Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 24

Galileo CRS – Article recreated with sources, history restored, clearly notable company. No need for mud-slinging whose fault it was. – Duja► 11:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reverting to its former state, somebody is doing company profiling Mion 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Galileo CRS request for restoring, history included. Deleted :11:30, 7 September 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Galileo CRS" ‎ (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, part of a walled garden all created by the company's employees):User has left S i can't ask the user anymore.I need the article history to see who is rewriting it to such a state and to rewrite it myself or revert it to one of its former states. Mion 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC): The article is about 1 of the 4 major systems in Computer reservations system. Frontrunner : Notification systematic removal of unwanted facts [[1]] on 19 august, still assume good faith.Mion 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC) OK, i have been reading [[2]] Needahotel.com which states the reason, 4 articles have been subject to spamming including Galileo CRS which was transformed from an article about an CRS to an article about a company. I think the origal article should be undeleted to the state prior to the vandalism, which is also my request now. My blind guess around may 2007. Mion 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC) User:Ryan Postlethwaite dont seem to be around to fix it, somebody else here can help me out ? Mion 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. On the one hand, there is non-spam history in there as you say. On the other hand, there have never been any sources. My preference would be to undelete to user space and allow eventual move to article space after sources have been provided. The earliest edit contains the assertion that Galileo is one of the largest CR systems, an assertion that has never in the history of the article been backed up with a reliable source. Chick Bowen 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange happened, i used to edit about the subject on the NL wikipedia nl:Galileo (computersysteem), i went back to 21 januari 2006, there the interwiki link [3] states : [[4]], i think that there should have been an article at that time, and i think some history is lost with name changing of the article, but nevermind, despite the shape in which it turns up, when i am finished with it, it should look similar to Amadeus CRS. Mion 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bon, changing the request to ad the article medio may 2007 to User_talk:Mion.Mion 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request cancelled, it was shorter to rewrite the article (last time i have been here, for sure) , so here it is : Galileo CRS. Mion 23:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Galileo CRS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted again by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Having seen the sheer number of Google Scholar hits, I undeleted it and provided one scholarly reference. I'll undelete the rest of the history as well, perhaps there would be something useful also. Can we close this DRV? It's certainly a notable company, and it will take just some effort to write a good article. Duja► 09:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletes - I was very surprised to find that "Galileo computer reservations system" clearly meets WP:N as there seemed to be endless reliable source material on this reservation system separate from "Galileo International" and "Galileo (whatever)". While I'm on the issue, "Galileo International" and several other "Galileo" based items meet WP:N. In other words, Galileo can end up with several articles on Wikipedia if someone wants to do the work. -- Jreferee T/C 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and pursue administrative measures against admin There was and is no valid reason to delete an article about one of the world's largest registration systems, deleted as part of a clear abuse of process by User:JzG, an admin who has repeatedly demonstrated wanton disrespect and disregard for consensus and Wikipedia policy. As it currently stands, this is a perfectly valid article that should exist and should never have been deleted. Alansohn 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bend over boyfriend cover 01.jpg – Undelete per article being kept at AfD. – IronGargoyle 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was deleted on the basis that it was used in the article Bend Over Boyfriend which was speedy deleted (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Bend_Over_Boyfriend). The image had also been used in Pegging (sexual practice), but was removed fromn there on the basis that Bend Over Begineer has been deleted [5]. As far as I can tell it was not used anywhere else when it was deleted, but clearly fails I5 (unused unfree images) because it had not been tagged for more than 7 days. F Mita 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, there's hardly a point in restoring as the image would still not meet WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Using the cover of the video in an article on the video's subject isn't proper fair use. --Core desat 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as the article was kept on AFD, the image should be restored, since it would no longer fail WP:NFCC. --Core desat 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cordesat, should never have been in the pegging article in the first place for copyright reasons. Chick Bowen 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion per above. No reason to undelete an image just so we can delete it again when a waiting period expires. Eluchil404 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Since the article has been kept this is probably a valid fair-use image. Eluchil404 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the DRV for the article closed as overturn speedy and list at AFD. I'd recommend suspending this discussion until the outcome of the AFD is clear. GRBerry 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but there is the argument that restoring this image (if it should be restored) would assist in the review of the article at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care; it's clear that Bend over Boyfriend is going to be kept at AfD by this point, so there's a place for this image. --Haemo 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaZone.com – deletion endorsed. No prejudice against an rewritten article that definitely doesn't violate copyright, is not spam, and is sourced. Be careful with sourcing; given the partnerships, not all of the sources here or in the deleted article are independent. – GRBerry 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I corresponded with Wikipedia editors regarding this article and believed it had met standards but it was deleted following an "Articles for Deletion" discussion that did not appear to have reached a full Delete consensus. In trying to contact the administrator, I learn that the individual is no longer in that position, and according to a final essay, appears to have left with some level of unhappiness(quoting "but seriously I'm being treated like shit here now, so it's time to be to leave.") Perhaps the article -- related to an existing article on its parent company -- Naspers -- did meet the criteria for Deletion, but I am concerned that the administrator who deleted it was angry at Wikipedia and not acting with a clear mind. Thank you for your consideration. JohnRobertCrowley 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus since, well, there wasn't a consensus. Sources like this, this, and this are perfectly reasonable. The article sounded slightly promotional, but nothing that couldn't be fixed in two minutes while retaining the appropriate factual information. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clearly no consensus for delete, and the closing admin gave no rationale. We dont delete for spam if the subject is notable, but rewrite. DGG (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, allow recreation if sourced better. The sources do not confirm the details of the article; they are only about the marathon coverage, not the company itself. Chick Bowen 03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse, no consensus - that last sentence of the nomination though is a bit iffy, what led you to that conclusion? DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just read the leaving essay... ouch. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the closer interpreted the debate correctly. There is nothing in the AfD to support the nominations assumptions about the closer's motivations and the leaving essay posted 14 days after the close of the MediaZone.com AfD doesn't offere any support for the speculation. Allow recreation if sourced better. -- Jreferee T/C 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete arguments were correct - Jaranda could have provided a more ample rationale, but he was right to delete it. Eusebeus 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote count, closer got it right. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Arguments that the article was too promotional are not refuted by demonstrating notability. Eluchil404 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels – Speedy close, bad faith nomination – Core desat 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason to delete this, after all, WP:DENY is just an essay. Willy may be scum, but is there any reason to delete this?? Sempspriggs 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. and speedy close. Bad faith nomination, I can't take any editor seriously whose only other edit to Wikipedia is calling other editors "FUCKING PSYCHOS". Crazysuit 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Republic of Korea armed forces – Deprecated, and deleted. Daniel 06:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The TFD says deleted, but the page is still live. Given that the template was removed and readded on at least one of the pages it's being used on, I think the discussion needs to be reopened. Sigma 7 12:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, deprecate, and delete. Should've been tagged with {{db-xfd}} within noinclude tags. --Core desat 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprecated the template, replacing it with {{South Korean armed forces sidebar}}; something is broken with its layout though, as it doesn't get along well with the top infoboxes, so it ended up lower in the articles than it should. Not that I prefer either version, but having two is clearly undesirable. Thus, endorse the TfD as "housekeeping". Duja► 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Briefsline – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article shouldn't have been deleted, as it clearly met Wikipedia:Notability, and not just because of its links with FHM. It is notable enough and the consensus should have been to keep but wasn't. Also the debate didn't run for the full length of time which was procedurally wrong. Best to relist it. Quercussilkster 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, none of the information in the article was verified. The need for verifiability overrides any notability the subject of an article might have. Closing the AFD two days early was well within admin discretion, per WP:SNOW. If you can write an article that verifiably demonstrates the notability of the subject, you can be bold and do so. But if this is just another case of Briefsism, then don't bother. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not apparently notable,and no references to show otherwise. Reasonable close. DGG (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closer interpreted the debate correctly. A recent search turned up nothing. Likely WP:HOAX. -- Jreferee T/C 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

London Underground trivia – Closed - DRV is for reviewing XfD closes. It is not a place to request that page histories be merged. Calliopejen1 efforts were a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by follow the instructions at WP:SPLICE to have an administrator merge the page histories. – Jreferee T/C 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prior to the last deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination), which finally resulted in the article's removal, the encyclopedic content of this article was moved around to other articles, as stated in the AFD's nomination statement. (The harvesting of the encyclopedic content is the main reason this AFD ended differently from the previous three.) Due to the GFDL, we should keep the history online in order to satisfy the licence, which requires attribution if you use someone's work, even though the content is free. Suggest that we redirect this page to one of the three articles the content was merged to, or we could history merge it with London Underground statistics, but the history needs to be restored in some way or another. Have discussed this with the closer, but nothing else has happened since the last post [6]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and redirect to London Underground (GFDL reasons only). Will ^(talk) 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closer interperted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee T/C 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a close which violates the GFDL be a correct interpretation? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought at first that none of the text from this article survived in the merge targets (except for the negligible line "Waterloo station has the most escalators - 25." in the statistics page); closer inspection reveals that Calliopejen1 removed them as she merged them into History of the London Underground, London Underground in popular culture, and London Underground. I agree with Sjakkalle that a history merge with London Underground statistics is appropriate (especially considering that the initial edit summary cited the deleted article as its source), but this title should remain a redirect there—or wherever the history ends up—so that attribution may be found through the target articles' edit summaries. —Cryptic 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wordly Wise – Deletion overturned. Although it looks promotional, the tone does not seem to rise to the level of G11. No prejudice against listing at AfD. For those interested in re-writing, Google Scholar has some pretty reasonable academic sources on this. – IronGargoyle 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason for deletion. Duarmtime 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being an admin, I can't see the original article (and whether it actually fit G11), but Wordly Wise is definitely a notable product; its used in quite a number of school systems as a major curriculum point and passes all the obvious tests (Google, etc). —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the usual template at the top. The cached version is not significantly different than the final version. GRBerry 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, article was indeed quite spammy. --Core desat 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Rather disappointing to see WP:CSD#G11 used to delete articles that have nothing promotional about them. Out of process. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Contrary to above opinion...article wasn't spammy, it was just ugly. Smashville 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not a reasonable speedy for G11.DGG (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's very little encyclopedic information in this article; there's mostly original research about the contents. Wouldn't it make more sense to rewrite it from scratch, if it is indeed as notable as Dark Shikari says? Chick Bowen 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse and rewrite per Daniel.. Someone really needs to go have a look at G11 and start a reform on that baby, because it's being misused on a large scale - I see it in AfDs and DRVs all the time... DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD - Obvious advertisement, but not so blatant as to fall under CSD G11. The topic probably does not meet WP:N. The only two references I found were Wordly Wise and Wordly Wise 3000 and Wordly wise update Best to let AfD decide. -- Jreferee T/C 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per DeusExMachina and Jreferee. "Obvious advertisement"s that need a "rewrite" to become encyclopedic are exactly the "articles" G11 was introduced to deal with. If someone wants to create an actual article here from independent sources, they're welcome to do so. We should not keep this commercial abuse of our free encyclopedia hanging around untouched, almost certainly for months or years, in the meantime. —Cryptic 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Cryptic & as above. Eusebeus 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a valid G11 deletion. Unlike most of the other speedy criteria G11 targets articles that would be acceptable if rewritten but need to be removed because of the damage to wikipedia that allowing it to be used for advertising does. Eluchil404 19:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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