Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 December 8
2009 December 10 >

9 December 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Kassel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was no consensus to delete Matt Kassel. The discussion initially centered around the lack of reliable sources. When sources were highlighted to establish notability, multiple editors agreed that WP:ATHLETE did not supersede WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As argued in the AfD, it does not matter whether or not Kessel passes the subject specific guideline, WP:ATHLETE; once he passes WP:BIO, he fulfills Wikipedia's inclusion requirements — "WP:ATHLETE is NOT an exclusive guideline".

The closer asks what makes Kessel notable. My answer is that an "unusual amount of national media coverage over an extended period of time, for a college player" (Washington Post, ESPN, and New York Post) establish that Kassel is notable per WP:N. An unremarkable soccer player from Maryland would not receive coverage from the Washington Post if he were truly non-notable.
The closer referenced WP:NTEMP, it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. However, these articles span the course of two years — certainly not the "short burst of news reports" to which WP:NTEMP applies.

I asked Black Kite (talk · contribs) to reconsider the close, and he responded, "No, I'd like it to DRV please, I think there's an important point at stake here." The closer is supposed to evaluate the consensus in the discussion, not make a casting vote. This close should be overturned.

Addendum: The article in the Google cache is different from the deleted article. In the article that has now been deleted, I added the reliable sources presented in the discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn WP:ATHLETE is one of the weakest SNGs we have and I'm not comfortable citing it as a keep or delete rationale at all. On the other hand, the GNG is the strongest and most widely accepted notability guideline, and this bio meets it, with the sources presented in the debate. At the least, there was no consensus here, and the admin's presumption that WP:ATHLETE takes precedence of WP:N is something that should be made as an opinion in the debate, but not as a closer. ThemFromSpace 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- several valid sources were provided in the AFD showing that the member passes the GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus WP:ATHLETE is a great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article needs to be clarified if undeleted. The last version at deletion stated that Kassell played for the Red Bulls, but the sources linked say no such thing, only that he attended the team academy ("had been in the New York Red Bulls' youth system"). Obviously this is not inconsequential to the AfD, though there may be sufficient grounds for notability anyway, not sure. No opinion on overturning. Chick Bowen 01:08, 10 December 2009 (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.
Okashina Okashi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was previously deleted for "WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi. I'd like to request the deleted versions of this page be undeleted and have the history be merged into the recreated article at Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was any of the content from older versions used in the current article? lifebaka++ 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably was, but there may be some that isn't as well. I'd like to merge any useful information from previous versions into the current version. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:KPCKim.jpg – The essential character of consensus is that it is based on strength of argument not headcount and the overturn side does not adequately rebut the well argued reasons for this failing NFCC#8. Essentially its not a vote so appealing to the community being able to reach a consensus NFCC doesn't really comedown to a proper analysis of whether the close properly weighted the consensus of the discussion and the arguments about the image not meeting NFCC#8 have not been adequately rebutted either in the AFD ot the DRV. Finally, I should say that I am specifically not closing with nay regard to whether non-consensus in NFCC defaults to delete – Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:KPCKim.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The outcome of the discussion does not support delete, instead the result should have been keep. I discussed this with the closing admin, but he did not agree. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion (original nominator). FFD is not a headcount. There was one keep argument, brought forward by a couple of editors, which was refuted by two experienced administrators; no arguments were then offered in response to those refutations. This makes Seresin's closure a reasonable reading of the result of the debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Contrary to the statement of the editor requesting review, the discussion does support deletion - a prima facie case was made that the image use did not satisfy citerion 8 and the attempts to refute this by those advocating retention were, to give the most charitable characterisation, unconvincing. CIreland (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep I disagree with the above that the argument was unconvincing. I stand by my original argument. RP459 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn delete (as DRV nominator). Contrary to some of the comments above, no one has merely "counted votes" in this case, so that's purely a straw man. The prima facie argument given that the image does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 fails when one looks beyond that first appearance and sees that it was refuted by the keep comments which maintained the image was an alternate view of the character providing contextual significance for the alternate life, which is the underlying source of the character's abilities, and illustrates the alternate appearance of the character. It's a matter of opinion as to what it adds or doesn't add to the article, it's not as cut-and-dried as the delete comments would have you believe. And thanks, Tim Song, for your supportive comment...the entire "experienced administrators" business as mentioned by the endorser is just a red-herring argument, another straw man - and one that attempts to present an opposing opinion as a 'refutation', when it's merely a subjective difference of opinion, proving nothing. There were good arguments on both sides, and the result should have been at the very least "no consensus, default to keep" - if not outright keep. Dreadstar ☥ 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate boils down to the question whether the image passes WP:NFCC#8. That question is one that should be resolved by the community on a case-by-case basis. In this particular debate at hand, I see no consensus on this question, and the closer's rationale basically picked one side that they agree with. This they cannot do. Overturn to no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In NFCC cases, there is no "no consensus default to keep". Fair use rationales, like every other piece of content, are subject to conensus editing. You need a consensus for a fair use rationale in order for it to stay and be considered valid. No consensus here means "no consensus for fair use", hence no consensus to keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (deletion) - Fut.Perf. has it correctly here. Where there is no consensus that an image passes the non-free content criteria, it is deleted (not kept), and there was no consensus that it did pass in this case. The foundation resolution on licensing makes it clear that the non-free policy here is intended to exclude all but a limited range of images. Looks like a normal and correct FfD closure. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was discussed at length in August. It emerged that, historically, no consensus for NFC images had not defaulted to delete; and there was no consensus to change this. On the one hand, closing admins should disregard contributions which are incompatible with policy. But where contributions have been made on both sides that are compatible with viable interpretations of policy, so that there is no consensus that an image is incompatible with policy, then it should not be deleted. But there is latitude for the closing admin to weigh the strength of argument presented, not just the number of !votes. Jheald (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drawing any form of consensus from that discussion is a long bow to draw. I see the result of that discussion as simply restating various editors already known positions but no clear consensus being formed - Peripitus (Talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse deletion. It seems to me that were the two personae as distinct (and distinctive) as say Clark Kent and Superman, then there would be grounds for two images. But neither of the two character "looks" here seems so distinctive that additionally showing it would add significantly to user understanding. So I think it was a fair call by Seresin on the arguments presented; and I see no reason to overturn it looking at the fundamentals. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to nc (keep) There is general agreement that if the picture illustrated significant differences between her normal self and secret self the picture would stay otherwise it should go. Our NFCC rules support that. The majority felt that was the case. So as this boils down to a matter of opinion, not a reading of NFCC, I don't see a consensus to delete. And NC in image discussions defaults to keep as far as I know. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Besides the nominator, only Peripitus had an argument that didn't make my brain hurt to read it. I'm not sure why anyone wasted time writing WP:NFCC if three editors in a darkened room hidden down in the basement can vote to ignore it whenever it suits them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the image could be temporarily undeleted. That way everyone here could make an informed judgment as to whether there's enough difference between the two images to make this a matter of opinion or a slam dunk by the closer. Incidentally, I'm uneasy about the fact that the image lacks an identifiable source; if it's good fan/fake artwork, or has been modified from the actual screenshot, it would probably be unsuitable regardless of NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closing discussions at WP:FFD should be about upholding WP:F, not making a head count. In the main image the character wears a sweat shirt and combats, while in the deleted image she wears a short sleave top with skirt, while holding pom-poms. Consequently, the arguments for keeping the image weren't plausible, the image merely depicts the character wearing some different clothes, and so could easily be replaced with text. PhilKnight (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but not closure This FfD shouldn't have been closed as "delete," per se, as there was no obvious consensus to delete, with experienced administrators split over whether deletion was warranted. However, I agree with some of those above me in that a no consensus close at FfD in cases of disputed fair use rationales should default to delete. In other words, this ideally would've been closed as "no consensus, default to delete." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn If anything, consensus in the discussion suggested that there was sufficient reason to show the different versions of the character. No consensus does not default to delete for fair use images. There's no compelling policy reason to have deleted this image. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus was obviously for keeping it, and the delete argument does not seem enough compelling to trump the keep ones. --Cyclopiatalk 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Peripitus (talk · contribs) has the right idea from the original delete rationale. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, clearly a consensus to keep. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2009 (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.
Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The discussion is at User_talk:Karanacs#Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston

User:Karanacs speedily deleted Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston and Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston - He had previously filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Indonesia in Houston, which ended in the keeping of the consulate articles. There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in a no consensus. Likewise there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston, filed by another user, which ended in the deletion of the subject consulate article.

I asked Karanacs to restore the two articles and file an AFD. Instead he told me to make a DRV on his page. I believe that saying X is a consulate is, in and of itself, a sufficient assertion of notability, and that a user challenging the notability of a consulate should use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • An article with (decent or better) references should never be deleted via A7. On that point alone I advocate overturning and restoring both of these and let users take them to AfD as they wish. Taking them on their merits, it might be worthwhile to condense these (and any other consulates in Houston) into one article, but that's merely one option to explore, and not really the point here. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. It cannot seriously be argued that, while a high school in a small town is presumptively notable, a consulate of a sovereign country is not even an indication of importance. Tim Song (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. I suspect some high schools are larger and more influential than a regional consulate, but these definitely weren't speedy candidates. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that if high schools are considered presumptively "notable", consulates should be at least an "indication" of "significance", which is a much lower threshold than notability. Tim Song (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not even sure such subjects could fall within A7 and there's certainly enough of an indication of significance to take the specific articles out of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Endorse deletion (I was the deleting administrator). The previous AfD on Consulate-General of the UK in Houston rejected the idea that there is inherent notability for consulates. The Switzerland article does not even discussn an active consulate. Neither of these articles had independent sources that provided significant coverage of the topic; at best the sources verified that the consulate exists/existed but provided zero assertion of notability. Before deleting I checked Wikiproject International Relations and its talk page archives, and they have given no guidance that consulates hold any special presumption of notability. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor a point, but how does this analysis bring the subjects under A7, especially since there's consensus in the discussion cited by the editor who started this discussion that such consulates can be notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (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/2009_December_9&oldid=1138435155"