Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 February 27
2010 March 1 >

28 February 2010[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ciara Bravo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am 7shaquan and not to long ago a posted an article about the American Actress Ciara Bravo who is known as Katie on the nick show big time rush. Sadly my post was delted by an admin Cirt and he has also been deleting other articles of this name at a constant rate without a firm foundation on why he is doing so. I have asked him nicely to repost, but he continues to deny. He says that the article does not meet the notary standards, but I have managed more than once to prove this statement wrong to him, but he continues to be stubborn and so i ask you to please repost my article and show me that wiki is the civilized community it is thought to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion deleted by AFD just days ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ciara_Bravo Pretty unlikely the situation has significantly changed since then. The nominator is well aware of this, and even posted an obscenity-filled tirade in that very discussion (see this diff). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there is no evidence that the AFD contained any defects, nor does it appear there is any material change in circumstance with regards to the issues noted in said AFD. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse While I understand that the user is upset after having spent time working on the page, it seems clear that the individual does not as yet currently meet our inclusion standards. I'm willing to change that opinion if we are presented with multiple, independent reliable sources about the individual. Until then, there's not much for us to do here. Consensus seemed clear and no new data has been presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn How Do I add new content to a deleted page--7shaquan (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't want to endorse above. You may want to look up what that word means. In this case, an endorsement is a confirmation of the deletion. Also, what you want to ask now shouldn't be adding content to deleted pages, since that's not going to happen unless you get this past DRV (this discussion). What you should be doing now is seeing if you can find other [[WP:|RS|reliable sources]] about the Ciara Bravo. If you can, then the deletion may be overturned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • oh didnt know what it meant, but anyways everyone im really asking that you really reconsider I have 2 links for you to view about ciara bravo:[1][2]

Something else you can look at to determine the notary of the person is of coarse their twitter account, look at all of her followers:[3] If thats not enough for you then just look at the youtube vids being created for her:[4] [5] [6] And last but not least to show some of the media she has starred in: [7] [8] [9] Now Will you reconsider, are those enough references for you--7shaquan (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may help for you to read our reliable sourcing policy. What we need are sources (like newspapers and magazines) that talk about Ciara Bravo. Blogs are not reliable sources. Having lots of twitter followers don't help us either. And IMDB is not in general a reliable source. Do you have say newspapers or magazines that talk about her? The Cincinnati source is getting towards what we need. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link that mentions her as a main character on big time rush [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another article[11][12]--7shaquan (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok. That may be enough. My recommendation then is in your userspace to make a version of the article using these sources and that is wrll-written and demonstrates notability and then come back to us when that's done. If you need assistance with this, don't hesitate to ask me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If you haven't already gotten a copy userified, my recommended course of action would be for you to create a userspace draft, incorporating reliable, independent sources and bring it back here once you've gotten it up to our sourcing and notability standards. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and echo Jclemens's comments above mine. Orderinchaos 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dont endorse if you look at my user page you will see I have constructed a draft version of the article, thanks Im sure it will change you mind go to User:7shaquan and check it out--7shaquan (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion consensus reached in AFD and correctly closed. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Accurate close that reflected the consensus in the AfD. The userspace draft has not rectified the concerns at the AfD; the sources in the draft are either passing mentions or unreliable sources. When this young actress gets some significant coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (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.
Category:Australasia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While the arguments given at the CfD were quite reasonable, two important aspects were omitted:
1.) It is that we have categories for every single of the 22 sub-continental regions defined by the United Nations geoscheme except for "Australasia" resp. "Australia and New Zealand" (even though we use the most common rule for naming and don't stick exactly to the UN's region names.
2.) We also need to consider that Australasia has its own article in which – apart from the Australasia ecozone – it is cited that "Australasia has been used as a name for combined Australia/New Zealand sporting teams". This is reason enough to warrant an own category because otherwise there's no correct place to put the respective articles.
To further elaborate on the former aspect: It is not easy to implement a somewhat consistent category scheme for geopolitical regions, which is why supranational categorization is mostly limited to continents and still fragmentary. The best way we can go is using an acknowledged scheme like the United Nations geoscheme, and this requires this one category to exist, either as "Australasia" or as "Australia and New Zealand". I personally prefer the former.
PanchoS (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hate Cat discussions because I frankly am never sure I fully understand the arguments. That said, it appears as if PanchoS has made a very strong point about the UN geoscheme that wasn't brought up in the cfd. So relist to get a reaction to this. No real objection to an overturn either, but my sense is this deserves further discussion. Also, is there a deletion sorting or wikiproject that should be notified about this? It seems this type of cat really needs subject-area folks. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. "Australasia" is not a region defined by the UN geoscheme. "Oceania" is, and as was brought up at the CFD, we have Category:Oceania. If there are concerns as to where Australasia should be categorized, Cat:Oceania seems to be a good fit. --Kbdank71 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. So let me get this straight—the UN geoscheme uses a subregion it refers to as "Australia and New Zealand", which is referred to as "Australasia" by ICANN, and because of that we want to have a category for it called "Australasia"? To me, that makes little sense, for the following reason. In common parlance, "Australasia" ≠ "Australia + New Zealand", as the article Australasia readily indicates. (Australasia almost always includes the island of New Guinea and the other smaller islands of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia.) This is not new information that needs to be reconsidered in a relisting. If you want a category for the geoscheme, obviously it would have to be called Category:Australasia (geoscheme), since you would be adopting a usage of the terminology that differs from the definition given in the main WP article. There were no other problems with the discussion or the close, and it still seems reasonable to me to use Category:Oceania for anything that would otherwise be placed in a non-disambiguated Category:Australasia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant to the discussion, but I disagree with you regarding common parlance, in Australia anyway. Australasia is an old term, in dwindling usage, meaning Australia + New Zealand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED cites 1940's Chamber's Technical Dictionary in stating that it includes "Australia, New Guinea, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the islands south and east of Wallace's line." Clearly, not all would agree that it's meaning is limited to AUS+NZ. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The limits of the usage is a different question. I have heard educated old people assert quite varied usages as proper. I think the term was never well defined. The citation you mention is in reference to fauna, and when speaking of fauna it is particularly difficult to draw a line between Cape York and the Territory of Papua but not between Australia and New Zealand. The common parlance that I commonly heard long ago was, with hindsight, a non blatantly-racist way to describe the predominantly white, British, English speaking nations of that region of the globe. In the 1970s, following half hearted regional paternalism, New Guinea was granted independence, and "Australasia" shifted to Australia + New Zealand. Looking up these things now I see that both terms Australasia and Oceania have been variably and poorly defined according to the writer's desired usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Australasia is too broad and not clearly defined - the original AfD came to the correct conclusion on this. I don't believe the UN geoscheme is a suitable basis for resolving age-old discussions about continents and subcontinents, simply, because noone uses it. (I mean "Northern America"? "Middle Africa"? come on...) I mean, its definition for Eastern Europe leaves out several Warsaw Pact countries, its definition of Southern Europe is vague at best, East Africa in its schema can be extended to include Egypt and Sudan, and its definition of Melanesia includes Norfolk Island which is an Australian territory whose only Islander populations have been Polynesian. Where it does coincide with a commonly understood term (eg South and South-East Asia) it uses non-standard terms for them. This is *not* a reliable or useful categorisation system. Orderinchaos 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable discussion. Reasonable reading of consensus. If this were CfD2, I would say "While Oceania and Australasia are different terms, and each has and should have its own article, this differentness doesn't mean that there should be two categories. The overlap is too great. Overlapping categories confuse the category system". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was a reasonable interpretation of the actual consensus at CfD. The arguments for retention were made and rejected by those who participated in the CfD, and the new material raised here doesn't appear to merit overturning the consensus established. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw — partly convinced, partly overwhelmed by the unambiguous reactions. — PanchoS (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (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.
Simple Instant Messenger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted under false assumptions by a disputed ex-admin!

  1. While Simple Instant Messenger has been used to find sources, the correct lemma would be Sim-IM (or SIM Instant Messenger)!
  2. Simple Instant Messenger is only used as description of the client, the name used is Sim-IM!
  3. There are only three "Delete"-votes, all founded on low coverage. I get more than 600k hits...

Restore Simple Instant Messenger and move it to Sim-IM! Don't restore Serverless Instant Messenger!

--phobie (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the prior review. I stroke out the unrelated facts. --phobie (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the opinions expressed by the proponents of "endorse" at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14#Simple Instant Messenger, especially A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs)'s argument. Nothing new has surfaced to indicate that this software is now notable. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How charming. I am not a disputed ex-admin, I am most certainly an ex-admin there is no dispute about that. Beyond that, there is no suggestion that I had the bit removed involuntarily and, in fact, I am specifically able to resume the role when I feel there are no longer any worries about my impulse control and anger flashes. These have absolutely nothing to do with wikipedia but reflect my real life situation which is extremely stressful and emotionally heated at the moment. So, thank you for the charmless and factually inaccurate nomination, but I'm not seeing any reason here for reversing the close. I suggest the nominator would be better placed reading This Essay and then going away to identify some proper sources that a decent article can be based upon. see I'm making progress on the impulse control - I managed to delete the whole section after this before pressing save Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to offend you. Some of your admin-action were a bit moot and I wanted users to have a close look. --phobie (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as settled by the last DrV. Userfy to Phobie if he wants it. As A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs) indicated in the last DrV, there may be enough sources to write an article that meets WP:N. I'd suggest the best way forward is to withdraw this DrV, apologize to Spartaz, and then write the article in userspace. Ask Spartaz or A Stop at Willoughby or someone else who hangs around DrV for feedback on your work and bring it back to DrV when either they think it's in reasonable shape. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Oh, and endorse per the last DRV. Tim Song (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and suggest speedy closure. DRV is not a platform to attack/insult other editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed view Had I noticed this during the first DRV, I think i would have opined to overturn. The analysis supporting the close depends on discounting the opinions of several !voters. One as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and several as having given weak reasons. But the entire issue here was notability, and in particular the sufficiency of the the cited sources to establish notability. It is conceded that there was coverage in an independent reliable source, the question was if that coverage was "substantial" enough. That is always a judgment call, there is no rule about how many words or sentences are required for substantial coverage. Therefore, the posters who opined "It meets notability requirements" and "Seems notable enough to have a mention somewhere" (after the question of the sources had been raised and disputed) should IMO be taken as finding the supplied sources sufficient to support notability, IMO that would mean that policy-based non-discounted views were 4 deletes to 3 keeps, with the strength of arguments reasonably closely balanced, not counting the sock and three more or less ILikeIt keeps. That sounds like a non-consensus close to me. All that said, however, the first FRV had a clear consensus to endorse the AfD close, and I see no gross error in it although I would have opined otherwise. For the matter of that, toe original AfD close, although incorrect IMO, was not wildly out of bounds. Thefore, the best way forward at this point, IMO, is to userfy or perhaps better Incubate the deleted articel, and allow improvement with the additional sources that Phobie writes of above or that Pcap wrote of in the first DRV. And I fully agree with the others here that starting a DRV by attacking the closer on an unrelated issue is uncivil and unhelpful. I also feel that running a second DRV on a given AfD discussion is not a practice that should be encouraged or rewarded. DES (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. In the face of majority Keep arguments composed of mostly unsupported assertions and bad-faith accusations, this was a good closure. I would encourage an interested editor to temporarily keep this article in userspace if they wish to preserve and develop this article until such a time as notability can be demonstrated. This happened with CyanogenMod, deleted decisively for non-notability in its 2nd AfD, but kept unanimously in its 3rd AfD after a short stay in user space. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no objections to userfication, same as my comments in the last DRV. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed I have to agree with DESiegel above. While I !voted overturn in the first DRV and I certainly didn't agree with how Spartaz closed the AfD, I'm really not sure a second DRV will accomplish much. I certainly saw enough coverage where I felt the AfD close was wrong, but as others have said above the best way to address this will likely be to userfy the article and add the missing references. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and last DRV, and a trout slap for the OP. Orderinchaos 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this was a completely appropriate closure well within policy. JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. Providing links to searches is not enough. Attacking the closing admin is even worse. Pcap ping 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus The close did not reflect the consensus of the actual participants and appears to be a supervote cast by the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, proper weighing of the arguments. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (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/2010_February_28&oldid=1088285805"