Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 20 >

19 May 2008[edit]

  • Journal of Forensic Accounting – With the deletions rather side effects of the controversial userfication/protection, there is agreement to move the article back to mainspace from where it can be brought to AfD upon editor's discretion. – Tikiwont (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Journal of Forensic Accounting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Trophy Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article does not meet CSD:A7 (failure to assert notability) guidelines. The article stated that the game has several thousand users in many countries, and had one external link to an external site. A quick Google search for "Trophy Manager review" finds several other web reviews of the game that could be used for references. I'll agree that the article that existed was more in the shape of a user guide and needed to be severly edited, but that's an issue to be addressed by cleanup, not speedy deletion. Gentgeen (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted until *specific* sources asserting notability are provided. Looking at the google search, I see a bunch of notable user-driven reviews that could have been started by anyone [1][2][3], but I don't see *any* published review from gaming sites. Compared this situation with the reviews obtained by similar games [4][5][6] --Enric Naval (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletor comment: While A7 was used, the notes also infer G11, as blatant advertising. I used this rationale as it was the previous deletor's primary rationale, and because claims of notability are irrelevant in advertising, because advertisers use facts and figures to promote themselves; this article's sources were ALL from its own website, with the exception of the TM record book, but that was only a Freewebs page obviously created by someone connected with the trophymanager.com site.
    Having said all this, I've since noted that the Alexa.com ranking is close to 10,000, with the majority of users coming from Saudi Arabia, where the site ranks #745. I will restore myself if another established user other than the nominator would like to see this through the long way. Arabic language-proficient users could possibly help us establish the notability of the site in Arabic-language website mentions. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:30, 20 May 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I feel that the admin who closed the AfD on this article with a "no consensus" verdict erred on two counts 1) the preponderance of discussion was to delete, and 2) if the admin felt there was no consensus, the discussion should have been relisted to gather more consensus, since it had not yet been relisted. The article itself is about a trivial coincidence regarding the naming of pro sports teams in Utah, and while there are a handful of sources with a passing mention of this "trend," it's not enough to merit a stand-alone article. Move for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As I already explained to you, relisting is usually used in case of too little discussion to reach consensus. This particular debate had plenty of discussion, just no agreement on what to do with the article, and continued discussion would have likely caused further disagreement between parties. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. It was a close call, and while an argument could have been made that the consensus was, indeed, delete, I don't think it any egregious error to close as no consensus. Personally I'd have agreed it should be deleted, for whatever that is worth. So I guess what I'm saying is, I suppose it could be overturned as delete, yes. Arkyan 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: 10 vs. 7 hardly constitutes a preponderance, particularly considering that the preponderance of the discussion beyond mere "yea" or "nay" fell on the side of keep. There were well-reasoned suggestions for renaming the article (as the name is its biggest weakness), which certainly could be considered once the AfD status is resolved. You say the -zz naming convention is a trivial coincidence, but how do you justify this position? If it were a coincidence, there would be large numbers of -zz teams located elsewhere... Can anybody even name three non-Utah sports teams in the world that end in -zz? Utah has eight such teams. It's not a big state, nor is it a coincidence. It's a well-known joke (or sorts) in the state. There is no evidence that the admin acted inappropriately, so let's move on... -Macuxi (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: I was on the verge of voting overturn as after looking through some of the votes on the AfD I see several cases of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:JUSTAVOTE. However, even after you factor these out, there is still not a clear consensus one way or the other. No consensus closure was proper. Redfarmer (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV isn't AFD part 2. The close was proper, and though the article is a little wonky, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it that would justify overturning a no consensus. Just relist it yourself if you feel it's wrong...that's the thing about a NC close, you can just put it right back up there if you feel you need to. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was under the impression that DRV was the prescribed path in such situations. As you might suspect, I don't go to DRV much. I wil try AfD again after a while, to see how things go with the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is for when you feel the closure was improper for some reason. It seems to me that you just disagree with the decision. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats what it seems like to me, also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse although I think its about some thoroughly non-notable trivia, and would have !voted to delete it, there was no consensus to delete at the AfD. Maybe in 4 or 5 months we can try again. DGG (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - it looks stupid to me too, but a good close according to the results of the AFD. --B (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as far as I can tell, I agree that there was no clear consensus. I'm surprised, too, but that defaults to a surprising keep. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I also voted against keeping, but "no consensus" is definitely an accurate parsing of the AFD. Let it rest awhile. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close it as moot; the article currently redirects to a section in another article, which IMO would pass AfD trivially (Professional sports teams based in Utah). Unless someone disagrees with that solution, this whole discussion is moot. As it is, I would Endorse, as anything else would be deleting an article that is both in title and subject not what was up for AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This new article is much better than the "starts with Z" article, and I think it solves the trivia problem as well as the unwieldly-name issue. I'll now withdraw this review request. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeping The closure was assesing consensus correctly, and the topic was sourced adequately. Whether it's notable enough for its own article is moot now, since it's now a redirect to a section on a different article. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
MyPartner.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
MyPartner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been working on this article and rewrote it after it was deleted before. I rewrote it this last time and it was not speedily deleted and stayed up for almost 2 months. Now, it has been deleted for Blatant Advertising. My question is if this was an issue how did it stay up for so long? When I asked the editor why (since this was a complete rewrite), the answer I got was that it was deleted before. I don't think the page should have been deleted and what changes do I need to make so it is no longer deleted? Blm0303 17:06, 19 May 2008

  • Comment, as a non-admin, is it possible to have this temporarily restored so we can judge whether it is advertising or not? Redfarmer (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and salt. The other unencyclopedic spam advertisement masquerading as an article is MyPartner, which I've added above. Unfortunatly Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Was speedied three times under WP:CSD#G11 twice underWP:CSD#A7 and once as a spam redirect,(includes the other spam article MyPartner). Article was created 6 (six) times by the WP:SPA account User:Blm0303, who has no other edits other than repeatedly re-creating MyPartner.com and spamming the link onlinepersonalswatch.typepad.com. Six seperate admins have deleted these two articles as both non-notable and unencyclopedic. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and salt. I remember this one now, especially since I was the first person to tag it for deletion. I agree with Hu12: it appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and say that it is not advertising, it still fails CSD A7, not to mention WP:WEB. Redfarmer (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt. Blatant advertising is never appropriate for an encyclopedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Relist. Judging by some of the sources there (trivial sfgate mention, the Online Data Magazine), I'm not convinced that the last version deleted qualified under A7. I think it deserves the benefit of an AfD. MrPrada (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt. It's as spammy as it gets. Sine the author doesn't seem to get the message, salt it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt I see no evidence that the creator will ever stop trying to re-create these nn articles. They can be unsalted if at some time in the future they gain notability required per WP:WEB. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse deletion and Salt - Pretty clearly advertising. While an actual article could be written, this isn't it. Would need to be written in userspace first and submitted here for approval. -- Kesh (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hank Green – Deletion endorsed. The decision to create as a redirect is an ordinary-editor action if consensus for such can be reached on the appropriate Talk pages. – Rossami (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hank Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

precedence and notability can be established. I disagree with the delete and the admin lock on further creation because person's notability is growing and I have found on Ben Going's page that he has the same sort of evidence to back up his notability. Additionally, Ben Going's page indicates an Internet culture project, which Hank Green would definitely fall under. Admin's page indicated he/she wanted further discussion of this matter to be brought up here. Goddessofoddness 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the evidence, so long as it meets WP:RS. Corvus cornixtalk 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be that they're coatracking references to his project in unrelated articles, see [7] for an example. SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference above has been removed. There are several other coatracks included by possible Single Purpose Accounts/meatpuppets Here's the last (2nd) AfD of this article.: [8]. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that those references are inappropriate and should be deleted, I fail to see how that relates to the content of the Hank Green article and/or the previous AFD's. Would you care to enlighten me? Much obliged. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless reliable sources are finally provided. There were no reliable sources at any of the two AFDs, so their closure as delete was correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion after two correct AFDs more than 'disagreement' is needed, say a good draft or at least a list of reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The first AFD was absolutely correct, let there be no argument about that. I have my doubts about the second one, though. It appears to me that the arguments in favour of deletion barely address the arguments for keeping the article. I was under the impression that the AFD is a place to discuss and find out which arguments hold out and which don't, rather than to just vote and let democracy decide. It also seems that there are more sources than adressed in the 2nd AFD. Not having read the article (April 9-19th version), I can only assume that those sources were present, seeing as the May 6th version was speedily deleted under CSD#G4. If not, the May 6th version would have been substantially different, making a speedy delete out of line, with the same result. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i see, the second Afd already built somewhat on the first. Beyond general notability comments that summarily addressed the available sources, it was pointed out that the NYT mentioning is the only reliable source about him, and not an in-depth one. The rewritten draft has more citations, but mostly by Hank Green or by other bloggers. So i'd say it does not move sufficiently towards establishing notability via multiple coverage by independent reliable sources, which has been the main deletion reason in the second AfD and the G4 deletion is in order. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so so far only his contribution to the NYT[9] is agreed to be reliable. Do his contributions to Mental Floss (magazine and book) count towards his notability at all? I don't know, maybe a little. I don't know how much the following sources are worth, but as far as I know, they haven't really been discussed yet:
  • Mr. Green's website Ecogeek was named by Time one of the 15 best green websites[10]. I suppose Time is reliable, but I don't know how much that counts towards the guy's personal notability. Maybe a bit towards him as an environmentalist.
  • Hank and his brother John were interviewed about the Brotherhood 2.0 project for Fox News Mobile[11], but while reliable, I guess that adds to the notability of B2.0 and not so much Hank Green himself. About the same as the interview on NPR[12].
  • Hank Green was invited to the MLA's annual spring institute this year, to talk (along with brother John) about B2.0 and social networking in general[13]. He was also invited to speak at an event about social networking, in Missoula[14]
(How should notability under WP:ENTERTAINER be established? (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.) Would over 12 million views and over 27000 subscribers on youtube do, or is an unrelated source stating that needed? (Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.) B2.0 was a quite unique in the vlogging world, and it has inspired dozens of vlogging projects on youtube.) JoinTheMadVender (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I meant the other NYT reference [15] because it says something about Hank, albeit little for what is supposed to be a biography.. The other problem we're facing here is a contrast of cultures: while wikipedia is not paper, it still relies on the written word, so editors look for someone writing even about novel visual communication and spelling out that it is novel, unique and why. Something like a publication on the emergence of video blogging and its main protagonists. To establish directly the 'cult following' thing is indeed difficult, but in this case it was brought forward at the beginning of the second AfD but didn't catch on, so procedurally nothing wrong here either. Personally I wouldn't mind for now a redirect to John Green (author)#Brotherhood 2.0 project. Once there are articles on other projects of his and some more refs, it can still be expanded. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we got two reliable NYT refences that both tell almost nothing :P You're saying that audio and video is pretty much useless as reference (at least to establish notability) on wikipedia? Hmmm, in that case I'll have to agree that a redirect to John Green's page would be best for now. 213.224.83.20 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment is mine, forgot to log in JoinTheMadVender (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Channel_R (edit | [[Talk:User:Channel_R|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I had the page speedy deleted, convinced I had a local backup for my own archives. Turns out I don't. Duh [bangs head on keyboard]. Could I please have a copy e-mailed? Thanks. (Or restored, so I can take it from there.)  Channel ®    15:23, 19 May 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Miranda/userpage (edit | [[Talk:User:Miranda/userpage|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nomination in reference to miranda reason and ANI. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page was not an attack page. So it should be restored. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - not an attack page. The page doesn't degrade other users. miranda 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Miranda's wrong that her contributions are licensed under CC-BY-SA. They're dual-licensed under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA, and Nick and anyone else can choose whichever of those two licenses they want. Whether there should still be attribution under the GFDL is an entirely distinct matter, but I thought I'd just note this. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not with CC-BY-SA, since we are on the subject of wikilawyering. miranda 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? You must contribute all your contents under the GFDL first and foremost. You can dual-license, but anyone can choose to consider your contributions as licensed under the GFDL as they please. If you disagree, stop contributing. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I license my contribs under cc-by-sa 3.0. GFDL is a given. However, attribution is a restriction which requires people to attribute your work if republished as stated in the text. I didn't want to argue on that point with you anymore, because it's a waste of time. But, whatever. Listing users who have used your work for another purpose is not a personal attack. Yet, it should be seen as a compliment to the user who originally made the template, with or without attribution. Also, when the deleting administrator is a person who used your work without attributon, later deleting your page for saying that you had the idea first and gave rationale that the text "contributions which x, y, z, didn't attribute me for" attacked him because the text was not helpful for his wikipersona (presumably, that was the G10) and then leaving an uncivil message on the editor's userpage is a blatant conflict of interest. I will leave the argument there. miranda 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - the page was not an attack page; the deletion was inappropriate. Aleta Sing 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, no need for a deletion, just fix that cc-by-sa thingy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and drop the wiki-drama. Ursasapien (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did offer to restore the page at any point, all Miranda needed to do was drop the bitching at the half dozen users she's pissed off at. I've not had any contact with Miranda for at least 6 or maybe 9 months, but I'm not prepared to stand by whilst she poisons the atmosphere here and spreads lies and half truths about various users here. Nick (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your offer still stands, I'll close this DRV straight away. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and restored the page, without the offending nastiness directed at other users. I can't see any reason why Miranda wouldn't agree to undeletion on those terms, so I just went straight ahead and undeleted it for her. Nick (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:BIA (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:BIA|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:BIA was a simple redirect to a silly page in my userspace here. SWATJester deleted the redirect. When asked why WP:GURCH and WP:EVULA both exist and are not deleted SWATJester has refused to delete those, despite his statements on IRC (where logging is forbidden) that all vanity pages and redirects should be CSD. I believe a bit of levity is fine and appropriate and ask for the delete to be overturned. Bstone (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's a valid CSD R3. Second, it's an inappropriate use of the project space to redirect to a user page called "Bstone is awesome." I'll note WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not valid. Secondly, I did not say all vanity pages and redirects should be CSD's. Nor did I refuse to delete those two pages. But little things like actually getting my statements right must be too much to ask, right?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Does not qualify for CSD R3. It was created specifically as an acronym to the page it redirects to. R3 is for implausible misspellings and such. And just in case anyone may think I'm trolling, I saw this discussion in IRC, and WP:BRC was just closed as a snow keep. We allow project space shortcuts to userspace when they are not needed elsewhere. Lara❤Love 05:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Yes, it's a stupid redirect, but it's not an R3. If anything, take it to RfD. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As others have said, this is silly but not disruptive. Swatjester should make his case at RfD. Ursasapien (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy was not correct. Please nominate for RFD so discussion can take place --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If as I understand this was a redirect from main wikipedia space to user space, it was a clear candidate for speedy deletion, editor should be warned not to repeat such an abuse of how things get done here. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You understand incorrectly. This was a redirect from the Wikipedia namespace, as can be clearly seen from the redirect's title. —Cryptic 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, comment modified. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this redirect may well need deleting, but it should go through RFD not CSD. It doesn't count as an implausible typo. Hut 8.5 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment sounds like a huge waste of the community's time when we have an encyclopedia to write. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as vandalism or testpage This sort of redirect is playing with the encyclopedia in a nonconstructive manner . DGG (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (the rest of them too), we really don't need a redirect to a random user subpage for every user, and I don't see why these would make for an exception. And I really don't want to start explaining to every new user why they can't have their own redirects, even if someone else has one and they think they're way cool. And if you think process is more important than not wasting people's time, overturn, send to rfd and cut and paste this comment there. Thanks. - Bobet 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If they are all deleted, without exception, then I would be sad but would withdraw the DRV. SWATJester deleted WP:BIA but when I asked him about WP:GURCH and WP:EVULA he stated he wouldn't delete those. It's SWATJester's inconsistency I am mostly concerned about. Him and I have had significant disagreements in the past and I feel him deleted only WP:BIA but leaving the other two alone was punitive. Again, if they all go then I'll withdraw the DRV. Bstone (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, yes they should all go, despite the original reasoning that led to the deletion. Either you have a redirect for every user who gets around to creating one, which seems totally pointless since the redirects don't actually help people in finding anything relevant (the next step is the "this user has 213 redirects into his userspace"-userbox). Alternatively, you can start dividing the users on whether they're important enough to merit a redirect from Wikipedia namespace, which sounds like the worst idea ever since you don't want to have any more stupid factionalism. - Bobet 22:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (and, if one likes, list at RfD) Hut (inter al.) has it quite right, even as I might tend to agree with DGG on the merits of the underlying substantive issue. Joe 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate Overturn. This is not a valid speedy under CSD-R3. Listing at RfD is also not the right venue for this, since there lacks an actual or valid reason to delete. The criteria is for Mainspace redirects, not WP: mainspace redirects. While I do see that this redirect, and userspace page is not very useful, I'd rather see this as a G7, whereby Bstone requests its deletion, instead of a drive by speedy. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't have redirects in article space to user pages. Period. Corvus cornixtalk 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirects into user space are inappropriate, particularly personal ones (as opposed to something actually being used for the development of an encyclopedia) --B (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment specifically directed to Corvus cornix and B. This isn't AfD or any other XfD. Endorse or Overturn is how we do this here. I'd also suggest pointing to a guideline or policy that backs up your claims. This is about making the correct decision in deleting the redirect, not personal opinions. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that vital information, SynergeticMaggot, I think I know how DRV works. Corvus cornixtalk 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Reasons_for_deleting says, You might want to delete a redirect if ... [i]t is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. Corvus cornixtalk 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. Please review everything above your delete response. This doesn't redirect from article space (mainspace), but wikipedia mainspace (i.e. WP: fill in blank), and doesn't qualify. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cross-namespace redirect. The same logic applies. Corvus cornixtalk 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thats incorrect. Article space is not Wikipedia mainspace. Please see Wikipedia:Mainspace and cross ref with WP:CSD. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - note that it's a blue link right now. So saying "delete" or "undelete" makes it clearer what you are advocating than "endorse" or "overturn". I am fully aware that this is about process and the correct process for dealing with redirects into user space is (1) hit the delete tab and (2) hit the "delete page" button. Problem solved. --B (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blue link comment acknowledged, I was going on the fact that it was previously deleted. But I'm still waiting for a valid reason to delete it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be spelled out in CSD R2. I see someone has added "article", which is a bad idea. --B (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was done in 2007 here, as it seems that plenty of other redirects are in fact used. Also, I'd like to direct you to LaraLoves recent redirect here, that drew consensus. Although this is not directly related, it serves as an example of these types of redirects being used, not to mention Gurches and EVula's. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm assuming you meant AfD? Even still AfD is not the place for the redirect. RfD is for redirects. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably what he meant, RfD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I meant RfD. I'm just too tired. Redfarmer (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at RFD, along with the others. I don't think it should exist, but it's not a valid speedy and deserves some discussion. I daresay, however, it is getting far more attention here than it will over there. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only mistake SWAT Jester made here was not getting rid of the whole lot of them (the inappropriate redirects). coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Swatjester's reasoning. 78.34.148.53 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The difference between this redirect and Gurch's is that WP:GURCH redirects to User talk:Gurch. That's far more plausible than WP:BIA to User talk:Bstone/Wikipedia:BSTONEISAWESOME. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that I have agreed. I asked bstone to change the redirect to something more useful to the pedia a few days ago. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I propose that criterion for speedy deletion #R2 be amended to read as follows (new verbiage is underlined; parentheses denote explanatory material not in the text): "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space, and redirects to the User: or User talk: namespace from the Wikipedia: or Help: namespaces (should be deleted). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the place to do that. Such an amendment should be posted to the Village Pump or another such venue, but not to a deletion review. Redfarmer (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think swat made the correct call with R3 as opposed to R2--a narrow interpretation of it would show that it is implausible someone would type in BIA, and if they did, they'd likely be looking for something else. MrPrada (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
File:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|)

See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_1#Image:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg. Images was decided to be free and is not copyrighted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. IfD was closed as keep and crop (I think), and the image was kept and cropped. Per WP:CSD, having survived an XfD means that it shouldn't be speedied. Probably a link to it didn't get put on the talk page, so I doubt the deleting admin did anything wrong. It might've been easier to ask him to restore it before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, agree that, having survived an IfD, the image should have never been speedied. List at IfD if necessary but restore. Redfarmer (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see new vote below) Overturn, per Redfarmer's comment, if you think that it's still an unfree image, then list it again at IFD --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless it will be used Reviewing the IFD and the subesequent history of the image page, the image was decided to be appropriate fair use; it was never determined to be a free image. It was deleted as an unused fair use image. Where is it proposed to be used? The fair use rationale on the image page was for The Incredible Hulk (film). It was removed from that article 10 April 2008 in this diff. Looks like valid deletion to me, but also one that should be overturned if it will be used in an article (with appropriate fair use rationale on the image page). GRBerry 14:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, it's not a "free" image, but a "fair use" image. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until it's explained at which article it will be used and how. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - let me explain this image, which I could swear I once saw at commons and that it survived deletion there as well. This image is, in fact, fanart, and was originally marked CC. However, it's very good looking fanart, so someone assumed it was fair use, and changed the copyright tag (I think I may have seen it somewhere on flickr as well). The image then got deleted. I could be wrong about this. A look at the deleted history should confirm the story. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's irrelevant whether it's fanart or not; the underlying character is copyrighted, so Marvel owns copyright in the picture, even if the author also has a copyright on the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, the history of this one is messier than I originally thought, but essentially what I said before when I reviewed the deleted history the first time. The original version was from this URL, which is no longer an image of the hulk. The replacement version was a crop from here. The image was never marked CC; it was marked with {{Non-free 2D art}} in all revisions. You may be remembering a different image? GRBerry 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am. Has anyone who has actually seen the movies (cmon, there must be some geeks on Wikipedia) say if this is a photo still? I believe the site states it's concept art. So we can move onto: is any generic green character with hair automatically copyrighted? I would say it likely is, but I would like to get the obvious question of if this satisfies commons:Commons:Fan art. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Courts don't like it when you make a claim not in your legal interest (this is cocaine, this is the Incredible Hulk) and then try and take it back at court time. Generic green characters with hair aren't automatically copyrighted, but if you try and use one as a picture of the Hulk, then a court will generally agree that yes, it is a picture of the Hulk.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unless (or until) there is an actual intention to use it anywhere. While I can't access the original image, it was either the one resembling the Hulk that was only eligible as fair use or the other per the summary, that was copyrighted itself and IMO wouldn't have been eligible for fair use in the hulk article. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Magillem Design Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Magillem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
o The page was deleted thru speedy deletion process without any chance to defend my standpoint. Steering contributing companies for IP-XACT standard formalized by The SPIRIT Consortium had WikiPedia pages, except 2 (out of 15). Hence the creation of Magillem Design Services or Magillem page to fulfill this scarce.
o I didn't want to be the author of the article since the purpose of WikiPedia is to iterate on a page with different people and standpoints in order to converge towards the right description. This is the reason why the page was supposed to be simply created without lot of content. Hence the page was deleted breaking WikiPedia rules about notability.
o I reworked the page in my workspace and I'm pleased to submit this draft as 1st iteration of the company description, especially targeting their activities.
o There's external 3rd party references. I'm looking forward for other references coming from university fellows in the future to be recorded in the page
o There's a reference in WikiPedia on this page (since this page was created as a consequence of another page, this creation is hence blatant). Once pages for Public or Opened Programs (R&D, Academics, European, Standard) mentioned in the page are created, then they will reference the page as well!!!
o Public technical papers jointly written by this company and other big companies are linked
o Information comes from their web-site, but is not for commercial purposes since presenting Public or Opened Programs, then no copyright issues. I don't want to go in deep details on their products since they address commercial businesses I'm not really interested in. I will let other people writing info about them.
o Hope this will help to reconsider the speedy deletion of this page. Regards.
o Bertrand Blanc (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically I agree to read counter-arguments, and I'm pleased to answer, but please be fair and bona-fide. Even though sometimes answers are blatant, they need to be worked out. For blatant answers, please hence avoid blatant questions :-) Bertrand Blanc (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those is an independent source. Please read the guideline at WP:RS. Unless you provide indendent, neutral, third-party sources, then the article fails the core policy at WP:V. Corvus cornixtalk 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • May you please provide specific sections of WP:RS and WP:V violated by mentioned sources? As far as I know all these companies and standardization organisms are reliable, independent and verifiable sources, aren't they?
        • Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. How can items published on the website of the subject of the article be independent of the subject? Corvus cornixtalk 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where are self-published sources since coming from The SPIRIT Consortium web-site, and OCP-IP Consortium web-site i.e. independent 3rd source, reliable and verifiable.
            • According to the article in your user space, Magillem is a member of the two consortia. That means that they are associates, and their information is the same as if it were on the Magillem site. Corvus cornixtalk 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What?! Both consortia are independent non-profit organizations. Informations are reliable and verifiable: what else? They are steering members. The point was to prove that this company is notable: I think it was proved since mentioned on this couple of independent web sites (at least in this chat) i.e. these web-sites are not promoting commercial advertisements from the company paid by the company.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's lot of web-sites on the Internet providing advertisement from/for this company: I've never mentioned any of them because I agree they are fictitious notability.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The point was on self-published sources: per your pointer theses references are not belonging to self-published bucket. Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If an article about this company is found, written by an independent reporter, it will be reported as a piece of evidence for notability: I hope everybody is aligned on this statement.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • About papers, they are freely provided from their web-site as joint papers with big reliable 3rd party companies: the fact the name of these companies appear has a legal meaning, names are trademarked and cannot be used without agreements between companies, which is obviously the case since explicitly mentioned. Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just added 3 other references to SoCLib, ICODES and SPRINT projects web-sites, mentioning this company in their partners, which led to joint papers with reliable companies.Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the current version from user space. Reasonable show of notability, not hopelessly promotional. It does need considerable trimming of public relations jargon, but that's an editorial question. I point out, though, that each article is judge on its individual merits, and it is possible that of 4 firms in a consortium, some but not all of them might be notable. DGG (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right that the article should evolve, I'm sure it will be reworked, rephrased, basically get cleaned up
    • That's right that not all companies may be notable
      • The point about this item was that it rings strange that 2 companies out of 15 (contributing members of The SPIRIT Consortium) don't have any page on wikipedia. My purpose is to fulfill this hole for this couple
      • About the article in which only 1 company out of 4 doesn't have a wikipedia page. Other 3 big and reliable companies are competitors, it's interesting and not common that they wrote a joint public paper... I'd say thanks to the 4th one which is their common medium of communication, who found a way to combine efforts towards their common purpose beyond competition concerns. I like this behavior.
    • Thanks for the support and comments
    • Bertrand Blanc (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sorry, but a partnership relationship with a notable consortium does not make this company notable, since notability is not inherited. Things like SPRINT probably have inherent notability because of how important they are, but one of its partners is not notable by itself. Notice that all the sources are just technical papers that show that the company has made technical work on those projects, but they don't show that their contributions were notable. Some of the sources are just stating that the company is a partner, but don't assert why this is remarkable. Additionally, so what if some of the companies on the consortium don't have their own article? Notability is not inherited from the consortium. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right that notability is not inherited, otherwise companies willing to get notability would apply on a notable consortium. And probably won't be accepted since their lack of notability. I believe Consortia are by themselves a good filter, because companies belonging to the consortium are their best advertisement to get other notable companies joining them.
    • About The SPIRIT Consortium, 16 companies are steering companies driving technical features of IP-XACT. I believe their contributions (from all of them) are notable otherwise who would drive the standard. 76 companies are reviewing members, emphasizing that some people have to contribute, especially the 16 mentioned, including Magillem Design Services, and SONICS (which are the only ones out of the 16 which don't have a wikipedia page)
    • If contributions in the papers were not notable, why does their name appear as co-authors among top-notch companies in the field? Once a joint paper is issued, this is not fair to assume which contributions were natable and which were not. I might counter-argue that they did all the job and contribs, and others didn't do anything just willing to have their names on the paper because they were from top-notch companies: who knows? What everybody knows is what is official and public i.e. references by reliable 3rd parties to Magillem Design Services
    • Bertrand Blanc (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I don't think that co-authoring a technical paper asserts notability when the paper is not notable by itself. About the consortium membership being a filter for notability, we don't know what criteria they use for membership. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and keep salted. The origional unencyclopedic advert masquerading as an article is Magillem, which I've added above. Was speedied deleted five times (including spam redirect), and more importantly (which has not been mentioned), was deleted at Afd and failed a recent deletion review
This topic has run its course, the article will not become notable by virtue of repetition. Repeatedly this article has been deleted by the comunity as both non-notable and unencyclopedic. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Magillem Design Services was renamed into Magillem which covers both the company and the platform technology (as mentioned in the comment for renaming): nothing was done under the table as suggested in the comment
    • Well, I'm confused, these arguments about notability, self-promotion and advertising have repeatedly been brought up thru last sections and each of them were answered accuratly. I specifically added a paragraph to have fair and bona-fide counter arguments and would be pleased to answer to all of them. In this section I read comments which are out of the scope of the mocked-up article I proposed: I don't know what other people posted in deleted article I never saw, I didn't take part in previous discussions, did I? I would prefer to refocus on the proposal here.
    • That's right that same things need to be repeated many times since they do fit WikiPedia rules for notability even though some people arbitrary state they break the rules without piece of evidence. I agree to have arguments opposed to mine, but in the same manner I give some piece of evidence, I would find fair for others to provide their piece of evidence as well.
    • self-promotion is out-of-topic here. Where do you see self-promotion or commercial advertising?
    • Product placement rings strange for a company only earning money with service, "giving" their technology almost for free. BTW in the article, products are only mentioned in the section relative to "products" (as all other companies)
    • why not speaking about the content of the article: R&D programs, Academic programs, Consortium involvments, ... which is an editorial issue out of topic in the discussion here to assess whether the company satisfies WikiPedia notability criteria
    • Bertrand Blanc (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2008 (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/2008_May_19&oldid=1136100444"