Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:43, 29 August 2007

< August 27	Deletion review archives: 2007 August	August 29 >

28 August 2007

Ronen Segev

This should be fairly straightforward, hopefully. The page was apparently the victim of repeated attempts to insert a barely notable, unflattering incident into the bio. Since the article was a stub there were both WP:UNDUE and BLP issues. It survived an AfD in January, but was speedied & protected in June by Jimbo Wales after an OTRS request (#2007011710000088). I rescued the uncontroversial, cited content via a WP mirror and placed it in Ten O'Clock Classics, an organisation Mr Segev co-founded, where it subsequently proved useful. Anyhoo, I posted at JW's talk page the other day to request that instead of being a protected deletion, could Ronen Segev be a protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics? He seems amenable to the idea (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev), but since I suspect he doesn't do much in the way of sysop housekeeping these days, I said I'd just bring it here. Cheers. --DeLarge 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although you might consider also redirecting ronnie segev, since that's how he is commonly known... -- newbiez12345 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics - Seems like a reasonable solution and gets it off Jimbo's desk. Thanks for keeping an eye on this issue. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia (closed)

Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire

Arguments to keep are a stone's throw from WP:ILIKEIT and do not address main issues of lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. Assuming AfD really is not a vote, arguments to delete that point out the article's failure to meet basic policy/guidelines without sufficient -- in this case, much of any -- refutation should lead to that article's deletion. --EEMeltonIV 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure—for fiction in general, it's good to review other options before AfDing or PRODding articles; this is one of the compromises that allowed WP:FICT to be accepted despite its strict standards. Some time should be given. — Deckill er 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure and delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire - Closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Consensus seemed clear on delete and the reasons for delete. Unlike most Wikipedia fanfic AfDs, there was no outpouring of Keep during the eight day AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse my closure. Deckiller expressed an opinion which is the same as my thoughts on the matter, and I don't think there was a solid consensus on the matter (except for the two sub-nominations). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that I think this is an improper use of DRV (which means "deletion review" not "I didn't get deleted the article I wanted deleted at AfD, so I'm going to run another pseudo AfD here to see if I can get it deleted outside the established system" review). DRV is for review of deletions you disagree with, not attempting to run another AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Please assume good faith and take a look at the portions of the DRV page that point out, for instance, that DRV can also be used for reviewing the retention of articles. My rationale at the top of this note did not reiterate the argument I made at the AfD, rather that I believe the decision at closure (i.e. the process, which DRV focuses on) did not reflect the sum of the (non-)arguments. --EEMeltonIV 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read an implication of bad faith into my comments, I apologize. I was merely expressing concern that you were basically running another AfD here since you obviously disagree with my decision against your opinion in the AfD. Given the discussion here so far, it appears that even here the opinions are ambiguous, so I am even more firm in my belief I made the correct decision. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire and Moff - Endorse deletion of Supreme Chancellor (*catches breath*) The overwhelming bulk of the interventions to the debate had well argued arguments for deletion based on policy. There where three pages for deletion, and closing admin proceed to implement I solution proposed by a single editor and seconded by no one. It makes no sense to delete Supreme Chancellor but not the other ones: closing admin ignored the bulk of the editors to concentrate on one proposal only - which failed to gather consensus - a travesty of what a debate seeking consensus should be.--Cerejota 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only matter being reviewed is Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold, with some regret. Most of the arguments--on both sides--are unhelpful. Notability in itself isn't a criterion for deletion; failure to meet that standard or WP:FICT would imply a merge, not a delete. If material can't be merged anywhere then it isn't encyclopedic, but only one editor asserted that (Burntsauce) without explaining why. A digression on fancruft: any editor who cites fancruft as a reason for deletion is arguing, in effect, that said article does not meet the notability standards, is not properly attributed, and does not contain any material that could merged. There was clearly no consensus on the latter point, and editors in this case are obligated to explain why this article fails on those counts. That being said, those who would keep the article mustered few positive arguments--liking the material isn't sufficient, and vows to cleanup and source the article are usually the first step on the path to the second AfD (wherein the article gets deleted). Now, the important comment was left by ChunkyRice, who correctly asserted that, as it stands, the article is original research and completely unsuitable. It's also an open question whether a proper article can be written on a topic where the actual canonical sources either disagree or are undermined by on-screen inconsistencies (which suggests, strongly, that the matter should be covered in an article dealing with the films themselves). If it had been up to me I might well have deleted it for being such an ugly violation of the attribution policy, but given the confusion in the debate, and the fact that this was the article's first direct AfD, I can't really fault Nihonjoe closing it no consensus on the main article, and merging Moff into that article. Supreme Chancellor I've redirected to Galactic Republic#The Galactic Senate. Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. However, I have a feeling there might be potential for real-world information out there, and if not, then a 1-2 paragraph explanation of ranks might be appropriate in the Galactic Empire (Star Wars) article. — Deckill er 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems a possible outcome and there's nothing in the current outcome stopping you from merging. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete (the two not deleted) Because none of the keep voters provided any sort of real world notability. Notability should be a reason for deletion, for otherwise we'd be flooded with material that some editors think is important, but cannot back it up by coverage from independent, reliable sources Corpx 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, deletions arguments such as "it fails to meet the manual of style (WP:WAF)" are clearly not relevant. Reasonable call by closer. >Radiant< 09:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Mackensen. Poor arguments on either side, but no real consensus emerged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Personally, i would delete the article, but the discussion clearly had no consensus, so such was the correct close. DGG (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Publisher

Wow, what a frustrating process this is! This page was nominated for deletion a month or so ago, I exchanged some messages about it on this board, and an admin ended up closing the debate and reinstating the page. Now I check back and it's gone again! I can't find any more debate, and since the page is gone there's no Talk page. What happened?? EricAlderman 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. This is a review of Media Publisher AfD#1 since it was the last deletion event. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was previously deleted via the Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion method which works by unanimous consent. Any objections and it is withdrawn or restored. However, since then there has been an Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Publisher in which a consensus was formed that the company does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. (For the record, I endorse the deletion as proper. Eluchil404 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - the closer interpreted the Media Publisher AfD#1 discussion correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality film

I believe that the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film misinterpretated the debate as "no consensus." There was a consensus to delete the article because it's about a neologism. Pixelface 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. AFD showed consensus (which would have been 7-4 if someone had told me about the AFD), and the majority's arguments were based on policy. The article's sources are gamed, and no two use the neologism the same way. Endorse closure as no consensus Per Arkyan and to avoid a fuss. The article is as good as it will get, and it can be deleted in a month when it doesn't improve. THF 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (changed 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, I believe that there are no valid reasons to question the actions of the closing admin. If he came to the conclussion that there was no consensus then let it be. Tony the Marine 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. There was clearly no consensus to delete in this debate. Don't forget that a "no consensus" closure does not preclude future nominations. If no one seems interested in improving this article and it still appears to be in a "poor state" just nominate it again in the near future rather than bring up a DRV. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete, and we now have two more votes, one delete, one keep. The concept of "Reality film" as a film that has sprung from reality television is a much-discussed genre/idea/film descriptor that it merits an article, at least one given the opportunity to flourish. This DRV was brought almost immediately. What's the rush? What's the harm? It's not a BLP or controversial topic; it's about movies based upon reality television shows. --David Shankbone 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure; I would also have endorsed a keep closure. The delete arguments are weak, and can mostly be fixed by editing. The arguments about WP:NEO are misguided here, because this article is not about the term but rather about what the term refers to. We should avoid using a neologism as an article title... if there is a better title. If not, the neologism may be the best we can do. Mango juice^talk 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my closure, ~~I wasn't notified of this DRV~~. AFD isn't a vote, and I didn't see any consensus to do much of anything. --Core desat 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure per Mangojuice. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure – Substantial new information available, only a small sampling of which includes:
- Goodwin, Ty. (August 15, 1992) Los Angeles Times U.S. Designers Want to Alter Oscar Pattern. Movies: Some say the academy overlooks costumes for "reality" films in favor of those in period pieces. Their proposal? Create two awards." Section: CA-Calendar; Page 6
- Moore, Frazier. (January 20, 1996) South Florida Sun-Sentinel Reality films are really bad. Section: Lifestyle; Page 3D
- Goodman, Tim. (July 15, 1997) San Francisco Examiner CNN decides to stick with reality film cameos banned after "contact". Section: News; Page A1
- Bark, Ed. (March 28, 1999) The Dallas Morning News LifeTV: Reality films are fiction, but we may be headed that way. Section: The Arts; Page 1C
- Barney, Chuck. (April 4, 1999) Contra Costa Times As Seen on TV – Reality films assume we'd like to watch. Section: Time Out; Page C1
- Koshie, Nihal. (November 21, 2001) The Times of India A koole obsession with reality films.
- The Gold Coast Bulletin (May 23, 2002) Reality films made in Mexico. Section: Entertai; page 4.
- Kettmann, Matt. (January 25, 2007) Santa Barbara Independent Reality film-making. Volume 21; Issue 54, Page 43
-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of these sources refer to the term described in the article, and many of them have single quotemarks in the headlines and don't use the term again at all. Including these would violate WP:NEO, which is why the article should have been deleted in the first place: there are no sources non-trivially discussing phenomena in relation to this term. Still, endorse closure, "no consensus" was the correct read of this AfD, and editors are certainly free to discuss a merge. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only listed some of those that use the term in the headline. There are hundreds more that use the term. Also, the term does not define how it is used in the reliable source material. The relm of reliable source material defines the term. There is a significant amount of reliable source material that makes use of the 'Reality film' term. The reliable source material understands what that term means and the Wikipedia article is there to bring that out. Deleting the article will not assist in bringing out the reliable source material uses of that term. In any event, the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and endorse closure Antonio Martin 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within a Deep Forest

Much more notable now than when deleted. 30,000+ google hits. There are also articles relating to this at Knytt and Nifflas that pass notability guidelines, so this should too. Phyte 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a review of the 21 June 2007 delete +cascading protection. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can supply us links to the articles it might help matters. JoshuaZ 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I meant that those WP articles (Knytt and Nifflas) are related subject matter to Within a Deep Forest and are of similar notability. They have a place on Wikipedia, so I think this should too. Is that a bad undelete reason...? -Phyte 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, there are references at gamespot, mobygames and download.com, so allow creation. Corvus cornix 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse cascading protection Neither the adventure game Within a Deep Forest nor its creator, Nicklas Nygren, have been the subject of multiple reliable sources independent of WaDF. Does not meet notability. But see Western Australian Dairy Farmers (WADF), Muslim Wadf (a religious trust), Weston Area Development Framework (WADF), and Western Air Defense Force (WADF). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to Nifflas for now. Allow creation IFF external sources can be found. If this game is as famous as is alleged here, that shouldn't be a problem. >Radiant< 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Upton and Lauren Caitlin Upton

This needs a full discussion. It appears to have been speedy deleted without an AfD. Miss Teen South Carolina, 3rd runner up for 2007 Miss Teen USA and a huge internet sensation (over 2 6 7 million youtube hits) due to her interesting answer during a Q&A. Was the primary subject of multiple secondary pieces by reliable sources like The Guardian [1], People Magazine [2] and a host of other TV and print media (Google news search). This is NOT a private individual, either before or after the speech. An embarrassed one, maybe, but not private. --Oakshade 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is a review of Dweller's 15:19, 26 August 2007 speedy deletion of Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Caitlin Upton was the only article posted before the !votes started. The remaining articles above were added to the nomination well after editors !voted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Today, August 28, 2007, she is in the news "Miss Teen South Carolina makes her mark with flubbed response to geography question." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List at AFD per recent incident, but I'll venture a guess (and argue there) that it'll get deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect and await an explanation of why "BLP" was cited. Winning a state beauty pagent, and finishing high in the US beauty contest, makes the person a notable person. As in the nom, several sources are present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion This article was deleted by user:Dweller, but I deleted the same text the previous day. I would suggest that being the third runner-up in a beauty contest is not notable. Whether she is a youtube sensation, given that this is not mentioned within the article, is wholly beside the point. A version of the page does, indeed, comment on an allegedly fatuous answer she gave to a question on live television. If everyone who had made a stupid comment on live TV were to deserve an article, I venture to suggest that even wiki's large capacity servers would be overwhelmed. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid) is in a similar position, yet his remains? Tdwinz711 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But these are not criteria for speedy deletion. --Oakshade 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-notability-bio is. But let's just put it to AfD and get a consensus. Really, keep or delete, either is fine with me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're confusing not having an assertion of notability (CSD 7) with a users opinion of non-notability, which in itself is NOT a criteria for speedy deletion. Yes, that's what this DRV is about, it should go to a full AfD, but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted without a discussion. --Oakshade 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not actually confusing the two aspects, because when notability is asserted it is still necesary to form an opinion as to whether the assertion is justifiable. To take a gross example, I could write an article about some wholly insignificant person, and say "This person is notable". That would be an assertion, bit a wholly unjustifiable one. So opinion does play a part. But, as we all seem to agree, let's go to AfD. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - She was just a guest on The Today Show [3]. --Oakshade 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I am, however, favorable to seeing if we can put together an article that goes beyond naming her profession and one embarassing incident. WP:BLP and many recent precedents support the decision Dweller made, but BLP does not mandate deletion if a well-written, compliant version is available. But so far I'm not seeing evidence of that. Right now, there are no reliable sources. Yes, there was no AfD, but for a case like this, we should debate the inclusion here in DRV rather than undeleting solely on process grounds (again, many recent precedents on that point, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Mangojuice^talk 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now over 200 reliable sources that have written about this topic. You are referring to a version that was deleted almost immediately after it was created with zero chance for anyone to cite the reliable sources in the article. I see nothing about this topic that fits the WP:BLP case for speedy deletion. And I very much disagree that a DRV is a place for AfD discussions (usually people argue the opposite here). --Oakshade 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment stands. If we can put her embarassing answer into proper context and not give it undue weight, I think it would be okay to have an article. If all we can do is name her and then point out one embarassing moment, it's not an appropriate biography. Perhaps we could cover the issue at List of internet phenomena or somewhere similar. And you might want to remember about unique Google hits: there are only 15 in that search [4], many of them give trivial coverage [5], for instance. Those that don't focus exclusively on her embarassing moment and don't even provide any other information we can use. Mangojuice^talk 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 15 unique secondary sources is quite a lot (probably more have been added) and much more than many other topics have about them. That's exactly opposite of your stipulation that "there are no reliable sources." And this isn't an AfD discussion, it's to discuss whether this speedy deletion was appropriate which I don't believe it was. --Oakshade 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid) considered in context? Tdwinz711 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd suggest that, in view of recent DRV practice (see, e.g., List of sportspeople by nickname, Ward Churchill misconduct issues), there seems to be a consensus for our considering, in situations as this, only whether BLP counsels/mandates deletion, and where BLP speedy deletion is overturned, for the article's history's being restored, the article's being blanked, and the issue's being listed at AfD for consideration of both BLP and general (e.g., notability, verifiability) concerns (which is, I gather, basically Sjakkalle's suggestion). Joe 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list at AfD It is ridiculous to believe that the winner of a state beauty pageant has anything resembling a strong BLP right. At the point where there are literally hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the matter. There may be a concern with Wikipedia is not news but there's no reason not to have that discussion at AfD. JoshuaZ 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. - Overturn and list at AfD - Does not meet speedy delete criteria. She has been in the news since December 2006 due to Miss S.C. Teen USA and Miss Teen USA pageant. There could be a decent biography written on her. If Wikipedia can't handle these incidents, then we need to change businesses. If more than three or four sentences in that biography are devoted to today's TV flub, please feel free to trim down to size per WP:BLP. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC) This DRV request for the speedy deleted Caitlin Upton article was posted at 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC). Five hours after the DRV request, ChesterCharge (talk · contribs · logs) created Lauren Caitlin Upton at 12:39, 28 August 2007. It was speedy deleted 12:50, 28 August 2007. Westonma (talk · contribs · logs) then created Lauren caitlin upton seven hours after this speedy deletion at 19:56, 28 August 2007. It was deleted 12:50, 28 August 2007. Given the BLP problems of the article, the relatively little pre August 28, 2007 reliable source material available, and these Wikipedia procedural violations, an article on this topic is not maintainable by Wikipedia at this time. Please repost DRV request in a month or two. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So keep it deleted as a punishment? There are plenty of sources so I don't see why an article isn't maintainable, other than drive-by BLP deletions every few hours... but that's a problem with the admins, not people actually adding content to the article. --W.marsh 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is 100% content issue and nothing to do with the article topic. Per BLP, any unreferenced material in any biography needs to be removed, but that doesn't magically make the entire topic's notability or assertion thereof non-existent. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater or the "let's kill it in order to save it" mentality. It would only take a short time (likely very short) for that unreferenced content issue to be resolved. --Oakshade 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. Are we here to provide information, or to advance a biased and unprofessional view of what journalism should be? I always thought it was the information thing... maybe I'm naive. At any rate, our goal should be finding better ways to provide that information, not just whisking it under the rug at all costs. 6 million people have viewed this on YouTube in the past 2 days, and many come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information on what they just saw, but find a blank page no one can edit? We're derelict in our duty to provide information here. Note that I've deleted a weird article that appeared at Lauren caitlin upton, most of which was a copyvio or seemed to be. --W.marsh 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the Lauren Caitlin Upton version, submit to AfD as needed. BLP is not offended as damaging claims are sourced. We look bad when we summarily delete in-the-news articles under less-than-perfect rationales. Neither A7 nor BLP justify the deletion of this article. -- Y not? 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Unprotect Frankly this is a little upsetting that this article was protected before a proper AfD was ever done. No offence but I know that there are contributors out there who are die hard against any articles having to do with internet celebrities but frankly that is how our world makes its celebrities these days. Lauren Upton not only deserves an article for being Miss South Carolina Teen USA but also for being 3rd runner up in a national beauty pagent but she also is even more deserving of an article because of the publicity she has receieved on countless National and yes International media sources. I will list links to references that could be used in the event her article is unprotected, note they come from all over the World.Her Official Bio, FOX, Boston Mass, USA,New Zealand,UK, New Zealand, France, Canada, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], There are plenty more references...actually there are THOUSANDS more but I don't have the time for them all. I just want people to recognize whether you like to admit it to yourself or not she is indeed notable and is deserving of an article. If this article is unprotected it should still be semi-protected to ease off of vandalism obviously. I do stronly believe that a very well sourced article can and should be created.--Joebengo 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - we are not here to write about people who are notable solely for making fools of themselves. Merge the content to somewhere else, if you wish, but one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make. Moreschi ^Talk 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She had other claims to notability... have we gone so far down the BLP slope that because someone does something we deem embarrassing we delete their article without discussion? We can write a decent encyclopedia article here given the volume of sources... that's all notability required until BLP got dramatically rewritten in the last 6 months. --W.marsh 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a repository for trivial news events. Eusebeus 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles on many Miss Teen USA delegates from over the years (Category:Miss Teen USA delegates). Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD, especially if one goes far in the national competition. It seems like this article was deleted only because she got more news coverage than the other ones.. I find it hard to believe that even the current BLP was intended to justify deletion, let alone speedy deletion, of people who meet inclusion standards but got some potentially embarrassing press at some point. I'm not sure if people endorsing the deletion realize this is not just someone from Youtube but that there is independent notability... or if we're trying to set a new even more extreme precedent for BLP allowing the deletion of articles on notable people if they do something we think is embarrassing. --W.marsh 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD - That would actually seem to be "no, it's not":

--Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: it's funny how you say that "[w]inning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD," considering that you participated in the DRV seeking to overturn all of the above. --Calton | Talk 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in hundreds of DRVs... believe it or not I don't really remember how most of them turned out off the top of my head, I don't follow them that closely. As for the AFDs... a lot were closed due to lack of sources, which isn't the case here. I just don't understand this obsession with getting rid of articles where we have plenty of sources... way too anti-content for me. --W.marsh 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - If this article is going to be deleted, then so does the article about Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid). There is not more to discuss other than the fact that he has an article about him, so should she. He is famous because he was was made a fool of. He had no accomplishments prior to this, unlike her who had won the South Carolina Miss Teen USA. The end result, if her article is to be deleted, so should his. Claim that one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make, but Ghyslain only had one-idiotic-incident. End all arguments Tdwinz711 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of this, Your Lordship, before banging down that gavel. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Mr. Know-It-All I have, have you read of this, or this, or this? All of which has been argued here. The point is, people are claiming that she is not notable, however I argue that she is notable. Since "notability" is a subjective term (see this) I was merely referencing another article that can be used as a comparison. Subjectivity needs reference points, agree? Also, you should read the introduction to that essay as it makes the statement "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." But then again, that is me reading the whole thing and not just the parts that I believe apply... Tdwinz711 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really doesn't need any further discussion. It should be allowed plain and simple. If you disagree, just search Wiki for Star Wars kid (as someone else put on this page). The integrity of the administrators (or internet bullies) are at jeopardy. Blahblahblah98 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can we say Tara Conner
Endorse deletion - Winning a state-level beauty contest is pretty meaningless, and one silly incident isn't sufficient, either. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that opinion does not make the article a candidate for speedy deletion. This is not an AfD but a Deletion Review regarding the speedy deletion. --Oakshade 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... Perhaps this doesn't quite fit the speedy criteria but I'm pretty sure it will end up being deleted on AfD. Borderline notability + mild BLP concerns usually mean deletion and while I have no objection to listing at AfD, I'm not sure there's any point to doing so. Pascal.Tesson 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and recreate She is clearly notable. what she said will be referenced for years (yes i know about WP:CRYSTAL but im basing this on similar things in the past). After the incedent, she appeared or will soon appear on news/talk shows. She deserves a page or at the very least a redirect and a section about her in the Miss Teen USA pageFrank Anchor 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this would not have survived afd and to go through the procedure just to confirm that seems wasteful. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - she is not notable for winning the local pageant (as confirmed by deletion of other such winners in the past). Even though her stupidity made it to the media, this wave of interest will be over in no time, so Wikipedia is not news applies here. Also, it's covered in the Miss Teen 2007 article.--Svetovid 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities that offer the PPE degree

First off, I disagree with the closer of the initial deletion debate who found that "consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory." Review the debate yourself and I think you will find that the comments are rather mixed in their support the of deletion. I also disagree with the deletion itself. While Wikipedia certainly isn't a directory it does contain numerous lists of notable items which pertain to an entry including the List of library and information science programs, which is obviously very similar to the PPE list (disclosure: I did recently update the library programs entry). I would also argue the sheer utility (which several members argued in the initial debate) of the PPE list. PPE is an unusual major and, as such, no list of programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the PPE programs are small, not very well publicized, and, at times go by other names, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a PPE list. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a PPE program will naturally find the PPE entry and list and would likely contribute the programs they know of. Furthermore, the frequent additions of program information to the main PPE entry (which is exactly what I did) indicates there is a definite interest in a PPE list. The deletion of this article has not merely destroyed unique and useful information but has prevented and continues to prevent the creation of such information. -- Patrick Mhnin0 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion As I think List of Universities that offer ____ degree is directory level information. Also allow for merging if anyone wanted to merge Corpx 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - AFD seems valid - only the above editor !voted for a keep. The rest seem to agree that the article should not exist in its a current form. List of library and information science programs is definitely a directory too and should be gotten rid of. Wickethewok 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse, there wasn't any clear consensus to the AfD although I agree with the decision to delete. It might have been beneficial to relist this for some more opinions, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Mhnin0, just because similar lists have not yet been deleted is not a reason not to delete. --Orange Mike 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion -- The information should have been posted in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics instead of creating a separate list since it was unlikely that the article would comply with Wikipedia:Lists (WP:RS's are not going to go on and on about how some university "offers" a PPE degree or how brave, bold, insightful, etc. they are for offering a PPE degree. The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. Allow for merging into Philosophy, Politics, and Economics since the list is small and, as the DRV nom points out, VERY useful. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion clear call to me. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croatophobia

Many will say that this is typical nationalistic story. In the end this is true but my problem is that wikipedia must be neutral because of what it is not possible that she has article Serbophobia and not Croatophobia. Both words are created during or after Yugoslav wars. To show examples of Croatophobia I am giving this 2 links which has been in article (I have forget others..): [16] (Croats do not exist but they are catholic Serbs) and [17] (on Croato-Serbian) order to Serbian media for not writing Croat forces but Ustaša hordes. Better sources are in new article deleted yesterday but...Article which is deleted yesterday is similar to article deleted before bit it is different article !! To say simple my position we need to have both articles or both must be deleted. Any other solution is POV.Rjecina 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a review of the 27 August 2007 Speedy Delete.

Note - This newsarticle uses "Croatophobia", as in "None of that has been altered by the fact that in the meantime France, under the leadership of President Chirac, has also distanced itself from the Yugoslav complex, with its pronounced Serbophilia and elements of Croatophobia, which had its roots in the anti-German movement created in 1919 in Versailles." -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - "Croatophobia" does not seem to be a term that is used by pretty much anyone and certainly not defined by any reliable sources. Wickethewok 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - if you think that Serbophobia suffers from the same problems, that's an AFD issue not a DRV one. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per Wickethewok and Carlos. JoshuaZ 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, if Serbophobia has the same problems as this article, AFD it. I see no problems with the various AFD closures associated with this article, and I would like to have been notified of this DRV. --Core desat 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - these types of articles should be deleted if there are no real sources and no real story behind the, which is this case.--Svetovid 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Nusbacher

Published author[18] [19]A collection of fairly notable TV appearances [20] The privacy intrusions relate to stuff published in various places including the sun readership 7.8 million Geni 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - this is a review of the 23:54, 27 August 2007 speedy deletion by Animum (reason given "CSD A7 (Bio) and BLP concerns: Biographical article that does not assert significance; complaints about privacy intrusions."). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article was an orphan; the subject of the article requested deletion as preferable to having an uncensored article. For better or worse, the most noted fact about the subject in the last year is the fact that the subject does not want revealed. WP:BLP recommends deletion where marginally notable living people request it. THF 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Nusbacher is a highly notable and public person. The private detail is already all over the internet and obvious to anyone who is already familiar with Nusbacher's work. BLP is not to help people protect against details that have been widely reported. When the cat is out of the bag, it isn't our business to help stuff it back in. While I understand Nusbacher's concern, Wikipedia is not censored and doesn't exist to make people feel better. JoshuaZ 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Changing to abstaining for now. I didn't realize how few reliable sources there were (this may be a good example of erroneously assuming that just because I've heard of someone doesn't mean they are that notable). I still think that Nusbacher's public role makes it difficult to give the BLP concern that much weight. However, the lack of many sources means that Nusbacher's notability is also not that high. I could probably change my mind if more sourcing was presented (especially if some of the non-English pages could be shown to be reliable). JoshuaZ 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign-language pages are, so far as I've been able to tell, based entirely on the Sun article. NetNus 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion I'm not certain that I think the subject to be notable, such that I'm not sure I'd !vote to keep this at AfD, and I'm not even certain that the deleted article made any grand assertion of notability. The implicit assertion, though, is sufficient to render this eminently un-A7able (and were it not, the links adduced by Geni certainly suggest [probably persuasively] notability), and, in view of the subject's being volitionally public and putatively notable for involvement other than in one event and the article's not being facially inconsistent with BLP, speedy deletion under BLP is unwarranted (it is my long-standing and oft-expressed view that speedy deletion per BLP [though not, of course, in the context of G10] ought never to be undertaken, but deletion here fails even under the [only] somewhat more rigid BLP speedy scheme for which the community may reasonably be understood as having given its support). Joe 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should further be said that one might think BLP, inter al., to counsel against the inclusion of the subject's birth name but nevertheless think speedy deletion to be inappropriate; considering the article without the principal (and ostensibly most pernicious) problem about which the subject complains, which we should do unless it is to be assumed that the problem will continue to exist by the very fact of the article's existing, we are left only to evaluate the applicability of A7, about which there seems really to be little question. Joe 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that the article cannot be reasonably written without disclosure of the most noted fact about the person, the question is one of whether the person is so notable that BLP1E does not apply. The article was an orphan: deleting the article does not create any redlinks and does not hurt the encyclopedia. Is there any real chance of this article surviving an AFD and the encyclopedia disregarding Nusbacher's wishes for privacy? If so, then I agree we should overturn, but if not, it seems pointless and disruptive to force this through a five-day AFD that will just have to be blanked. The fact that the Wikipedia page is the first page in the Google search ~~suggests a lack of notability, and~~ gives a very good reason for the subject of the page not to want to have a Wikipedia page about her, regardless of the extent of press coverage. It's the difference between having a university page be the first Google result and a Wikipedia page as the first Google result. THF 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First Google result for France is Wikipedia. Would you argue that this suggests that France lacks notability? Personally I really rather doubt you could get the thing deleted through AFD.Geni 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. My point is that the fact that Wikipedia is the first Google result is a reason why a person can be legitimately more concerned about a violation of privacy from Wikipedia than from a British tabloid. The latter will disappear in birdcages and trashcans and quickly forgotten about. Wikipedia will still be there as the person tries to create a new life. I'm skeptical that she has any chance of reaching her goal (as the six-page-long discussion on a military history chatboard suggests), but BLP requires Wikipedia to respect her wishes. THF 12:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Being required "respect her wishes" does not mean they get are all that matters. When someone is sufficiently notable that isn't the way it works. All the more so when the information is easily obtainable by a quick internet search. JoshuaZ 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn I've questioned THF so that he might elaborate here; for now, this seems like the silliest case of BLP deletion I've ever seen. Individual is a public person by virtue of her television role. I don't understand the significance of this "unmentionable fact" -- but it seems to be easily correctable by editing (and page moving), if its disclosure is wrong. As yet, I see no evidence that disclosure of the fact would be wrong. BLP is meant to protect vulnerable non-public persons -- not folks who make themselves noteworthy by agreeing to work in television. Xoloz 14:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the significance of the unmentionable fact, either, given that it is obvious, other than that the subject does not want it mentioned on Wikipedia and asked for the deletion of her article, which takes it directly within BLP deletion, given WP:NPF. This isn't a movie star or a prominent politician. It's a talking head academic on little-seen documentaries who has an issue she does not want publicized, but whose article will necessarily need to mention the issue if it is to be meaningful or accurate. Has anyone discussed this with the administrator who speedy-deleted the article? THF 14:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our disagreement, then, is relatively simple, and can be expressed in one sentiment: I fervently believe that no one who voluntarily receives payment for on-screen appearances in the television/film industry is "relatively unknown". Even the lowest-rated TV show or most boring movie reaches a sizable audience, given enough time. WP:NPF does not apply, as the person's actions have placed her within the sphere of public renown. I have already mentioned, at your talk page, how one might have an article without necessarily revealing the unmentionable fact. Xoloz 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a second disagreement: I don't think the article can or should be written without the unmentionable fact. The only time Nusbacher has received international press coverage is for the one thing she does not want mentioned and, while I wouldn't edit the article myself over this, you underestimate the strong demand a faction of activists will have to include the publicly-available information in the article, which is going to be incomprehensible for those who reach it via redirects without that information. With respect to your other point, Michele Seipp has received payment for on-screen appearances in television and film. Is she relatively unknown? My grandfather was paid for appearing on Meet the Press, and I look forward to someone creating the Nelson Frank article. THF 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I say that someone isn't "relatively unknown", that doesn't mean that they are automatically notable -- whether Mr. Frank or Ms. Seipp or notable is an open question to be evaluated according to guidelines and consensus. However, when one is paid for appearing on film/television, one makes oneself "publicly known" -- responsible for what one says in the public sphere. The things one says may not be notable, but one has stipulated a qualified waiver of one's rights to privacy. If one happens to say something notable (or appears frequently enough to become otherwise notable through repetition), one cannot plead one's status as a "relative unknown" to prevent mention of oneself in an encyclopedia. Being on TV doesn't get one in Wikipedia, but it does prevent one from forestalling even deliberation concerning whether one belongs in an encyclopedia. (This is contrast to a crime-victim or witness, a disease sufferer, etc. who might enter into public note through no choice of their own.)

On the other point, the way to demonstrate whether an article may be maintained is to attempt so doing, not to delete it without trying. Xoloz 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article was unsourced in all revisions, as far as I can tell, and since Google shows of the order of tens of hits for "Lynette Nusbacher" and only around 300, mostly publication citations for "Aryeh Nusbacher" it does not look as if it will be easy to come up with a proper independently sourced biography that rises above the level of a directory entry. Anyone wants to work up a scratch version of a properly sourced biography, I guess we could review it again. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there was enough assertion of notability to overcome A7, I am having a hard time finding a BLP issue that would require deletion, and as for lack of sourcing, if that were a speedy criteria somewhere along the line I think that would have been documented - maybe it should be but that's another discussion. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed several links, I can pretty well figure out what she's complaining about, but I fail to see how that is a BLP violation. Undelete, well-known author and lecturer, it's possible to write a neutral account of what she's upset about, the subject doesn't get to decide whether or not they can have an article. Has this gone to WP:OTRS? Corvus cornix 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong endorse - requested for privacy concerns, but most importantly, I can't find any reliable sources on this person despite their having some publications and some credits on IMDB and no one has presented any. The list of publications looks very thin compared to what WP:PROF would expect. The appearances as an expert does tend to pass WP:PROF but without any reliable sources, we just shouldn't have an article. Mango juice^talk 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These look like reliable sources to me: [21], [22]. There are also a lot of sites in foreign languages that I can't read, and can't tell if they're reliable. Corvus cornix 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, but read this carefully: As a talking head academic on various TV programs, passes WP:PROF. Note, however, that anything sourced to tabloids is not permissible in an article in terms of WP:BLP. Thus the concerns that this individual has are already addressed in our policies. If in the future multiple reliable sources decide this incident is noteworthy, then we can revisit the problem. Hornplease 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in some academic field name changes (even as minor as losing an initial) are important since if you don't know about them it becomes tricky to track publications. No idea if this applies to history.Geni 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add to this that Wikipedia's non-tabloid policy aside, the Sun article about me was almost entirely fictitious. NetNus 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry ... one other point. The information that I don't want to see published is in the nature of private medical history. Indeed, the Sun's printing medical details was a violation of the Press Complaints Commission's regulations. NetNus 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stopping by; I was wondering whether to leave a note on your talkpage. Are we to suppose that, as long as vigilant WP editors ensure that no mention of details sourced to tabloids enter the article, you personally will no longer consider the article problematic? (I cannot claim that it will alter the decision, as there are strong precedents against letting the subject of the article's wishes overrule Wikipedia guidelines on notability, but some of us would probably want to know.) Hornplease 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the tabloid newspaper in question came to the PR guy at my work to say they were writing a story about me and ask for a quote, the PR guy said, "this is a non-story. It's a violation of privacy." The reporter said, "no, it's a royal story. Dr Nusbacher is just collateral damage." In the weeks after the story ran, not a single UK newspaper or other media outlet picked up the story. This supports the PR guy's point, I think. Every single WWW hit that mentions the issue (barring perhaps one forum posting where somebody confirms the Sun story by citing the telephone directory where I work) quotes the Sun story (and, true to the Sun 's emphasis, leads with the royal material). This is borne out by the artifacts of translation: the Spanish-language press translates the Sun 's pun about "battle" to create the fiction that I was involved in some court battle. And, as I said above, the story itself is almost entirely made-up -- not surprising if all they had was a (paid) anonymous tip and no input from anyone who actually knew anything. The only reason I haven't taken any kind of action against the tabloid is because I fear that they would take that as an excuse to revive this story. Because the tabloid story is the only source of this personal information, then yes, the entry would cease to be problematical if the tabloid-sourced material were kept out. Mind you, the spectre of a zealous Wikipedia contributor making it a personal mission to publicly reveal my medical history and thus put it all on a factual basis wouldn't make me happy. The entry as it stood was taken from two sources: a potted biography on my former web site (the "shores of Lake Ontario" wording was mine) written by me and intended for people who had to introduce my lectures, and from a description of a television show that I worked on (which has its own Wikipedia entry). So, although I didn't put together the original entry, about half of it was sourced to me. -- NetNus 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly concur with deletion. NetNus makes the compelling point that the dissemination of private medical history is always inappropriate, and in many jurisdictions legally actionable, whether this person is "known" or "unknown" is quite beside the point. She wishes it deleted – respect her wishes and delete the reference without delay. --Rentee 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per THF and Rentee Nil Einne 11:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy, etc... Eusebeus 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per CSD A7. Being a lecturer at Sandhurst who taught Princes William and Harry is not significant enough to overcome CSD A7. The other event is not significant enough to overcome CSD A7 since it happens to many people. And only one news article mentions the combination of the two, which shows its relatively insignificance. There are a few articles discussing Aryeh Nusbacher, but not enough to meet WP:N. The TV roles are played by himself, and do not provide information that is independent of Aryeh Nusbacher. An article on this topic was and would amount to nothing more than a Wikipedia:Coatrack BLP violation. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 *'''Keep deleted''', if [[Serbophobia]] has the same problems as this article, AFD it. I see no problems with the various AFD closures associated with this article, and I would like to have been notified of this DRV. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 22:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse speedy deletion''' -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''[[User:Jreferee|<font color="Blue">Jreferee</font>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''</sup></font> 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse deletion''' - these types of articles should be deleted if there are no real sources and no real story behind the, which is this case.--[[User:Svetovid|Svetovid]] 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[:Lynette Nusbacher]]====