Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keeper76 (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 5 May 2008 (→Gary Lynch: Lar got it right the first time, and Lar got it right the second time too.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 4 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 6 >

5 May 2008

Zorpia

Zorpia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article of "Zorpia" was deleted due to its lack of notability. However it has received multiple non-trivial coverage by a few major news sources recently.

Here are its coverages:

The Standard is an English newspaper from Hong Kong.
The Wall Street Journal.
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation is a listed multi-media conglomerate in the Philippines.
The Economic Times, launched in 1961, is India's largest financial daily with a daily readership of over 650,000 copies.
Enterprise Innovation is an technology publication under Questex Media Group which also owns The Hollywood Report.

Web 2.0 Junkie (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listenability

Listenability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I contributed this article in October 2008. There was a question about the copyright of two quotes which I took up with butseriouslyfolks and OTRS. They acknowledged receipt of the verification, but the page has not been restored. What do I have to do to have it restored? Bdubay (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Play party (BDSM)

Play party (BDSM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AFD was closed improperly because the closer somehow bought the dubious "sources will be found someday, but not today" argument. Despite being tagged for sourcing for 2 years and going to AFD over sourcing, all that was found was a half page of an in-genre book that confirms 1.5 sentences of this article... that's just not enough per WP:V and WP:N. Despite the closers confused argument that "assertions made by several editors that sources were out there. There were assertions made by several editors that sources were not out there. Strong arguments on both sides" policy (WP:V) clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". No one found sources beyond the one weak one already mentioned... the closer bought a classically weak argument (I'm sure it's in that "arguments to avoid at AFD" essay), so the close was not proper. I'm bringing to DRV instead of another AFD because I suspect an AFD would attract the same people and the same arguments, and perhaps the same policy-ignoring close... DRV seems a more appropriate venue. Rividian (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse no- consensus close. which fairly represents the discussion. No objection to nominating it again in a month if nobody works on it. That would be an appropriate AfD2. Deletion review, however, is not. To say that one is bringing it here in the hope of finding a more sympathetic audience is Forum Shopping. DGG (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the sources to meet WP:V and WP:N? How many poorly closed AFDs to we have to sit through before policy is actually applied here? To me it's just as bad as "forum shopping" to keep nominating for AFD again and again, hoping the right people show up. --Rividian (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus keep close.
"closed improperly", "closer bought the dubious", "confused argument", "closer bought classically weak", "policy-ignoring close". Someone's fired up about this. Putting aside your obvious WP:CIVIL issues and the clear agenda you have, let's take a look at notability for this article:
This is clearly a notable subject. But, I haven't addressed your WP:V concerns, which are valid for eviscerating the current article or going on a massive sourcing campaign - but not to delete it entirely. All the energy spent trying to get this deleted probably could have made the article half as long and much more well sourced. Tan | 39 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I haven't addressed your WP:V concerns" - so how do you endorse a deletion based on this meeting WP:V? You have found some sources, which is better than anyone else so far. Nevertheless, if you admit the WP:V concerns aren't addressed, why am I such a jerk for trying to apply WP:V, and why do you want to keep content that you say you can't prove meets sourcing requirements? All I ask is that policy be enforced here. Those sources are a start, but merely use the term "play party", so they run afoul of WP:NEO which says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". There's nothing in WP:CIVIL that says I can't make strong arguments... the only incivil thing I've said is the word "jerk" but that was referencing myself. --Rividian (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I didn't call you a jerk, and certainly not for trying to maintain policy. Your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is another story, but I won't comment further. You may think you are merely making strong arguments, but in reality, you might want to consider that you are alienating other users and probably mobilizing opposition to your opinion. Replying to almost every single !vote in the AfD that you don't agree with merely highlights that !vote and gives it weight - and you are doing the same thing here. My endorsement of the close stands; there was no clear consensus, which defaults to a keep. Tan | 39 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy against replying to weak arguments... if people want to keep a questionable article to spite me, that's rather sad. --Rividian (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you believe that people are replying/posting here to "spite you" is what is actually sad. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person I was replying to said "you are alienating other users and probably mobilizing opposition to your opinion". So that implies people are opposing because of me, not because of the article. I was just replying to what was said... it's not my fault he put it out there.--Rividian (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No objection to a renomination, as DGG suggests, in a month or two if there has been no improvement. This is using DRV to forum-shop despite Rividian's protests to the contrary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were 26 months to find sources... how much more time do we have to wait? It's disappointing that we should keep an article around due basically to bureaucracy. Do we really need 18 AFDs to realize WP:V applies to an article, even if a bunch of people like that article? --Rividian (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently, it took 26 months, one afd, and a deletion review. Thank you Rividian, for bringing a subpar article to the attention of the community. There is now a plethora of sources found by Tan above, ready to be added to the article that was not deleted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nine pages of Google news hits for this topic. Nine pages. It's been covered, it's notable, these things happen and it's not just a chat room term. Many of those articles are specifically about these events. I don't know why you're so hellbent on deleting this - I agree the existing article isn't very good, but if it bothers you so much, work on it. Change it. Make it conform - but comparing this to the Gay Nigger association is a bad-faith strawman argument - how the two things are similar is beyond me. In fact, I should probably put this on my to-do list. Tan | 39 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 results and all are casual mentions, as far as I can tell. This is related to GNAA because both were kept due to spurious arguments about the quality of sources, and promises that better sources would be found eventually. I would improve the article, except I improve articles using sources. Every source I find with this term has useless information... like "Bondage Land is a blend of play party, skits, disco, and carnival". That's just not encyclopedic in any way... and yet it's one of the sources people keep suggesting we use for this article. --Rividian (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) As I said, these sources mention the term but do not come close to providing the coverage required by WP:N and WP:NEO. Despite what people want to assume about me, I will drop this the minute there actually are credible sources shown to exist. --Rividian (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rividian, what you are doing to the article is not wrong (stubbing it basically), just be careful not to get in an edit war over it. The last thing I or anyone else wants here is for you to garner a very unnecessary block. Right now, you've substantially blanked the article (again, not inherently wrong), but when reverted, you have now reverted back to your version twice. A friendly bit of advice to you that you need to use the talkpage of the article and not just edit summaries with reversions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually I didn't revert back to "my version", I was careful to retain sources (well, attempts at them) that were added. And I did comment on the talk page... no one has replied yet. I'm sorry but you need to be more careful with what you imply about me... I'm not doing the stuff you allege, and it would be easy to verify this. --Rividian (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't trying to imply anything about you Rividian, and my apologies that that is the impression you got. I saw your posts on the article talk page as well. I saw that you had three edits to the article with today's timestamp, all removing the same content. My advice was meant as merely that, advice - I clearly said I wanted you to avoid a block as I feel you would not deserve a block. The article should be stubbed, but that doesn't mean continually reverting to your preferred version (even if it's the "right" version). The same advice goes to User:Simonxag if xe continues to revert you as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article is much better the way it is now. Tan | 39 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lynch

Gary Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Creating a discussion in the relevant place per this mailing list thread and this New York times article. Catchpole (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but support userfying and improving the article to a higher standard by anyone interested so that it can be reposted in articlespace at a future time. Lar's close wasn't flawed - the arguments in the AfD were minimal, and "Gary Lynch" isn't exactly a unique name to search for on the 'net. Information turned up after it was closed presents the article in a different light, I assume (can't see the actual article as it was) and so it seems like an entry could be crafted. Is there a vote for "endorse deletion but recreate article"?Avruch T 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Chief Legal Officer for Morgan Stanley is almost certain to have multiple references when looked for, and so it did. The link added to the NY list is obviously sufficient -- literally dozens of articles; almost all are obviously the same person. Google search for +"Gary Lynch" +"Morgan Stanley" brings 1800 for just that phase of his career --and is almost perfectly precise for getting the right person. . 2nd item on it is a profile of him on Forbes. About 1 in 10 are usable 3rd party substantial references. The closer compares the article with a similar one he closed, and that might also merit deletion review. The AfD should have been continued, not closed, but the material put forth by now is sufficient. The excessive protests about the deletion shouldn't prejudice us--we are looking at the article and the close. DGG (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These arguments should have been advanced during the deletion discussion, or better, the things behind them used to enhance the article. We cannot expect closers to be mind readers, we can only ask them to evaluate whatever arguments and links are presented. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This New York Times article clearly shows notability. It's just a matter of improving the article a bit and finding more information. No reason to have to draft the article on some other page. Fred Talk 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • as above... should have been advanced during the AfD. But now, just use this material to improve the article. I'll userify it to wherever, or merge with Davewild's userpage or whatever seems to make more sense, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Ah, the Dramaz, it is here.
  • Lar is an awfully nice chap and a more than competent administrator. However, this decision needs overturning.
  • First, because it runs contrary to policy about consensus.
  • Background: WT:BLP saw a failed attempt to introduce into the wording of BLP the recommendation that marginal BLPs with no consensus at AfD default to delete instead to keep.
  • Lar didn't approve of this, and, so disapproving, closed the contentious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination) as no consensus defaulting to delete. The close edit-conflicted with a close by User:Sandstein that cleaved closely to policy - and found in the opposite direction. Perhaps fortunately, they were able to work it out collegially and agreed to relist.
  • In puzzlement, I urged him on User talk:Lar to reconsider this, pointing out that WT:BLP explicitly notes that there is no consensus to change. He, with his customary politeness, told me he intended to ignore that page, saying "I think if we start doing what we know is right in this matter, we'll find that consensus has indeed changed."
  • This explains the puzzling policy-exceptionalism of this close. Lar is launching a satyagraha.
  • Second, because it runs contrary to policy and custom about notability.
  • In the close, Lar says "There is no specific biographical mention given. So notability is not conferred by Gary having been the subject of a substantial biography in book form, or multiple substantial biographies in articles."
  • I have argued in the past - in fact, on one occasion very recently in favour of excluding articles in which the subject has not received substantial biographical coverage, but only coverage about his or her isolated statements, opinions or actions.
  • Opinion clearly disagrees with me on this interpretation of notability. A fortiori, Lar's more stringent condition is more out of line.
  • Thirdly, because Lar didn't look closely enough.
  • The third, and only informed comment, came from User:Minos P. Dautrieve, who self-identifies as a lawyer on his userpage. His comment begins "One of the most prominent lawyers in the USA." Now that would make me sit up and check, AGFing that this chap isn't someone trying to keep the article in because of CoI or POV - which is easily checked by determining whether he has edited it extensively and tendentiously in the past.
  • This comment then links the Google news search for "Gary Lynch"+SEC. There are 1500 articles listed, all of which on the first several pages appear to be about this Gary Lynch. Several are detailed profiles, including this from the Associated Press the Chicago Sun-Times and this from the sadly defunct but very reliable Regardie's. On the first page itself, fourth row down is this from the New York Times that would at least grab the eye enough (His name's in the headline!) to make a closing admin keep looking.
  • Lar dismissive these comprehensive results - which should meet even his standards, surely - as "deceptive". I have no idea why.
Actually I believe the closure should be overturned based on the arguments above but recreate anyway regardless. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closer, I would reiterate what I said in the close... the article did not itself give evidence of notability (it had no references after all). The Google search given, when I spot checked its returns, did not give articles that gave strong evidence of notability either. Now, others have done more work (the work that perhaps should have been done during the discussion) and found better evidence of notability. Excellent! Recreate the article, then, and add the sources that have now been found. I'll userify it myself to whoever asks, as I already offered. (or, perform a history merge to Davewild's version, if that makes more sense, whichever) But I think the proper outcome here is to endorse the deletion, as the deletion itself was proper... and then recreate the article, since there are now several enthusiasts ready to do good work on it, which was lacking before. DRV is about process, not about rearguing the AfD (which is what DGG and Fred Bauder are doing). Proper process was followed, in my view. I'll be delighted here if the outcome is that we end up with a better, more properly sourced article, that offers good evidence of notability. I'm inclusionist, remember? The article as it stood at the time, did not. Finally, the time that Minos P. Dautrieve and Enchantress of Florence spent casting aspersions in various places could better have been spent accepting my first offer of userification and improving the article, in my view. But that's just me. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, which was properly done, support recreation with new sources, as per Lar. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Del Conte

Natali Del Conte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello a few weeks ago I reposted a web page that was deleted. As part of that process I asked a Wikipedia administrator why it was originally deleted. I was informed at the time of the original removal of the page the subject in question (Ms. Natali Del Conte) was did not achieve a level credibility to obtain a reference on this site. However even in the original deletion it was noted that the subject was in the process of moving to a new job where they could likely become worthy of a Wikipedia page.

Since then this person has become a host of CNET and has her own show on CNETTV called Loaded. In addition since being with CNET she tech guest on the Today Show (NBC), CNBC, Fox News as well as other significant TV programs. So the feeling was that the reason for the original deletion was no longer valid.

I must respectfully say that I didn’t appreciate that at that time when I reposted the story that I should have first done an undelete request as I am doing now. I didn’t know the process existed and the administrator I spoke to at that time didn’t inform me of this process. For this I do apologize.

I know at this time Ms. Del Conte has now achieved more main stream credibility then may others who currently have long standing pages on Wikipedia. Therefore with great respect for the fine work done on this site, I would like to request a review of this judgment if possible.

All the best,

Joe Dawson --BitStop (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don’t want to debate to much about the logic behind the original delete because I honestly think that was not fair, due to the fact that many other pages have existed on far more minor internet celebrities then Ms. Del Conte.

That said to answer your question Ms. Del Conte moved from a podcast to working on her own show on CNET TV. Link: http://www.cnettv.com/9742-1_53-31863.html

Since Moving to CNET she is now been on Fox News and NBC and CNBC. I don’t have great access to all references as most of them existed on her Wikipedia page. But here is what I can find with a quick Google search. Hope this helps.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=657645382

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24103730#24103730

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24197124#24197124

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=722762374

I should also add that a number of other Cnet host such as Molly Wood, Tom Merritt and others have pages on Wikipeida. Also many more people who exist to smaller audiences such as Roger Chang and 100s of other just like him also have wikipedia pages.

--BitStop (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UniModal

UniModal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The UniModal article was clearly cited and objective. JDoorjam deleted "UniModal" based on his sole opinion that "Reading through the article's history, it becomes clear that this was added to the project as purely promotional material. The bare bones that remain seem to outline an untested idea that no one wants to invest in." I very much doubt a proper AFD exists for this. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at AFD. Deletion was not in accordance with any of the criteria for speedy deletion. However I don't think the article will survive AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting administrator. This article was deleted under CSD 11. Though the content was edited and pared down significantly from its original form, it was still purely promotional material based solely on the assertions of the company that is the subject of the article. For those unfamiliar with UniModal, which I would suspect is most, the "company" of three people is trying to sell an idea for a rapid transit system, except no one's bought into it anywhere, and nowhere in the world is there a working prototype. This makes it difficult for secondary sources to say anything, because the product essentially does not exist. This means that anything there is to say about UniModal is by definition purely promotional, because there's nothing to say about UniModal except what UniModal says about themselves. My opinion is still that this article should stay deleted. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD where it will probably fail if more references cant be found. To me, the article reads as descriptive not promotional. Only the most obvious & unfixable advertisements are eligible for G11. The arguments of the deleting admin are essentially lack of notability, but that also needs AfD, since the existence of the NYT article is a clear assertion of significance. DGG (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5&oldid=210407430"