Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 October 8
2009 October 10 >

9 October 2009[edit]

  • Doctor Who campfire trailer – Close Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 03:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Expanded per request to explain why I closed this as endorse - simple answer being that more contributors supported endorsing then then those who wanted to overturn and its nugatory anyway since merge AFDs can be reversed by local consensus on the article talk page so those overturners who wanted to overturn to keep to discuss on the talk page can go and do this anyway without needing any permissions or verdicts from DRV to do this. Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Doctor Who campfire trailer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

As the closing admin for this AFD, I cordially request review of my close. I felt that the arguments for merging the article into Doctor Who (series 4) outweighed the arguments for keeping the article as-is. I note that being a GA does not automatically disqualify an article from any significant editorial actions made, as well as merging/splitting can always be made independent of the articles' notability status. MuZemike 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, as I don't think there was consensus enough for a merge. Also, even though I'm violating ATA for this, it's silly how a GA gets merged by an AFD discussion yet unsourced NOT-violating unnotable articles are kept daily. Hell, I think this is one of the first GAs-at-the-time-of-removal to be merged/deleted. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • question- I'm really missing the point of the drv. You closed it as merge but you think your close was incorrect? I'm not understanding why we're here.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to get some outside views on whether there are a consensus for such a merge at the AFD. It would have either been him or I that would have requested review, anyways. MuZemike 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is, I'm not infallible. I open myself to the possibility that I may have erred in my judgment of consensus. MuZemike 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Based on the afd (which I should have participated in *facepalm*), i unfortunately have to endorse the close, since I think thats what the consensus was. I don't think its the *right* decision, because I think it was good enough for a stand-alone article, but I do think the consensus was read correctly. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close. See also WP:ND3 - this is better dealt with by a local discussion than DRV. Tim Song (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse looks like the consensus was to merge. ThemFromSpace 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By vote counting, it was. But by arguments, it was not. "It's a trailer" is not a valid reason for deletion. "It's not notable" was also refuted, at length, in the AfD. A million people can use terrible arguments at AfD to keep an article but it's the one man with the perfect argument who can see it deleted. Or, in the case of this article, vice-versa. Sceptre (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Most of the Keep !votes seem to depend on the trailer being referenced at Outpost Gallifrey, which, whilst being a well-regarded website, is still a Doctor Who fansite and therefore not independent from the subject. Black Kite 11:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous AfDs have kept articles that were purely sourced on OG. While OG is a fansite, yes, it's one of the exceptional ones that we have used time and time again to source articles without complaint. And really, the merging of this article sets a terrible precedent worse than the one suggested in the AfD: we can merge Good Articles about trailers, but you better not touch my precious article about a character who was in one frame of a comic book based on a movie filled with useless facts like his favourite colour! Sceptre (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and even if you remove from the equation, you still have notability: the series four advertising campaign was aired theatrically too, which did get coverage (see the Brand Republic source). Hence, notable even if OG isn't considered. Sceptre (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If anything there was no clear consensus at the time. Jeni (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge is the compromise solution. Not all cases of divided opinion have a viable compromise, but this one does. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing the discussion may have been premature as there were still arguments emerging. I started by imagining policies would all support merging, then read through everything, especially Wikipedia:Fancruft and began to think the subject might be independently notable after all in comparison to many topics and ended with a "weak merge" given than not much damage would be done. It would be surprising if Brand Republic were the only publication that picked up the BBC's PR [1] along with web-only publications [2][3]. So the issue wasn't really anything to do with Outpost Gallifrey no longer being a readily-accessible source. It's more that Wikipedia should discuss a policy of no separate articles for trailers of anything, ever. --Cedderstk 20:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but such a policy would run into problems. Some people could argue that noitulovE is a "trailer" for Guinness. I Love the World, another notable advertising campaign, can be construed as a trailer too. What about Love in the Afternoon? And so on. We should just keep with the rather objective notability guideline, i.e. coverage in a secondary source, than to try to make stricter guidelines for article existence based on subjectiveness. Sceptre (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blarg I dislike merge closes from AfD as it creates this odd state where it's not clear how and when it can be unmerged. Honestly I'm not sure that this should be a stand alone article and I personally would lean toward merging the article somewhere (but season 4 is not a good target as it will either require massive trimming of solid material or mess that article's balance up badly). Thankfully I don't need to worry about all that as I don't see a consensus to merge in that discussion. So Overturn to keep. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse from a procedural standpoint. At AfD, there are usually two distinct possible outcomes—"keep", which encompasses "redirect", "merge", and other editorial stuff, and "delete". While the closing admin may choose to specify whether or not there was consensus to merge, redirect, etc., such decisions default to "keep", as they are typically outside the scope of the AfD discussion; the editing community are then left to work out the details. So while I agree that there was no strong consensus for merging, it doesn't seem worth voting to overturn a decision when the only difference would be that of the wording of the closing statement. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this gets to my comment above. In practice I believe that when an AfD is closed as merge it is treated as being something local consensus (on a talk page) can't generally overturn. If in fact we intend that merge results at AfD are keeps where the admin is simply providing his opinion about the outcome, I'd endorse this close as all !votes other than that nom (and maybe even there) were keeps or merges. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't a clear consensus on how to treat variants of keep. Regarding Hobit's comment, non-delete closures can be overturned by a stronger consensus, which is often difficult to muster on the article's Talk page. I'm open to general discussion at WT:AfD and mergers or WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (Keep, strong case for merge, continue on talk page). Consensus for "merge" vs "keep" was not clear enough to issue a mandate from AfD, which is not supposed to be a forum for merge debates. Could have been closed early as SNOW keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge, substantial discussion of merging (rather than merely keep versus delete) and within admin discretion. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disputing the merge close as I feel there is no consensus to merge, by weight of arguments. Again, as I've just said above: we listen to the one man with the perfect argument, not the many with the poor ones. Or, at least, in theory. Sceptre (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this is the correct venue to review the close (not a rubber-stamp endorse), and I understand your points, but I don't see a perfect or clearly superior argument for keep. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there is no ban against a merge close in AfD, nor is the article being a Good Article any waiver of immunity from potential merging or deletion. Good Articles are not passed by a community consensus, but the view of a single editor who may or may not always properly apply the Good Article criteria, and who may or may not look at notability as well (which is not a GA criteria). It is not the first GA to later be merged to another article, nor will it be the last. Looking at the article on its own merits, not its being GA or anything else, merge is an appropriate option. Looking at the arguments, it is also the clear that consensus based on strength and validity of arguments is to merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I'm arguing that the assessment as a GA should be regarded as prima facie evidence of notability, as the GA criteria are worded in such a way to effectively preclude any articles that do not assert notability from becoming GAs in the first place, in spirit if not by letter. That, and the editor who assessed the article has a good idea of what the GA criteria are, seeing as he has written ninety-eight of them. The correct venue for disputing the GA status of an article is WP:GAR, not WP:AFD. Sceptre (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While this content could quite reasonably be merged, a GA or FA should go through the appropriate delisting process before AfD is even considered. In the case of a GA, any editor can remove GA status for cause, which was not done in this case. Kudos to the AfD closer for bringing this here--while I disagree with the close, I endorse the civility and transparency with which this discussion is being conducted. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea If we ARE going to allow GAs and FAs to be nominated for direction without having their status stripped, I'm inclined to create a new WP:DELSORT list for such nominations. Any opposed? Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • GA is close to meaningless as a marker of article quality. It means it's been nicely wikified and some people like it, but nothing beyond that. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why the process to remove GA status is also lightweight. I have no problem with the same editor doing both a unilateral GAR and an AfD nom, but nominating our "better" or "best" articles for deletion is a bad idea. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closer seems to me to have showed sound judgment and to have weighed the debate correctly. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge per nomination. When it comes to determining notability of TV episodes, characters, and, dare I say it, trailers, I want to see significant coverage outside of fannish materials or other perfunctory sources. A fannish source that discusses every episode of a show doesn't make an episode notable by merely discussing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I am aware there is no difference formally between a merge closure and a keep closure. Merging is a part of normal editing and does not need AfD. In addition how to carry out a merge needs to be subject to editorial discussion, for which AfD is not the best venue. Taemyr (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as being the correct determination of consensus from the discussion. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how that article acheived GA in the first place; as Black Kite mentioned, sources come primarily from one location, which is iffy in the first place, plus the fact that it's a glorified fansite. GlassCobra 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A glorified fansite that has been upheld to be a reliable source again and again. That, and I'm saying that, actually, GA status implicitly confirms notability, so it is not a valid argument at AFD that it's not notable. At GAR then AFD, yes. But not AFD while it's still a GA. Sceptre (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I'm not seeing any consensus for merging and there's a clear demonstration of notability. Note that a merge can be undone anyways without a DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, start merge proposal on talk page. Merging is generally made as an argument at AfD against outright deletion, when there's little support for keeping the article, as a way of salvaging some portion before it's consigned to the void. In this case, no-one but the nominator believed that the information in the article should be outright deleted. As such, I'd say that the best thing to do is restore the article, and start talking about a merge on the article's talk page. I understand the closer's decision, though. I'd just say that the above is a better way to handle it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think GeeJo has this exactly right. Nicely said! Hobit (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lucia Newman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Clearly notable, highly prominent, award-winning [4] journalist deleted some time ago in flurry of low-participation, poorly informed AFDs targeting staff of Al-Jazeera. Award she won is described here as the oldest international award in the field of journalism and is awarded by Columbia University. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the original close (it was after all a completely unsourced BLP) but no reason not to improve and recreate the article. Black Kite 10:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn . I consider the prize proof of notability. The original deletion only make sense at the time if no searching was done and nobody looked beyond the article as it stood; the prize had been awarded already. Of course, it was there when the article was written also, and it was sloppy work not to include it at first . A new contributor can be excused for sloppiness, the 5 editors at AfD have less of an excuse. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, HW asked the orig. admin to restore; the admi asked for a source for the award, was given one, but did not respond further. HW notified him of the Review, also. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask the editor who started the AFD to comment at my talk page, since closing admins should not be judging sources, but he did not do so.
  • Closing admin If there are sources then the article can be recreated on its own and not be a G4, there is no reason to restore a BLP with unsourced content for history purposes. MBisanz talk 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. Even an unsourced BLP can be a good starting point for an article. I can't see it, so I've no idea if there is any text worth keeping. I'll leave that to you admin types. Perhaps userfy? Hobit (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original close reasonable. Allow recreation if a notable, well-sourced article can be written. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original close - there is no other way to close the AfD.Permit recreation per all of the above. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Just move Cunard's draft into mainspace. Tim Song (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Very clear AfD. Can't even complain about a lack of closing rationale. If all of the !votes were wrong, recreate in userspace, with sources. If the person is clearly notable, highly prominent, award-winning of an important award, then suitable sources must surely exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AFD and valid closure. Recreation is, of course, not prohibited. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Stifle said. The nominator has enough experience to know exactly how to work up a sourced article in userspace if he is reluctant to simply re-create, there is no need to restore the old poorly sourced article. If he wants the content userfied to help with that process then he could always ask for that, it would depend on whether there are problematic edits in there per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for improvement before moving to mainspace. The original closure was correct (I assume the text was an unsourced BLP, as others above have stated). However, if HW undertakes to source the material therein for a figure who is now clearly notable, I don't see why an admin couldn't userfy the article in his space. RayTalk 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Cunard. Overtaken by events. I suggest that Cunard go ahead and boldly move, and that we close out this discussion. RayTalk 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I prefer for a user other than myself to review the article and move it back to mainspace. I've asked the closing admin, MBisanz (talk · contribs), to take a look at it. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jadal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was approached by a new user wishing to create this page. I am creating this request on his request. He offered several sources on behalf of undeletion, some of which are in Arabic:


Thanks theres many other resources, even the English links I sent you before they are from books and magazines. here they are again:

Pulp Magazine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mohammad_alqaq/2100993766/sizes/l/ Book Best of Jordan: http://www.gvpedia.com/Jordan/Jadal-Top-Arabic-Rock-Band.aspx http://www.scribd.com/doc/15231419/Best-of-Jordan (page 142)

let me know if you need more links I think I can search for more or ask somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamakey (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been being deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jadal, which was a pretty basic decision to delete it due to lack of sources or other evidence of notability (per WP:MUSIC). Anyone (with an account) can recreate the article, so if you recreate it with those sources, it will not fall under WP:CSD#G4 as it will address the reasons the article was deleted at AFD. If anyone still wants it deleted, they will need to make a new AFD. But make sure you include the sources (WP:CITE) or it might get thwacked by a new page patroller. There's no real need for a deletion review, it doesn't sound like anyone is challenging the closure of the AFD or the subsequent speedy deletions. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, what does that mean in plain english? Couldnt get it, anyway it's a known band in Jordan and and the middle east they had many tv apperances and have many articles in different daily national news pappers and magazines, plus an album and a video clip, and concerts all around. --Tamakey (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DRV is probably the best way to go here. The article was G4'd three times already - I'm frankly surprised that it was not salted. As to the sources, we cannot use scanned copies of magazines on flickr or copies of a book on scribd. There is no way to determine if they are what they purport to be. GVpedia is not a third-party source. The Jordan Times is a RS as far as I can tell, so the problem now is that we need another Arabic-speaking editor to verify the reliability of the other two sources. Or, we need at least one other third-party source providing significant coverage of this band in English. Tim Song (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "we cannot use scanned copies of magazines on flickr or copies of a book on scribd", Actually, we can cite a book or magazine even if there's no online copy at all. The flickr image of course shouldn't be assumed to be indisputably accurate, but it's a show of good faith. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The scribd source does not appear to have been published anywhere else anyway. I can't even find it on Amazon. But I suppose we can AGF on the "PULP magazine" source. However, I still prefer to see some more solid sources. Tim Song (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to WorldCat, there is one copy of the scribd source in a Harvard University library [5]. That's it. I seriously question the reliability of this source. Tim Song (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full marks for good faith, but this looks too thin to me and we have definite evidence of past problems. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_9&oldid=1089086691"