Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 November 3
2007 November 5 >

4 November 2007

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

UNDELETE_REASON Columnboy 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) The page "Jack Smith (columnist)" seems to have been deleted by an administrator no longer with Wikipedia. (I'm a first-timer here; please excuse me if I misunderstood what I read or misunderstand the procedure.) I wrote a new suggested page for Jack Smith on Friday and it hasn't shown up. What can I do?[reply]
05:15, 16 December 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jack Smith (columnist)" ‎ (expired WP:PROD as of 9 December 2006)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article 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.
Claudia Ciesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi there! I think the decision to keep the Article was wrong! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Claudia_Ciesla

Person is non-notable! The articel doesn´t meets verifiability and reliability of sources! WP:V Sources not reliable. All sources that verify the Article-Informations are self-published sources by the Person who starts the Article about Claudia Ciesla and it is her own Press-Agent! Look at the Revision history of Claudia Ciesla:

23:42, 4. Nov. 2006 Kadenpress (Edited by Kadenpress, Greg Kaden, Photographer and Press-Agent, cooperating with Mrs. Claudia Ciesla since 3 years) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claudia_Ciesla&action=history

The Article says that she is an international celebrity and artist but we haven´t any english speaking sources! Two Sources are in German Language and non-notabel!

The References in the Article: 1. her personal web page 2. "Mayer, Petra. "Bodenhaftung trotz Höhenflugs", Frankischer Tag" (link or source isn´t available/ not Verifiability) 3. Claudias own Brianx-Profil (isn´t a third-party published sources because it is her own Portfolio - not a reliable source) 4. Hedemann, P (2006-04-16). "Tuning girl beweist: Bei mir ist alles echt". Bild. (link or source isn´t available/ not Verifiability ) 5. "Autobild Article, Supergirl 2006" (source is in German and non-notabel) 6. Model Mayhem profile (isn´t a third-party published sources - it is her own Profil or Blog - not a reliable source) 7. "Beach Baby Soap site" (source is in German and non-notabel) 8. "Miss T-Online Wahl 2006" Language: German (source is in German and non-notabel)

The sources are largely not acceptable as sources WP:SPS If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WP:P

This doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. There are many models out there who are noted and have accomplished more than Ciesla but are not on Wikipedia. Ciesla is not a noted person and totally unknown even in Europe.

For Example look at the German and Poland Wikipedia: Not worthy for Wikipedia. So,if you keep Ciesla then you need to accept every article about unknown models. Nobody knows this woman in Germany or in her native Poland. The German Articel about Claudia Ciesla was been deleted too Wiki-nightmare 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Haemo legitimately closed the discussion as no consensus, which does default to keep. It was hampered by a fairly poor rationale for deletion, I'm afraid, which you have improved on in your argument above. I suggest you cool things for a month and relist at AFD with the above rationale. DRV isn't meant for "second chances" at AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure — this was definitely a no consensus. There's some dodgy stuff going on surrounding this article, but I'm not sure how/what — the subject of the article commented in the last discussion claiming a bunch of possibly libelous things (hence the blanking).
  • Though this has nothing to do with the review, I would also remark that newspapers do not require a web-link in order to be verifiable sources. Verifiable does not mean "verifiable from my desk" — you could just go out and look up the articles. In addition, German sources are acceptable; this is the English Wikipedia, but in the absence of English sources, German are acceptable. Also, in the future, I would appreciate being notified when you call in my decisions for review. --Haemo 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm Sorry. I forgot to notified you that I think, that your decision was wrong. IMHO the AfD discussion isn´t a vote. Most of the User who have vote "Keep" say, that they think, that i starts a vendetta or vandalised the article before but that isn´t true! So that is the reason, why some people vote for a "keep"! Wiki-nightmare 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also been an edit war over including material about her (possible?} disqualification from a contest over (purported?) nude photos, with Wiki-nightmare being the major proponent of inclusion as "trivia". On the talk page, users have been discussing it, claiming that "nude" refers to "topless" but I don't speak German, so I can't weigh in. To me, it sounds totally irrelevant and slightly distasteful and makes this increasingly confusing. --Haemo 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No consensus seems to be the consensus. The trouble with these article were the references are in a different language is that you need some experienced editors who can review the references. That they do not appear on the Internet is irrelevant and more of a basis for keeping than deleting (because others can't make it to the library). Dodgy stuff going on surrounding this article is another basis not to delete until we figure out what is going on. -- Jreferee t/c 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - What is going on with this article is that the publisher/photographer wants to keep the article. COI of course, but I can understand his reasoning anyway. And some (or just one) person(s) who for some reason really, really wants to delete this article, which I can't really understand. AFD was non-consensus, try it again in a couple of months, but this deletion review and the talk on the article's discussion page seems utterly pointless. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:i work normally only for the german wikipedia. this are my first steps in the english and maybe my last... Wiki-nightmare 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The english language wikipedia is the international wikipedia. The standards of the different Wikipedias can not be compared. In german Wiki it would not be possible to have articles on the cast of TV-series or video games which is normal on en.wiki. So stating that the article was deleted in de.wiki is not a valid argument for deletion. The article passes the three main criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) 1. why she is notable (because her fotos are printed and several articles about her published) (true) 2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is followed (true) 3. the sources are independent of her and reliable (true) Article should be kept. Neozoon 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The english language wikipedia is the international wikipedia. Erm, says who? I'm sure there's a policy that says you're wrong, but I can't remember it offhand. JuJube 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Neozoon is right! I mean the Point about the German Wikipedia. We have severe rules of relevancy. Living people usually must have to reach a very high level of fame before writing an article is allowed. I´m sure one day Claudia Ciesla will be a very high level of fame and that is the Point in the German Wikipedia, that we allowed to creat an Article then, when a person is famous. (not maybe some time) But when a person will never become a very high level of fame-Status we have an Article of an non-famous Person in the German Wikipedia and we don’t like non-notable things on German Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is approaching such quality problems from many sides: We simply use the deletion process discussed earlier to weed out poor articles. And we encourage high quality articles by providing extra recognition for an authors hard work as "Wikipedia:Exzellente Artikel" (means - excellent articles). Articles are more likely to be merged. For Exampel: a Person like Claudia Ciesla will never be allowed to have a own Article about herself but in a Article about "Bild Page 1 Girls" she will be find some Mentions. At last, the best argument for keeping the article is that we are not in the German Wikipedia. I can accept my failure! I see, the different between quality and quantity is the foreign language Wikipedia to the english Wikipedia. Wiki-nightmare 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article 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.
====
David Pearce (Australian soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Discussion was closed as keep by an account that has only been active for a week and has made significant contributions to the deletion discussion. I have no problem with the decision, just the method by which it was closed. Mattinbgn\talk 07:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call one comment which copied another users comment significant and if you have no problem with with decision then why complain? DPCU 07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because closing a debate in which you clearly had a stake in is not independent. Also, I wonder how an account that has been active for less than a week has developed sufficient understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines to be able to close a discussion. I have been here for over a year and haven't closed a discussion yet. Either you haven't got the knowledge or experience to close a discussion or you are a sockpuppet. Take your pick. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will pick I had an account back in "20 September 2005" to be exact but left cause I did not have enough time and created this one cause I could not remember the password for the other one. Are you forgetting to WP:AGF? Didn't your mum tell you not to call people names? DPCU 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then in the interests of transparency you won't mind telling us your previous username. If you want to undertake admin-like tasks, transparency is required. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the closing editor writes "I'm interested in things to do with the Army" on his user page. Does the editor come with NPOV? WWGB 08:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes DPCU 08:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how was DPCU able to close the debate when he is not listed as an admin? WWGB 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non admins can close debates as keep, but I'm concerned about a two-day editor doing this. Something smells sockish about this. Orderinchaos 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article 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.
File:Ckfilm.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image deleted claiming invalid fair use rationale. I asked for an explanation as to why the fair use rationale was invalid and got no response. The use in the GA article The Cincinnati Kid seemed to be every bit as fair as every other of the eleventy-million film articles with posters. Kinda hard for me to fix a problem with a fair use rationale when no one bothers to say what the problem is. Also pretty amazing that an article with an invalid image could be rated as a Good Article. Undelete in the absence of a specific explanation as to the specific problem with the image. Otto4711 03:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711, I've restored the image, because my deletion was a mistake. I gave a more detailed explanation below. In the future, if I ever make a similar mistake again, I'd prefer you to ask me on my talkpage, instead of bringing it to deletion review. I consider DRV a venue to protest deletion after an AfD without discussion with the sysop, but not after a mistaken speedy deletion, where a simple note on the sysop's talkpage would suffice. Thank you, Maxim(talk) (contributions) 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on this particular fair use rationale without Special:Undelete, but considering that Maxim deleted 43 other images in the same minute he did this one (and his log makes it clear that he wasn't examining them beforehand), I'd certainly err on the side of trusting Otto4711's analysis over Maxims. Assuming no one objects, I'd go ahead and speedy undelete as a likely mistake. Anyone who decides to delete 10,000 images in a few days can expect plenty of those. — xDanielx T/C 09:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi XDanielx. You can be assured that I inspect every image I delete. I have tools that allow me to quickly inspect them, and once they're all inspected, I simply use the tool to quickly finish the job. However, I'm prone to mistakes, as all other admins, and this is one of those mistakes. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_4&oldid=1140185602"