Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 19

< January 18	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 20 >

19 January 2009[edit]

Google Background Changer – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 08:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have created a page for a Firefox extension called Google Background Changer. The page was deleted twice for "advertising'. Raised the issue to the editor RHaworth(Talk | contribs) but received a reply:

"Google Background Changer - More than one of us felt that the Google Background Changer article was an advert for a non-notable (and pretty useless) piece of software. You can of course raise the matter at deletion review but do not expect much joy."

Who decides that something is "pretty useless"? - 392 people have installed it in 2 weeks, so someone else thinks it's useful. Why does it have to be useful to be listed in wikipedia. Isn't it meant to be an unbiased body of knowledge? We have a firefox extension which people search for and use.

[1] - who determined that this was useful? an edit button that does the same thing as the edit button on the browser screen. It seems like a complete waste of time. Less than 6 people per week download it (according to the Firefox AMO), but it still has a place on wikipedia (Universal edit button)

Also, this definitely sounds like advertising: " As this kind of public editing becomes more commonplace, the button may become regarded as a badge of honor." - it's completele speculation.

It would be like us saying "Our extension is going to take the world by storm, everyone is going to be using it" - although, in our submission, we tried to keep everything black and white and refrained from any use of hyperbole.

Who decided that these where more useful then being able to change your background for your Google search page? I don't think it should be up to you to decide if something is useful or not. Even if it wasn't useful, it still exists, and as such, deserves a place in a body of knowledge which is meant to catalogue the worlds information.

It's no more or less an advertisement than any of the other listings here: List of Firefox Extensions

Looking forward to your reply.

Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#A7, web content making no assertion of notability. Sandstein 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a G11, but certainly deletable as web content not asserting notability. Endorse per Sandstein. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion. Blatant advertising for a pretty useless product. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, and served no purpose other than advertisement. I'm not saying that there aren't other articles listed on List of Firefox extensions that are equally bad, but this article simply does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. --Stormie (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so now it has to not only be notable, it has to be "assertingly notable". what a joke? will you remove all the other pages which are "equally bad". If not, why not?

how is it that 2 people can decide whether an extension is notable, assertingly notable or otherwise notable.

What would it take to make our extension notable? 5,000 downloads a week? Is there a bench mark?

I feel that we have been unfairly considered and that other less notable extensions have an unfair advantage.

There should be a level playing field. [2]

Endorse deletion - notability is established by independent reliable third party sources, not by numbers of downloads. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable, verifiable sources say about a subject, not a compendium of all the knowledge in the universe. If someone thinks there are equally bad articles, then by all means treat them the same way and take them to AfD. dougweller (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 3rd party sources? Who can this people be? Not from someone I/we know? And how can one become an independent reliable 3rd party sources?

Years of reliable reporting. Check out WP:RS for a better explanation, but we're talking reliable newspapers, magazines & television reviews of the product. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sexting – Everything's fixed. – Stifle (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

redirect to Sexting (slang), I am not sure why it is deleted when a full article exists Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexting (slang) is a sourced (and admissible) rewrite of Sexting, which was correctly deleted as unsourced schoolboy babble in its previous versions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexting. This neologism seems to be notable now. Unprotect and move Sexting (slang) to this title. Sandstein 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Sexting (slang) to Sexting, then deleted the former title as an implausible redirect, as it seems to be the obvious course of action. That should take care of all the issues. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Phone Call to Putin – Article has been relisted at AFD by the closer of the AFD – Davewild (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was not allowed to run its course, and was speedily kept, and I believe this may have been due to Inclusionist comment..(as far as I know, User:DonaldDuck is Russian, and his reason for taking it to AfD is absolutely valid. I took it to AfD again, but this was speedily kept, due to it should have come here. Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism used to describe electric shocks. It appears some editors in the 2nd nomination have misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse retention Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - as much as I am dismayed by the haste to close AFDs these days, we also can't be bureaucratic and rehash debates that came to the right conclusion. Wily D 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reopening the AfD. The first (well 2nd) one was a non-admin closure after 25 hours and 4 keep votes. Procedurally, a 3rd AfD should not have been opened on the basis of an alleged inappropriate closure. They should have come here first, and hopefully we would have decided "yeah, 4 votes and a closure in just over one day isn't really enough time when multiple editors have shown concern over the early, non-admin closure". -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen AfD per Andrew c. This should have gone to DRV first, but since we're here now... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse retention. This is what, fourth attempt to get the hapless article deleted? You can't keep on starting new AFDs and DRVs until you get your wish against consensus. Seeing the comments in the AFD discussion and the previous discussions, WP:SNOW closure is perfectly appropriate. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relistthis should not have been closed when it was. There is no way of knowing from the first day what sort of objections will be raised after that. We must stop this nonsense--these are discussions, and we need time to discuss. There is no reason to think the people who appear immediately will be representative--especially when there are only four of them. The fact that there was a previous no-consensus close from an earlier afd should have warned the closer that this was not as obvious as it may have looked. DGG (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The first one wasn't quite clear in its consensus. The second one seemed a pretty valid application of The snowball clause to me. Given how recent the second one was, I see no reason to relist. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The close of AfD3 made sense since the discussion should have been moved here, but the close of AfD2 was simply too soon. This is a disturbing trend--a brand-new, never-discussed quasi-policy that problems with an article must emerge in the first 24 hours of an AfD in order to be considered. Folks, we really don't want to go there. Chick Bowen 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fie on process, a quick look at the content persuades me that another AfD is futile. Time to put down the stick. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AfD 2 to get this over with and get a result that sticks. Non-admins should almost never snow-close AfDs about contentious subjects. Sandstein 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AfD 2 - this was definitely not a snow close situation and should very much not have been closed by a non-admin, especially only after 24 hours. Run it until it's finished, and we'll have a firm consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did Gwen Gale suggest coming to DRV? If everything the nominator says is valid, the article should be refactored and moved to Alexey Mikheyev. No deletion, AFD, or DRV is needed here. As Sandstein suggested in the first AFD, just go to Talk:Phone Call to Putin and propose a page move there. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - yes this arrticle should be relisted and if possibly sepddily deleted. its only notability is as a neologism and thare are a lot of debates that were ignored on the other AFD pages. This article is a noelogism concoted by the New York Times tabloid and not referenced direclty in other peer-reviewed scientific jouranls and as such it should stand AFD to give its supporters enough time to either get better sources and when they cant this article can be deleted as per the proper chanels instead of the weird non-admin snow close that was quite frnakly disrup;tive and against the principles of WP:CONCENSUS * wp:wp:rs Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase does not appear in the New York Times, and the New York Times isn't published in the tabloid format, but in a broadsheet format. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: Closed much too soon. --Carnildo (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: relisting will not achieve anything, other than waste time, as it is apparent that no consensus for deletion can be achieved at this point. Martintg (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: 25h is to short for a contentious article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AFD 2 had an improper non-admin closure after 1 day of discussion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result yes it was quick, but is anyone asserting that the community will delete it or are we just going through procedural motions here? It also seems that the nomination is more focused on the name as a neologism than on the technique which seems documented. Going to AfD to try to change the name in not where one goes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Good-faith objections were made against the article, and a good-faith objection has been raised against the early closure. Discussions need to be open long enough for everyone to get a chance to participate. It is unlikely that the discussion would end with a deletion, but a well-placed argument can sometimes turn the tide and letting people voice the opinion lends an air of fairness. WP:STEAM is not policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There is quite a lot of debate on this, so let's do it the proper way. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article has survived three AfD. Time to concentrate on the article not the process. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the AFDs were early-closed, though. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2nd AfD, the one which was closed early, has been relisted by the editor who closed it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since it has been relisted, can some passing admin who has not participated now close this as moot? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Einar Riis – This is an IAR close as I have actively participated in the discussion but we have reached a gentleman's agreement to userfy this to give the nom a chance to source this. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

AFD deleted the article as a probable hoax with no Google hits, but I can assure you that it is not a hoax, and that a look with the Norwegian language Google (google.no) will reveal plenty of relevant hits. The sources here are Norwegian, but there is definitely enough to establish both verifiability and notability. If you look at this commentary by Kåre Valebrokk, former leader of the Norwegian TV 2 and an acquaintance of the person, you will see that Max Manus himself covered him, in fact the front cover of his memoars had a picture of him with Riis during a sabotage operation. For a general source about Riis, here is an obituary about him. The article which was deleted needs some work done on it, but the AFDs conclusion, deleting the article as a hoax, needs to be overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The no article has no sources, I'm not sure whether no is the bokmal or the nymal wikipedia and the article is under Einar Riis Johansen rather then Einar Riis. Aftenposten is clearly a reliable source but the article cited appears to have been a reminiceance rather then a news story. Do we count such as notable. The Rettsnorge source is less clear given that I couldn't work out what the status of this site is. Is it the internet offshoot of a Norwegian print publication or a solely web-based presence. If the latter there needs to be cæear editorial oversight and peer reviewing before we would necessarily accept this as meeting RS. Googling Einar Riis Johansen didn't produce anything substantively more than what Sjakkalle has cited and I also note the no article is less then a month old. I would understand there being a smaller web-presence for Norwegian sources on the internet then english ones but I would have expected something more if this individual were truelly notable. What we are left with is a an article on no, a personal rememberance from Aftenposten and an obituary from a web-source of unclear provenance. I can't in fairness say that i would accept this as being enough to establish notability and justify overturning the AFD but I'm willing to be persuaded with more details of the sources and/or more sources being proffered. Also, after writing this, I did a google on the author of the obituary and there is no google history of them as a journalist. This clearly is a personal obituary from an author with an axe to grind if this is anything to go by and I can't see that the source can possibly meet our standards to establish notability and verifiability for this individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, no is Bokmål and nn is nynorsk. Nn has no article on either Einar Riis or Einar Riis Johansen. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am making a run-through of the various sources I am able to find with Google. Some of the are clearly partisan, others are more neutral. Most of them relate to what is probably one of the most bizarre civil cases to run through the Norwegian judiciary system. For a quick recap: That case involves both the late Einar Riis and his wife, Amelia Riis surrounding inheritance, part of which is a large bulk-ship called the Sognefjord. After reviewing rettsnorge as a source, I am starting to sour a bit regarding its neutrality (though not its intentions), an English translation surrounding the bulk carrier is here, and written in a fairly partisan manner. The Riis case received more coverage than what I placed in the original DRV, this is a portrait interview of the couple for Dagbladet. The Valebrokk remembrance was in fact cited in the Norwegian parliament, in a proposal from Carl I. Hagen to withdraw an appeal from the government after it had lost the case against Riis.[3] That verdict in that case awarded the Riis couple 55 million Norwegian kroners (about 8 million USD), the largest compensation ever awarded by a court in Norway. A second case surrounding Einar Riis' estate after his death, and a conflict between Amelia Riis and their former attorney has also garnered media interest.[4][5]. There is a lot of material to sort through here, and much of the coverage is biased, and there is an unfortunate relative paucity of internet coverage which does not concern the Riis-case even though it appears to be every bit as significant. I am at some level confused with what I am finding, but I am sure there is enough material to support an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dagenbladet is of course a RS and this is a proper in-depth article that discusses the couple (although I find Norwegian much harder to skim for the sense then Danish for some reason). I'm edging towards the view that Riss is notable for his involvement in the case as much as anything and the subsequent fall out from it and that what we need is a neutral well sourced article about the legal case that we can merge and redirect the Riis content into. How would you feel about that as a solution? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the main reason is that I have no real objection to how the closing admin handled this case. If I had come across this debate as an AFD closer, I would have deleted the article. The AFD shows unanimity, and it is hard to fault the closer for doing what he did. That does not mean we got the correct outcome, and the suggestion that the article was a hoax is so wrong that that in itself needs fixing. The DRV here is placed because there is information about the subject which did not come to light during the AFD, and would probably have affected the outcome. At the very least, the suggestions that the article is a "hoax" (which implies bad faith and vandalism on the part of the article creator) need to be taken care of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Well, from what Spartaz suggests above, he doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion, so keep deleted but annotate the AFD to show that it isn't a hoax. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkale is a user in very good standing, any reason we should not userfy this pending more sources? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections from me, I think we are only a hairs-breath from undeleting this and merge/redirecting to an article about the legal case. I have already left Sjakkale a note on their talk asking them to revisit this discussion as I think we can just go ahead and do that if they agree to the compromise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfying this to my userspace would be fine, and I'll do my best at sourcing it. Parts of the article will probably need to be cut. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.