Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 16

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

16 September 2007[edit]

  • User:Wikihermit – The pages will remain deleted per CSD U1, and/or because there is no malicious intent to hide anything and the potential hurdles in keeping the pages red are minor. Full decision below. – Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Wikihermit (edit | [[Talk:User:Wikihermit|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

For the above and associated talk page. I don't want this to become another White Cat situation, however I'm not sure it's appropriate to delete these redirects to new userpages (Wikihermit changed name to CO) when there isn't a privacy issue (whuch I'm assuming there wasn't, as the request was made publicly, and it does show up on a log, and all). Users do need to be able to tell who this user now is, especially since there are old incoming links, and the log is rather obscure: someone seeing a link to a red userpage, no talk page, and no edits would be VERY confused. What do we do here? --ST47Talk·Desk 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At the very least, I think it to be well settled that user talk pages, except those, I guess, devoid of any old discussion that might reasonably be expected to be of any value to another editor or to the community in the future, ought not to be deleted except upon a user's invoking his/her right to vanish (and actually vanishing thereafter) or where some particularly pernicious edits necessitate revision deletion/oversight. Unless I'm missing something compelling, then, the issue of redirects from the "old" user and user talk pages to the "new" aside, the talk page history should be undeleted. Joe 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history is available on User talk:CO. Ral315 » 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, it would have taken me much less time to check that straightaway than to write my comment; my bad. Joe 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is worth noting that right to vanish means nothing here. The user left, then returned. At this time, the only reason not to use a redirect is privacy, and at the moment, given the choice between being followed by a troll, who can be blocked, and confusing everyone who clicks one of your sigs, the logical option is to block the troll, deal with it through usual means, and move on. We do have a log of renames, after all, if there are privacy issues, the thing to do is abandon the account and make a new one. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create redirect. I believe that in nearly all cases, a redirect should remain if a username change has occurred, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Ral315 » 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikihermit has commented the reason for a name change was for privacy related issues. In this case, I'm not sure what benefit a rename is considering there are log entries and histories on talk pages and the like. My personal preference is for all renames done through openly on Wikipedia should have redirects created, new accounts or renames done privately should be treated differently and no redirects created. Nick 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an opinion on the existence of redirects in this case? --ST47Talk·Desk 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, changing usernames is not a way to dodge your account history. >Radiant< 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dodging what history? It isn't like he had anything on his block log or any other problems. JoshuaZ 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If CO has explained that there are privacy issues involved, we should respect his decision. Although admittedly it seems strange (as the username change request was made publicly), I think we should assume good faith and assume that he has good reason for wanting this page to remain deleted. WaltonOne 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As said above, a rename does not help with privacy issues, the logs are fully available. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, even anyone looking at the history of a page he edited or the diff for a page he signed would see the link immediately, and in the latter case, lack of redirects may be very misleading, causing one to think that CO2 signed a talk page as a user that has no edits. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I have seen at least one admin resysopped on a new account without the old account being disclosed, so by that precedent, letting a person move to a new account without a trace on the old userpage should be acceptable, (as long as we are not seeing abusive sockpuppeting which I cannot see here). I would call this a valid WP:CSD#U1 deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with that account is that he was resyropped because of privatcy issues, same with another admin, this doesn't seem to the case here. Blahblahme 04:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason why there needs to be a redirect. Yes there are logs, but they are much less accessible than the redirect. Among other things, deleting the redirect is the only way try to stop Google from indexing the page, since only nonexistent user pages are marked noindex. So I support the deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing decision:I understand the nominator's concerns but there is sufficient precedent to allow for the pages being kept deleted. I won't name names, but many of us know of at least two users who have done similar things, with the exception that a rename wasn't involved... indeed, here, there is a direct line between A and B for CO, and the talk history still exists. There is no attempt at obfuscation to avoid a prior controversial editing history, and I believe forcing the redirect would set a precedent that could violate other user's right to vanish for those users who have abandoned accounts and taken up another for reasons of privacy. There is a small potential hurdle for users willing to contact the user through the old link, but it is not insurmountable, and in comparison to more extreme cases of renaming or right-to-vanish is well within the realm of acceptability. Another way to look at it is, Yes, this user did not change names for reasons of privacy that we know of and all the history links trace back to his new account and the change was made publicly, so why not force the redirect in this case? Because, the appropriate deletion criteria, CSD U1 applies, even for the talk page as the history still exists elsewhere, but then again, maybe I have long been partial to that particular criteria. In any event, the pages will remain deleted either per CSD U1, and/or because there is no malicious intent to hide anything and the potential hurdles in keeping the pages red are minor. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:49, 22 September 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.
Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know what you're thinking...it's not that...bear with me. This page is protected from re-creation. A similar title (Angry Video Game Nerd) redirects here, and it's the same guy. I ask for quick unprotection so a redirect to the same target can be put in, then the page can be protected again. UsaSatsui 23:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ameriprise sucks – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a well-sourced new article – W.marsh 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ameriprise sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article is not a personal view of the company, but was about a website listed by Forbes as a top ten consumer complaint site. It has received national attention from a variety of sources and is noteworthy in the respect that it denotes an early forerunner of the online consumer complaint site. Furthermore, the purpose of this article was in no way to comment on Ameriprise or any of it's activities, as this would be redundant as negative information about the company is listed on the Ameriprise page in wikipedia. I had listed several other company specific websites on the page as additional examples of what has become a thing in and of itself for the online community. In point, these online sites have become an issue for those in the marketing and business communities to address. The legal cases that these sites have spawned are rapidly becoming major benchmarks of free speech issues faced by American citizens and companies. As these issues are sociological, legal, and economic in nature they are worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. }} Donating intellect 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've fixed the malformed nomination- please follow the instructions next time. Do you have any reliable sources to prove the website meets web content notability guidelines?-Wafulz 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; posterboy G11 article. (It even listed the date of its appearance in search engines!) The Forbes listing touted above is just that - an essentially contentless listing. If that's the source singled out to convince us to save this article, then it's certainly not worth the trouble to despam and neutralize. —Cryptic 08:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion for now The Forbes mention is a non-trivial reliable source, but that's all I'm aware of. Even if we had additional sourcing the deleted article is so hopeless that a rewrite from scratch might well be easier. JoshuaZ 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation I think there may actually be enough sources from earlier mentions in the article. In any event, the forbes item is more than a listing, but an article about the site in conjunction with 8 others, all against major companies. The top 10 such sites is a significant position, & Forbes is reliable for that. .— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (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.
Supertall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know that these discussions are not votes, but c. 8 keeps to c. 4 deletes means that a majority of the community does not think the article should be delete; this one is a no consensus at best. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing admin. As noted in my closing rationale, the "keep" opinions were not based on policy, but essentially on "it is used WP:BIGNUMBER times on the net". Also, apart from the WP:WINAD issue, the lack of reliable sources for the definition of "supertall" given in the article means that it violated WP:V and WP:NOR. According to WP:DGFA, policy compliance must be taken into account when closing an AfD, because the the community's consensus is manifest in policy as well as in the AfD opinions. This is what I did here. Sandstein 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn. Closure basically ignored consensus. Those advocating Keep were not just using WP:BIGNUMBER arguments; a glance at the AfD shows that, through a peremptory Google search, several participants in the discussion had located sources which provided some indication of the subject's notability. AfDs may not be votes, but they're also not contests for who can cite the most WP:ABCs and WP:XYZs in support of their position. Coherent arguments should be taken into account and given due weight in closing a discussion, even if they aren't full of policy acronyms. WaltonOne 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The redirect is just fine, the debate was correctly assessed per reference to policy. As the lead states, Supertall is a colloquial, recently-coined term that refers to an extremely tall skyscraper. It is especially common jargon among skyscraper-enthusiast bloggers. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary or a repository for original research forks of subjects already covered under titles that were not made up last week by bloggers. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closer's reasoning was both sound and well-explained. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn unless the NYT is deemed an unreliable source. The term has been in formal use for twenty years (possibly forty) and deserves a comprehensive article. Yes, the article did itself a disservice (e.g. the lead mistakenly claiming it was basically made up last week), If it must redirect anywhere, that should be to skyscraper, as supertall buildings are being built today (Burj Dubai, Chicago Spire) and arguably since the World Trade Center. This is not a science fiction concept. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn since consensus was to keep. This is much more than a dictionary definition; the closing rationale was plainly inconsistent with the spirit of WP:DICT, and wasn't even raised in the AfD. Sources were given, and the consensus was that they were adequate. — xDanielx T/C 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was entirely correct. The revision Xdanielx links is a dictionary definition heading a duplicate article. We merge or redirect duplicate articles. This is precisely the spirit of WP:DICT, for the same reason we don't have separate articles on eggplants and aubergines. I'm not unalterably opposed to a history restore, but don't see any reason to do so. —Cryptic 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that this is a "duplicate article" of this? I don't see how anyone could reasonably arrive at that conclusion. — xDanielx T/C 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, the comparison should be between this and this, or so I would assume. Still, hardly a "duplicate article." A supertall is a very tall building; a megastructure is any extraordinarily large artificial construct. Obviously the definitions are fuzzy, but of the sizable handful of structures which are considered supertalls, typically none are considered megastructures. More generally, a supertall is a very real concept, while a megastructure is something generally reserved for science fiction (see e.g. Dyson sphere) and rarely compared to real-world constructions. So the articles really have little to do with one another. — xDanielx T/C 05:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good call from the closing admin: wider policy consensus should generally trump individual AfD opinions that fail to make a compelling case why the issues should be regarded as exceptional. Eusebeus 09:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Eusebeus. >Radiant< 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As per Dhartung, don't see basis in AfD for specific redirect to Megastructure. If consensus is still to redirect, then suggest a different redirect be done, for instance to Skyscraper or similar.VJDocherty 16:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for being unclear on this. The closure was delete. The subsequent redirect was labeled as my editorial decision, feel free to point it at whatever other article. Sandstein 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I intend to recreate as a sourced article. I'm too busy to start this before October, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, consensus was clearly to Keep. Deus Ex Machina 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The narrow consensus in the AfD doesn't override a wider policy consensus. These decisions aren't to made purely on numbers because if they were, it'd be easy to keep the most ridiculous things on wikipedia simply by having a few people show up at an AfD. --Crossmr 00:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Note that WP:NEO requires the term to be defined and fleshed out, not just used, in reliable sources. Also note that 12 people is not "a majority of the community". ColourBurst 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're absolutely right that the page in question doesn't meet WP:NEO in its current form. But frankly, WP:NEO is the perfect example of policy gone wrong. It was edited around 80 times in its life, with very few editors overseeing the changes. It was tagged as an official policy five days after it was proposed, before the policy talk page even existed. And even then, the current revision has virtually nothing to do with the revision at that time. Furthermore, the reasoning in the "policy" plainly has no applicability to this article (as with most neologisms). The first "justification" (I think it smells of ignoratio elenchi, but never mind that for now) for the policy does not apply since this is not a definition any more than science, mathematics, philosophy, etc. The second "justification" does not apply since the article isn't about the etymology of the word supertall. Even if it were, the "justification" also assumes that we cannot trace the etymology of "supertall." This is plainly false, as it is for most neologisms (if it can't be reliably traced to inventive usage, then it probably isn't a neologism in the first place). I think you're right that the supertall doesn't meet the current revision of WP:NEO. But the purpose of policy is to preserve widely accepted consensus views to mitigate small and unrepresentative sample sizes found in AfD discussions. If WP:NEO has anything to do with wide consensus views, it must be largely incidental, because the policy certainly wasn't affirmed through a wide consensus forming process, by any stretch of the imagination. — xDanielx T/C 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • NEO is a guideline, not a policy. The article itself doesn't seem to know what its about. The introduction clearly indicates its about a made up word used in the blogosphere. The only sources that could be found tie it directly only to descriptions of taller than usual skyscrapers, which would make a fair percentage of the article unusable as there were no citations provided that would indicate its used to refer to tall pylons, etc. The assertion in the article is made about its notability in the world of tall building blogging and not the one or two reliable sources this term has been used in. As such the intention of this article is very clearly about a neologism. as far as the couple of reliable sources provided in the AfD are, it would make an excellent entry on wiktionary as really the only thing to be said about "supertall" structures from those sources is "They're really tall skyscrapers"--Crossmr 23:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the definition is a bit fuzzy. But hey, language ain't perfect. I don't know of any reliable articles which devote substantial attention to the etymology of the neologism, but the only thing that would require that is WP:NEO. — xDanielx T/C 06:18, 21 September 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.
File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Booking photograph (mug shot) of notable subject, which was released as public data pursuant to a state statute after involvement in an incident of significance, was deleted based on an improper reason, deleted against consensus for use of image in article under fair use guidelines and not channeled through the images for deletion process.

Proposed article: Larry Craig

The image in question was improperly deleted against consensus. The image was included in the article because of its significance, which was also the object of coverage in the article itself. The discussion about the image can be found here, here and here. No discussion occurred to my knowledge about the deleting or keeping the image through the IfD process. The image history included both a full rationale (including licensing and basis for the license) for using the image in the article, and a deletion dispute tag that stated the reason against deleting the image.

The nature of the proposal for deletion was that an editor thought that the image was improperly tagged as "public domain," and when consensus pointed to the belief that use of the image should be allowed under fair use guidelines, that same editor shifted to WP:NFCC #8 as the deletion rationale, citing "image used as decoration" as the basis for deletion. Days later, an administrator removed the information from the article, and then deleted the image, using the a POV rationale that the image was "disparaging" -- a basis that is not found among the reasons for deleting an image and nothing included in the article that disparages the subject. Coverage of the incident was stated as reported by various news sources without analysis to maintain neutrality. The same administrator mentioned that a "free" image was available (the subject's "official" U.S. Senate photograph), discounting the fact that the booking photograph was taken in connection with a specific incident of significance on a specific date. In one instance, the administrator who restored and then finally deleted the image expressed misgivings by way of a message on the talk page for the image about the rationale provided by another administrator who previously deleted the image. Neither administrator nor the editor who first brought up the deleting the image introduced a discussion beforehand on the article's talk page about whether the image should removed from the article, let alone deleted from Wikipedia. →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh what a brilliant idea - let's slap the {{infobox Criminal}} box and a mugshot on the article on a politician, shall we? That's really in line with the spirit of WP:BLP, that is. Public domain is completely irrelevant, the only possible reason for including a mugshot when we already have a perfectly acceptable picture for this person (which we do) is to denigrate him. It adds precisely nothing to one's understanding of the subject. Just because we can have the mugshot certainly does not mean we must, and WP:BLP strongly suggests we should not have it. Pictures in Wikipedia exist to aid visual recognition. We have a perfectly decent picture, we do not need a mugshot. Even if he is a hypocritical bigot hoist by his own petard, which seems quite possible, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding crude, that mug shot has been all over the place - it's one of the most ubiquitous shots around. It's not like Wikipedia is doing him any more harm than has already been done, especially with just his picture. The Evil Spartan 11:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not compelled to join the fun. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fundamental issue with the deletion of the image is not the fact that JzG is again misinterpreting WP:TABLOID in a situation that clearly doesn't apply here. It's not just that JzG has circumvented the WP:IfD process and refuses to make any effort to reach consensus on the subject. The most disturbing issue is anointing himself as judge, jury and executioner in deciding that there is no possible circumstance in which this image could ever be used in an appropriate context in any current or future article on Wikipedia. This form of prior restraint is not only unconstitutional, but entirely inappropriate and counter to the objectives of building an encyclopedia. While it might be possible to make a justifiable argument that the image should not be included in the Larry Craig article, there is no valid argument against deleting the image and preventing its use in any form on Wikipedia. Alansohn 06:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the fundamental issue with the image is that it serves no encyclopaedic purpose, as noted by several others. It looks to me as if Alansohn might need to read WP:FREE. Guy (Help!) 06:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I have read it, WP:FREE has never been mentioned, and it's a great tactic to attack a straw man rather than any of the actual arguments stated. You may want to read WP:CONSENSUS or WP:IfD and learn how those processes are used. One day, you may even try them out, see how they work, and respect the consensus they generate. That's how Wikipedia works. Rather than address the propriety of inclusion of the image on one particular article, you have taken it upon yourself to decide for all of Wikipedia that there is no possibility, under any circumstances, for any article now existing or to be created in the future for this image to be used. That is completely in contravention of your authority as an administrator and a basic violation of the collaborative effort. What will the thought police decide next we aren't allowed to look at? Alansohn 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: 1/ is the image licensed suitably for Wikipedia, 2/ should it be used in the article. (If it is not suitably licensed then it should not exist anywhere on Wikipedia, of course, if it is then it's fine in Commons even if not in the article itself.) The question I think comes down to WP:BLP, and what the article is about. The reason he is notable is first and foremost because he is a politician, not because he is a famous criminal. The article states he has had such a controversy. At most, if he was famous, then the mugshot would be fair for that section. Although that section is long (as current news often is), it doesn't seem the central part of his bio, and to re-centre his bio around the legal incident would still probably be undue weight. This aspect would be an editorial issue, not an image licensing issue. I'm not yet convinced the mugshot is useful in that section, reading it. The point is already made by the facts of the text. Concur with User:JzG in essence. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this issue has been talked about endlessly in the US. This is not a small part of his biography (and let it be known that my political loyalties are similar to his, so I'm not exactly on a witch hunt right now). The Evil Spartan 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Small" isn't the issue... more that it's not central to his bio. He has a bio article because he is a politician, not because he is a notable criminal. This subject comes up because he is a notable politician who has had a side legal issue, not because he is a notable criminal who has a side political career, so to speak. The perspective advocated by WP:BLP is to avoid titillation, look to the long term, write conservatively, and avoid harm. The legal issue matters, but it's not central. The mug shot doesn't add to the information given, but does pander to things WP:BIO frowns upon somewhat. It doesn't add enough for encyclopedic value to outweigh the clear weight of where WP:BIO focusses, and the concerns WP:BIO would raise. (And, I believe you that you aren't biased in it. I don't have an interest either. I just watch DRV.) FT2 (Talk | email) 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, it's a question of usefulness and context. There is nothing gained by the article showing a mugshot of Mr. Craig. It does not tell us anything we do not already know, because we already have a higher-quality free-use photograph of him. The article adequately discusses Mr. Craig's criminal behavior and consequences. If we had a photograph of the actual crime being committed, that would clearly be relevant and important to the biography, but the police mugshot adds nothing of value to the article. FCYTravis 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, precisely that. Being booked is not a notable event, in the way that being arrested or convicted is, and that's what the picture illustrates. As you say, a picture of the offence being committed would be an entirely different matter. Plus we could make a fortune out of syndication... Guy (Help!) 16:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: mugshots are public domain, in almost all cases. Larry Craig is known as a politician, not as a criminal. He's not Son of Sam. Should the image have been deleted under FU rules? No. Do we need it? Also no. Move to close this discussion as pointless. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion An extremely poor precedent is being reinforced here in which WP:BLP is being abused as an excuse to delete anything that can be possibly misinterpreted as reflecting negatively on an individual. The material is encyclopedic, is in the public domain, is relevant to the article, and has a place in the article. The POV-pushing admin who removed it has not indicated how WP:BLP is being violated here, how the individual would be negatively impacted or in what way Wikipedia would be exposed to risk of lawsuit. Wikipedia is not censored, but some admins will use any excuse to create a nanny state here. Alansohn 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM WP:NOT#NEWS. The photo just demonstrates that he was booked; that he plead guilty is the important part (even if he reverses his plea[1] ... bizarre). Also endorse Guy's and KillerChihuahua's points. CWC 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is the picture in question original research? Now I'm really confused... — xDanielx T/C 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Errk. My fault: I meant WP:NOT#NEWS (now corrected above). Sorry, CWC 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah okay, no problem. I can sleep now. :) — xDanielx T/C 07:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on policy grounds. I cannot imagine an interpretation of BLP that would apply here. Media coverage of the senator's arrest--including the omnipresent display of that photograph--is the reason Craig is (or, er, isn't) resigning. If someone wants to make an issue of the copyright status, fine. But how it is defamatory to include an image to illustrate an event that already takes up half the article is entirely beyond me. Chick Bowen 04:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; come on, now. It clearly shouldn't be the lead, and we clearly shouldn't be using {{Infobox Criminal}}. But the mug shot, IF FREE, is relevant to much of his bio. Ral315 » 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the thigs I hate about people on a mission, as some of the editors of that article appear to be, is that it forces us to defend unpleasant people. I don't like this man. I think he's a hypocrite. But he is entitled not to be denigrated, and including gratuitous mugshots is indeed denigration. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Agree with Guy. I am sure that interested readers can find plenty of reproductions of this image across the web. Placing it here is pushing an inherent tabloidism & it's use is frankly tacky. Eusebeus 08:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has the image (as opposed to the subject, or the arrest) achieved notability in its own right? If so, it can be used in its own article, or an article on famous arrests or whatever. If not, I agree with Guy. I don't think that its use is really consistent with WP:NPOV since it is not a neutral illustration of its subject. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're asking about a conversation that has occurred about this issue, which can be found here. Yes...this part of the article should be split from the main article, as you will see from my response about this issue. Some editors did not agree with the split, so the content was left in place. →Lwalt ♦ talk 20:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the image is free, and free images are what we want. The image does not have to achieve "notability in its own right" - it's a free image, and does not have to meet our stringent fair use criteria. It adds value to the article, should be placed appropriately in the article. It should not be the main image of Mr Craig, though. Neil ム 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Neil. Picture is relevant and belongs in an article. Deus Ex Machina 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have emailed the arresting agency to ask about the copyright status of their mugshot photographs, since I do not believe the mugshot photo is free (it might be, but I have not seen any hard, physical proof to convince me). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's Minnesota statute 13.82, subd. 26(b) (near the end of the page) about release of booking photographs under Minnesota law. Hopefully, you have sent your message to someone who can answer this question from a legal perspective.
  • (clicks the link) So, if I am reading this right, the information is public for consumption. Ok, but if I can be frankly honest, we should move the photograph to the Wikimedia Commons. Then, we can decide whether or nor to include the photo in the article. Any comments about that? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although this deletion debate seems to center around the photo itself, my overriding concern is about the unilateral circumvention and misapplication of Wikipedia process and policy -- that is, deletion of images based on an improper POV reason, deletion of images against the consensus formed in a different forum and usurping the deletion process for images and media through unilateral action based on that personal opinion. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List - The fact that I'm saying "list" instead of "relist" is indicative of the problem with this deletion; nothing about this image met the speedy deletion criteria, and thus it should not have been whisked away with no notice. Maybe it should go, maybe it shouldn't, but that's what IFD is for! The fact that right now we're basically having the IFD discussion that should have happened in the first place makes it all the more evident. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 13:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the photo is free, but en.wikipedia doesn't want it, just sent it to the Commons and we won't be doing a IFD at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Paul Addis – The result was DRV withdrawn with consensus to endorse. Non-admin closure. — xDanielx T/C 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Addis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Proposed article: User:Pro crast in a tor/Paul Addis

The article Paul Addis was a contested AfD speedy, then up for DRV, but the article was exactly one sentence long. A completely different article also existed at Paul '''a'''ddis, which had been previously edited by 3 or 4 other editors (none of which took part in the DRV). I came across the article today, cleaned it up, and when attempting to rename it to Paul Addis, found the AfD and DRV. Hmm. I talked to Anetode, the deleting admin, who (I believe corrected) then deleted Paul addis.

Given that the article is much different and more comprehensive than the old one-line article, I thought I'd try DRV again. Reviewing the AfD and DRV, it appears that over half of the comments do not appear to apply to the new article. My apologies in advance if y'all believe this is a rehash, but it seems different enough to justify another shot.

I believe notability is based on the extensive national and international media coverage of the arson, and now multiple interviews and articles about Mr. Addis himself in big-name papers. Media coverage of his other activities over the years, specifically NPR pieces and reviews of his playwright/actor performance, are nice windowdressing. Anecdotally, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I can't tell you how many times I've overheard his name in stores, cafes, and on the street. He's been the talk of the town for weeks, and I'm sure will keep coming up as his charges proceed through the courts. I think WP would be best served by having a page about him that can be referred to.

Rod Coronado comes to mind as a similar WP:BIO with an ethically-motivated arson charges. There are 56000 hits in google for "Rod Coronado", whereas a combination of "Paul Addis" and "Burning man"' has 85000 hits in google. Yes, google is not a measure of notability, but it does illustrate that coverage has been in hundreds of papers worldwide, and throughout the blogosphere. Also, another comprable WP:BIO is Cathy_Wilkerson, who was a bit player in the extensively covered Weather Underground explosion in Greenwich Village, and who also has a Wikipedia page but did nothing else of note.Pro crast in a tor 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just added the (quite amusing) booking mugshot after being reminded by the Larry Craig mugshot comments below, hope no one minds aiming at a moving target. I'm not expecting this to change anything, just the perfectionist in me wanting to make it look good. Pro crast in a tor 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Exactly the same problems remain and exactly the same issues apply. To steal from an AFD comment, "Not notable himself and seems to be a misunderstanding of the notability criteria by the author. There are multiple news stories about the arson attempt but nothing solely about Paul Addis himself."User:Malcolmxl5 at 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC) It doesn't help that the recreated article attempts to stack the deck (with phrases like "The arson got extensively media coverage, with articles in every major newspaper in the United States,..." and inflating Addis' single two-minute commentary for a local public-radio station as "NPR pieces"[2]). --Calton | Talk 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake about the KQED link, Natevoodoo mentioned NPR in the AfD, I used NPR in my search term to find the link, and assumed that it was an NPR piece but only cached on a local NPR station (which KQED is), rather than a being a strictly KQED piece. Thanks for fixing this in the proposed article, but perhaps he actually does have NPR pieces that I just didn't find. I'll go look again. Pro crast in a tor 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Writing a well-sourced article asserting notability means that you don't rely on a Google search as a "source". It isn't all that bad, but it's pretty thin -- basically a locally known actor who has yet to really attain notice. Well, he's got it now, but WP:BLP1E still argues against an article here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my whole DRV hinges around Addis being notable as a performance artist as a secondary "event" to overcome WP:BLP1E. I've updated the article to mention that "Gonzo: A Brutal Chrysalis" started local, but went to Portland last month, and it goes to Seattle next week and LA next month according to [[3]]. I agree that the performance artist references are a bit thin as of now, and do not rise up to WP notability by themselves. However, when coupled with the notable Burning Man arson, I think it gets pretty darn close, if not over the line. In any case, it appears I should have waited a few weeks to collect more media articles and reviews to help bolster my case. Thanks for your time, Pro crast in a tor 10:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, reasons apply just as well to this version. Redirect is fine, but in the end this is a news story and WP:BLP1E apples, as noted above. Well done to the requestor for coming here rather than simply reposting it. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation. The closing admin was absolutely correct in their closure of the original AfD, in which there was a very clear consensus to delete. However, the new version at User:Pro crast in a tor/Paul Addis is much improved from the original, and cites sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I also don't think WP:BLP1E really applies; the sources weren't all about the one incident, and the article seems like a sufficiently balanced biography of his achievements. Alternatively, merge the sourced content into the article on Burning Man, and redirect Paul Addis there; even if he isn't notable enough for an article, the incident is clearly notable. WaltonOne 15:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Different article, same exact problems. As to whether the incident was some major event, I find the following comment by Roleplayer in the AfD persuasive: "The Times didn't even think it worth mentioning the name of the man that did it.". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, despite an extensive discussion with another user who wants an article on Paul Addis, we were unable to discover any reliable sources which could be used to write a biography on the guy. He's only known as a wannabe actor and for one act. The blurb at Burning Man is sufficient. Corvus cornix 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requester withdraws DRV. Thank you all for the input, I would like to withdraw my DRV given the emerging consensus. I have saved a local copy in case Mr. Addis pops up again in a notable context, and I'll merge portions of the article into Burning Man. I don't think a redirect is appropriate per WP:BLP, as given his actions, I'm guessing Mr. Addis would not like his name to redirect to Burning Man. Cheers, Pro crast in a tor 22:04, 16 September 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.
Flash Flash Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was speedily deleted by User:FisherQueen a few days ago, citing CSD G4 - since the article was deleted in December 2006 for lack of sources. In the time since then, more sources were found, and a better article was written. CSD G4 explicitly states that it does not apply to substantially revised content, or when the re-created article fails to address the reasons why the first article was deleted... As the entire article was rewritten from scratch with sources, the material was improperly deleted per CSD G4. Userfied version of the deleted article is at User:Chardish/FFR.
Restore due to improper speedy, and send to AfD if there are problems with the current article.
N.B. I have brought this information before the administrator who speedy deleted it, and she seems uninterested in defending her decision. Chardish 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and restore the original redirect. The whole thing reads as original research, the supposed sources are either the FFR site, blogs, or one entry in a seasonal space-filler on "time-wasters" in a minor magazine. The deletion log also makes interesting reading. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the only concern should be that it was improperly deleted. Let AFD decide if it should be deleted or remain. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-list at AfD. I agree there was no valid speedy reason (G4 didn't apply, as it wasn't a recreation), and the deleting admin should have taken more care; however, I think there are still serious notability issues with the rewritten (userfied) version of the article. In particular, as Guy correctly points out, there is a lack of adequate sourcing. WaltonOne 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until there are real sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is not a criteria for speedy deletion, and thus I do not see how you can endorse a speedy deletion on those grounds. - Chardish 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was deleted (originally) for lack of sources, and the re-creation didn't really address that. Blogs and the like don't help. Remember, what we need are multiple non-trivial articles in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZDNet, Maximum PC, and Blogcritics are not reliable sources? Again, I think you can argue that they're not enough, but I don't think it's possible to argue that finding 3 notable sources is not addressing the problem of sources. The debate over whether these sources are enough belongs in AfD, not DRV. - Chardish 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are significant discussion primarily of this item. A listing in a seasonal spacefiller in Maximum PC does not establish notability. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not what's being debated. Was including those sources addressing the problem of sources? If yes, then the article should be restored due to an improper speedy. I don't see how you could argue "no." - Chardish 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common sense test says that its current ad in Dance Dance Revolution#Similar Games is more than sufficient. I don't see anything in the deleted article that merits more than a redirect there. —Cryptic 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AFD was initially keep and then overturned at DRV. The concern was a lack of reliable sourcing and the version deleted has exactly the same problem as described above. Spartaz Humbug! 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decide that at a new AfD, then. You can't speedy delete an article because you feel that the attempt to solve its problems wasn't good enough. - Chardish 12:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore It's obvious that the article must be restored, as it was improperly speedy-deleted. Many people made an attempt at solving the article's problems, and if the solutions they came up with are not good enough, this should be re-reviewed, but the article certainly should NOT have been speedy-deleted. There is no grounds upon which to speedy-delete such an article. It was not recreation of deleted content - simply creation of a deleted article that had little to do with the old article except for its subject content.
And IMO, just the fact that people keep creating and investing time in the article marks its notability. I don't agree with all this notability stuff. Why does everyone have to be so anal about it? We should use common sense more than sources. FFR is a community with thousands of users, and a popular game that you can often see people playing just randomly wherever you look. I've seen it in the library, on random laptops, and people have even been playing it in class... if that isn't notable I don't know what is. But people insist on sources that say that it's notable. This concept eludes me. It strikes me as being ridiculously anal. But that's just my take on it. Nevermind, it's obvious the article was unfairly speedy-deleted. I've had little stubs of articles that don't say anything worthwhile marked for speedy deletion and they weren't even approved, yet THIS was? -- Rediahs 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to allowing users to rely on experiences to establish notability, that goes against most of our policies. Leebo T/C 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of non notable and unauthorized video game clones. Burntsauce 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, because WP:NOT is not a criteria for speedy deletion. So I don't know how you want to endorse a speedy deletion on those grounds. - Chardish 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I think the confusion here relates to the word "address". For the purposes of speedy deletion, it means to remedy, not to attempt to remedy. If the recreated article is not different in substance (regardless of textual dissimilarity), then it's a repost and eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. The newly added sources did not remedy the concerns that led to the previous deletion. Leebo T/C 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but a single administrator should not be the judge of whether the problem is solved or not. WP:CSD says: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." There's certainly reasonable doubt here, as myself and a few others think these sources are sufficient to establish notability. - Chardish 18:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Pretty Crane – unprotected; new article remains subject to the risk of AFD – GRBerry 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pretty Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was originally deleted and protected from creation in March because the article dealt with a minor, never-seen character in a soap opera. The character has since debuted on-screen and is involved in a major storyline. The article is currently located at Pretty Crane (Passions character), but the disambiguation is cumbersome and makes searching for the article much more difficult. Charity 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unprotect so that the new article can be moved into place. Seems to be notable enough, and circumstances have changed since deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of these soap characters that all they contain is plot outline and no sources that indicate notabilty. Can you provide them, if not they should be merged to List of Passions characters, not its own article. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing for soaps is pretty easy. Not only are they covered in general TV magazines like TV guide, they have a bunch of magazines of their own. I found two sources within seconds: TV Guide and Soap Opera Digest interview. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm talking about soap characters whos only sources are not plot or soap opera digest, which I mainly consider is good for sourcing the plot, other than that it's not really independent. Like why the character is notable compared to any other characters, they should all be merged, Relist in AFD Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaranda is exactly right. Not only should this page not be recreated, but the article at Pretty Crane (Passions character) should be brought up to the standard at WP:FICT or else redirected forthwith. Eusebeus 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should pretty clearly be unprotected and the current article moved here before anything else happens. (In particular, a redirect from Pretty Crane (Passions character) to the list page would be beyond worthless.) The AFD can't be considered to be valid; besides the changed external circumstances, which would be more than sufficient to warrant a restoration, the article deleted at AFD has nothing in common with the current rewrite. I'm not really convinced that this needs a standalone article, but that's at best a question for a new AFD. —Cryptic 09:56, 17 September 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_September_16&oldid=1136460480"