Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 November 3
2009 November 5 >

4 November 2009[edit]

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

Disambiguation page unfairly deleted by DurovaJake Wartenberg for being an attack page. The page consisted entirely of this: Ted87 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas "Tommy" Riccardi is the name of two mobsters. It is unknown if they are related.
  • Thomas Ricciardi, a Colombo family associate who killed mobster Frank Bompensiero for membership in the Los Angeles crime family
  • Thomas Ricciardi, a New Jersey mobster who was a member of the Lucchese family before becoming an F.B.I. informant

How this constitutes an attack page I will ever know. Nothing was in the page that can not be found here: [1] [2]

  • It was not deleted by Duvora as far as I can see. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Negative unsourced BLP. Crime family membership is a negative claim. Tim Song (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remain convinced that the original deletion should be endorsed. No objection to recreation with DGG's sources. Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He deleted the page, less then 10 minutes after I created it. Can't I make 2 edits before a page is considered for deletion? --Ted87 (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using the {{undercontruction}} template next time. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or even adding sources to it as soon as you create it. But if neither has a page then we dont need to disambiguate this anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, doesn't the standard say that redlinks stay if real articles link to the article redlinks get to stay? Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that now. The page has been protected from being recreated. --Ted87 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deleting negative unsourced biographical material is entirely appropriate. Kevin (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation if sources are available--and they certainly are NY Times . LA Times , etc etc in google News Archive, where there are over 100 RSs Took me 30 seconds. Why have none of the people above actually looked? Wikipedia, the place where people pretend to require sources, but never look for them. But Ted, the primary responsibility was yours'. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unsalted the page. It might be wise for Ted to create this in userspace first. — Jake Wartenberg 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn -- Close to a dozen articles refer to a "Thomas Ricciardi". I disambiguated those who referred to a Los Angeles individual, and those who referred to a New Jersey individual. I too am amazed that DGG was the first person to look to see if there were sources. Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Geo Swan (though I am less amazed).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and deletion per the fact that at this time both mentions on the dab are redlinks. No prejudice against creating an article which doesn't violate any of our BLP policies, and is supportable via notability with reliable sources especially if it's presented in a WP:NPOV fashion. — Ched :  ?  19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but not salting, as the characterization of the page as an unsourced negative BLP was appropriate. It would have been far better to create sourced articles with hatnotes, even if the initial versions were little better than stubs, then expanded them as time permitted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation after redlinked articles exist The delete was proper. However, if proper articles exist, then the disambiguation page would be appropriate. RayTalk 03:51, 10 November 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.
Carol Heifetz Neiman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I marked on the article as I was posting it that I had only begun, and by the time I was finished making dinner for my son a bot had identified it as being someone who was insufficiently significant, and the editor had come through and deleted it (about two hours). The editor is no longer on site.

When I talked to him at the time, he said that the person didn't even have a web page. The artist died in 1990, so clearly that was a strange criterion for judging social importance.

The significance is that the artist was feminist artist of the 1970's, who died at the age of 53 as the president-elect of the National Women's Caucus for Art [3]. She was profiled in "Exposures: Women and their Art" [4] She also had shows and awards, etc. Kitode (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Kitode. According to the logs, this article was deleted under rule A7 more than two years ago. If you have reliable sources, you can simply create it anew and nobody will mind. You don't need to file a deletion review (although you can if you want to).

    Because there are many people who patrol new pages and they use automated tools to speed things up, it sometimes happens that a good-faith article is speedily deleted. This seems to have happened here. I'm sorry it's happened to you, and if you like, I'll make suggestions about how to avoid it in future on your talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per S Marshall. There really isn't much point in reviewing a 2-year-old A7. Just recreate it. If you need the original text, you probably will get better response time at WP:REFUND. Tim Song (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the article. I would have declined the speedy deletion at the time as there is an assertion of notability. Kevin (talk) 23:38, 4 November 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.
Doug Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe User:NuclearWarfare prematurely deleted this established article, which had been posted for nearly a year, without establishing clear consensus. I and other users had repeatedly added legitimate sources, Field's published books, etc. to show notability, yet most of these were deleted by other users for no clear reason. Then someone nominated the article for deletion with only 5 or 6 people voting (4-2 or something), and because most of sources were deleted by then, User:NuclearWarfare decided to delete the article within a week, even though only 6 people had voted. A simple Google search of Fields yields dozens of sources, clearly confirming his notability as one of the world's premier youth ministry experts, authors (he has over 50 published books), and consultants. I did discuss the situation with User:NuclearWarfare prior to appealing his decision here. Flavius Constantine (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please could an admin restore the history of the article so that we may verify Flavius' words.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my rational here. I will, again, suggest the article be userfied and sources be added before the article is reinstated into mainspace. The deletion has a clear consensus for Delete, hence my endorse. However, it is debatable whether an article should exist; this is not the correct forum for such a discussion sans a draft. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator's allegations mean we need to look further than just at the AfD, NocturneNoir. Effectively, the case being presented is that reliable sources were provided, but were removed prior to the AfD. If true, this would indeed fall within DRV's purview, because it would suggest that the consensus was unsafe, having been grounded on a poor version of the article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I participated in the Afd, so while my view is that the article should not have been deleted, this is not additional input beyond that of the original Afd. In the interest of full disclosure, I have corresponded with Falvius on talk pages, but I had not interacted prior to seeing the AfD. (I also !voted on another article created by Flavius, but that occurred later.) I asked him to notify me if he filed for wp:DR, so his note to me should not be viewed as canvassing.
I've read the Notability rules, and understand this is a close call. The Google search material is surprisingly light for someone whose claim to notability seems so solid.
In the case of close calls, I think it is useful to think about the thought process behind having any limitations. Despite the fact that space is not a real constraint, we've (sensibly) decided not to be an indiscriminate collection of everything. You may be Suzie's bff, but that doesn't warrant an article. If you and your buddies jam in the garage, and actually had a paying gig once—not enough. In order not to be arbitrary, we insist that articles cover notable subjects. In the case of people, I interpret that to mean, not god enough if the people that might want to look you up are your friends, family or colleagues. However, if there's a decent chance people outside that list are likely to turn to an encyclopedia to find out information about you, then perhaps you belong.
I think someone who has been one of the major pastors at one of the largest churches in the US qualifies. Someone who has 50 published books is not fringe.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Nuclear Warfare for restoring the article temporarily.

    A key factor in my assessment of this is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person. The mood on Wikipedia is swinging against those at the moment. I think the swing is going too far, but I also need to recognise that there really is a widespread feeling that articles about living people need to have absolutely impeccable sources if they're to be kept.

    I can see that EEMIV removed a number of references from the article during the AfD,and so did Orlady. I think they gave clear reasons for removing those references, and if they had been left in, I just don't think those references would have been enough to swing the debate in favour of "keep".

    In this instance, I'm going to endorse NuclearWarfare's closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The arguments revolved around whether Fields passed WP:BIO, and NW appears to have correctly ignored the numbers and based the decision on the strength of the arguments. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reccomend Incubation at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Doug Fields without prejudice toward article's return to mainspace if the article is improved enough to address the concerns of the AfD. If not, it will go. If improved, the project will benefit. Its a win-win. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a participant in the AfD, I think NuclearWarfare made a valid decision, although it might have nice to have had more participants in the discussion. FWIW, my "delete" statement in the AfD was not based on WP:BIO, but rather on not meeting the General Notability Guideline. Considering the number of copies that his books apparently have sold, I have a hunch that he probably would pass WP:BIO -- if only he passed the GNG. I spent a fair amount of time searching for third-party WP:RS coverage that could be considered substantial, and I found none. The only content about him that I found in third-party RS sources was the brief item saying that he had left the Saddleback Church. Multiple publications of a press release saying that a person left his job aren't enough to make that person notable.
    Also, FWIW, I did not delete any references from the article. My only edit to the article was to delete details about his kids, which I did on WP:BLP grounds. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Orlady: you're quite right. I was mistaken.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Orlady, a person has to pass either BIO or GNG, not both. Tbat's why we have the specialised guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not either-or. Passing the GNG is necessary (for one thing, when there are no sources independent of the person who is the subject of the article, there is no basis for assessing WP:BIO), but not sufficient to qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not publish articles about people merely because they pass the GNG. I have been the subject of multiple published articles written by third parties, but I am not notable according to WP:BIO. The same is true many high school and university athletes who have been profiled in local news media, but do not pass WP:ATHLETE. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes it certain is either-or, except to the degree limited by WP:NOT, WP:BLP and other policies. We do not require an athlete , for example, to both have competed in the Olympics and meet the GNG, as long as we can verify that he competed. At the moment we exclude local athletes by a special interpretation of WP:LOCAL requiring more than local sources for notability. This is an inconsistent special policy that I think justified, but we will sooner or later have to do something better than the practice of inconsistently piling on special rules to correct inadequate generalities. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment2 if recreating the article, it will need to be rewritten from scratch--the deleted articles is a very close paraphrase of the subjects website--so close that it's close to a G12 speedy for copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was correct. When notability is in question, with limited exceptions, sourcing is key. Neither the sources removed from the article nor those not removed demonstrate notability. Arguments for deletion was not sufficiently rebutted. Therefore, closure was in line with consensus. No objections to recreation if it can be demonstrated that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 5 November 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.
File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file was a screenshot from a 60 minutes broadcast. During that 60 minutes segment CBS broadcast clips from several videotapes. One videotape was taken by GIs who had destroyed and captured a compound used by militants. Another videotape, the one this image was taken from, was found in the rubble of the destroyed compound. The clips from this tape showed the construction and placement of IEDs. At the time I uploaded this image I did not realize that the CBS logo was itself copyright, and should be blacked out from otherwise free images we upload. At the time I uploaded the image I did not realize that Afghanistan had no domestic copyright law, and was not a signatory to any international copyright law. If I had known that I would have uploaded this image directly to the commons. This image was speedy deleted by an administrator who did not take any steps to inform anyone that the image had been deleted. When asking about this image I suggested to the deleting administrator that the logo itself was an insufficient reason to delete the image, when blacking out the CBS logo from this otherwise PD image was so trivial. The deleting administrator has made several inconsistent claims about their deletion. They have claimed it made invalid use of Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions. They have also claimed it made invalid use of Commons:Template:Archive-Mujahideen. I requested the deleting administrator tell me what text I had supplied for the image when I first uploaded it. You can see our discussion here. What I would like would be for the image, and its revision history, to be restored long enough to review whether it really should be copied to the commons under Template:PD-Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • An admin may be prepared to email it to you. Where there's a copyright concern, an image would not normally be restored to Wikipedia, for reasons that I think you'll understand.

    Is it strictly necessary to hold a full deletion review discussion here? You don't seem to be asking for one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It will be more useful at Commons in any case. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too believe it would be more useful at the Commons. I believe it is eligible for inclusion at the Commons. We know the image's provenance. If the image can be moved to the commons without going through a full deletion review here, I have no problem with that. If, however, the fact that it was deleted here, and the deletion review was not completed, is going to pose a problem for the image's inclusion on the commons I would prefer that full deletion review to happen.
    Brief review of the provenance. The OC-1 CITF witness report says an incriminating videotape was found on 2002-07-28 in the ruins of a compound in Gardez, Afghanistan, destroyed by American aerial bombardment on 2002-07-27. The OC-1 CITF witness report says that American forces who were on site who reviewed the videotape confirmed that landmarks visible on the tape confirmed it was shot in the local vicinity of the destroyed compound. Five or so years later the CBS show 60 minutes did a segment on the firefight, and that segment included clips from two videotapes -- one made by the GIs, for their after-action report, and the other identified in the 60 minutes segment as the one captured in the ruins of the building. The DoD had released these tapes to the media. I interpret this release to the media by the DoD as the tapes' first publication. This image was a screen-capture from the tape unearthed in the ruined compound. Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no admin comes back to indicate that either (a) they have sent a copy of the image to Geo Swan or (b) they have judged it inappropriate to do so, then please would the closer relist.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sent the text associated with the image to Geo Swan. The image itself is a scrawny little thing 194 pixels wide so I am unconvinced it is very useful. The 60 minutes logo would be too simple for copyright. Can geo swan take uuencoded files? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • template:$ – Relist at RfD because of irregularities noting that there is also a new alternative – Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
template:$ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Head count rather than an examination of the arguments. This diff also seems to have messed up the primary keep argument, which meant the closing admin might have missed it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, solely on the ground that the result of the debate is unsafe when, in the middle of the debate, both the nomination statement and the principal keep argument were changed dramatically without either user's consent, such that a significant part of the nomination is removed and replaced by the keep argument. Tim Song (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure Killiondude will be along shortly, and perhaps at that time he will be able to tell us whether or not he considered the entire argument as presented by thumperward. If he can confirm this, then I think we have an endorse, since there was consensus to delete. I do recognise the logic behind assuming that "$" should default to the US currency on the English Wikipedia, but it appears to run contrary to WP:CSB, and if I were a Canadian, Australian, New Zealander or whatever, I should think I would find such a default a little irritating.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is that the change made the nomination statement artificially weak - indeed, it appears to be supporting keeping rather than deleting. It is impossible to tell if other people would have commented but for the change, which is the basis of my !vote. But I fully agree that if we have to judge the debate as it stands, the close should be endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh. Yes, I do see that. It's a fair point. I would still tend to think Drilnoth's argument ought to have been strong enough to carry the day, but there's a definite procedural irregularity to consider. I'd still like to hear from Killiondude before I commit myself to any words in bold face.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware at the time of closing that others' comments had been modified, no. I was slightly confused by the nominator's rationale, but I didn't consider the fact that it might have accidentally been altered. I'm not too entirely familiar with the DRV process, but I wouldn't mind if you guys wanted to relist the debate. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, then, is pretty much the only outcome available to us. Thanks Killiondude.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; the rationale alteration is pretty disconcerting and by itself a good enough reason to relist. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm surprised {{dollarsign}} wasn't mentioned. It does what both templates would do. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Like Tim song, I think I would !vote to delete, because of the use of "$" in many non-US english speaking countries, all of which are part of our primary constituency. But the discussion needs to be done over--it's simple enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Song.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 5 November 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.
Game Show Congress (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Testing Recall About Strange Happenings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Improper speedy delete. This and another page, Testing Recall About Strange Happenings, were zapped today through improper A7ing. A7 is to be used for "an organization... 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." Game Show Congress is the industry/fan trade show, and A7'ing it is like A7'ing E3 or Comic-Con or SIGGRAPH. TRASH is one of the four major national quiz bowl organizations, along with CBCI, NAQT, and ACF (see, for example, Chapter 3 of Ken Jennings's book Brainiac). As best I can tell, User:TenPoundHammer decided to wipe both of these notable organizations from the encyclopedia today, and was aided by administrator User:Jéské Couriano. In the case of the latter article, TenPoundHammer posted the speedy nom notification to my talk page on the latter article at 15:21, and I promptly placed a {{hangon}} tag sometime before the article was deleted at by Jéské Couriano at 16:00. In the case of the Game Show Congress article, TenPoundHammer nominated the article for deletion at 16:02, Jéské Couriano deleted it at 16:03, and by 16:06 TenPoundHammer removed the deletion notification from the article's creator's talk page. [5] Speedy deletions are supposed to be speedy, but this is a subversion of the process, especially when both articles clearly indicated the importance of their subjects. Even if either article had sourcing problems, poor sourcing does not make for a prima facie case of A7 deletion (see above). I made attempts to resolve the issue with the administrator Jéské Couriano, but was unsuccessful. I contend that the subjects are notable, but that is not the instant issue here. The issue is whether the articles were properly deleted by A7 and whether they deserve to be discussed in an AfD. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • User conduct issues are outside DRV's jurisdiction. While I understand nom's understandable frustration, I respectfully suggest that the nomination be refactored to remove the statements not directly related to the actual merits of the deletions at issue. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone.

    On the merits, overturn both speedies, and send to AfD. Each article contains a plausible indication of significance, sufficient to pass A7, crappy sourcing notwithstanding. Testing Recall About Strange Happenings is, according to the article, national in scope and also includes multiple regional tournaments. Game Show Congress is attended by multiple notable people each year. These assertions cannot and do not establish notability, of course, but they are sufficient to clear the low hurdle of A7. Further debates of sourcing issues should occur at AfD. Tim Song (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Taking your suggestion on refactoring into account (thanks), I have reworded one portion of the above; the rest remains to indicate that the DRV request is proper insofar as it follows the prerequisite step ("Before listing a review request: discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first"). Robert K S (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. I asked other administrators, both of whom agreed that these met A7 at the time, but given some flak I have taken at another message board, I will be willing to ask for the A7 to be overturned. I still don't think either one would survive here, but you never know. On the other hand, I don't think that using instant messaging to ask for an admin to delete something is any more out of line than, say, asking the same thing of an admin via IRC (which happens literally all the time). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Asking for deletions on IRC or instant messaging are equally out of line except in clear G10 cases or BLP vios. Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, Spartaz, hold your horses. There's no reason at all why a user should not communicate with an administrator off-Wiki, nor make requests of that administrator off-wiki; and even if we did have a rule that said that, it would be totally unenforceable. I do not think there is any respect in which Ten Pound Hammer is at fault. The administrator who replies to the request is supposed to consider it carefully and follow due process, and I think we should await Jeske's explanation of his actions before deciding to overturn. There may be some factor of which we were not aware.

    However, if Jeske chooses not to appear here, my default position in the absence of an explanation is overturn per Tim Song.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • (later) The answer having arrived, I see that a "hangon" tag was placed on TRASH but Jeske did not see it. This seems sufficient to say there is some doubt over the speedy, so my position must be overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure TPH meant no harm and I know that they have the best interests of the project at heart and I generally agree with their view of deletion but this really is a red line for me. If this was a request for someone to support a discussion it would be canvassing. It it were a request for a block it would be against the express findings of the arbitration committee that requesting blocks off wiki is unacceptable. Frankly CSD is supposed to have a safety valve of an independant admin checking the requests but if you request an admin of your own choice to review it then you are introducing a degree of predetermination that bypasses the only check that there is on CSD. This isnt meant as criticism of either party as I have great respect for either but I genuinely feel for the reasons I gave that soliciting speedy deletion off-wiki is unacceptable except for G10 or BLP cases. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can understand that position, and I have some sympathy with it, but I wonder to what extent there's any point in making a rule that we really couldn't enforce. I also wonder whether establishing such a rule would be within DRV's scope.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • DRV clearly isn't the place to establish any rule, its a place for appeal nor a policy forum but enforceable or not its still the right way to approach these things in my opinion but I'm definitely not having a go at either the tagger or the deleting admin over this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another contributor asserts: There's no reason at all why a user should not communicate with an administrator off-Wiki, nor make requests of that administrator off-wiki; and even if we did have a rule that said that, it would be totally unenforceable. I couldn't disagree more strongly. While there are exceptional circumstances when someone should make a request off-wiki, in general complying with off-wiki requests seriously erode the principle that administrators exercise the authority entrusted in them in an open, transparent, responsible manner. My advice to administrators who receive off-wiki requests is that if the request does not contain a credible explanation as to why the request is delivered off-wiki, the administrator tell the requester how to make the request through our ordinary channels. When the requester thinks an article is a candidate for speedy deletion the administrator should direct them to WP:CSD, and suggest the requestor apply an appropriate tag. Some inexperienced contributors email administrators with requests. Telling them of the proper channels helps them become better, more experienced contributors. And if the requester follows WP:CSD then it will be their responsibility to leave the heads-up on the article creators talk page. Some experienced contributors make their requests off-wiki because they are gaming our system, and wish to avoid establishing an audit trail of activities that would otherwise show a pattern of vandalism, harrassment or POV-pushing. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to failure to follow established procedure, and improper use of the WP:CSD#A7 clause. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the deleted TRASH article after seeing a thread on TPH's talk page; my view was that the A7 was in fact reasonable; no sources, no claims of notability other than taking place in a few different places around the country, and the article suggests they use an old Extreme Championship Wrestling title belt as their trophy. It all added up to a big "wtf?" from my point of view, and to me the tagging was appropriate. I quite honestly have no problem with the process that was followed afterwards; it's not like TPH pinged Jeske off-Wiki and said "hey, delete this, willya?" without tagging it - he just sped up the process by pointing it out to someone he was in contact with. Stuff can linger at CSD sometimes - I've had it happen many times. Had I come across it tagged as an A7, I likely would have deleted it as well. So, endorse its deletion. As for Game Show Congress, TPH asked me to review the article and determine whether his request on that was appropriate; I looked it over and felt that it had some indications of notability that should probably be discussed at AFD, but with a lack of sources I don't think it will go very far. Overturn and list at AFD on that one. Again, I feel that as TPH tagged the articles appropriately as he felt it, his discussions with Jeske could be considered similar to someone posting to the Admin Noticeboard saying that CSD is backlogged - it puts the information into an admin's hands, and it's then up to the admin to decide whether the deletion is appropriate or not. I don't see an actual failure to follow procedure here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Game Show Congress, no opinion on the other. The fact that the Game Show Congress is attended by major industry figures (Bob Barker, Betty White, Dick Clark) pushes it well out of speedy range. No strong opinion on TRASH, though I'd likely vote to delete if I saw it at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted both of them after assessing them myself and felt that neither passed muster as far as notability went. In the case of TRASH nom yelled at me for ignoring a hangon tag which I never saw because I was at the deletion page when he posted it (TenPoundHammer reverted it) and he never used the talk page to give the hangon rationale; just stated that the article couldn't be deleted via A7. As far as Game Show Congress, the only sources I saw were primary ones on that page, nothing really there establishing notability. I specifically have told TenPoundHammer never to bring me stuff he wants deleted unless he has a legitimate rationale (legit CSD tag or an AfD ending "delete"), and I'm not averse to telling him to take a deletion attempt elsewhere. No comment on the articles. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated several times before (and not acknowledged by the deleting parties), notability and verifiability are not part of the A7 threshold. Speedy should be for spam and articles created by teenagers for their personal amusement and vanity BLPs with no credible claim of significance or importance. Speedy ought to be like the rollback of deletions--it shouldn't be used unless it's prima facie clear to anyone why the deletions ought to have been made. Also, I don't see what the need for being quite so speedy is unless the articles are clearly detracting from the encyclopedia. Only in cases of emergencies should we really be seeing speedies that have a 4-minute turnover. That's not due process. Robert K S (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both. If anyone objects to the speedy delete, you should send it to an AFD. Dream Focus 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when some putzfuture contributor slaps a 'hangon' onto his article about his buddy who's "so awsum lol" and who's the school champion at "doin gurlz" I should refuse the speedy and go to AFD? One word: No. The "hangon" tag is there as an indicator that someone has a reasoning for the speedy to be halted; it's not a get-out-of-deletion-free card, and never has been. If I see a hangon on an article that doesn't meet guidelines, I delete anyhow. These deletions were within policy, AFAIK. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of "hangon" is clear: "please hang on for more to be posted to the talk page". The encyclopedia is based on consensus and it is possible that an administrator may miss the significance of a subject. Robert K S (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of Game Show Congress. I am able to see the article as it has been userfied and so can also see that the 2-year-old article does indeed have assertions of notability. So, with respects to TPH, I do not feel A7 applied in this instance, as CSD:A7 specifically "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." I am unable to see the TRASH article, so am currently unable to opine as to whether or not that one qualified as A7 or not. Anyone care to return it temporarily? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh... Overturn TRASH as well, as it also makes assertions of notability and CSD:A7 does not apply to it either. While I'm happy to see that User:Jéské Couriano deleted in good faith, and while both might yet be sent to AfD for sources, the tags were in fact incorrect. And also accepting the good faith of TPH in his tagging, again... the A7 tags were not applicable. The articles should have been sent to AfD if not thought notable. And thanks very much for restoring it so I could look. NOTE: I left a note on User:Robert K S's talk page indicating that The GSC article can and should be sourced to prevent a deletion if AfD is sought. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As someone who has attended TRASHionals competitions, I can say that they do have a national scope. The three I participated in had over 60 teams from across the country. Admittedly, the number of people interested is relatively small, even among the quiz bowl community, the nature of the topics covered (music, movies, sports, popular literature, video games) makes it appealing to many. The article clearly needs improvement, but being poorly written and sourced doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. It is, after all, still operating, unlike CBI. As noted above, Ken Jennings mentions it in his book about competitive trivia. And I know that someone at the 2002 competition in Ann Arbor was filming a documentary about it (though, I don't know what became of that).--Jdhutch (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upcoming TRASH Regional Tournaments, and similarly-formatted, unaffiliated tournaments can be found here[6].Jdhutch (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Swan Song (sorry about that guys--had to do it).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't you do better? That's not even funny. Tim Song (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't. That's the reasons for the apology. Which I repeat.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletions of both articles. I see at least three procedural problems that occurred in regard to these deletions. First, editors should normally not make off-wiki requests, on IM, IRC, or anywhere else, to administrators to perform a speedy deletion; rather, the editor who places a speedy delete tag on an article should wait for any admin to review the speedy deletion and make the decision to speedily delete or not. These articles did not involve threats of violence, libel, or any other type of content which had to be rushed off of Wikipedia. If I had been the reviewing admin, I might well have removed the speedy tags with an edit summary of "Article asserts notability; if deletion is still desired, use WP:AFD instead." Maybe we can't stop editors from making off-wiki requests for deletions, but we can still discourage them. Second, the editor who places a speedy deletion tag on an article should not remove any "hangon" tag that is placed there, as happened with the TRASH article. Rather, the editor who placed the speedy tag should allow the reviewing admin to consider whatever the reasons for the hangon were. Those reasons may be good or bad, but that is for the reviewing admin to decide. (Note, however, that I agree with Tony Fox that the reviewing admin can speedily delete an article if they believe there is insufficient justification for the hangon.) Third, I don't understand why the editor who requested speedy deletion would notify the article creator on their talk page, but then remove the notification four minutes later. What was the chance the article creator would have had time to see the message during that four-minute period? If the notice had been kept, at least the article creator might eventually have seen the notice and found out that Game Show Congress had been deleted through the speedy deletion process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn both per procedural snafus.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow -- how did I do that? At least I voted the same way! Thanks Tim. Sorry all.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jealousy Curve – Does indeed seem to have been correctly deleted as a copyvio but as this was a speedy, there is no reason why you cannot simply create a new article from scratch but please read WP:MUSIC first to be sure the subject will meet our inclusion criteria – Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jealousy Curve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The band meets the criteria for notability. 1. The band had been covered in numerous print and online media including newspapers and magazines. 4. The band received notable coverage as part of the 2005 Rise of the Fall/Zippo Hot Tour with The All-American Rejects, The Academy Is..., and Rooney. 9. The band won the 2005 Zippo Hot Tour music competition as well as the 2007 Rockline Great American Band Song Contest. 10. The band had its single "Don't Lie Down" included on the HBO TV series Dane Cook's Tourgasm. The song was also included on the CD soundtrack. The band also had the songs "The World is You" and "Appreciated" including in the 2004 film Cruel Intentions 3. 71.185.242.95 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It was deleted in July 2008. Was there something recent which brought this up again? Enigmamsg 04:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That aside, if you want to persuade us that the article should be undeleted or recreated, you need to provide some reliable sources substantiating your assertions, or, even better, a sourced draft. Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (as most recent deleter). The article I deleted was a cut and paste copyvio. Prior to that it was deleted at AFD as it failed WP:MUSIC, the rationale given above does not suggest that anything has changed since the date of the AFD and so I would need a lot of convincing - i.e. a properly cited draft which addressed all concerns - to change my mind. Nancy talk 07:00, 4 November 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_November_4&oldid=1144573005"