Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 January 16
2012 January 18 >

17 January 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
article background/history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The page was originally created as a POV fork by Distributivejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a WP:single purpose account: [1] who edited in the topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I.

This article was originally deleted as a POV fork as discussed at the original AfD: [2]. The article was then moved to the user space of David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) where it currently resides, inclusing history, but excluding the original talk page: [3]. David.Kane was subsequently topic banned: [4].

Yfever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently recreated the page as a stub, then took the page to AfD after the article was redirected.

At the AfD the argument was made that, just as with the previous AfD, this article constituted a POV fork. Reference to the discussion and rationale of the previous AfD was explicit, as well as an example of the POV nature of the current version of the article: Despite the fact that the work is called "controversial", there is no criticism of it it in the article.

In discussing the AfD with the closing admin, several things stood out: [5]

  • The admin made a note of taking a head count, as opposed to considering consensus when closing the AfD: "Given the headcount, I could possibly have closed it as no consensus"
  • Despite explicit linked reference to the previous AfD, the admin made no effort to review that discussion: "I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010"
  • Despite this being a "borderline case", subsequent review of the previous AfD and highlighting of the POV fork issues, the admin did not update the closing status of the article, and invited the discussion to continue here: "I stand by my closing... request a deletion review."

Once the AfD closed with a keep, Yfever stepped in and began to copy/paste content from other articles.

In light of the consideration given by the closing admin, and subsequent content forking, I ask that this AfD be reviewed by the community. I will be notifying all the editors who participated in both AfDs to get more input on the issue. aprock (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Aprock. The initial form of the recreated article was copy-pasted from the lede of User:Ephery/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, a subpage of topic-banned user David.Kane: issues in the arbcom case WP:ARBR&I were closely related to the creation of the original fork. Additional content was copy-pasted by Yfever out of context from the stable article History of the race and intelligence controversy. This controversial paper, which is carefullly summarised in the History article, is never now discussed in secondary sources outside a historical context. There is no justification for having a separate article, written without reference to the events in the decades that followed its publication. The editing of Yfever is currently being considered at WP:AE. How a new user could find the original on a subpage of Ephery has not yet been explained. In addition it is now acknowledged that since the close of WP:ARBR&I there has been an unprecedented amount of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Although a disruptive sockpuppet of Mikemikev has been blocked within the last few hours, a checkuser confirmed that the account of Yfever has no relation to Mikemikev. A similar kind of article was created by another sock of a banned user user:Rrrrr5 some time back: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spencer195/Archive. That article The Color of Crime (New Century) was also a fork and is now discussed in the main article New Century Foundation. It is possible that Yfever'saccount is related to that bizarre account, which was a usurped administrator account. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reading the above, this is either an editing dispute or an allegation of puppetry, both of which belong elsewhere. I suggest the best course would be to resolve the puppetry--once that is eliminated , probably the contents will stabilize and a proper discussion can be held on the talk p. about what the contents of the article should be. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a content dispute. This material is clearly covered by WP:ARBR&I. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise or trying to ignore that case. Please look at the templates that are added on the talk pages of the associated articles, e.g. on Talk:Race and intelligence. If you think for some reason that this article does not fall in that category, clarification can be sought directly from arbcom. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any statement there about this particular article. I see a general statement about avoiding NPOV, which merely repeats the standard Wikipedia policy, but I see no statement that articles where NPOV is question should be deleted. The talk p. heading warns against POV forks, but whether a particular article is a POV fork, or merely detailed coverage of a particular paper is a matter for the community. I do see a prior topic ban with respect to you in particular, which was removed by motion. Since you are using general statements of policy to try to enforce your own POV by pretending it had the endorsement of arb com, perhaps the topic ban should be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking, I see the sentence in the findings on DK that "this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view". I do not think that having an article on this famous paper is undue weight, if treated correctly; but it's not my opinion on that point that matters, but the community , and they expressed it. It is perhaps inappropriate that we do not have an article on many other famous papers, but that is to be dealt with by writing the articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking your statement and stating your own POV. Procedurally, the second AfD was started in an improper way. It was initiated by the same problematic user (Yfever) who created the article. In normal cirumcstances all those involved in the first AfD should have been contacted. This was not a community decision in any way imaginable. It looks like the beginning of an almighty train wreck. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this was for both scientific and political reasons an exceptionally important paper; I do not think that necessarily corresponds to any particular POV on the underlying subject. I agree with you that the course of editing on the topic has been very far from ideal--and therefore I don't edit on the subject myself here. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very detailed discussion of the article, with a lengthy summary from secondary sources and in a historical context, already occurs in History of the race and intelligence controversy#1960-1980. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep of article. Article seems a well-sourced and balanced account of an issue that has generated much interest. I hope that the initiator of this DRV has informed all contributors to the AfD about it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Would you mind explaining what you man by "balanced?" The WP article begins by saying that this is a controversial journal article, but our WP article does not provide much of an account at all of what makes it controversial, or of the many criticisms leveled against the article, or of the context for the controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the article contains shortcomings then improve it by editing, not deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Any editor making edits to this particular article which infringe the restrictions set out in WP:ARBR&I is liable to discretionary sanctions enforcable at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That won't affect Slrubenstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It affects all users, including in particular you. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why me? What have I done wrong? I can't see any reason why Slrubenstein should not edit the article and I can't see any reason why I should not. However, I don't intend to, it is a horrible editing environment to work in. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The article is subject to extremely stringent restrictions that apply to all users. When you commented here, you were aware that this particular article had been at the centre of the WP:ARBR&I case in which you participated. You chose not to mention that. Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was Xanthippe who wrote that this article is "balanced." Well, is it, or isn't it? If Xanthippe is now admitting it is not balanced, well, fine but just say so. If Xanthippe still thinks it is balanced, I would appreciate a serious answer to my good faith question: what about it in your view makes it "balanced?" Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have expressed my view. Let User:Slrubenstein express his. Does he think, the article is balanced or not? If the former, then fine. If the latter then let him edit it to restore the balance. It is Wikipedia policy that articles should be edited to improve them before deletion is resorted to. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You did not express your view, you are just posturing and wasting people's time. You say the article is "balanced" but when I ask, p0olitiely, and twice, why you think it is balanced, you have no answer. I am willing to answer any question about my view. Are you unwilling to answer questions about your view? If you have reasons to believe it balanced, why not share them with us? If you have no reason to believe it is balanced, then your asserting that it is balanced is worthless. We are here for a reasoned discussion. Your posturing, without reasons, is not any kind of contribution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make accusations of bad faith. You say that you are willing to answer any question about your view. Here is one: do you think the article is balanced or unbalanced? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I do not need to accuse you of acting in bad faith, you are so obviously acting in bad faith. On Jan. 18 you wrote that the article seems balanced. On Jan. 19 I asked the reasonable question, what about it makes it seem balanced to you? This is now the fourth time I am asking you this simple, appropriate question. That you repeatedly refuse to answer is proof that you have no evidence that it is balanced, which means you are acting in bad faith. Note: it was you who used the word "balanced" so it is perfectly reasonable to think you could explain what you mean. Note also that in my view on this question, posted in Jan 19th, I did not write that it is unbalanced. Since I did not write that it is unbalanced, how can I answer your question? I wrote my position on this question and if you have any questions about anything I wrote I would be more than happy to answer them. Would you be happy to answer questions about what you wrote? So far it looks like you will stall and weasle and change the topic as often as you have to, so as not to answer a simple question about what you wrote. It is only logical to infer that there is no thought or consideration behind your posture, it is pure posturing. Your approach to this matter is almost reason enough to delete the article. Are there better reasons to delete it? Sure! Just read my own post from the 19th. Or MathSci's. Fortunately, some people here actually care about wikiprocess! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
balance = NPOV. Please be civil. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Where have I been incivil? No matter. If you won't answer the question, then you won't answer the question. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Concur with Aprock Aprock's reasons are sufficient for deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect. All of the "keep" arguments amount to, "this is a reliable source for a particular point of view." I heartily agre, which is why this article should be used as a reliable source for Jensen's view in the article on Race and Intelligence which is our article that directly addresses the subject matter of this article. As the WP article itself notes, the Jensen article was and remains controversial - this is why the data and arguments in it, as well as the critiques of it, which concentrate on the larger debate concerning race and IQ, ought to be presented in the article on Race and IQ where the article, and jensen's body of work, can be put in its proper context. It is the Race and IQ article that fully addresses this research and Jensen's conclusions, as well as other work by people who share Jensen's view, and other work that is critical of jensen's view. To create a WP article on one controversial article is clearly a POV fork that gives undue weight to a single journal article. This is especially wrong with regards to this article, because the article does not stand alone, it is very much a part of a larger and ongoing set of debates. I speedily deleted it because it fits all th criteria for a speedy deletion. Someone restored the article and created an AfD entry that produced four "keeps" and three "deletes." Only seven editors commenting? The best one could say is that the AfD was closed prematurely; it should have been more widely announced and time should have been given for more people to register their views. Given the narrow margin - 4 to 3 - the outcome of the discussion has to be based on the merits of the arguments, and all that the "keeps" really had to say is that it is a notable article. Sure, we all agre with that, but notability is a criteria for inclusion in a WP article and not justification for the creation of a new WP article that limits itself to discussing this one journal article. All of the substantive contents of this WP article is already in another WP article. We should use all notable and reliable sources in writing a proper encyclopedic article on the topic. I fail to see why one of the sources for the Race and IQ article merits another WP article. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Jensen's article is one of the most debated in the history of psychology. There are many articles about scientific papers in Wikipedia, and Jensen's is surely one of those that most deserves it. It is currently discussed in History of the race and intelligence controversy and Arthur Jensen, among others. It would be better to have a thorough discussion of it in a dedicated article. If the current version of the article is deemed to contain too little criticism of the article, this should not be a problem because a small library could be created exclusively out of critiques of Jensen's paper, i.e. there is no shortage of reliable sources. The current state of the article should not be regarded as a reason to delete it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue. Listen to DGG. This is a conduct dispute about sockpuppetry, and should be dealt with accordingly. Bes ides, I'm afraid that DRV is never going to overturn that close to "delete" on the basis of that debate, because there was no consensus for deletion. This DRV has no prospect of success and should be speedily closed.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue, but redirect - classic WP:POVFUNNEL. For the admins commenting - why haven't you blocked Yfever, obvious sockpuppet? Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Ever since the discussion closed, a lot of uncritical information has been added. It is now clear that this was only a WP:POVFORK to avoid the mainstream criticism in other articles. This is exactly the same problem that caused the deletion in the first AfD. The book is already covered exhaustively in History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#1960-1980, in the context of the whole controversy. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the article contents should be kept but we seem to be missing a general article about whether things like Headstart are worthwhile. I think the contents are fairly worthless currently and are covered by History of the race and intelligence controversy and should be redirected there for the moment and if somebody sets up an article on the general topic was started later then it could be redirected there. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing general topic article is achievement gap. That article doesn't really have a history section. The existig history of the race and intelligence controversy is probably a better fit given that the legacy of the paper is the controversy it generated. aprock (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Admins can only really close deletion debates on the basis of the arguments raised in the discussion. In this DRV, we've had mention of CSDing under G5, ArbCom restrictions and discretionary sanctions, sockpuppets and much else besides. This was not discussed in the second AfD: how are admins supposed to take these things into account if you don't actually bring them up? Similarly, if there are behavioural issues, bring them up at ANI or a similar noticeboard—if you've done that, mention it in the AfD. Will admins now have to go on a complete treasure hunt across noticeboards, user talk pages and half the wiki before we can close a deletion debate in order to not risk ending up at DRV? I stand by the opinion that given the arguments presented in the AfD, I closed this correctly. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that Yfever started the AfD himself and did not inform editors involved in the prior AfD. You did not act improperly, but Yfever did in several ways. Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. This is a deletion review, not a third AfD. The relevant factors that prompted the review are clearly noted in the opening statement. Instead of responding to the tangential issues (socks, G5, WP:ARBR&I, etc) please do discuss the head count, lack of reviewing the previous AfD, and unchanged closing despite the original closure being "borderline". aprock (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You concerns about "head count" are simply based on out-of-context quoting of my talk page. When I said that it is "borderline", I'm saying that it wasn't a cut and dried case either way. But just because something is borderline doesn't mean that one must reverse one's position: 60/40 is more "borderline" than 80/20 - but saying that the former is borderline doesn't mean you instantly have to reverse and side with the 40 over the 60. There wasn't a clear consensus to redirect. Given a lack of clear consensus to redirect, I could have closed with keep or with no consensus, but there was a slightly stronger consensus to keep, so I closed as keep. I leave whether or not I should have reviewed the previous AfD up to DRV participants: I stand by my closing and by the principle that admins should close on the basis of the consensus in the AfD before them. Without that principle, one need only stir up a hornet's nest quietly in the background, allow an AfD to run its course, and if the admin closes it in a way you do not like, go to the admin's talk page and release said hornet's nest and then demand action. Not that this is what happened here. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I observe that you're not making yourself clear here. I'll add that I'm baffled by the fact that you did not initially review the previous AfD (even after it was mentioned and linked to). Likewise that upon reviewing it your assessment remained unchanged despite you calling this a borderline case. Maybe I should take up ESP :). aprock (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One question is, if all this information had been known at the AfD, should it have closed as delete instead of keep? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, can we avoid having yet another AfD just for the purpose of following proper bureaucratic procedures? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we have a policy on that: WP:IAR. We can do what we think best in the way of exceptional remedies, if there is consensus that it is necessary for the benefit of the encyclopedia . I don't think there is such a degree of consensus here to use it, for we can at worst always have another AfD--& remaining the additional 7 days will not harm anything. The practical reason for the rule that we do not discuss actual AfD - type problems here in depth is that this is a specialized venue, and many of the people who would come to a properly and neutrally announced AfD do not normally come here. There is an advantage in orderly consistent procedure for processes--especially since there are so many overlapping processes that no one person can follow all of them. If you're interested in some type of question, you need to expect where it will appear. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Fadzilah Kamsah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A motivational speaker who has won many awards in his country, including obtaining a datukship, which carries the title "Datuk", equivalent to MBE in Britain. He does clearly passes WP:N, do refer to here, here, and here for sources. These sources were from Malaysia's top tabloid/newspapers i.e. The Star, Utusan Malaysia and Bernama, a news agency of the government of Malaysia.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent revisions were speedily deleted per A7. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:07, 17 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Damian Roberts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The recent revisions were deleted per G4. While the procedure was technically correct, somehow we should put good faith on January 2012 editors, such as raintheone, for all their hard work. Actually, this topic is actually a fictional character of a soap opera Home and Away, but this article was treated as a hoax previously by horrible revisions in the past. I don't know the history of revisions, but I hope the deletion is undone to revisions that treat this topic as if it were actually a fictional character, not a fake (hoax) person. In the meantime, I'm not asking for overturn to keep; nevertheless, I would request, under Rain, to overturn to redirect to another page. By the way, there is another page deleted: Damien Roberts. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho - I said it could have been redirected to the list of characters. I also said there was not much point in a deletion review as it quite rightly deleted because it should not have been recreated in the first place. So you are not requesting under my wishes as I stated via your talk page that their is little point in a review.Rain the 1 16:14, 17 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Seamus (dog) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Seamus (dog) was an article referring to the dog of Mitt Romney, which was involved in a controversial 1983 road trip where the dog was transported on the roof of Romney's car for 11 hours. Seamus was discussed extensively during the 2008 US President race, and the issue resurfaced last week. I saw hundred of news articles online regarding Seamus, prompting me to create the article 'Seamus (dog)'.

Anthony Bradbury, a Wikipedia administrator, deleted the article on Saturday, January 14, 2012 under his speedy delete authority, citing provision A7 (lack of significance). Upon discussion with him, he stated that the incident had significance, but the dog did not. I understand his logic, but I disagree with his decision. There is an article for Mary Jo Kopechne, even though her only significance in is relation to Edward Kennedy's Chappaquidick incident. Likewise, there are webpages for some pets of politicians which are far more obscure than Seamus. For example, 'Dash (collie)' is an article for a dog of Caroline Harrison, a lesser-known First Lady of the nineteenth century. Debbie W. 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Overturn. The cached version shows multiple sources showing interest in the subject. Discuss the merits at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as deleting admin. It might be said that a person is of greater significance than a dog; and the Chappaquidick incident, which effectively erased any chance of Edward Kennedy ever running for the White House, presumably is of greater significance the the Seamus incident, which patently has not prevented Mr Romney from doing so. Also, at the time of Chappaquidick Mr Kennedy was being talked about as a potential presidential candidate while at the time of the Seamus incident Mr Romney, I think, was not (correct me if I am wrong). This, at any rate, represents my thinking in deleting. But if the community disgree, that is their will and I shall not argue. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this has a realistic chance of remaining a stand-alone article. However, if someone wants to contest an A7, the best place for that is at AfD. I think an outcome of "merge and redirect" is possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain Though the attempt to equate an anecdote with a person's death is amusing, perhaps, it does not gain weight therefrom. Collect (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I was tempted to say overturn and list at AfD, but the truth is, I see no way in which this exists as a standalone article. The dog isn't notable. What is notable is that Mitt Romney was involved in a controversy involving his dog. Literally the only thing in the article about the dog was the claim that the dog was nicknamed "Mr. Personality", a claim that misrepresents the reference. Giant case of WP:UNDUE for something that deserves only a couple sentences in Romney's article, at most. Resolute 01:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD'. I don't think the article is worth keeping, but it asserts importance. The bar for speedy is much lower than notability , and I don't think it would be a good idea to erode it. Perhaps AfD will decide on a redirect if the information is in the article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn and send to AfD per the above unsigned. The bar for A7 is a claim of notability, not actual notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I thought I had deleted it. Obviously didn't. Can't think why I didn't, unless it had only been tagged for a couple of minutes. Possibly a sentence or two in Romney's article - which is where people would look for it, not under the name of the dog. It'd Romney that's notable, not the dog, and Romney is notable without the dog anyway. Kopechne? A human who died in dubious circumstances with a long-lasting result. The dog? Survived, and apart from possibly making a comment that resulted in him getting washed, seems to have been none the worse for his ride. If he had been, I feel sure action would have been taken. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the author of this 'Seamus (dog)' page, I feel that the dog has become notable. If you type in 'Seamus Romney' under Google, you will get more than 200,000 hits, including links to major newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the New York Times. When I initially created this article, I thought about naming it the 'Seamus incident' and linking it to the Mitt Romney article, but I didn't because nobody refers to the event as the 'Seamus incident'. It's simply Seamus, Mitt Romney's dog, or in some cases 'Seamus Romney'. Furthermore, while I understand that Mary Jo Kopechne has had a more lasting influence than Seamus Romney, Seamus has had a much more lasting influence than many of the dogs of famous people which have their own Wikipedia articles. On the article for famous dogs (see below), there are dogs which are famous and have articles only because of their owners. For example, Lou dog, owned by Bradley Nowell, and Diamond who may have been owned by Isaac Newton, each have an article independent of their human masters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_dogs#Dogs_belonging_to_notable_people Debbie W. 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely beats A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does this beat A7? I do not see the logic. The number of Google hits only helps us know what language is more common on the web, which can be useful in some contexts. But I do not see how it is suggieient to determine the notability of an topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. WP is not an encyclopedia of "Googles Greatest Hits." People who access WP obviously have access to the internet and if they want to learn about Seamus the car-surfing dog, well, we have established that they can find no end of sources courtesy of Google. Great. They don't need WP to learn about this amazing dog. So why does WP need an article on the dog? We need to use our own criteria about what makes something "encyclopedic." in fact, I would argue that the opposite logic is more compelling - a topic that gets no google hits might be essential to include in WP and WP will become the only real on-line source of information about the topic (it is true! Many topics of intense scholarly debate and interest, which belong in an encyclopedia, don't score on google, or score very low). I am not dismissing Google entirely, I just do not see any necessary reason why google hits trumps A7. Google is an algorithm. We are intelligent, thoughtful people who should be able to reason this out with deliberation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A7 is speedy deletion because of a lack of significance. Wikipedia defines significance as a much lower standard than notability. Wikipedia's guideline for speedy deletion gives the following as grounds for an A7 speedy deletion: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. Having 200,000 Google hits, and articles in major newspapers does not necessarily makes something notable, but it does make it significant, and that is why A7 should not apply here. Debbie W. 18:59, 21 January 2012 (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/2012_January_17&oldid=1138438955"