Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 February 3
2007 February 5 >

4 February 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of ...for Dummies books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The reason is very simple: in the discussion they agreed that the article should be eliminated because WP:NOT#DIR but the list doesnt fall on any of the reasons given in that policy, or any of the other things that wikipedia is not. It`s just a list for the books in a serie (which is, in fact, a commercial success) like a list of the Harry Potter books (which is a category because each book has it`s own page, very good pages) or the List of hidden tracks. ometzit<col> 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a mirror of Wiley's book list, AfD closure was absolutely fine. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'overturn' and relist Decision was in conflict with realities. There are entries for notable series, and these certainly are. People known them by the series name, and make jokes about them by that name. The deletion vote was 12 to 9 for delete, which in my view is no consensus. DGG 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we all know what AfD isn't, don't we... The delete !votes were policy based, whereas the keep !voters gave reasons like "Useful list", "notable series of books" and, my favourite, "keep or delete the entire Wikipedia database". -- Steel 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I particularly like the fact that, unlike any of the useful lists we have, not one of these items has an article. It was just a text dump. Plus, several of the keep |voters appear to be of the opinion that we should keep this because the ...for Dummies series is notable. We already have an article on the ...for Dummies series. The only time this article was changed to link to each title instead of being just a text dump, only one went blue and that was deleted with very little dissent. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The close was certainly within reasonable administrative discretion. The strength of the arguments was certainly on deletion side. Another keep gem: keep because last time we talked about this we couldn't reach consensus, yeah right. This is not AFD round two, so this is not relevant to the close of this discussion. However, it could be educational. WP:LIST gives three valid purposes for a list. The content of the list could be replaced by a link to the publisher's catalog, so we don't need it as an information list to support any other articles. Without articles on the books, we don't need it as a navigation list, and with no reasonable expectation that every book deserves an article, we don't need it as a development list. Serving none of the valid purposes, it is a list we can do without. GRBerry 03:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The decision was well within reasonable admin discretion. The fact that the publisher maintains a freely available and better updated list of these books is a compelling argument that we ought not to attempt to duplicate that work. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. By a simple tally of editors it was 10 keeps to 13 deletes, fairly even there. And both sides made good points, in my mind no consensus would have been a better middle path to have taken. Mathmo Talk 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, this isn't a head count. -- Steel 11:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an article that should have never been deleted in the first place. Violates nothing, and would become very useful as redlinks were filled in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to be a comment on the process followed, seems more to be making this an afd rerun. For the record there weren't any red links, since there weren't any links at all. --pgk 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the red links where filled it would lead to nowhere, since what can we say about, f.ex. Dungeons and Dragons for dummies, beside that is a book designed as a basic guide for d&d, part of the for dummies series. Unless there is a specific book with something special, like a major mistake, a top seller or being mentioned in tv or something like that, it doesnt deserve a full article. Also, that could lead to plagiarism. But my point is that the list (the last time i see it) it could be organized in subjects, and is a valid source of reference of which subjects are in the series and as a personal, the languages.--ometzit<col> 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three problems with that, Jeff: First, this is not a vote, and "should never have been deleted in the first place" amounts to a vote. Second, at one point it and links. One out of the enormous number was blue, and that was rapidly deleted - foo for Dummies is a for Dummies book about foo; we probably could have worked that out without an article. Third, several people say it does violate things, such as WP:NOT a directory and also WP:C since it is a straight copy-paste from the publisher's website. It also violates the list guideline. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, no "never deleted in the first place" has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with what should have occurred, Two, I disagree with that deletion, too. Three, they'd be wrong if they felt it violated WP:NOT, unless all lists violate WP:NOT, and if it were a copy-paste, then that's a different story altogether, and not one we're discussing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion AFD closure seems reasonable. As a side comment though, if we have articles on the individual books then it would seem to be more appropriate as a category anyway (or categories). --pgk 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion clearly correct interpretation of the debate. Useful is not a keep criterion (directories are useful but also something Wikipedia is not). Eluchil404 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • awww bueno hagan lo q se les de la gana :(--ometzit<col> 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion As above Bwithh 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Eusebeus 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, both through the AFD, and through the fact that the list is probably a copyvio. Proto::► 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; so far, this is simply a copy of something that can be found somewhere else. If any (or even some) of these books have an article, a list of them would make sense. Tizio 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Gives an interesting survey of, and insight into, the fields of knowledge which are considered worth popularizing today. <KF> 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Larry the Lobster (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was a perfectly good article on a notable character in the show and should never have been merged as Larry appears in almost every episode, playing a key role in quite a few of them. Bowsy 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldn't this page need to be deleted before it can be brought to deletion review? GassyGuy 16:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is an AFD closed as merge. Any close of a deletion discussion is in theory subject to review. GRBerry 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, okay. I figured, since the article was still there, and the challenge doesn't seem to be that it should be deleted but rather whether or not it should be a stand-alone or merged, that was more of a talk page issue than DRV. GassyGuy 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Merge consensus at AFD was clear, and is supported by the relevant guideline, as noted in the AFD. Claim to be a major character was made and not concurred with in the AFD, no new information (most importantly, no sources asserting he is a major character) is offered here. GRBerry 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, here's one [1]. You will notice that only MAIN characters are on this link. Bowsy 19:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. GRBerry summed it up quite well. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, with no prejudice against splitting out if you actually find good sources. Clear consensus. -Amark moo! 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are 2 reliable sources [2] and [3]. On both these links, there are only main characters and Larry is amongst them.

Bowsy 09:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see the problem with making lists of characters (e.g. see WP:FICT) so endorse. >Radiant< 12:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lindsay Wesker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I cant find this page for my client that I created on 18th January ? Marion Mayger 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go to here for the reasons. It says {{prod}} plus six days: non notable. For the meaning of "prod", read WP:PROD. Hope this helps, feel free to ask more here or on my talk page if you like. Mathmo Talk 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... noticed this disturbing vadalism edit which is related to this article being reviewed. Mathmo Talk 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Wesker's first Google hit is his own Myspace page, and clearly, needing to hire someone to write a WP article (who doesn't know how to use WP, apparently), shows a clear violation of WP:NOT an advertising vehicle for a subject that has no notability. MSJapan 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - any paid-for article is guaranteed to be POV promotion, and we really don't need any more of those. Moreschi Deletion! 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am his Personal Manager, as many people have in the Entertainment Industry, - he has not paid me to write this as an independent article, as an ex DJ on KISS 100 FM, and working for MTV, and an Author, Lindsay is a person that others may find fascinating - hence the reason for this article on him. I would just like the article to be re-instated and dont really understand all of the jargon that has been listed as resons for the deletion...in a nutshell, what do I need to do to make this article acceptable ? the KISS 100 link is verifiable, that is on Wikipedia already if you search for his name.....can I get around this by putting some kind of disclaimer etc.. I mean how do I verify all of this info ? it is true, and of course Lindsay can verify it....I really need your help in telling me what I need to do ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marion Mayger (talk • contribs).

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

There was no consensus to keep, delete or merge this. Result should be closed as no consensus and page undeleted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. What exactly was there in the deleted article which could have been merged into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes, but wasn't? Ned Scott and the closing admin had it right. If there's an article can be written on this, write it, but the deleted one contained nothing useful. It was {{db-nocontext}} stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No stance, as closing admin, I don't have a stance on this, just stating that I had been notified. Cbrown1023 talk 14:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus per nom. It appears that the closing admin decided that merging was the best option, but then decided that there wasn't anything to merge. That possibly should be left up to other editors in that case, especially since whatever info that was there is lost. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I vote for undeletion.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, DRV is not a vote Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete We'll fix it up, plus there is no consensus to delete pages like this. - Peregrine Fisher 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted there was acually consensus to delete, I just noticed that every plot summarry from List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes was a complete copyvio from TV.com so I speedied that so there is nowhere to merge and I didn't see not one keep vote that was valid, mainly WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS agruements. Jaranda wat's sup 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As Jaranda says, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are not valid grounds for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Regardless of whatever consensus was or wasn't reached in the AfD, nothing can trump the consensus behind our policies including WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. According to the Google cache, the article violated that policy. This was pointed out in the debate by User:Extraordinary Machine. No sign was given in the debate that there are any sources out there that we could use to add "real-world context and sourced analysis" to the article as required by WP:NOT. No prejudice against recreation once reliable sources are found that are independent of the show that we could use to write the article without violating WP:NOT. Pan Dan 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable closure. >Radiant< 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SLTee-Hee-Hee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I cannot find any discussion's about this article being deleted, the only reason given was that was no assertion of notability, it would have been better if this was discussed and fixed rather than deleted. The article itself is important as it performs a useful role in the London comedy scene and sees many shows before they transfer to the influential Edinburgh comedy festival, it also interlinks with other articles about arts in its local area to work toward building a complete views of arts in London,as well as linking to the entry's for the comedians that have performed there to help build a rounder picture of their careers Back ache 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As deleting admin the only thing to note I think is that I should probably have reference criterion for deletion a7 in the edit summary. --Robdurbar 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless you can cite sources supporting your assertion that this club is more notable than the average comedy club. There weren't any such sources cited in the article. NawlinWiki 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there was no claim of significance, importance, or notability in the article. Feel free to write a new article that makes it clear why an encyclopedia should cover this particular comedy club , preferably citing independent, published, reliable sources. GRBerry 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could problems with an artical be addressed if it has been deleted without disscussion? It's like putting down an ill animal and then discussing afterwards how it might have been cured!Back ache 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the content of this deleted page could probably be rewritten in 5 minutes. If written whilst verifiably claiming notbaility per our criterion for speedy deletion then it would be saved. Wikipedia gets 1000s of articles created everyday. Whilst they're on Wikipedia, they're getting mirrored, coppied and spread out onto the net. That's why the Burden of proof is on those creating the articles to make them acceptable. --Robdurbar 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoping an external cache has grabbed the content just in case there is an objection is surely not a very scientific way to go about it, wouldn't it be better to tag the artical as needing attention revisiting yourself directly or by bot sometime later to delete if there is no improvement? surely the aim of a senior artical writer is coach new writers not just destroy their efforts and more than likely lose them from wikipedia? Back ache 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 08:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article's content is not available via "history" for non-admins to view and comment upon right now. Shaundakulbara 12:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as blatant advertising. It's just a club. Nardman1 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion. The total non-advertising content of the page was "SLTee-Hee-Hee is a comedy club now located in the South London Theatre, West Norwood, London, England it started in Sping 2006" plus some wikilinks. No prejudice against the future creation of a verifiable, independently sourced article which demonstrates that the company meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria if such and article can be created. My first guess is that WP:CORP would be an appropriate standard. Rossami (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Obadiah Shoher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Obadiah's blog was recently voted the Best Overall blog in People's Choice Jewish and Israeli blog awards at IsraelForum.com. The doubts about vanity and reality of the author appear exaggerated. The article also mentioned that Obadiah's followers launched massive demonstrations in Ukraine and brought down several websites. There seems no doubt that Obadiah is for real. As for the argument that Obadiah is not known in Israel, the article is clear that he uses pen name to avoid indictment on charges of racism and incitement. 83.143.237.207 17:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Still no reliable sources for any of this. The doubt isn't if the author is real, it's if anything on him is verifiable. -Amark moo! 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah is a regular author on Arutz Sheva and Maof. Presumably, they don't reprint articles without knowledge about the author or his permission. The deleted article's facts are verifiable. Bio data comes from the jacket of Obadiah's book, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict. Dedication of Avraham Stern is clear on Obadiah's website, [www.samsonblinded.org]. Accusation of hate speech is clear from Google's response to Obadiah's ads, available at the same site. Reviews calling him "freedom fighter" etc are also there, with links to the reviewers' Amazon profiles (most are Top 500 reviewers with Real Name).The advertisement through Amazon and MySpace is indeed unproven and could be safely deleted from the article. Booksurge's termination of publishing contract is perfectly verifiable: Amazon lists two versions of Obadiah's book: one from Booksurge, another, month later, from Lulu. Shoher's ideological position is clearly stated in his blog, [www.samsonblinded.org/blog], specifically in the Program article. That the site is blocked from China is easily verifiable through a proxy. Google blogsearch also produces many complaints by Chinese bloggers abou that. That Amazon deleted all reviews is also verifiable, and clearly stated in Amazon discussion at the book's page. DDOS aatcks on Stormfront site are corraborated by announcements on the Stormfront forum. Erasing the Moroccan websites is confirmed on many blogs by Islamic authors; also PR Newswire substantially verifies press releases. Protests in Ukraine against the Holocaust forums were shown on Israeli TV2.

  • Endorse deletion Valid AFD discussion. If you want undeletion on the basis of new evidence, you need to demonstrate published reliable sources that were created by WP:independent people and organization, contain non-trivial content, and are primarily about this person (mentions not good enough). I don't see any claims to have such sources here, just blogs, forums, and the person's own site. GRBerry 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a person writes under pen name on Internet, what could possibly be the verifiable sources except the other sites, blogs, and forums? Arutz Sheva is not just a site, but a huge Israeli news portal. Maof is similarly a mega-site. Also Israeli Hasbara Committee published reviews of Obadiah's book. Those are highly reputable media outlets, not just average sites. Many articles refer to online rather than print sources. What do we need to verify? Obadiah's identity? It's secret and he uses pen name. Obadiah's political agenda? It's clear from his book and dozens of articles republished on hundreds of other sites. Certain actions, like demonstrations and hacking hostile sites? Those are corraborated by PR Newswire releases' that's not your regular free-for-all or publish-anything-for-a-fee web news source. Legally speaking, book is a material evidence, and anything printed in the book, including the details of biography, is legally admissible evidence - challengeable, yes, but admissible. The article's author wrongly wrote that Shoher entered Israel with Third Aliyah, that's only a mistake, delete it. It's probable, though, that he meant third Soviet Aliyah of late 1980s. On reliability of sources. While personal and websites are not acceptable as sources, reputable websites presumably are acceptable. PR Newswire, Arurz Sheva, Maof and similar sites which published materials about Obadiah are neither personal nor anonymous, but reputable and admissible as Wikipedia sources. The article reliable sources also lists an exception of to general inadmissibility of self-published sources: if the author is well-known and published in third-party publications. Obadiah's articles are reprinted on hundreds of websites, thus he is both well-known and published by third-party sources. Another exception is extremist organizations. Obadiah's views are extreme right and, according to the above mentioned article, could be used as sources about himself. Note that any author writing under pen name is inherenetly unverifiable; that doesn't make information about him less valuable to public. Obadiah symbolizes an important turn in Israeli public opinion to conservatism and is very well worth a wiki.

  • overturn & relist I copy from WP:BLOG "Currently we suggest you adhere to Wikipedia:Websites. It's worth noting that a criterion for website inclusion is of been covered in (inter)national news. At some point we may want to more finely tune these criteria for blogs; paying particular attention to what level of news coverage, both local and national, is considered notable." The time has come, but I think the comments in the last pararaph about indirect sources might be valid & the article might meet them now. there should be the chance to make the case anew.DGG 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Whatever knowledge those who reprint the stuff may have of the person/people behind this nym, we have none that is verifiable. Should WP:BLP apply to internet nyms? IANAL, but I'd start from the assumption that it should. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above. No new evidence of reliable sources showing encyclopedic notability. A online forum poll-driven award is not reliable/authoritative. PR Newswire press releases from people running the samsonblinded website are not reliable - ditto for Amazon reviews and random blogger comments. Couldn't find mentions of Obadiah on maof[4] or Arutz Sheva[5]. A couple of book reviews (one submitted "on behalf of the author"(?) and then someone decides to do an actual review of the book (to seemingly to balance out the "author submitted review") on Hasbara, but this is not substantive as a supporting source [6]. Can't find anything on the supposed "massive" protests in Ukraine apart from press releases from Shoher's site (no Factiva non-press release hits for his name except a "news in brief" bulletin from Warren's Washington Internet Daily (July 2006) with a one paragraph bit about hackers attacking 380 Moroccan websites apparently to promote Shoher's book/website) and forum gossip. If Shoher is a penname for some journalist/writer who works for Israeli news "mega-sites", that doesn't exempt it from verification and reliability requirements (and apparently the "mega-sites" he supposedly works for don't cover Shoher). Bwithh 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The demand for "encyclopedic notability" is a bit outdated. Internet sources are also a source of information and knowledge. PR Newswire does verify the press releases. Obadiah is mentioned in Russian versions of maof and Arutz Sheva. Whatever one's views on hackers' intention, there is good evidence for Obadiah's followers taking hostile sites out of order, which is quite unusual for politicians. The object of verification seems to be misunderstood: Obadiah identity is unverifiable, his views and actions are well-documented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.143.233.64 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Free Jeff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Free Jeff was the last active third wave ska band at Los Alamitos High School. Locustreign 06:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no claim of notability in the article. Endorse deletion. See WP:BAND for criteria for notability of a band.-gadfium 07:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If "the last active third wave ska band at Los Alamitos High School" is the claim to notability, the deletion is valid. In fact, I think I may have just been trolled. Shaundakulbara 12:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is silly, I'm closing this early, as for Locustreign, see WP:BAND Jaranda wat's sup 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hutman Artcars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Hutman Artcars Discussion of this page is flawed-reconsider.

  1. Two of the few discussants are artcar artists who have a long standing feud going with me which has lasted several years now. Note the tone in their use of language and admission by one of them plymouth on lebo user talk page. These two have objected for their own benefit. One observation is also that there is a coincidence of the date the article went up and was criticized and the entry of the critic/editor improcat to the forums. Both of these two are friends. Another of the critic editors is also a recent arival. I note in the wikipedia guidelines that this is a reason for concern.
  2. Two of the critic editors noted that the article had met standards- lebo noted that he thought that the page had progressed beyond the major complaints and another stated that the subject is probably notable - a second of the major complaints.
  3. The discussion also demonstrated adequately on the delete discussion as well as the page talk that critics did not follow up and reconsider properly after new edits. This reflects a closed minded approach indicating that critique was not in good faith. They complained about references which had infact been included as requested.
  4. The critics were overwealmed with the lack of good faith generated because this to them represented a violation in their own opinion whereas self written articles are infact legal they are simply "strongly discouraged".
  5. Essentially the self written page was legal. If that is the case specific problems need to be outlined so that they can be corrected. The last edit was severe but by the request of the critics-it did have readability problems but that is not what the critics addressed following the last edit. They continued to address concerns not present in that edit because it had been essentially stripped down to bare facts.
  6. Another indication of the agressive bad faith was that one of the two artcar artist critics improcat immediately went out of his way to remove images linked to the page after the page had been deleted. I know that they stay for a few days but that will generate a discussion which is not necessary and most people would not have taken it upon themselves to act so agressivly. I was thinking of moving them into the commons area anyway or offering the to another editor to use.
  7. Documentary- I used the term documentary to distinguish between trivial and non trivial sources. This was objected to. Documentaries unlike ordinary media citations- news stories involve considerably more research. For example- for each of the sources I term documentary in nature the editors/authors did not take my word for it- they interviewed local residents, my family, came out with film crews and documented things and looked into other sources.
  8. As far as finding sources goes. Yes...some are not on the web. That is why print libraries still exist. Monster Nation does not have a web footprint. Therefore rather than stop there the critic should go to the producers and the television station for information. To discount sources without taking proper steps to locate them may be an indication of bad faith. (I have the video of the extensive interview footage from Monster Nation). One expects critics to simply do their homework.

Conclusion- This discussion was extremely long and philosophical and complex. I am a new member so I had to gradually learn formating but I did work hard on keeping things orderly. I also worked hard to make very prompt and complete repairs when specified. Addressing critics was also a priority. I tried to address each concern each day with a comment and or a specific change to the page. I thank you for your patience.

I believe that this article is for the good of Wikipedia. I believe it will be useful for those researching specific artcar artists of note and for preserving basic information. Than can be no difference in an article due to authorship if the facts stated are sourced and the sources can be verified.

I will gladly fix any problem if it is specifically outlined and a solution is provided. I am open to any oter editor making those changes in this short article. The fact remains that self written articles are legal at this time, that I have been considered sufficiently notable and that problems have been corrected extremely promptly where solutions have been provided that can be implemented. Cbladey 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment DRV nomination was malformed, it's fixed now. --Coredesat 04:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. DRV is not a rehash of AfD; the debate on its merits has already taken place. DRV is for reviewing the administrative decisions related to the deletion, and the consensus of the AfD was clearly in favor of deletion, with policies backing the !votes. No problems here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Subject doesn't have the right stuff as far as WP:N was concerned. Author was given every opportunity to prove their notability and failed. Claims that the author wasn't informed of what article lacked are invalid. I feel artist wants to use Wikipedia to establish their notability. Shaundakulbara 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Inclusion is not a right, and not an indicator of real-world merit. Issues raised in AfD were not addressed, nor was it evident what sources existed for them to be addressed. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion per AFD consensus. The fixes to the article were clearly insufficient to convince editors to argue for keeping, and notability was not established. Per JzG, inclusion is not an indicator of merit. --Coredesat 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_4&oldid=1140185617"