Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:46, 28 May 2007

< May 26	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 28 >

27 May 2007

Image:LaToyaJackson.jpg

The image was deleted despite the fact that a legitimate fair use rationale was provided as required by Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale, and a full page discussion as to why the image was irreplaceable was held on the image's talk page. Rhythmnation2004 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: deletion discussion was at Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. ··coel acan 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The issue was also raised at [1] and I agree with the 5 administrators who reviewed the image; it is a replaceable fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no level of proof was offered for the assertion that it would be impossible to replace the image. IrishGuy ^talk 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the image is not irreplaceable. Corvus cornix 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting quite tired of saying this, but I have proven EXTENSIVELY on that page that this image is irreplaceable. See my messages dated:

10:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

12:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My messages have also explained IN DETAIL that I have made dozens of attempt to contact La Toya Jackson's agency to request a free-license image and have not received any reply, regardless of the fact that I have tried contacting them by e-mail, mail, and telephone. In addition, the fact that I provided a valid fair use rationale proves that the removal of this image is unjustifiable and that in its deletion, the administration of Wikipedia has shown that they believe themselves to be "above the policies" set forth by Wikipedia's guidelines on the fair use of promotional images. Rhythmnation2004 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated assertion is not the same thing as repeated proof. The fact that you are not getting a response from her agency does not mean that you can't get a picture of her, it only means that you can't get it from them. You could stand outside any function she appears at and snap one. Corvus cornix 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - images of living people, with rare exception (ie, Osama Bin Laden, William Morva, etc), are replaceable. As long as we are content to use a non-free image, we will never get a free one. Why should the agency respond to an email as long as the article has a photo? If we are going to use it whether they release it under the GFDL or not, what possible reason would they have to make that release? Having a non-free image inhibits getting a free one. --BigDT 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codependent Collegian

Seems the keep comments were conditional on sources verifying significance; these were not added. So we have unsupported assertions of significance only. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen for further discussion, should have been bumped for other eyes to look at instead of closing based on the comment that was there. Corvus cornix 00:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of trends in music (2000-present)

The article was deleted for containing too much OR, but this reason doesn't make sense, because it is a notable subject, and similar articles (e.g. 1990s in music) exist. If the article United States was unsourced and contained tons of OR, would that make it acceptable to delete it? The article should be cleaned up, not just deleted.--Azer Red Si? 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - process seems to have been followed correctly. Similar articles existing doesn't mean anything e.g. WP:INN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the content of United States was considered unsalvagable for some reason, then yes deletion and starting from scratch would seem to make sense. --pgk 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the article was deleted was because of a lack of sources, so no, how about finding sources instead of deleting it (which will just result in it getting recreated again without sources, being nominated for deletion because it has no sources, being recreated again, etc.)--Azer Red Si? 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it'll just get speedy deleted G4 if anyone tries that, and ultimately protected from recreation. If you want to create a well sourced article meeting the required standards, no one is stopping you. --pgk 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact that the contents of article were speedily deleted before I even knew it was nom'ed is stopping me from being able to improve it.--Azer Red Si? 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AFD seems pretty conclusive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just nominated Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999) for AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say what I said at the new AfD - there's an encyclopedic article in there somewhere, but this ain't it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AFD. I agree with Jeff; this isn't the right way to approach this subject. --Core desat 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are the two criteria listed in Wikipedia's deletion policy that deal with sources:

Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed--Azer Red Si? 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Valid result, no credible reason to overturn. Wikilawyering ain't going to help when even our most inclusionist inclusionist identifies that the content is hopeless. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn it and renominate it if you want, but don't speedily delete it. If I had known about the nom, I might have been willing to improve it. This is why deletionism is a bad policy. The concept of Wikipedia is that articles don't start out perfect, but get better over time. By deleting articles like this overnight before they've even had time to improve, all that is being done is destroying others' hard work with no net gain to justify it.--Azer Red Si? 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes personal names

Overturn and delete - This DRV includes the sub-lists by letter as well. Closing admin acknowledges that the delete arguments are stronger than the keep arguments yet claims that opinion is "not settled" about the articles. It appears however that opinion is fairly well-settled in the deletion of a number of articles of a similar stripe recently that these sorts of lists are not encyclopedic because of their disregard of policy. Several of the AFDs for those articles were linked into this AFD and there appears to be no reason offered as to why those many precedents should be ignored (I realize that precedent is not 100% binding but it is certainly important to consider how similar articles have been treated in the past). Arguments for keeping, if I may paraphrase, amounted to it's interesting, people put a lot of work into it, it made it through an AFD once before (two years ago) and people like stuff with their names in it. None of that is particularly compelling and none of it overcomes the strong policy-based objections. The only substantive keep argument, that the songs are thematically related because they all contain a name, was pretty handily refuted by a number of people. Otto4711 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Saying that the delete arguments may have been better than the keep arguments does not automatically mean that there's a consensus or reason to delete. If consensus continues to shift in the delete direction in given time, then the next time this gets listed may work out in a delete direction, but there's no current consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 appears to have neglected to bother talking to the closing admin at all before whistling over here (although someone else did, to which my reply was [2], which forms part of my response here). Anyway. Closing admin acknowledges that the deleters argue better but does not consider that they argue so very much better that a highly split debate motivates a consensual deletion. Nominator here is openly asking for a non-consensual deletion. The keepers argued that the list was well-constructed and well-defined with clearly present barriers to entry adn the nominator here glosses over that completely. The deleters failed, in my opinion, to successfully deconstruct that opinion and did not persuaded any of the keepers of the case. DRV is not an end-run around AfD, and this is simply an attempt to capitalise on the debate further down to that effect. Precedent on unrelated articles of different natures with different criteria and different debates does not translate into a license to shoot every list someone dislikes. Endorse my own close, if that wasn't obvious. Nominator should try AfD again later with a better argument and with time to fix the articles to see if that's possible. Splash - tk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has already asked you about your closure, you've responded and I disagree with your response, why on earth would you want me to ask you the same question again? Would your response to the second asking have been markedly different from the first one? If not, then why criticise me for not redundantly asking?

This would depend what you said to me. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, I probably would've said something like asking you to explain your decision more clearly. Presumably you would have said pretty much the same thing; I assume your reasons aren't so fluid as to change in the course of a few hours. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your suggesting that I glossed over the "well-constructed" aspect of the keeps, I noted the work that went into the lists which I consider as addressing that argument. How well-constructed an article that IMHO fails policy is strikes me as irrelevant. Additionally, two different editors noted how the list was not well-constructed or well-defined or restricted. Risker stated I will also note that many of the songs listed contain a word in their title that is sometimes used as a person's name (e.g., Rose, Candy) but the song is not about a person at all. and I stated Some of them aren't even about people of that name, for instance, a number of the songs listed with the name "Angel" are about actual angels, not people named Angel. All of the lists mentioned as precedent were equally restricted by subject matter yet were still determined to be unsuitable for Wikipedia. No one is suggesting that precedent translates into a "license" to shoot anything but one would think that an admin would recognize some value in looking at how similar AFDs for similar lists raising similar arguments on both sides were handled. It seems to me that a closing admin should be able to justify why he believes precedent should be ignored instead of simply dismissing it with a poor gun metaphor.

Each of the AfDs listed in the debate were stonking, overwhelmingly, massively and almost totally in favour of deletion, to the point of unanimity in some cases. They bear no relation to a debate such as this, where opinion is clearly split, as we both agree. The only exception is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination), and a single debate is no precedent. In any case, 'precedent' applies largely in courts and on Wikipedia is very close to an inverse of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You have to make your case in this debate on this article, not other debates about other articles. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the debate being "highly split," my count has it at 10 for deletion and 6 for keep, which is pretty close to a two-thirds majority for deletion. While of course AFD is not a vote, there have been plenty of AFDs closed with a delete with a similar count.

As you say, it's not a vote. If it were, and if 2/3 were a threshold, it wouldn't get deleted anyway. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no threshold, your comment about that hypothetical threshold is irrelevant. The point still stands that this debate was not so closely divided as your claim would suggest. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your claim that I'm trying an "end run" around AFD, I am struck by your obvious failure to assume good faith. To be blunt, you made a mistake. We have a 62.5%-37.5% in favor of deletion with delete arguments that the closing admin acknowledges are stronger than the keeps yet the AFD still closes as no consensus. You gave credence to weak arguments that should have been discounted and your explanation for your closure, both in the AFD and on your own page, were weak and unpersuasive. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the delete arguments failed to deconstruct the poor arguments of the keepers, I disagree with your stated reasons for closure, I disagree with the implication that keepers should have to recant their opinions within the AFD for admins to discount their arguments. This is the forum for reviewing the actions of closing administrators. Otto4711 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming there is a consensus present in that debate to delete the article. You are claiming so clear is the consensus that it could not possibly have been a 'no consensus' debate. This is not the case. Acknowledging that one side argues more strongly is not an implication that I found the other side totally unpersuasive, which would have to have been the case to mandate a deletion in the kind of divided debate you have identified. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am claiming that when one side argues policy, debunks the other side's claims and has a nearly 2-1 majority while the other side makes arguments based in pretty much nothing and fails to refute the policy claims of the majority and indeed barely even addresses them that this is a strong indicator of consensus. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides argued policy. Neither side refuted the others claims so totally that we need to disregard them totally in order to manufacture a consensus. We already agreed that the numbers do not matter. Splash - tk 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: it's not that I want you to make the keepers 'recant', although that's surely the ideal course of a debate, but that the deletion arguments did not even manage to persuade those who came to the debate after they had all been made, and after what deconstruction of the keepers arguments there was had also been attempted. Life doens't always go your way. You can renominate later. Splash - tk 15:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense whatsoever. If Person A says "keep, I like it and it's fun" and then Person B says "delete for policy reasons XYZ" you're giving mrore weight to the person who comes in later and repeats "keep it, it's fun"? That's ridiculous. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you made up the bad example, not me! Anyway, your example doesn't match what I described or the algebraic format of the debate in question, or the reasons I have given for my closure, so I'm not sure that it's useful. It's common to find a divided beginning to an AfD followed by a well-argued point or two, followed by a clear trend among later participants to supporting those points. This is less good than everyone winding up agreeing of course, but we can't really expect that very often. Of course, the later editors do not get a free-pass through policy but rarely do people line up convincingly behind such weak positions, which is why you conclude your own example to be ridiculous. Splash - tk 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. The thread above is a conversation that could (and should) have occurred on the closing admin's talk page before creating this listing, making this DRV out of process. Regardless, this was a reasoned closure accurately reflecting the AFD discussion, with the reasoning carefully explained (starting in the AFD closure notes). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The keeps can be summed up by one of the comments: These lists provide an entertaining look at music across time, across genres, with the unifying theme of proper names in their titles. Entertainment is a side-product, it's not a core encyclopaedic purpose, and the "unifying theme" has no encyclopaedic basis: there is no encyclopaedic topic "songs whose title contain a propoer name". This is a list whose defining criterion is completely arbitrary, and it will by its nature include so many songs as to make the list useless for navigation, which is what Wikipedia lists are for. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, every "keep" that I see in the discussion is in essence WP:ILIKEIT, while those arguing to delete provided some pretty good, well-founded arguments. AfD is not a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fring (closed)

Soulja Boy

He is VERY notable, as he has garnered many fans, performed at shows nationwide and internationally, and gained many rivals nationwide. He is even signed to ColliPark Music, the label run by super-producer Mr. ColliPark, best known for his work with the Ying Yang Twins. Undelete, or at least Unprotect Tom Danson 07:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you point us to some Independant reliable sources to help us assess his notability as a musician? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 # All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed--[[User:Azer Red|<font color="Darkred">'''Azer Red'''</font>]] [[User talk:Azer Red|<font color="Red">''Si?''</font>]] 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Endorse deletion'''.  Valid result, no credible reason to overturn. Wikilawyering ain't going to help when even our most inclusionist inclusionist identifies that the content is hopeless. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
+::Overturn it and renominate it if you want, but don't speedily delete it. If I had known about the nom, I might have been willing to improve it. This is why deletionism is a bad policy. The concept of Wikipedia is that articles don't start out perfect, but get better over time. By deleting articles like this overnight before they've even had time to improve, all that is being done is destroying others' hard work with no net gain to justify it.--[[User:Azer Red|<font color="Darkred">'''Azer Red'''</font>]] [[User talk:Azer Red|<font color="Red">''Si?''</font>]] 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[:List of songs whose title includes personal names]]====