Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 21 Deletion review archives: 2008 November November 23 >

22 November 2008[edit]

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

Steven Cann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD2)

Has now played a professional game http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/7726987.stm. Now meets ponit 2 of this criteria. CumbrianRam (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2008 (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.

Joslyn Pennywell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AFD1) I'd like to undelete Joslyn Pennywell. I read the rules for notability and I think she meets the requirements. She has contributed to entertainement in an unique way (she holds the record for ANTM auditions, won quite a few pageants and was a victim of a scam which was talked about on msnbc), there are quite a few third-party sources takling about her such as: http://www.azurepageants.com/Joslyn.htm http://www.tftj.com/db/delegates.htm/783/Miss/2006 http://www.msusaonline.com/miss.php?model_id=833 http://media.www.thegramblinite.com/media/storage/paper926/news/2006/04/12/Focus/Kappas.Next.Top.Model-2665418.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425209/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425209/ http://www.ebonyfashionfair.com/assembled/history.html http://blogs.louisianasotherside.com/Tarah/post/2008/09/Chimp-Haven-Discovery-Day-Cancelled-Due-To-Ike.aspx and so on. Also on the discussion page no consensus was reached which means that she was at least considered to be notable by some users.--Whadaheck (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved this from the main DRV page and fixed the formatting. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Point of order. After looking, it seems the AfD is AfD1 even though it is named 2nd nomination. Perhaps it should be moved to the correct name. Also, for reference see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - RGTraynor's AfD comments seem to be right on point:

    "What I don't see is a single reliable, third-party, independent source that is, as is required, about the subject. ... if the sources don't meet WP:RS, wastepaper is all they are."

    That was endorsed by other editors and never sufficiently rebutted. She was at least considered to be important/significant by some users, but that doesn't mean she is Wikipedia Notable. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. The closing admin seemed to go a step further and try to find sufficient sources, to no avail. Citing "blogs.louisianasotherside.com" in the DRV request seems to support RGTraynor's AfD comments. Also, the deleted article was said to be well sourced, so without more details, it seems likely that the sources listed in the DRV request were considered in the AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Is there reason to believe this was improperly deleted? No, not in the least. What this is is forum shopping from someone who didn't like the consensus result of the recent AfD. My whole quote from the deletion discussion is "I see a lot of references, yes. What I don't see is a single reliable, third-party, independent source that is, as is required, about the subject. Youtube doesn't qualify. Pageant blog sites don't qualify. Gossip blog sites don't qualify. A clip from MSNBC referencing several models doesn't qualify. Is there a print magazine article solely about her? A newspaper article solely about her? An interview of her on a mainstream, broadcast network? I don't see anything, no. There's this common fallacy running around XfD that an article with ten sources is "well-referenced," but if the sources don't meet WP:RS, wastepaper is all they are." This article was properly deleted. Whatdaheck doesn't bring anything new to the table except the same raft of blog and pageant sites, and has given no grounds to sustain overturning the deletion.  RGTraynor  00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Suntag. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus of those quoting policies and norms was clearly to delete. Views to keep were not based on policies or norms. Closure called consensus correctly so no reason to undelete. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:52, 25 November 2008 (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.

Aimé. M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Deleted too soon, as well as during the rescue process. -- IRP ☎ 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • February 17, 2009 – Deletion of redirect endorsed, but no consensus has been formed over a different type of article at this location. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

February 17, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (RfD)

I agreed with the deletion at first, but now, I'm starting to question it. I think it was an OK redirect to Digital_television_transition#United_States. Otherwise, it could be restored and revised to where it lists expected future events including this one. -- IRP ☎ 18:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the redirect was originally to 2009#February. I would not be in favour of overturning the RFD outcome, as this is not a likely search term, and would also fail WP:CSB. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question: what about an article listing expected future events, including the one mentioned above? -- IRP ☎ 18:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about a redirect though. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • see WP:CRYSTAL - usually we delete unless there is substantial reliable sourcing discussing the subject in advance. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IRP, Arthur Rubin's posting "Nonsense" in the RfD could be taken two ways, and I don't think it was meant to disparage you. I initially was using your comment to weigh the discussion and it threw me off since it was made after the discussion was closed. Please try to refrain from posting in closed discussions. Also have a little more faith in the closer's understanding of Wikipedia. Even though it seems unlikely that it will come about, making February 17, 2009 like February 17, 2005 could be done before February 17, 2009 happens such as under circumstances mentioned by Spartaz above. In fact, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL seems to provide some support for your idea. Year 2000 problem was something that became notable before it's January 1, 2000 event date. Comments in XfD discussions are not accepted at face value but given weight and weighed among the other comments. Knowing when not to reply is just as important to knowing when to reply. Your after-the-close reply to Arthur Rubin was not needed for me to find value in your contribution to the RfD discussion and I'm fairly certain that most of the regular DRV participants understood what you were getting at. We all get comments thrown at us all the time. The best thing to do is just move to some place else in Wikipedia for a while and let the slight pass, recognizing that most Wikipedia's will see the situation for what it is. -- Suntag ☼ 23:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - With so little participation in the RfD both in number and comment, it would be easy to substitute our own judgment. However, DRV is to review the close and whether it interpreted the discussion correctly. Redirects may be deleted if "unlikely to be useful." See WP:RFD#DELETE. However, that and the other reasons for deleting listed don't seem to help. With Stifle's comment above regarding WP:CSB, the RfD makes more sense. The nominator chose leaving the date red over directing the date to something United States. 147.70.242.40 mentioned that dates are made redirects only for something out of the ordinary. Both these really are discussing systemic bias of making February 17, 2009 mean United States. February 17, 2009 happens all over the world, everywhere in the world. The U.S. is one of the largest contributors' demographic groups at Wikipedia. From this Wikipedia groups perspective, yes February 17, 2009 is a significant date and redirect to "Digital television transition#United States" makes sense, but it would seem to neglect the point of view efforts of encyclopedia as a whole. Both delete positions seemed to say that, but not in so many words. I don't give much weight to the Delete per IAR position and the delete per precedent comment. The keep reasoning didn't address the redirect as a redirect. On balance, it seems the delete reasoning outweighted the keep reasoning, which means that the closer interpreted the RfD discussion correctly. -- Suntag ☼ 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for the reasoning by Suntag. As a further note covering dates has changed since 2006. There are no articles February 17, 2008 and the like anymore. Rather events are bundled almost exclusively via monthly articles such as February 2008 which embeds info from the Portal:Current events. Future dates don't exit in the portal (see e.g.Category:2008 by day) but February_2009 redirect to a section of 2009 which lists the above mentioned February 17 event. Actually I am pretty sure somewhere the is further discussion why we sometimes write on future scheduled but do not consolidate it in the form of mainspace date pages or redirects. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2008 (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.

Myka Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I discussed this with the closing administrator, Stifle at his talk page User_talk:Stifle. Stifle responded with a reply at my page User talk:tvccs. I disagree with CSD decision and rationale(s) expressed for the following reason(s). I apologize in advance if this item has not met all the normal formatting for log inclusion, as it's the first time I have attempted a deletion review, and ask that those more knowledgeable than I correct whatever formatting deficiencies exist.

The key reason is the citation of "first party source" as a reason to exclude as a source Ms. Miller's Biography as provided at the Web site for The Harmony Project. Although Ms. Miller is the Executive Director of same, that does not mean the biography posted there is somehow invalid, or in need of being repeated on an additional "neutral" Web site to be considered valid. The Harmony Project is a multi-million dollar 501(c)3 licensed non-profit corporation with a Board Of Directors consisting of musical and charitable luminaries from Greater Los Angeles. As such, they chose to hire Ms. Miller as Executive Director based on the very information contained in the supplied biography, which was thoroughly investigated and vetted before their decision. Ms. Miller's reputation as the Executive Director of the American Youth Symphony in Los Angeles, as well as her work for the Henry Mancini Foundation, were also well-known known in the community prior. Her role as the Executive Director for The Harmony Project should qualify her for inclusion and notability alone. Much of this same biographic information is included on other Web sites of which Ms. Miller is not the Executive Director, including [1].

Ms. Miller has also performed and toured in North and South America as part of various musical ensembles, and has played with many notable musicians as only partially listed in the article. She is very notable, and has been noted, for her work in bringing oboe and english horn to very non-traditional musical settings, as listed in the article. That effort has been noted in references and reviews on multiple occasions, and if needed to establish same, I can add those to the references provided, including [2]. Ms. Miller is a recognized virtuoso on her instruments, and is asked to play in a wide variety of high-level musical settings because of her recognized abilities and experience as only partially listed in the article.

I would also add the following as reference to MySpace Musician Pages, and comments from Stifle listed on his page about same. I know many hundreds of jazz and other musicians worldwide, and work with dozens of musicians in the Los Angeles area on projects including MySpace pages. Many prominent jazz musicians now use MySpace exclusively as a way to connect with fans worldwide because of its ease of use and lack of cost, and have often discontinued their regular Web sites. In this case Stifle points to a desire for another page as needed for consideration of MySpace as a valid source, and Ms. Miller's Orion Winds ensemble, of which she is a co-founder, was provided in the References listed on the original article. I would also add that the inclusion of article references from the Los Angeles Times and International Musician were included as verifications of the Ms. Miller's role as Executive Director of The Harmony Project and prominence in the local and musical communities.

In sum, Myka Miller is equally, if not more, notable than thousands of similar musicians included and detailed on Wikipedia, with a much more extensive list of prominent collaborations and recordings than many others, not withstanding her role as Executive Director of The Harmony Project and the American Youth Symphony prior. An Advanced Search at Google shows nearly 400 references to Myka Miller, and she is fully deserving of being included on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Tvccs (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion. The article as written did not make any serious indication how Ms. Miller is notable. I suggested to the user that he create an article about the Harmony Project and include details of Ms. Miller there, as the organization certainly seems to be notable. Of course, as with all speedy deletions, the page can be recreated if it is improved and notability shown. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I reviewed the cache version. I read it twice to see whether I could derive an importance/significance from the artiicle as required by A7. Both "most noted for her willingness to feature the oboe and english horn in non-traditional musical settings" and " co-founder (with Jenni Olson Scott) of the all-female woodwind quintet Orion Winds" lacked context to show an importance/significance. The phrase "appeared and/or recorded with" was more of an event rather than an importance. Speedy deletion under A7 seemed appropriate. Comment A better approach to the topic for Wikipedia would to use source material from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. No matter how hard you push, blogs and website sources will only bring significant resistance from Wikipedia editors. In short, be the sun, not the North Wind. -- Suntag ☼ 02:01, 23 November 2008 (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/2008_November_22&oldid=1138433905"