Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 August 1
2009 August 3 >

2 August 2009[edit]

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

subject does not meet WP:N WP:BAND WP:MUSIC Entire section on Skinny Blonde uses an opinion article from tabloid newspaper as a source. The claim of national controversy in unverifiable anywhere else. 203.153.202.40 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 203.153.202.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Overturn and delete, The keep arguments were weak and not backed up with refutable facts. This article is a house of cards supported by weak and unreliable sources from a Google search. Also should note that User:Spartaz did not supply a reason for his "closed as keep" decision. 203.153.201.78 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)— 203.153.201.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse Spartaz' accurate reading of the consensus. "Delete" arguments were correctly given less weight because User:The-Pope refuted them. (How come he could find the sources the previous debate contributors couldn't?) Single-purpose account tags may have had an impact, as well; you may wish to consider registering an account.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - before raising a DRV it is customary to discuss the close with the admin concerned and, if you bothered to visit my talk page, you would have seen that I am very open and cooperative about working with users over AFD closes. My function is to read the consensus against policy not headcount and I do not generally discriminate against ip comments vs user comments. the keep side produced sources that were not refuted and asserted the subject meets music my membership of another group that was subject to controversy which would be another way to meet MUSIC. Really I had no choice in reading the consensus here. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the IP who raised this review, nominated it initially for deletion, and who engaged in the most over the top tag attack I've yet seen here, seems to have some sort of vendetta or personal distaste for the article subject. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, and it's not a valid reason to overturn a clear keep consensus, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - stunning that such experienced editors would focus so overtly on the fact that "an IP" is raising legitimate issues without actually responding to the legitimate issues raised. It is clear upon reasonable examination and multiple Wiki standards of rationale that the subject, as a replacement drummer of a moderately known garage band which peaked way before he joined:
1. does not meet WP:N because drummer had done nothing notable as a drummer, won no awards as drummer, nor has any reliable non-POV media coverage about him as a drummer, nor has his band achieved either of the above since he joined. 2. For the same reasons does not meet WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC because as a drummer, simply being associated with a band which may or may not be notable is not qualification enough for an entire article about him.
The issue was raised by User_talk:Florrie (and echoed by a few others) that simply because he manufactured a beer which received tabloid media coverage that this somehow legitimises his notability as a drummer. A circular argument which holds no weight. Evidence nor rationale has ever been offered whether his status as a mere drummer makes him notable. As for the issue of having a beer company, I wasn't aware that company employees throughout Australia deserve their own Wiki article. Shouldn't there be a notability standard? WP:N applies equally in both cases as drummer and employee, and the combination of the two does not make the subject suddenly notable.
Finally, editors are making a WP:OR claim that Skinny Blonde had some sort of "national controversy" yet NO SOURCE they have provided has made the claim that there was indeed a national controversy. Having a couple of articles in a tabloid Herald_Sun newspaper, one clearly an opinion column, does not comprise a national controversy. Not a WP:RS Reliable Source. Australia has hundreds of media outlets and not one other mentioned this contrived controversy. In fact, editors at Crikey [[1]] have pointed out the "controversy" was designed by Hamish himself to increase sales. This source was omitted conveniently by the "KEEP" editors. 203.153.201.197 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)— 203.153.201.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The AfD is over, and this isn't a second bite at that particular cherry. I do not see any procedural error in the close here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to this, the repeated assertion that the Herald Sun is a "tabloid" is a bit misleading; while it does use the tabloid paper format, it certainly doesn't share the tabloid characteristics of more notorious tabloids like News of the World. Lankiveil (speak to me) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse – clear consensus to keep. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 05:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closing admin had no other option. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Comment that this IP range has made a series of disruptive edits to the Skinny Blonde article as well. (See history.) Suggest that this IP range is one editor with some grievance against Hamish Rosser or his brewery in particular. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer accurately assessed consensus, and nominator never really argued under policy for anything but cleanup. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but note that "Article needs additional sources and clean-up". Feel free to re-nominate in a couple of months if this doesn't happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't a reason to re-nominate an article. Quantpole (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The consensus was clear at AfD and there appears to be no issue with the close. The sources at the article establish notability and there appears to be no issue here with the article or the close. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and really--conduct yourself more civilly next time, please, Mr. IP. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth – there is a clear consensus to overturn to delete and checking the article I'm not seeing sufficient sourcing added since the AFD to suggest that it would be reasonable for me to overlook the consensus and relist. I'm very happy to make a copy of the article available to anyone that wants to work on it – Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
(result was No consensus, and I wish this to be overturned to Delete.)

This page, at the time of listing, had no reliable, third-party sources to establish any notability. The only sources were from the producer's website. Now, well over a fortnight since the AfD was closed, there is still no indication that this is notable.

The AfD was pulled off-track by a trolling IP, who inflamed discussion with 'helpful' comments such as, "Maybe you're doing this because you don't like this page for whatever reason," "I'm a third party and I'm backing up its notability," and "You don't want to keep things that one day may be really useful to some historian in the future."

I tried to simply re-list the article to try and garner a more genuine consensus, not one which was distracted and disrupted by such stupid remarks as the ones above, but was told to come here. Note that I don't blame the closing admin at all; I was initially reluctant to resort to DRV because it may look like I did. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete, I'm pretty sure that's how I would have closed it. The keep arguments were both weak and outnumbered - absolutely no refutation was made of the assertion that this is unsourceable and non-notable. I really think there was a pretty clear consensus to get rid of the article even without the lack of improvement after the fact. ~ mazca talk 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per the consensus at the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I don't see any consensus at that discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, there were 2 Keep !votes (one was the trolling IP, one had no rationale); 1 Delete !votes (including the nom, all of which provided rationale); and 1 Merge !vote. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my previous comment. My vote does not change to overturn, consider it a no-vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now... the album is just out. It is too soon to determine notability. There will be reviews, if there aren't any already. Let it flesh out before repeatedly trying to get the article deleted in such a short timespan. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a procedural comment about the AfD, or a delete/keep statement? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, which was the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete – clear consensus for deletion was established. Arguments to keep were textbook cases of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. MuZemike 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete the people arguing to delete the article had convincing arguments which were not rebutted, and the arguments to keep were weak. Hut 8.5 11:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, or relist. The main argument against keeping was the the album was not yet released. Now it is. DGG (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't. Read the debate. It was that there are no third-party sources to establish notability.
    Quotes: "There are absolutely no reliable third-party sources to suggest that this is notable enough for its own article," "Soundtracks are rarely notable enough for their own article and I see nothing that makes this one notable. No indications it is notable, the only third party source is Amazon (so it could be advertising)," "Non-notable soundtrack," – that last one from two people.
    I've no idea where you got the thought that the problem was that the disc wasn't released yet. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was raised by someone supporting the article, but the probability of there being sources after release are so much greater that relist remains appropriate. DGG (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Delete poor close. Eusebeus (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It was a bad close. But I think it now might meet WP:N as there are reviews [2] for example. Not sure if it will make it, but I don't see the point in overturning here when it is now likely it meets our guidelines. Let AfD sort it out. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, where it ought be deleted due to lack of independent secondary sources. Ref #1 is amazon (not independent). Ref #2 contains no content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it was. There was consensus to delete in the original AfD. Why relist, please? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there wasn't consensus, and support the close, but I note that a significant cause for finding no consensus was that something (a release?) was about to happen. This "claim" should now be moot. However, I don't think DRV discussions should go into such details, and that a relist should leed to a good decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete W/ no prejudice toward recreation should sourcing arise. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we be showing the sources exist _here_ or wait for the next AfD? As this isn't AfD2 new sources aren't generally welcome here, but going through all that seems a bit too much. I feel a relist is the best way to go (or just accept this as AfD2). Hobit (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (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.
Pace won (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Im not sure why the page had been rejected as i followed all of the guidelines, quoting reliable internet sources where the text visible is solely available to be edited the owner of the page and not open to discussion in a public domain. The actual Hip Hop artist, Pace Won, of whom i did the article on, is in no way connected to me personally and i have no reason to try and promote his material with any form of personal incentive. The reason i created the page was because you have a great article on one of Americas most influential underground hip hop acts of the 90's, called 'Outsidaz,' the head man of this group BEING Pace Won himself. i wanted to create a page about him because he was one of the most respected artists in the underground in the 1990's and was thought to be the "next hip hop star" in the 90's, being the only member of the hip hop group to launch such a successful solo career, for which he expressed his views during interviews for pages carrying out well respected hip hop articles (of which i have referenced their pages) and also a discography of his solo work to date (leaving out his work with former hip hop group 'Outsidaz' as you already have their prior works on their own page). There are also many aspects that i am yet to add to the Pace Won page garnering much interest in the hip hop world. For example, being part of a group with the Outsidaz, he worked with Eminem (before Eminem got famous) and claims that Eminem "came to them with his own style, stole theirs, then left the group to commercialize the soul of their music." there is still an ongoing dispute between Eminem and Pace Won. There are many other aspects to include on this page that i was going to research but found it has been deleted for reasons i cant imagine. He has worked with worldwide respected superstars and underground artists alike and i believe he deserves his own page on the Wikipedia website. Demolisten (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed typo in the listing. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested A7. Userfy for Demolisten, so he can see if he can improve it. No cache version is available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No lets not undelete thuis at all since it seems in part a copy vio of this Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Chrishan – Moot, not followed up by the ip and reasonable questions not responded to – Spartaz Humbug! 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chrishan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that at the time of this article's creation, then re-creation (several times by various users), the artist had no real notability. I have been following a lot of music acts gaining buzz on the internet and his stature exceeds others by far. He supposedly is now signed to a major label which was stated in an interview (that didn't state the label), has a single with Lil Wayne that was a huge success, and a newly released single with T.I.. A Google search of Chrishan brings up the single with Lil Wayne as the first listing. Obviously I would like to see the deletion overturned due to his new-found notoriety, and I will have the page created from the Article Creation page. Also if this is overturned and they do create the page can I ask for a lock so that un-sourced editing doesn't occur? Thanks 192.231.160.6 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's usual, when an article has been deleted so many times that an admin has found it necessary to protect the article from further creation, to present a draft by way of a user subpage overcoming the reasons for deletion when requesting a deletion review. I recommend this step be taken. Stifle (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that this title sounded familiar. In addition to the AFD discussion linked-to above, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna. My contention three years ago was that this content was unverifiable. Has this "new-found notoriety" made any of the content verifiable, yet? Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (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/2009_August_2&oldid=1049700533"