Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 November 23
2011 November 25 >

24 November 2011[edit]

  • Scam Newton and Scam newton – Deletion Endorsed. There is some discussion below about the general principles involved but also clear consensus that in this case deletion is the appropriate outcome. – Eluchil404 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scam Newton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Scam newton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Sourced reference to Cam Newton and should redirect to that article. l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What reference where? They weren't in the deleted redirects and they don't appear in the target article. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Derogatory POV-infringing BLP-infringing redirect title. Not a reasonable search term or misspelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would probably be deleted at rfd (primarily because there doesn't seem to be consensus to mention this name in the target article), but it was speedied instead of going there. We allow POV redirect titles if there's significant coverage outside of Wikipedia; likewise, it's not deletable as a BLP once it's sourced (and five seconds of googling found this one from The Arizona Republic). I know whether there's sufficient coverage out there, but I don't think this can quite be dismissed as the run-of-the-mill attack page that it was repeatedly deleted as. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Routine application of BLP principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion and those of other admins who have deleted the redirects. This isn't a "non-neutral redirect". It's an "attack" redirect against, of all things, a living person. It doesn't matter whether it's sourceable. We don't allow disparagement. G10 says so. Of course, if it is sourceable, it might be mentioned in the article and attributed to those who use the nickname. But our redirects don't have the luxury of attribution. A redirect is an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of the nickname. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You even tagged the deletion with the applicable CSD criteria. The worst I can say is maybe use a "," instead of "or". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This I disagree with pretty strongly. Please read our guidelines on redirects. We keep non-neutral redirects as a matter of course. WP:RNEUTRAL. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read G10. Then please tell me where the guideline authorises attack redirects on living persons, as opposed to mere "non-neutral" titles. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • G10 doesn't. But are you seriously claiming that if the article covered the topic/attack, we shouldn't have a redirect to it? Shall we remove Tricky Dick? If not, why not? I think it qualifies as an attack. Where is the line? I'd think the line would be a mention in the article. Where do you draw it? Hobit (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The line is clear. G10 draws it. The redirect disparages the subject. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you dodged the question there. Does Tricky Dick disparage the subject? Is it a G10 candidate? Why or why not? I don't think the line is as clear as you claim. If it were, I'd think you'd G10 that redirect. Hobit (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tricky Dick is actually exactly the example I've had in mind since the start of the review. I didn't bring it up, though, because the name's been expunged from its target article List of nicknames of United States presidents... which has become exactly the sort of POV hagiography that you'd expect from people who insist that WP:BLP talks about removing negative material instead of negative unsourced material. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that article is a real problem. Removing an extremely well-known nickname of a dead president? Not exactly our shining moment. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Disparaging, non-notable faux nicknames are unacceptable. Consider topic ban if this behavior persists, as the article's talk page shows a bit of a contentious history with this user as well. I just tagged a missed one ("$cam Newton") G10 as well. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The emerging consensus here is that WP:BLP takes precedence over WP:RNEUTRAL. I agree that BLP is more important but I do think we need to reword RNEUTRAL to show that derogatory nicknames for a living person are not normally acceptable. As currently worded the issue could cause confusion.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not BLP trumping here, but G10. An admin has made a reasonable G10 call. As for sourcing, a sourced attach is still an attack. The real test is whether the redirect title is covered at the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent too long thinking about this. I'm not comfortable with deleting a sourced redirect as a G10--discussion would be preferred. At the same time I'm certainly not comfortable with the redirect to an article that doesn't actually have the name in it when it is so negative and involves a BLP. So endorse but I hope we all agree that if the term were in the article we'd keep this (or at least leave it to RfD rather than speedy). Hobit (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Scam Newton" is now used in the Cam Newton eligibility controversy article, maybe these redirects can be targeted there instead --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that piece of trash of an article has been quickly, and rightfully IMO, redirected to Cam Newton. There is not a thing to justify a standalone article on this issue. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c) No. That has been properly redirected as a WP:Coatrack Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jessie Stricchiola – There is clearly no consensus to overturn this deletion at this time. On the contrary, there is a general feeling that the AfD close was a strong one that reflected the arguments in the deletion debate well. The argument that a notable person's criticism of the deletion on an external site is itself an indication that the deletion was mistaken does not seem to be generally accepted. However, there is also recognition that the full array of sources listed in this debate is at least close to enough to allow for an article if the conflict of interest in the original could be avoided. Thus, a neutral userspace draft is appropriate--if someone wishes to write such a draft, a new DRV can be opened once it is completed. – Chick Bowen 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jessie Stricchiola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No clear initial consensus, dubious expertise of original debaters and new information See also User_talk:Mkativerata— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malixsys (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I was not involved in the AfD, but have gone through it here and believe that the right result was obtained. I appreciate the fact that the closing editor took the time to weigh the merits of the arguments and the evidence, rather than engage in mindless vote counting, entirely as appropriate per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I also found the linked blog entry provided by Malixsys unconvincing, to say the least. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Please apply and compare your analysis to the closing here, do you agree that "mindless vote counting" is the only possible way to have reached this closure?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus at discussion, and a wonderful rant by Danny Sullivan (technologist) at the linked blog post. Personally, I don't know Jessie Stricchiola from Eve. But I know Danny Sullivan. He is probably the single most important search engine analyst (who isn't directly working for a search engine). If he says she's notable in the world of search engine marketing, then she is. The rant (between the frothing-at-the-mouth parts) also provides strong arguments that weren't considered in the deletion discussion. This is something like God himself coming down from Ararat and pointing at where Stricchiola's name is engraved on the stone tablets. Undelete. If the reason for deletion was that Wikipedia editors agreed, that would be one thing, but even the closer agreed that didn't happen. If the reason for deletion was that three anonymous Wikipedia editors made strong arguments, well, here is one undisputed subject matter expert making a stronger one. And for what it's worth, he's a Wikipedia editor too, even if he can't figure out how it works. --GRuban (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that rebuttal is that it being written from the point of view of a Wikipedian. Fine, but that's not why we have articles, not because Wikipedians like them or not. We have articles on people who are notable in their field, not just people whom we personally like. Danny Sullivan is an expert, probably the single most influential expert, on this field. That's why his rant is important, because it is a strong argument on Stricchiola's notability in the field. Not because he can rant, and a Wikipedian can rant, and whoever rants best wins; but because Danny is an expert on search engines, which should beat an expert on our encyclopedia.--GRuban (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, your argument seems appropriate for Citizendium, but for this insane asylum his C.V. grants him no special privileges, correct? LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing admins are empowered to weigh strength of argument/position and not just headcount. Weak keep rationales such as "let's be more wiki-friendly to girls" and "her book is on an important topic" don't cut it. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Substantively, I think it should be "overturn" due to the strength of Danny Sullivan's arguments. But procedurally, it'll probably sit better as a "relist" so the deletion faction doesn't feel there were any improprieties. Moreover, the argument for a relist seems to me to be clear - there was no strong consensus for the original delete, and his post, whatever else you may think of it, does contain a lot of referenced information about notability. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a pity to overturn such a careful close with such a well-thought-out closing statement, but source 1, source 2, source 3. Itszippy's analysis of these sources is flawed because he's under the misapprehension that sources have to be strictly about the subject before they meet the GNG. This is quite wrong, and indeed the GNG specifically says "need not be the main topic of the article". Thus Itszippy's analysis is nowhere near as conclusive as the closing statement suggests. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing analysis by Mkativerata clearly summarised the consensus in the AfD; most telling: "That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete." The original debaters may or may not have had dubious expertise about Stricchiola but some of the "Delete" arguments - for example, DGG's research into how many libraries held her book - suggests a thoroughness neither bettered nor equalled by the "Keep" contingent. Interestingly, the research undertaken by some of those who opted for deletion fully supported Cantaloupe2's initial nom. As for the link to Danny Sullivan's rant, I won't even dignify it with the term "new information". It is pure bitching that does not reflect a constructive attitude to WP nor does it reflect the attitude of those of us who make the effort to practice editing, to search for and learn about the various guidelines and who avoid creating articles unless we're confident, as article creators, that they're well-written and reliably-sourced. ClaretAsh 01:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the "attitude" of his post, which I understand why might offend you and you need not further explain that aspect to me, don't you think the post also contains new information that's relevant, again completely apart from the procedural critique and views he expresses? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it doesn't offend me. Don't worry about that. As for the "new information", I don't see any. What I do see is the procedural critique you mentioned and which, I concede, may be of use to those who look after the various "WP:" guideline/procedure pages. Other than that, all Mr Sullivan has to offer is his own word, as a subject expert, that Jessie Stricchiola is notable according to WP's interpretation of that term. Fortunately, this isn't enough. There are good and obvious reasons for our COI policy. Nonetheless, this doesn't preclude Mr Sullivan, or any other expert, from aiding WP, for example, by providing or recommending sources, or assisting in the search for information. And yes, I will take this opportunity to advertise our library, as I feel it is greatly under-used. ClaretAsh 11:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The right outcome for this was keep as the delete !votes were pretty bogus. We've got an NPR interview of her, a source that pretty much solely covers her, two full pages of a book that discusses her and her views, and about 5 other good sources. A "no consensus" outcome would have been within the bounds of admin discretion so I'll suggest we overturn to that. Let's walk the sources listed by ItsZippy.
    • [1] is nearly useless for WP:N
    • [2] is conceded to count toward notability.
    • [3] is certainly NOT a mention in passing: this is 1.5 pages of her discussing a client and case.
    • [4] is a NYT article that spends two paragraphs on her.
    • [5] is a CNN article that cites her three times.
    • [6] cites her three times.
    • [7] is an NPR story that spends 4 paragraphs (of radio time) on her and her opinions.
Could a discussion reasonably conclude she's not notable? I suppose so as the coverage is about her opinions and not her per se. But the consensus would have to be really strong, and this was split. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Vacate and reclose  Imbalance in the closing shows in the focus on reducing the keep votes, while ignoring drive-by delete votes.  The idea that unchallenged posts ripen and strengthen with age I find to be contrary to reason, this is an idea that reason has a transience such that it changes over time and is a function of the context of later comments.  The idea also opens the door to WP:THELASTWORD.  WP:ATD is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Yet the closing admin has taken the alternate path that editors normally should not follow, and ignored WP:ATD.  I can't see the article, but one search and one click yields this sentence, "Jessie is widely recognized as having been the first to publicize PPC click fraud in 2001 and has been interviewed by numerous trade publications and media outlets on the issue, including NPR, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Wired Magazine, The Washington Post, CNNMoney, CNET.com, CNBC, and The BBC" (emphasis added), so there is a major disconnect here between this sentence and the idea that this analyst not only doesn't satisfy wp:notability, but that the material in the article is objectionable, and the redirect itself is objectionable.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer seems to have adequately examined the relative strength of the arguments made rather than just tallying them up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. Delete with fire. From the discussion on Hacker News:
wpietri writes:
For those wondering about the backstory, I went and looked at the history of the deleted page.
The article for Jessie Stricchiola was created by account "Stricchiola" in November 2009. The commit message: "Added article for search industry pioneer Jessie Stricchiola". That account made only one other significant edit, which was to link the Jessie Stricchiola article into the first paragraph of "Search Engine Marketing".
Within 15 minutes, Wikipedians marked the article as insufficiently referenced, a probable conflict of interest, and possibly lacking notability. Stricchiola edited the article for the next few days, ignored the warnings, and eventually stopped editing. Other than minor fixes from Wikipedians, the article was basically untouched until September 2009, when user Cantaloupe2 nominated it for deletion discussion.
So as far as I can tell, a search engine marketing person wrote a self-promotional article about herself. Wikipedians immediately warned that the article had a number of issues, all of which she (and everybody else in the world) ignored for nearly 2 years. Somebody eventually noticed; Wikipedians discussed it and decided the article was unsalvageable.
tptacek writes:
You missed the AfD discussion, trivially easy to find for that article but helpfully provided upthread for you, where a Wikipedia admin considered each of those sources and took them to pieces --- those citations were superficial quotes attributed to Stricchiola in articles about click fraud, not coverage of Stricchiola herself, and the book appears to be a step away from vanity publishing.

Unless the above is factually false, there is no possibility that the article will ever be brought up to Wikipedia quality standards, and it amounts to nothing more than self-promotion. In that case, we should not only keep this article deleted, but censure and demand apologies from Jessie Stricchiola and Danny Sullivan for attempting to turn Wikipedia into Geocities and use it to promote their businesses. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Self-promotion aside, she IS notable:
As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people):

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been

the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ... The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

13 reasons/sources:
A) She was the first to publicize PPC [Click_fraud] in 2001 and as director of online marketing for the Chase Law Group was interviewed by CNET even way back then
B) Was featured in http://www.amazon.com/Google-Story-David-Vise/dp/B0028N72A8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322515718&sr=1-1, written by the Washington Post's David Vise
C) She is an expert and witness in court cases
e.g. In the famous Twitter case between Courtney_Love and fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/twitter-libel-suit-costs-courtney-love-163265000-2232935.html

D) inc. used her as an expert: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050801/marketing.html
E) NYT cited her as an expert: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E0D6133DF930A35750C0A9639C8B63
F) CNN MOney used her as an expert: http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/02/technology/google_fraud/?cnn=yes
G) NPR used her as an expert: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5303608
H) Danny_Sullivan (even though he rightly or wrongly ranted) affirms that she is an expert and cites supporting facts
I) She is a published author: http://www.amazon.com/Art-SEO-Mastering-Optimization-Practice/dp/0596518862/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1/190-3969850-5648863
J) Was on a panel of experts or speaker at MULTIPLE conferences: Search Engine Strategies Conference and Expo, ad:tech, SMX, Search Engine Strategies, O'Reilly Media's Web 2.0 Summit, Webmaster World's PubCon, Stanford's Web Publishing Workshop
K) One of the original nine founders of SEMPO
L) Her company has been listed in BtoB Interactive Marketing Guide as a Top Search Marketing Company for many years
M) She has written articles on the subject of click fraud, e.g. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2065811/Lost-Per-Click-Search-Advertising-Click-Fraud

Malixsys (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. I !voted a "weak keep" at the AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Just because she has been occasionally cited as an expert does not mean that she is notable. Close was a good read of the deletion discussion, and no new information has come forward that would change this. The reasons A-M given by Malixsys do not show that she is notable--GNG requires significant coverage in third party sources, period. Danny Sullivan has not provided sources, and they were not in the article. Being a founder of something notable does not necessarily make you notable. Commenting for a reporter in a newspaper article does not necessarily make you notable. Having written books does not necessarily make you notable. And as a lawyer, I want to emphasize that there is no way in hell being an expert witness necessarily makes you notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the whole collection (founder, book, quoted extensively, expert witness), viewed in total for this specific case, could make her notable, even if no single item in isolation would qualify? It seems like there's something going in your comment in terms of decomposition - roughly, if X alone isn't notable, then no combination of X's can be notable since each one by itself isn't notable -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that taken together they don't amount to anything. If they did, people would be writing news stories about her, etc. But they don't. Fails WP:GNG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between about a person and about what they do is a bit tricky. Most notable authors and academics (for example) don't have news stories about them. I doubt 10% of our BLPs have articles about the subject. There may be coverage of their works or their opinions though. And that is usually enough for the GNG. As the GNG specifically doesn't require coverage that is solely on the subject, I think you are creating a (much) higher bar than our guidelines do. On top of that, the first article I listed is pretty much solely about her and her opinions... Hobit (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A rant by an expert does not trump good-faith process by neutral agents. The expert could have asked someone for help. But he assumed that being an expert in one thing made him expert in yet another. Demonstrably not so. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, based purely on the strong source analyses by S Marshall and Hobit above. If someone had made those arguments at the AfD, perhaps we could have avoided the need for this review, but instead ItsZippy's less-convincing analysis was allowed to stand as the best (and indeed only) review of the sources that was presented. Mkativerata rightly highlighted that DGG and Metropolitan90 made good cases for deletion, but in light of what we now know about the sources I don't consider these to be enough to swing an otherwise balanced debate. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus It seem pretty clear that that AfD close was a supervote. Also, considering other sources brought up in this DRV and the subjects status as being one of the first to deal with click fraud issues, as detailed here and here, shows her notability. SilverserenC 06:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close. Bewildered by the above supervote allegation, the close made direct reference to the points debated and did not introduce new arguments. In pointing out the better arguments that stood for days without rebuttal, per WP:Silence, it could reasonably argued that "delete" held consensus, if not a very strong wp:rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I agree with you on the supervote thing. That close was certainly not that. However, the !vote you (and the closer) cite agreed there was one good source. It then discounted a number of sources (from CNN, NPR, the NYT etc.) for not focusing solely on the subject. That would seem to stand in direct contradiction to our guidelines which specifically note that a source need not be solely focused on the subject to count. So we have 1 agreed upon good source, and a lot of sources discounted for reasons that contradict our guideline. Certainly if there was consensus that this view should hold in this case, I'd agree (guidelines are not hard-and-fast rules). But I don't think it makes sense to assume that just because people who had already commented didn't chime in with a reply means that they agreed with the argument--they had stated their views and (I assume) moved on. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We pay the big bucks to people like Mkativerata to take a 7-6 "vote" and make a decision, including none. While Mkativerata's evaluation of the arguments presented is an opinion (but not a supervote), a reason to overturn his decision based on "closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" is not convincing enough for me. Stare decisis there.
My understanding is that Danny Sullivan tried to get involved after the AfD had closed, and what followed was him (understandably) trying to scramble to get on the ship that had already sailed. All of us, I think, would be sympathetic to his plight, if it wasn't for the fact that he completely bit the head off the good samaritan trying to help him, and acted like a complete dick. In any case, since all these new sources provided came after the article was deleted, I don't see why this decision should be overturned based on "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article". Start the article again, without prejudice on anybody's part. Apparently the deleted article was a crappy stub created by the subject and not much improved at the time of deletion. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but let someone without conflict of interest try to make a stronger article, using the additional sources suggested here. The COI is sufficient that the deleted material should remain deleted. Deciding what to do on an evenly balanced AfD is not a supervote; what would have been a supervote is deciding against clear consensus of established editors making policy based arguments on an AfD because the closer interprets the guidelines a little differently, or raising new arguments during the close. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 1 December 2011 (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/2011_November_24&oldid=1078422924"