Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 15
2007 May 17 >

16 May 2007

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

Page was wrongfully deleted. Not much more to say. USADude 23:56, 16 May 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.
André Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was kept by the closing admin despite the AfD having only 3 contributions from long-term editors (2 !votes to delete, 1 to keep) with two other editors (one anon, one single-purpose account) also involved (~15 edits between them, all to either Andre Walker or closely related pages). Seemingly the closing admin mistakenly thought that the individual was a presenter on the BBC (he's actually a sometime presenter on QVC, the shopping channel, as clearly stated in his article) and thus a major celebrity. He is not. My main thesis is that the debate should have been relisted to engender further debate; I'm not sure how consensus (or lack of it) can be accurately gauged on the basis of a 2:1 majority from 3 editors Badgerpatrol 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please in the future use the exact article title in question in template parameters. `'mikka 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments of the closing admin (me) are in Talk:André Walker. As for the number of editors, I would like to mention that by wikipedia rules it was 4, not 3. I could have wanted to disregard user:Boboba if they were a significant contributor to the article. They may as well could have been, as an anon contributor. But this would further invalidate your argument about small number of contributions. Also, it is no a "single-purpose account"; it is a "single-topic account", even disregarding the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts as long as they don't disrupt wikipedia. `'mikka 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't quite follow you...can you explain your first statement more clearly about including or discounting !votes? The arguments on the AfD ("Has hosted and appeared on shows of notable media broadcasters"; "media appearances as a presenter" (on QVC and his local student TV station...) bear no relation whatsoever to anything to be found on WP:BIO. This is a guideline...but surely it's a guideline that's meant to be followed unless there is some pressing reason not to? If the AfD was decided on the quality of the arguments rather than the number of contributors taking each side (regardless of whether accounts were single purpose (in this case, promoting the Walker family) or not), then I think the outcome should have been fairly clear. AfD is not a majority vote. Although as noted below it will be a simple matter to re-list the article in the near future when it will presumably get wasted, it is a little bit frustrating when policy, guidelines and process are ignored in this way- which happens all to often on Wikipedia. I can't help but think that the fact that the closing admin erroneously believed that this individual was a presenter on the BBC significantly affected his thinking- this is not stated in the article and I do not understand where he got the notion from. In fact, he's an occasional presenter on QVC. This article has been created either by the subject themselves or a very close associate, and exists for no other reason than to promote Andre Walker's mediocre career. It is an affront to Wikipedia and shouldn't be here. Anyway, no biggie- see you again in a month! ;-) Badgerpatrol 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave this article on just to upset Badgerpatrol, this is a BIG chip. In fact I'm considering writing an informative piece about Andre Walker's gran for good measure. 20:38 18/05/07
What's the big deal? Wait a month and relist it. No one's going to hurt you for relisting a no-consensus closed article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I'm quite sure no-one would hurt you if you decided to be less patronising. I'm well aware of how AfD works and the procedure for re-listing articles. Badgerpatrol 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with above. Unless there's a good reason to believe that further discussion would have created a clear consensus, there's no pressing reason to overturn a no consensus result. -Amarkov moo! 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. Might even win an election. DGG 22:38, 16 May 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.
User:Captain Waters/band/room (edit | [[Talk:User:Captain Waters/band/room|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

I needed the text in this page, but it was deleted before I could do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genes6 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need it because of personal reasons. But I agree you send me it by email. If you can, I'd also want to receive all the pages under User:Captain Waters/band. Thank you. P/S: There is an edit where the page was blanked. Send the text as he was before, please. Genesis | Please sell England by the pound*** | on 20:48, 17 May 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.
Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians was deleted as part of a set Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/April_2007#April_27. I created a new category under the same name. It was deleted (CSD G4: Recreation of Deleted Material). Neither the CSD G4 deletion nor the original reason for deletion apply to the new category because, unlike the deleted categories, the new category is not meant to pay homage to Dungeons and Dragons. The re-created category described a wikipedia philosophy, particularly applicable for users who contribute in project space, and to be a useful to user communication as the number of users increases. This reason for re-creation is unlikely to be seen to apply most of the other several categories deleted SmokeyJoe 07:57, 16 May 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.


Daniel DiCriscio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

administrator agressively changed article and tried to delete it many times before deleting the entire article along with user page, other spellings of same name, and blocked the recreation of this article. We believe this was vandalism and for personal reasons because Mr. DiCriscio is currently involved in a celebrity feud on many celebrity internet sites and this act was a form of retaliation. It is obvious this is the case being that the article was written in Feb. 2007 without problems and even when we did begin getting questions and harrassment on the article, we changed many things to comply with them and made the article as neutral as possible. This article had more reliable sources than anyone else in Mr. DiCriscio's field, including "The Washington Post", "New York Daily News", "New York Post", "The News Journal", etc. It was too obvious that while we were working on the article, it was being taken down and all our work was quickly deleted right when we put a protection on the article from vandallism. 12.9.32.226 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, afd if necessary. The article was a bit excessively promotional in tone, but what appears to have happened is an edit war over the addition of numerous unfree promotional photos to the article, followed by a speedy deletion without cause by Zscout370. It was recreated and deleted first as a blank page, because the recreating user didn't put any content into it, and then as an A7 biography, which obviously didn't apply with numerous cited media references. It was bad, it was overly promotional, but it was not a legitimate speedy deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the history so that anyone who wants can go see what happened. Note that the blanking to a semi-protection tag was a recreation of the page, not a blanking by the creator. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why I made it bye-bye was due to some self promotion issues; it was deleted once before, having the same content, for failing to meet our inclusion criteria for biographies. I also reviewed this with User:Danny, who excised the article of photos due to lack of a PD release. Honestly, I am not sure if he is noting having an article, but if it can be cut down to a stub that isn't spammy or a BLP nightmare; fine by me. Also, as for the protections of the article the IP was discussing, they added the tags but any protections were not done (except for me salting the damn thing). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this deletion. Vanispamcruftisement concerns seem well-founded, and there are fewer than 200 unique Google hits for the name, with the subject's MySpace top of the heap, which does not indicate significance in the present celerbity-obsessed media climate, so although the assertion of notability is made (indeed made hyperbolically), it is implausible. If he really did coin the term "celebrity iumage consultant" and "bring back" the makeover (which as far as I can tell never went away) then you would expect massively more google hits than this. Such coverage as was cited in earlier versions of the article is trivial, rarely rising above the level of namechecks. Vanity content from single-purpose accounts who edit war over any attempt to neutralise it - precisely the kind of "content" we don't need. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't AFD, and the article didn't meet speedy criteria. Plus, google is a shitty measure of notability. Sure, you may not like the celebrity gossip, but not all of the press coverage is trivial, and a quick search turned up some recent spat with Bobby Trendy, as well as numerous interviews with him as an expert by everyone from Catherine Crier[2] to Sasha Baron Cohen (as Bruno)[3]. That he's getting namechecked doesn't mean that's the only coverage out there, and the proper solution is to at least entertain the possibility of finding better sources. It seems like he's gotten a lot of coverage on TV and other sources that don't turn up in google. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, did not meet any speedy deletion criterion whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - sufficient notability asserted for this not to be a speedy. TerriersFan 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. that's about as spamvertisining as you can get, and talk about peacock terms! But unfortunately, it doesn't meet speedy criteria, so overturn and immediatley list at AfD, where it will surely wind up deleted unless there are reliable sources provided. Corvus cornix 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD Whatever thsi is, it isn't a valid speedy. Whether it will survive AfD, perhaps in a cleaned up form, is hard to say. DES (talk) 21:05, 16 May 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.
Easy Reader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted (I am unclear if this was intended to be a WP:SPEEDY deletion or an uncontested WP:PROD) for being about a "local newspaper" and a "plausible ad". I believe this article should be restored, as it is about a notable local weekly newspaper in the South Bay area of Los Angeles. It has a circulation of 57,000 and is listed at the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies[4]. It was also known in the 1980s for its in-depth coverage of the McMartin preschool trial. I am not affiliated with this paper in any way, and I will improve the article if it needs improving. DHowell 02:06, 16 May 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.
Wicked Lasers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 10

Was marked as spam and speed deleted despite the fact that proof of notability was provided on the talk page. The company is a major player in the field of commercial lasers and is reffered to quite often when high powered handheld lasers are mentioned. I just created the page because I had come to wikipedia to learn more about the company but to my surprise it did not have an article about it. Energman 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does not seem to be spam in the usual sense - indeed it hardly seems to be an articel about a company at all. Notability may be an issue, but IMO that should be addressed via AfD rather than a speedy deletion. Overturn and List on AfD. DES (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly support overturning and AfD if necessary; some of the article is a mishmash of http://www.wickedlasers.com/, such as the "light your cigarette" or "laser hobbyists, enthusiasts, ..." lines. Initial versions of the article are clean but assert no notability and have no sources, but that might be fixed with links here. Phony Saint 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it amusing that you think it "does not seem to be spam in the usual sense." To me, the version I saw when I added the db-spam template on April 22 appears to be a textbook example of what a (very carefully constructed) Wikipedia spam article looks like, especially in its attempt to disguise itself as a neologism, "wicked lasers". It is among the nicest examples of corporate spam I've come across here, but nevertheless, the article as it stood on April 22 was pure spam and advertising for this company, which is not notable to the point of inclusion in any encyclopedia (Google hits are not the final arbiter). I've worked in a lab full of low- and high-powered lasers for most of the past 12 years, and this company is not a notable laser supplier for any scientific or commercial purpose, i.e. they are certainly not "a major player in the field of commercial lasers". For example, I've never seen them in Laser Focus World, which is the main industry magazine for commercial lasers and photonics. They are just one of many (usually Chinese) companies supplying the very lucrative, high-power laser-pointers-for-teens market. Are we going to allow every laser pointer company to post a detailed, well-illustrated advertisement on Wikipedia (as GreenGarnet (talk · contribs) has done here)? I hope not. If this company is in fact a market leader in that market, and therefore marginally worthy of an article, then that article would look nothing like the current (i.e. April 22) version. So nothing is lost by keeping this deleted, while overturning the speedy deletion would imply that it was not proper. However, the article fit WP:CSD#G11 exactly as of that date, and so speedy deletion appears to have been appropriate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I understand not spam in the usual sense to mean that there is substantial non-spam content, and so there is. "Freak" is a good description. Some of it could even be kept as a subject article, though the title might need changing, as there is no evidence that "wicked lasers" is the generic. Obviously its not relevant as industrial lasers, but this is an entertainment laser. Worth a discussion on AfD, not here. Have they been asked for GFDL release for the images? I do not see that the present state is irrelevant. If better content is created, it merits restoration. I think we encourage that. DGG 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but revert to this version before GreenGarnet replaced the article with spam. As already noted, the name GreenGarnet (see Nd:YAG laser) and their uploads suggests that they have a strong WP:COI. -- RHaworth 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the version I wrote originally --Energman 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'm comfortable with overturning and going back to an earlier version, even though I still think the company is only marginally worthy (at best) of inclusion in any encyclopedia. However, I think the edits by Drmmr943 (talk · contribs) were of very poor quality, so we should go back to the version of 22:47, 29 March 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (Date/fix maintenance tags) just prior to that. This seems to be the last clean version from which to build a reasonable article. Also, now that everyone commenting here has that article on their watchlist (hopefully), we can quickly revert any attempts to re-introduce spam. And Energman, since you are the main proponent of this article, I would suggest that adding a references section with several sources in it would be a good idea immediately following the conclusion of this DRV, to further de-emphasize the ext link to the company's website which stands as the only "source" in the 29 March 2007 version. --Seattle Skier (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, revert to last non-spammy version, and list. While I think spam is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems, and am generally in favor of stamping it out with extreme prejudice, WP:CSD#G11 is for pages which "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". If there's a non-spammy version in the history, G11 obviously doesn't apply. That said, several editors have expressed (and I share) concern about the notability of the company. One of the reasons for limiting our content to notable topics is that non-notable topics don't get watched carefully, and quickly become havens for spam and/or libel. So listing this at AfD to decide if it's worth keeping this (and risking the re-spammification) is obviously the right thing to do. Xtifr tälk 21:00, 20 May 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_May_16&oldid=1138430877"