Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 23

< April 22	Deletion review archives: 2007 April	April 24 >

23 April 2007

zydeisland

there is proof that the site used to exist and was popular using the internet wayback machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.zydeisland.com Ikahootz 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That a thing exists is not the same as establishing notability, but if you or other editors assert notability and provide valid citations, we may be able to get the admins to reverse the speedy delete decision. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Castles in France

The debate on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, was wrong and needs to be reversed.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

(It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.)

3. The debate, such as it was, mainly centred on how to spell. Few reasoned arguments were given for deletion.

4. The debate was closed in a great hurry.

5. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

6. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

7. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

8. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

9. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

This category needs to be reinstated, particularly to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. (on behalf of User:Emeraude)

Comment The Category was actually merged into Category:Châteaux in France, not deleted, strictly. I think this was correct, although yes the projects should have been notified. I would be against recreating it as "castles", on the whole. The ambiguities around castle/chateau are too well known. I think French castles should be "fortified chateau" in most contexts on WP, so the List should go to this title, and a Category:Fortified French chateaux (or "in France") created which is a sub-cat of Castles by country, & of Chateaux of France. Inconsistent with the other castle categories, but for good reason. If you have "Castles in France" as a sub-cat of Category:Châteaux in France that would be confusing. On a quick look round most of the articles now in the Chateaux category are country houses etc, and not fortified. Johnbod 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth.net

What is Blabbermouth.net? it is a news source for information on heavy metal bands, such as album dates, sales, interviews, touring information visited by thousands each and everyday. Who owns Blabbermouth? the record company Roadrunner Records. It was deleted because apparently "no notability asserted (a7)" yet musicians from bands such as Slayer, KISS, The Haunted, Kittie have commented on the website and was mentioned on The Howard Stern Show. The article did not go through a AFD nor had any clean-up tags. It also features CD and DVD reviews by the staff at Roadrunner Records and it's linked on many album pages, i don't see any cause for a speedy deletion M3tal H3ad 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In these cases, providing actual citations in this discussion can help inform the discussion immensely. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources below and [1]. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Leuko under CSD A7. And in the text, there was no notability asserted. The article makes no mention of the userbase that it has (except for "fans can post comments on selected articles") and no reference to show that it was the subject of an article by reliable sources were put up. The article was largely unsourced, and written in a totally unencyclopedic (and not always NPOV) manner. On a google search, most of the hits are either blogs or forums. Thats what prompted me to do a hit the delete button, and my rationale stands even now as I endorse deletion. --soum (0_o) 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read it before you deleted it? Did you read any of the links from interview excerpts with musicians commenting about the site? Did you read the interview with the creator who created it? The source is the website itself. You didn't add any clean-up tags, although i can clean it up if it is restored. M3tal H3ad 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. And comments like "Most recently was the tendency for Disturbed/David Draiman and KISS/Gene Simmons-related articles to be posted. These articles receive numerous scathing comments from Blabbermouth's users, who almost all have a strong dislike for Disturbed and KISS. This is very similar to the frequent articles on Fred Durst that would appear in 2003, which the users would often reply to in disgust", "These are a big draw for many of Blabbermouth's visitors, as many Blabbermouth users regard these articles and the comments that follow them as amusing", "The popularity of Blabbermouth.net is thought to be sending a bad image about metal and rock fans, but it is a select online community, so others advise not to take it seriously. Some of Blabbermouth.net's users have taken it so far as to criticize specific Blabbermouth.net users en masse" in absense of a reference smell original research to me. As for interviews, I read a few of them, but could not find links to their original source to verify them.

As for cleanup, you can anytime create a cleaned up version of the article. If you want the old text, any admin would retrieve the text and move it to userspace for you to work on.

Anyways, I have put forth my rationale. I would wait for others to comment now. --soum (0_o) 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it had a lot of crap in it, but some warning would be nice so these things can be fixed... Rather then delete it. As for original sources many are magazine excerpts [2] or from Myspace [3] . M3tal H3ad 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source said here [4] source here [5] source here with Metallica [6] source here [7] heres the interview the creator mentioning Howard Stern [8] It's notable - it just needs cleanup. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. Of course the notability of the site may be put in doubt, but I believe a speedy-deletion is too excessive — especially since some notability was asserted. I strongly advice properly listing this at AfD. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put page back This is the most notable metal website online likely. Needs to be reinstated immediately, and there needs to be less of this administrative dictatorship. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore No prejudice against deleting admins. Now that notability has been asserted any other deletion of this article should go through AfD so that the article has time to be written properly and the citations properly reviewed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeopards

The Jeopards (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Jeopards (German band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also The Jeopards (band) and The Jeopards (German band). Deleted and, in some places, salted repeatedly as an A7 although most versions had clear assertions of notability. Improper to speedy them per A7, should have gone to AfD. Overturn and list. badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Four deletions at three separate titles by three separate admins, and guess what? All were created by the same user, Cruzenstern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And this addresses what, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That several others concur with calling it an A7. Some sources and/or published albums would help. Endorse. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the international touring establishes notability. The versions I saw all noted as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Brass tacks. My googling didn't find verifiable links. Many many listings on clearinghouses, many not English-language (so difficult for me, at least, to read), several myspace hits, some non-English forums, some tour date listings. No reviews. Got any, Jeff? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant to A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, appears to be a valid A7. --Coredesat 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So an article that asserts notability is a valid A7? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't assert notability = A7. That sure looks like an A7 to me, and if four (well, six) admins agree that that's still A7, then there's a pretty good chance it's A7. Furthermore, there's nothing about international touring, and there's nothing to prove that they're even going on the tour they're "planning" to go on (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Stop being so confrontational about it. --Coredesat 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you reading the most recent deletion, for instance? If the article asserts notability, it's not an A7, no matter how many admins make the same mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The version of The Jeopards Radiant deleted on March 20 is as clear an A7 as a band article can possibly be. The three versions (one per title) deleted by JzG and Irishguy are very different from that but are nearly identical to each other; they mention tv appearances, which is enough that I'd've prodded it instead. (Which clearly would have been a complete waste of time, given that the article's creator continued to repost it despite the title being salted.) There's nothing to suggest they'd pass WP:MUSIC, though, and the only sources given in the article are the band's myspace page and this, which has all of two sentences. While I don't speak Czech, that's not a whole lot to build an article out of. Vaguely endorse unless someone comes up with a reason to overturn that isn't just process for process's sake. —Cryptic 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That it may survive an AfD if it actually got looked at like it's supposed to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, within the range of discretion. – Steel 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- False, again. Assertion was clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COmment: Here's a cached version of another deleted version. Note the multiple television appearances and being finalists in various contests. Note the national tour. Those are assertions of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Jeff here. The reading I make is that once notability is asserted, A7 is no longer valid criterion for speedy. If anyone's got a problem with that they should change the policy, not subvert it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears

Believe it or not, this is a real game for the Game Boy Color. That aside, the article deletion is odd, the log says "{{db-empty}}", but then goes on to list the content (and what at least looks to be a good start). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time. Contents of the article was: Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time. This debate is already longer than that. Feel free to create a genuine article on this, which establishes notability by reference to multiple independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Obviously a poor speedy. If it's such a "waste of time," simply undelete it instead of endorsing a misuse of speedy deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, instead of wasting everyone's time, just get on and make an article which contains an assertion of notability, which the deleted article did not. The deleted text is of no value in creating an encyclopaedia article. Just get on and do it. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a game for one of the most popular gaming systems ever is an assertion, not that A7 would apply to games anyway. Just go on and undelete it if you feel this review is a waste of time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, Guy, you and other admins who make a habit of speedying in contravention of stated policy might wish to change the policy and see if you get consensus, or failing that, maybe consider actually following consensus (i.e. the de facto consensus of the policies as they actually stand)? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted by A7. It was deleted by A3. Please recheck WP:CSD. --Core desat 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't clear to me as I can't see it in any logs. If the article was empty (I also can't see that), then of course A3. If it was a notability speedy, then not. Since I can't see anything, I won't bother to opine about the actual DRV unless an admin sees fit to make it clear here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. what I thought it said, per Guy's comment/opinion was "Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time", which is different from "" (i.e. no content whatsoever per A3) as I'm sure you can see. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as valid A3 deletion, without prejudice. Redirected for now. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a valid A3. A3 has nothing to do with notability. --Core desat 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This seemed like a fine substub and I disagree it contained "no content whatsoever" (A3). Saying that it is a game for Game Boy Color and that it placed on a notable publication's list of worst games are both clearly content. — brighterorange (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it was deleted for being empty, and those two things were the only things in the article, what's the problem with just recreating the article with sources? The redirect isn't protected. --Coredesat 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't empty, it wasn't a valid A3. It had context and content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But regardless. What's the point in going to this much trouble to restore two sentences that have already been given here, when the article can just be rewritten? This is pretty much process-wonking. --Coredesat 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know. You're the one opposing the undeletion, not me. A good way to stop going through the trouble is to stop making poor speedy deletions to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This whole thing is bullshit. It wasn't a valid A3, everyone knows that, it may be between a substub and a stub, but it wasn't a CSD target because of its length. This DRV however, has been a waste of time, just speedy undelete it or recreate it, whatever, you don't really need a DRV to do this. - hahnch e n 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Another faulty speedy decision. Please restore article and allow editors to continue working on it. A3 speedy invalid at this time. Articles with text in them are not equivalent to empty. If you need to delete this article, take it to AfD, please. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]