Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 26

26 October 2008

The Linkery – restored as contested prod, submitted to AfD – Smashvilletalk 21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Linkery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The assertion of notability in this case is not based on the restaurant's no-tipping policy. Rather, the restaurant has received fairly substantial coverage in print media, most significantly in a New York Times magazine feature article. I believe this fact more than satisfies the inclusion criteria for standalone articles, according to WP:N. As for the {{prod}}, there were two things wrong with it. First, it should been an {{notability}}. According to WP:N, {{prod}} should be used when appropriate sources cannot be found to demonstrate the notability of its subject. This article was appropriately sourced to the New York Times magazine. Second, User:Dr.frog failed to place an alert on my talk page, so I was unable to respond to the {{prod}} in a timely manner. Beefyt (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg – Listed at IfD. – Protonk (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|}}{{subst:[[Template:|article||article]]}}) Image was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and I believe it needs a full discussion within an actual ifd to decide if it in actuality should be deleted.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Non-free media rationale for Public image and reception of Sarah Palin Article Public image and reception of Sarah Palin Purpose of use To visually identify the biography Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down in the article dealing with the public image of the subject of the biography, within an infobox within a section of the article which deals specifically with published research on the subject, for the purpose of illustrating the most prominent example of such works, and to provide a visual image of the work for which critical commentary has been provided in the article, specifically from The Politico newspaper. Including the image increases readers' understanding of Palin's public image, through this key biography. The cover is not simply decorative, but illustrates Palin's persona as everywoman reformer. Replaceable? The image is a book cover, therefore no free alternative is likely to be available now or in the near future. I challenged via a "hangon" tag the proposed speedy deletion of the image of the book cover; but instead of my challenge facilitating there being listed a discussion, the image was simply deleted, which action I wish to appeal as a process violation, due both its lack of transparency and its lack of providing an appropriate venue of discussion.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse my deletion. The image was listed as a replaceable fair use image for greater than 2 days. After that point, the instructions in the category suggest that it can be deleted as an I7. IMO, the cover image is fair use only in an article about the book. We don't have one, we just have a subsection of the palin article. We don't need an image of the book to illustrate that such a book exists and covers Mrs. Palin. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I'd tagged the image as not replaceable upon its being uploaded, many weeks ago. Furthermore, the applicable WP policy says, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." It does not say that an entire article must be written on the item and a quick survey of Wikipedia's established practice would reveal a high percentage of cover images in the section of an article, while not illustrating an article in its entirety.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Also, when you say the cover was the subject of critical commentary and cite this article, you are not correct. The commentary there refers to the book, not the cover. When Lott says the portrait is flattering, he is speaking figuratively about the book, not literally about the cover. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) If you're going to start deleting instances of cover art where the commentary is not about the cover itself but about the work, you're going to be an extremely busy person. If this is the best you can come up with, I move that this very discussion be speedily closed and an appropriate ifd be opened, per established procedures.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse. The admin here is right...a book cover is not fair use unless the article is about the book...and it's not. A {{hangon}} tag doesn't mean that the deletion is on hold until there is a discussion, it simply alerts the admin that the author opposes it, and you're supposed to give your reasons on the talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC) There are all sorts of instances of cover art throughout Wikipedia used in the same manner as this one and it would be an awful precedence to now allow for their summary deletion without discussion, therefore I encourage all those who comment here to address not a criteria for deletion per se but specifically of speedy deletion.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Listed at IfD. I figured this will turn into that discussion anyway, so might as well have it there. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Weedpunk – Endorsed as a valid G3 and G4. – lifebaka++ 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Weedpunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Article was speedy deleted as a hoax. According to the Speedy Deletion Criteria, being a hoax is a "non-criteria", and it states If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. The previous AfD (over 8 months ago) was not conclusive on whether it was a hoax and was deleted on the basis of needing more sources. Those sources have been found and the article was substantially improved, and it should not have been speedy deleted, but rather if the editor in question found it questionable it should have been brought to AfD. Banime (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse deletion, see [1] Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Comment That doesn't say anything concrete about anything. And regardless, bring up what you want against the content of the article in the AfD, this is for debating the process used to delete it (a speedy which was against policy). --Banime (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse speedy deletion as re-creation of content deleted pursuant to an AfD discussion. If reliable sources supporting the existence of a subgenre called weedpunk have been located, please identify those sources here at deletion review so they can be evaluated. If such sources are confirmed during this deletion review, I may change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC) The article was recreated, improved, and contained all of the sources that I had found over the past 8 months before it was wrongfully speedied. Perhaps if this was in an AfD you could view them yourself and determine. Am I going to have to go on memory to repeat all the sources or is there a way to put it up? There's over 5000 google hits, I'll go through and be back with the online sources that I've found, and I have the two issues of weedpunk published in a magazine as well. Give me a few minutes. --Banime (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, I could only find one of the magazines, it was in the Ask Ed: Questions and Answers with the Consigliere of Cannabis Culture article by Ed Rosenthal in the March/April 2007 issue of Cannabis Culture Magazine. From the search I found some coverage in the following places real quick: [2] [3] [4]. I'm sure there's more and I'll be looking for more, I just thought this sort of conversation should be occuring in AfD. --Banime (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Speedy Endorse. this thread over at Something Awful clearly shows this article was simply to play a prank on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are speedy deletion criteria if they're blatant and obvious hoaxes, and this one is. And even if it's not a WP:G3, it's a WP:G4 for recreated material. There's no reason we should give this joke another 5 days. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Again, it is covered by multiple sources as stated above. At the very least it deserves a full review. It is not a hoax, but if you believe it to be one then so be it. All I know is all of the information in that article was covered by the sources, some of which I already showed here in this deletion review. If it was a hoax there would be no sources for it, simple as that. Do we just ignore them and pretend it doesn't exist? You can if you'd like I suppose, but wikipedia shouldn't. --Banime (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC) The thread also talks about making up fake sources for the article. But it doesn't matter anyways, none of the sources you listed are reliable sources. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I hate to be contesting everything posted here as that gets annoying, but I will again anyway since no one else is. I believe the sources are reliable, and that seems like a perfect thing to discuss at an AfD. I am simply asking for a review of the process which wrongfully speedy deleted a hoax, which is a non-criteria for speedy deletion. I probably don't need to quote policy with most of you but I will anyway to show you exactly what I mean: "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." Emphasis is mine. The new sources brought to light should at the very least lend this a remote chance of plausibility in your minds. If you still think the article should be deleted, then fine, we can discuss that at the AfD. Again, "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process" You can rag on the content all you'd like, in an AfD. You can bring up posts from some outside website to debate the sources or whatever all you want, in an AfD. However, the way this was deleted was wrong. Hopefully this will be the last reply I hate making long walls of text, sorry!--Banime (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Overturn and take to Afd. Clearly a totally invalid speedy as hoax, and improved enough not to be a G4 re-creation. Shjould be an interesting Afd, when it gets there, but here is not the place to discuss the merits. I'm amazed that two experienced admins could have so dealt with it. I do not regard the thread mentioned above a proof for anything at all one way or another, and if it takes proof like that it needs a full discussion. That thread also mentions some real articles, and even *says* the the vandalism it wants to promote should not be specified on the thread. DGG (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse as vandalism (deliberate hoax), a valid speedy criterion. As with any deleted material a review based on a properly sourced user space draft is much more likely to succeed than, for example, a pile-on from the Something Awful forums. There should be no lack of admins happy to undelete to Banime's user space for rework on request. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Blue Senturion – Deletion and subsequent redirection endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blue Senturion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Through my watchlist, I saw that an IP address had changed a template, and when I saw the change, I found that this page was deleted (I've replaced it with a redirect for now). Firstly, this AFD had very little commenting on it, only four. Secondly, this article, just like all articles, have room for improvement, and it is very likely that these sources ([5] [6] [7] [8] could be used to show that the character has real world notability. Where the article redirects currently to a list of "minor characters" is a misrepresentation of the character. From what I can remember and tell from the sites I listed before, the character was indeed a major character, having appeared in about half of the series/season (Power Rangers: Turbo) he premiered in, and there were several toys of him made for sale in the Western market. I would think that the character having and IMDb page is proof enough that there probably is plenty of independent, third party sourcing, concerning this fictional character.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse. It was made into a redirect. The AfD seems appropriate. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I made it into a redirect after I saw it was deleted. I believe that it can be an article in its own right.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC) On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Because I have not dealt with DRV in a long time and I don't know the nitpicky rules involved. I just thought it was where you bring a deletion that went through the various deletion processes (AFD, MFD, etc.) you disagree with to be reviewed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Endorse deletion as there is nothing to suggest that the AFD was closed improperly or the deletion process wasn't followed. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse as well. Seems to be a minor character of a children's television show. I can understand pages on the major characters of the show, but minor (and possibly even some supporting character) pages seem a bit over the top. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Comment This particular AfD did not really attract the proper amount attention--it's requiring superhuman abilities to really present adequate defenses to the cooky-cutter nominations, & we have insufficient superhumans at Wikipedia at the moment to respond in detail to them all; but I think the existing situation, with a paragraph in the main article and a redirect to it, is a satisfactory solution. I'd leave well enough alone. DGG (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Comment - The AfD was properly carried out. Whether the character is major or minor, no Wikipedia reliable source seems to be writing about the character. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Even the blurb at Blue_Senturion#Blue_Senturion is unsourced and reads like the Wikipedia editor(s) watched the show and drew on their personal knowledge to write the Wikipedia text. -- Suntag ☼ 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse Process followed, close within discretion, deletion valid. MBisanz talk 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

E-Sports Entertainment Association – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Sports Entertainment Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Main reason for deletion was lack of noteworthiness yet a simple search on the subject would reveal mention in numerous publications, particularly an article in the NY Times. Community size was also mentioned but was not even remotely close to being accurate. Also, similar sites in the exact same space are also covered. I brought this up with the admin who processed the deletion, PeterSymonds, who no longer happens to be an admin and recommended I come here. Thunberg (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse. DRV is not AFD x2. Write a new version in your User space. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) I'd observe that the AFD was terminated early with a speedy delete decision, so the question here is whether or not the article was blatant advertising. There's nothing especially wrong in general with speedying an article while it's at AFD, but since the article had existed for over a year and a half, I would say overturn and revert to a version that's not an advert, with the option to relist at AFD if desired. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Overturn -- per Stifle's arguments. It would have been so much better to let this proceed to the end. It usually is. It does not meet the requirements for G11, to be exclusively advertising--if it is notable, there's the germ of an article in there to rescue after the advertising part about the prizes is removed. There never was a proper AfD1; there needs to be DGG (talk) Endorse - I can't see the deleted article, so I'll go by what I can review. The four participants and the deleting admin agreeded that the article met advertisment CSD, so it is hard not to see that as a consensus. However, feel free to repost the article minus the blatant advertising. -- Suntag ☼ 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Endorse - but allow recreation of sourced article without predejuice, provided it is not a blatant recreation of the previous advertisement article. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.