Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 Deletion review archives: 2008 September September 22 >

21 September 2008[edit]

  • Global Underwater Explorers – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a future version that is neutral and based on citations of reliable, independent sources. Nominator is advised that such a version may still be subject to AfD at any editor's discretion, but he can undertake it at his own risk. – Chick Bowen 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Global Underwater Explorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Article was created and was immediately listed for a speedy delete (most likely on the basis that it had been deleted on 4 previous occasions). {{Hangon}} tag was put on the article, and some preliminary arguments for the keep listed on the talk page, but that notwithstanding it was deleted within an hour and a half. Tried to resolve with Admin, he is travelleing, but he agreed in principal with it going through deletion review, although he stands by his original decision.

Sound reasons why it should at least go through the AfD process. Amongst the List of diver training organizations, GUE is the third largest (arguable second largest) technical diver training organisation - it seems incongruous that the two above it and organisations below it should have articles, but it is not notable enough for one itself. Even a simple Google search reveals at least a basic level of notability.

Qualifications: I accept the stub that I created wasn't a very good one - not really my field - I thought it needed at least a stub because of the number of related redlinks. Not clear why it was deleted on several prior occasions; spamming by people connected with organisation?

But I do think it deserves an article, and should at least should have gone through a formal AfD review. Assuming we get that far, I will marshall up some better third party sources to indicate why I think it should not be deleted --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • try again on your user space and provide some indications of 3rd party reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases) that show something of notability. That will pass speedy at any rate. Even my my relatively flexible standards there was no reason given why this is a technical diving certification agency was important, or considered to be recognized as a standard certifying agency. But, even so, if, as it asserts, its associated with the Woodville Karst Plain Project, the question will then be whether that apparently local group is of sufficient importance that the organization certifying divers for it is important also. If however you are developing national standards, that would be significant. But we go by what the sources show. DGG (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I created a page within the my userspace to marshall a few arguments: User:Legis/GUE. As I mentioned, I am neither a technical diver nor anything to do with GUE, so I will leave a couple of posts on relevant message boards to see if I can garner some more insights with those who have better understanding of the topic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A GUE diver contacted me to point out that GUE has articles on the Swedish, German and Norwegian language Wikipedias. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and of course feel free to create a userspace version or recreate in mainspace with one that doesn't make any of the speedy critera (I suggest the former, to be on the safe side). Skimming what you've got up in your userspace, it appears that an article could be written, but I can't make any real judgments unless I actually see an article. I'm happy to userfy or email you the content as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one doesn't make A7, at least, but it doesn't demonstrate notability either. I do not suggest putting that version in the mainspace. What you need is to demonstrate that there are things written about GUE, rather than just trivially mentioning it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD. This is a close call. I's probably vote delete on the merits since see only one substantial independent source. But the draft is clearly not a speedy candidate and would benefit from a full AfD discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Lack of independent sources. Too much chance that this is a promotional effort. Recreate a proper article in userspace, and be sure to include independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Doctor Steel – Keep deleted. It also results form the discussion that any further examination should be based on a good a userspace draft or list of reliable independent references beyond what has been brought up here so far. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Doctor Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

See also

(I don't think this list is complete yet).

Examples of spamdalism:

WP:SPAs:

Previous reviews

This might run a bit long. Anyway, I was looking through a band's website that my friend recommended to me and I noticed a thread on their attempts to get a Wikipedia article about themselves, which was speedily deleted through WP:CSD/A7. Now, the manner in which this artist's fans tried to restore their article was not the best; I believe they attempted to recreate their article multiple times instead of going to DRV, if what I've figured out is correct. Anyways, the article as last published according to deletionpedia fell nowhere near A7. A7 demands that bands assert notability, which the articlemakers clearly did, citing multiple independent, reliable sources. A Second AFD run or different CSD criterion would have been better

Regardless of the method of deletion, I don't think this article would even fail AFD if presented there. There are several independent sources confirming his existence and key details about his music. [1] [2] [3] [4].

Note: While this was one of many reasons I decided to try and come back to Wikipedia, I didn't rejoin with the sole intention of posting a DRV for a band. Chris Picone! 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Again: For WP:COI reasons as well as to prevent anything ugly from happening, I've asked the community "involved" with the once-constant recreation of the article to refrain from posting "votes" here, as they probably have nothing to add related to Wikipedia policy. Chris Picone! 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that this is an artist whose work is all self-published, and whose promotional method is viral marketing. Sometimes such acts will take off, but I don't see any evidence that this act has done so. There's no evidence of hitting any of the major charts, for example (compare with Dr Horrible, which made the Billboard top 40 on release), and all the merchandise at the store is either Cafepress type or "Dr Steel does not yet have enough money to make this". I believe the fundamental problem is that while the image is great, the music itself is bland and fails to live up to the "mad scientist" hype. If the guy was as good at making innovative music as he is at self-promotion, he'd be at #1 on the Billboard and no mistake. And of course it also does not help that they come back every time there is another namecheck on the radio. I would say the brief appearance on Leno is the high point of recognition, and that was long before the AfD and the three endorsed deletion reviews we've already had. I don't see any new evidence of significance to justify overturning, especially given the lengthy history of gaming, wikilawyering, G4 reposts, copyright violations and other abuse. The bottom line is, Steel's fans are desperate for an article on Wikipedia as a crucial part of their viral marketing, they have a long-term orchestrated campaign to make that happen, but the subject simply is not getting substantial mainstream coverage. This is underground stuff. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... just because there's a rabid underground fan base that wants an article on this doesn't mean that the result is inherently an advertisement. I don't think anyone at Wikipedia thinks that their actions are appropriate here, but denying it via WP:NOT is assuming that the only reason the article should exist is because fans want free advertising. The issue, and why the article was deleted, is if the artist meets WP:BAND. He has the necessary "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources" to meet the first criterion of it, so can't a case be made that, independent of the fanbase's desire, he's gotten /some/ media coverage? Then again, making an argument based on a strict interpretation fo the rules isn't what Wikipedia's about, so a few sources over a few years might not be enough. Chris Picone! 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that this is essentially a self-published underground act with virtually no significant coverage other than as a result of viral marketing. It's dead easy to make a website and a CD these days, rather harder to get signed by a major label or make the charts. It's extremely hard to find anything provably independent written about this act, because the same technique that's been used on Wikipedia is used elsewhere. More importantly, the level of coverage does not appear to have increased over time, as it did with Dr. Horrible or the execrable Jeffree Starr. The viral marketing has not resulted in non-trivial mainstream coverage, and the long history of abuse means that many of us are going to wait until it's unambiguously supported from reliable independent sources before we'll buy it. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media coverage pointed to in most of these discussions are either glancing blows (eg the Rochester newspaper article - one line), blogs (most of the sources in the last version discussed), or not really useful. Doctor Steel has not received mainstream attention enough to be considered notable, and thus the A7 was quite appropriate. Endorse and keep deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bother, while your point is completely valid, A7 if I recall correctly is for articles that don't even try to assert their notability, which the article at least attempted to do. It did fall under recreation of deleted content... Chris Picone! 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not thinking recreation is a good idea at this point. The links given above don't really look to me to give notability, and so it'd still fail CSD G4 at this point. I'm open to being convinced otherwise with more links, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, normally I'd agree that that particular application of CSD A7 was not correct, but the article wouldn't last five minutes at AfD. The sourcing is feeble, and I don't think it'd pass the WP:MUSIC notability criteria either. There has been consensus (not withstanding the swarm of socks) to delete this article previously, and I don't see any changes in the good Doctor's status that would make the previous judgement invalid. Arguably, the article was also eligible for CSD G4 when it was deleted, too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, per Guy's excellent analysis. I think Doctor Steel is going to have to fall into that category of articles which must have a version worked up in userspace, establishing notability via impeccable sourcing to reliable sources independent of the subject, before it can be seriously considered by DRV. --Stormie (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and suggest any further attempts be speedy-closed unless something really changes. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the place to do "viral" marketing for your unsigned band. Most folks don't take dozens of deletions to figure that out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis user essay seems relevant. An unfortunate effect of pushing against a consensus to delete is that the consensus becomes entrenched and unlikely to change even when it should. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The North Wind and the Sun also seems relevant. They keep trying to blow an article into Wikipedia rather than shining Wikipedia with the warmth of a well sourced article. -- Suntag ☼ 14:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, per Guy's excellent analysis. The easiest thing to do would be to create a userspace article and present it to DVR in a request that it be posted to article space over the prior deletions. Deletionpedia shows an article that includes much of what Dr. Steel says about himself during interviews. That self generated information is not independent of Dr. Steel. To get over the DRV hump, I suggest only using third party material and making the persona character distinct from the real human behind the character.-- Suntag ☼ 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference comments - In view of the topic's history, perhaps we can help move this along by providing direction for a user space draft of the topic. Please feel free to comment below regarding whether the below references meet reliable sources. -- Suntag ☼ 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. blog.wired.com
2. cinematical.com
3. suicidegirls.com
4. regenmag.com.
  • The Wired and Cinematical sources are bloggy, what I'd consider "glancing blows," and don't have a lot of substance to work from other than "fans think Dr. Horrible was lifted from Dr. Steel". The Suicide Girls and Regen interviews are in-character interviews of the good doctor, and as noted above are essentially primary sources. That's the biggest issue here - any references are either right out of the fan base or are direct interviews with the character. There's little real-world information to work with here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 23 September 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_September_21&oldid=1138434456"