Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 20

< May 19	Deletion review archives: 2008 May	May 21 >

20 May 2008

Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

It is disappointing that this AfD was allowed to pass so easily, as the nominated article was nearly identical to others such as International response to Hurricane Katrina, International response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Katrina even has a third layer (Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina, Dutch response to Hurricane Katrina, French response to Hurricane Katrina, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina, New Zealand response to Hurricane Katrina, Russian response to Hurricane Katrina, Singaporean response to Hurricane Katrina, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina) of notable articles, because there was simply that much quality coverage available. And while there were allegedly keep votes cast in the tone of WP:ATA, this is an essay rather than a policy. In addition, the same argument could be used to discount the opinions of those who voted delete, such as WP:UNENCYC.

A pie chart displaying the registered AfD votes indicated in bold

I do not appear to be alone in having felt that this AfD would not do Wikipedia justice. To quote one seemingly upstanding Wikipedian:

Without this article being separate, the original article (already with an aid pledge section) will become very long and unwieldy. Without this section at all, Wiki administrators may have to decide whether a new policy will have to be drawn up, for I suspect the international reaction sections were becoming something of a standard following events. If this deletion goes through, then this "consensus built standard" will fall under question indeed. I say "keep" doktorb _words^deeds

WP:NOT#NEWS

I intend to demonstrate in the following word-for-word dissection that this article is beyond the written context of WP:NOT#NEWS:

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events."

The aforementioned article was not a "news report"

"News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own."

This was an event that claimed the lives of 40,000 people

"Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."

The article did contain "announcements" but they were arguably beyond the scope of this statement. In addition, the article did not have sufficient time to mature, as seen in essays WP:POTENTIAL and WP:INSPECTOR.

"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be."

All of the primary subjects in the article were either governments, international organizations, or major multinational corporations

"Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)"

Does not apply, the article was not about an individual

"Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."

This is not a restriction

Notability requires objective evidence

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."

While this would appear to rationally disprove notability for Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, it could also revoke the notability of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks by the same rationale, which presumably would be considered notable by a very large percentile of contributors. This policy is also circular in nature, as it traces its roots back to WP:NOT#NEWS which I have already attempted to disprove under these circumstances.

Final words

Before making a final decision on the status of this article, please take a moment to reflect on WP:IGNORE.

I would like to make myself clear that I do not seek to be disruptive in this request. While I cannot guarantee that this article is truly notable, it is my opinion that there should not be a double standard regarding notability of articles that relate to how the world reacts in times of disaster. I would also like to recommend that an official policy be created that directly applies to the subject, as this is an increasingly popular topic, and in the opinions of many, encyclopedic.

Please forgive me if there are any discrepancies with my provided rationale(s) or logic, as I prepared this in a hurry, and lost a bunch of sleep last night. This is below my usual quality standards. — C M B J 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, it really sounds like you're just upset because the discussion did not go the way you wanted it to; DRV is not AfD2. You attempt to discount the WP:ATA argument by stating it is just an essay (see WP:ONLYESSAY). However, this is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion. WP:ATA exists to point out extremely weak arguments which should be avoided in deletion discussions. Such arguments are not valid and are not constructive to finding consensus. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an equally weak argument. Finally, the decision of the closing admin does not preclude the creation of another article on the topic. It seems the major issue in the discussion was the type of article. At the time of the discussion, it appears the article was simply a list of various government agencies expressing condolences. If you can address the issues raised in the AfD, there's nothing preventing you from writing a new article. Redfarmer (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that I fully addressed the issue raised in AfD, being WP:NOT#NEWS. I was aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS prior to making this request, and while it is a weak argument in many circumstances, the aforementioned articles are not similar they are identical. I do not understand why you have opted to take an aggressive stance against me. — C M B J 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why you're interpreting me as being "agressive." I'm simply interpreting the data as I see it. I did not participate in the AfD at all but it appears the admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Redfarmer (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason I suspicioned aggression is that you alleged that I was merely requesting this review out for emotionally driven reasons, and that "DRV is not AfD2." As you will see on the related AfD, I was not belligerent whatsoever. This is not an isolated topic, and a review such as this could help pave the way for an official stance on similar articles in the future. Further regarding WP:ATA, many opinions in both spectrums could easily (and perhaps rightfully so) be discounted by this essay. I fully understand that essays are illustrations and generally accepted interpretations of policy. — C M B J 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not say you were doing anything emotionally. I simply said I believe you brought this to DRV because you did not agree with the outcome of the AfD discussion, not because you disagree with the admin's rationale for closing the AfD or because you believe the deletion was out of process, which is what DRV is here to judge. Redfarmer (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        By "emotionally" I was referring to "it really sounds like you're just upset because the discussion did not go the way you wanted it to." Don't worry about it, you and I are both here to make Wikipedia a better place. I felt that this was the best outlet to bring forth the concern, perhaps it could achieve something like WP:OUTCOMES. If you feel that it was highly inappropriate of me to bring this to WP:DRV, I could instead expedite the subject directly to CAT:PRO or similar for consensus. (Not just about this article, but concerning past and future) — C M B J 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, no don't withdraw on my account. I'm just one person and I've been known to be wrong in the past. It's just my interpretation of the evidence before me; someone else may see something I didn't. Redfarmer (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there were compelling enough arguments to keep in the AfD that suggest a "no consensus" closure would probably be most accurate. In any event, certainly not a slam dunk delete and I don't think I've ever before seen such a thorough rationale in one of these DRVs that it even includes a pie chart! I'm tempt to ask if the initiator of this thread could make me pie chart I can add to User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to permit merging, though I essentially endorse the closing admin's rationale. While the "Government response" section most likely does not merit inclusion (the characterisation that it consists of a list of condolences is accurate), some of the content in "Responses from organizations" should probably remain in some form. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say, without being aggressive, that it does seem highly unusual that no move has been instigated to delete, for example, Swedish response to Hurricane Katrina, whilst finding this article so instantly disagreeable. That is not to say I am using WP:OTHERSTUFF, merely observing as close to an equivielent as I can find. I am of no doubt that the deletion was made in all good faith, but the deletion article showed a split in responses, rather than consesus. And as I have been quoted, may I back up my view that now one article on this matter has failed its deletion process, Wiki editors may need to review the whole process of international reaction articles and sections. A way forward on this bt posting in the Recentism article yielded no responses. doktorb _words^deeds 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if we could get an admin to restore the history so we could see what this article looked like? Redfarmer (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Hood

Ace Hood has had a semi-successful single, and he is the first artist of DJ Khaled's music record label, We The Best Music. He is also scheduled to be on DJ Khaled's next album, We Global. Reference to his single: http://www.mtv.com/mobile/video/detail.jhtml?videoId=10142391&channel=&from=index You can also find his music video on youtube, by looking up "Cash Flow by Ace Hood". This is also his single: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_Flow_%28song%29 Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and unsalt. It appears the single, Cash Flow, made it on the Billboard charts[1], meaning it has passed at least one criteria of WP:BAND. His song is being featured on BET and he is signed to a subsidiary of Def Jam Recordings, a major hip hop label. Reliable Sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Sounds pretty notable to me. Redfarmer (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and unsalt - Is the in depth subject of multiple secondary sources and has charted single. Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Oakshade (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Johnson

I'd just like to see what it was that got deleted, can someone restore a copy to my userspace unless it's total junk? Thanks. Rividian (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ResCare

The article for ResCare was deleted. I would like the article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review. It was deleted with copywrite as the stated reason, but this article was approved by ResCare and is not copywritten material. I asked the admin to take another look on 5/2/08 and have not heard back. Rackfast

Endorse deletion please do not write an article about a company you are employed by, per WP:COI. The article read like a sales brochure and even if the text isn't copyrighted it could have been speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Business if you want more information. Hut 8.5 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]