but keep in mind AfDs aren't votes. If I had a good reason for keeping the article but I was outnumbered by twenty to one "delete" votes with no rationale, I highly doubt that the article would get deleted. I looked at the differences and could see very little had changed about the article. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 11:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh. The article was recreated seven times at Hi-Zack (Mobile suit) and RMS-106 Hi-Zack, and only taken to DRV here after I placed both titles on the Protected Titles list yesterday after the repeated recreations of the deleted article, including the use of the multiple titles to get past the deletions. I'm not voting either way on this one, just adding info to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but what i can't figure out is that even if i try to add how notable The Hi-Zack is the article is judged for the lower paragraphs i was trying to model the article after the one on the [Zaku II] and merge in the one shot ms that were told in storyline were decedents of the model in order to prove notabilty i need to use plot details but if i add too many it would be removed as have a long plot summery. This mobile suit got to be in 2 gundam series and the hobby version was in the 4th movie in the gundam franchise. I removed the Advance of zeta units due to the fact the manga and photo novels are harder to get in the us but i should at least get to work on the ones in the animation.Jeffpiatt 12:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tried, but ultimately what you added was either not enough, or it was unsourced information. For example, you said in one revision that since the release of the Zeta Gundam movies the HGUC and MG Hi-Zack models have had sales that rival those of the Zaku II. This doesn't really provide any significant real-world notability--that is, notability outside of the Gundam fandom--nor was it a sourced piece of information. While it's certainly possible that this is or was true, you failed to provide a source to this, such as an article about this in terms of Bandai's business, or a Bandai quarterly sales analysis for the models in question. Ultimately, though, that one piece of evidence wouldn't be enough to change the notability--or rather, lack thereof--of this particular Mobile Suit.
I'm a bit worried by the fact that you are using the Zaku II article as a basis for the article. Instead, I would have said, "Could this work in a manner similar to that of the Gundam article," or any of the other titular Mobile Suit articles. The Zaku article's a terrible mess and should probably be cut down considerably as well. Maikeru 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It has been deleted seven times now, totally valid AfD. No objections to a transwiki to GundamWiki if they don't already have it and the license is compatable. Heather 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Quite frankly, unlike other Mobile Suits in the Gundam lexicon, there just isn't much information on the Hi-Zack outside of its in-universe role. If, after seven deletions, there still isn't much more to be added to this besides a few new variations from a comic book, then perhaps it just shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Most of the information in this article was already transwiki'd; all that would need to be done would be the addition of the Advance of Zeta manga variations mentioned above by Jeffpiatt. Maikeru 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly userfy the latest version to anyone who wants it for that purpose. Jeff obviously already has it, from the regular recreatings. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid per process and follows precedent. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all of the basic info is written in a in universe style in the scource material i could start sourcing episodes the verients appear in but the Hi-zack and the other ms need to be treated like the Pokemon articles or the other scifi articles i was trying to keep it from being the copy and paste job the original article was. i am stil trying to figure out what else i could but in the gundam wika does not even have a good chunk of the info the wikipedia crew removed i was I was even thinking that the entire RMS-XXX line form the Zeta to CCA era of the gundam Franchise could be made in to one page. but i thought it was set up where the hi-zack was linked to the ms of the gundam x series witch has yet to come to the us. The lead article on the Dijeh was an ms that only made it to at least 2 episodes of the TV series and was only notable for being used by Amaro Ray the main character of the first gundam series. while this is a rant i really want to find a way to work this info in in some form short of turning the list in to one long article. Jeffpiatt 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to get up to the standerds of the gundam articles but the hi-zack was no worse than any of the star wars articles most of the profiles are in universe and need to be deleted.Jeffpiatt 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC) my point was made in the first revies the article is easy to source the orignal debate seemed to become a witch hunt if anything it needs to be merged with the rest of the missing zeta articles.Jeffpiatt 03:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Camila Janniger is a full professor on my voluntary faculty at the New Jersey Medical School. She has far superior credentials than many other physicians listed on Wikipedia. She has written 34 book chapters and 143 full articles. You can verify most of her full articles using pubmed, which using Janniger CK gives 133. Please reinsert her into Wikipedia.

2002–present Clinical Professor, Dermatology; Clinical Associate Professor, Pediatrics; Chief, Pediatric Dermatology, UMDNJ—New Jersey Medical School

Honors & Awards

Multiple Dean's prizes (monetary awards) for academic excellence, Medical Academy of Warsaw Charter Member, Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society, New Jersey Medical School Chapter Fellow, American Academy of Dermatology Member, National Tuberous Sclerosis Association Professional Advisory Board (1993-1996) Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare (1st edition, 1997-1998)

Editorial Activities

Member, Editorial Board, Cutis (1991-present) Co-editor, Cutis, Special Issues, World Congress (1992) and Pediatric Dermatology (1996) Founding Pediatric Dermatology Editor, Cutis (1992-present) Member, Scientific Committee (International Editorial Advisory Board), Mikologia Lekarska Medical Mycology (Wroclaw) (1997-present) Managing Editor, eMedicine Dermatology (2006-present) Member, Editorial Board, Dermatologia Kliniczna (Wroclaw), (2005-present) Member, Editorial Board, SKINMed (2007-present)

Dr. Janniger is someone of the highest ethical standards. 

         Robert A. Schwartz MD,  MPH, FAAD, FACP ([email protected])
         Professor and Head, Dermatology
         New Jersey Medical School 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Janniger has a request for a whole wikia wiki together with geocities and pages on other wiki sites. As the AfD was for conflict of interest/spam, I strongly suspect there could be astroturfing going on here. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep deleted per h2g2bob, definitely smacks of astroturfing, and the COI is a given. This DRV should probably be speedily closed, but I won't close it. --Coredesat 02:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD run and closed properly. No indication that she isn't just another accomplished professor, see WP:PROF. Wikipedia not a vanity resume publisher. Glad that she's of the highest ethical standards though. Herostratus 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, endorse deletion. WP:NOT the Who's Who of American Professors. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist This is an amusing debate. It looks to me as though the person being attacked is someone who is appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps someone neutral should decide. --Localstudy 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_8&oldid=1138430557"