Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 9

< December 8	Deletion review archives: December	December 10 >

9 December 2006

Rachael Ray Sucks

The AfD on the above article was speedily closed by Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the explanation "NN blogs (it's on Livejournal) and attack pages both qualify for speedy deletion". Regarding the non-notability: the article asserted that the site was covered by Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today. Those are all "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", which means that the article met WP:WEB. Whether the site is hosted by LiveJournal is immaterial. Rachael Ray Sucks also didn't qualify for G10 because it was not an attack in itself: it merely reported an attack site. Writing about an insult does not repeat the insult. This means that the article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I request reopening the AfD, to assess some kind of community consensus. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - non-notable attack site. Newyorkbrad 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an attack site. But what matters is whether it was an attack article. Attack articles qualify for G10, articles about attack sites do not. And how is it non-notable with the outside coverage? (Yes, it needs referencing, but that's no ground for speedy deletion.) A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom. Seems to meet the relevant standards, but certainly shouldn't have been speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G10 covers articles that only attack a subject, not articles about websites that do so. If/when sent through AfD, it'll probably end up being deleted anyway, but that's neither here nor there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow AfD to run its course. Not an unambiguous speedy. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mandarin emperor style dildo

Heather Poe Deleted Article

0942 PT Dec 9, 2006 Heater Poe is the life partner of Mary Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney). It was announced this week that they are expecting a baby. She is mentioned several times in the Mary Cheney article. When you pull her up in Google there is a lot about her and photographs of her. She is important as she is one of the first openly gay spouses invited to the White House for State Dinners - (I.E. The recption for the Prince of Wales). She also helped co-auther Mary Cheney's book "Mine Turn" and has several chapters about her in the book. Her name is [[]] in the article and when I tried to expand it twice it was remove as being NON REVLEVANT. I think anyone with so many google pages, on the front pages of newspapers and in a current best selling book is revelent and should have an article on them. (By the way the comments from the remover were really in combative and natsy tone) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfphotocraft (talk • contribs).

Why not just redirect to Mary Cheney? It's what we usually do with family of notable people, and it wouldn't need a DRV to just make a redirect. Also I don't see what comments from any of the 3 people who deleted this article had a "combative and nasty tone". --W.marsh 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe User:Sfphotocraft is referring to User talk:Sfphotocraft#Heather Poe which says "Please do not repost it again". Mike Dillon 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AFD consensus was clear and obvious. Nothing in the nomination indicates that she has any notability other than being the partner of a daughter of the current VP of the U.S. By our standards, the VP automatically merits an article, their children have to do something publicly notable to get an article, and the spouses/partners of those children really have to meet WP:BIO all on their own. De-redlinking the name in the Mary Cheney article would help prevent more attempts from recreation. GRBerry 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but create redirect The AfD closure from ~6 months ago was obviously valid, and the person does not have any notability of her own. However, there's certainly no reason her name can't redirect to Mary Cheney's article. -- Kicking222 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, redirect and protect: I'll do it, if others won't. At this point, the name is going to be entered into the search box with increasing regularity ("Mary Cheney's Partner Pregnant! Film at 11:00!"), so we both need the redirect and need to prevent homophobes and ... others ... scribbling on the spot. (I'll do it meself.) Geogre 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother - Big Business

Endorse deletion per everyone above. Not just does Alexa ranking not confer notability, but the site's Alexa ranking is in the 28,000s, which isn't that high to begin with. If no importance was asserted, then there's no reason not to speedy the article. -- Kicking222 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SheezyArt

I closed the AfD for the article and speedy deleted it due to CSD A7, but since even those who supported speedy deletion mentioned it had a decent Alexa rank, and also due to requests, I'm placing this on review. Personally I still think it is a borderline speedy candidate. (Note that the article used to be titled Sheezyart, and was apparently copy-and-pasted to SheezyArt last year.) Kimchi.sg 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid A7, Alexa ranks are not indicators of notability. Will reconsider if notability is asserted and verified through multiple non-trivial reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. I actually had an account there once, amazingly enough, but I can attest to its non-notability. There isn't anything in the article itself that suggests that WP:WEB is met in any way. --Core desat 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We are talking about a site that now exceeds 100,000 members; would you consider a city of that size "non-notable"? Do you assert "non-notability" on the grounds that you did not enjoy your experience? Or simply based on the fact that the site is non-commercial unlike archives such as deviantART? Even that would be a spurious argument, as I can provide you upon request with the URLs for many artists who make a living off of their art who make use of SheezyArt. I suggest you justify your claim further, especially considering that you were a member. Exactly when were you a member--from what date to what date? What exactly did you find non-notable besides your dislike for the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.21.218.60 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  - Membership isn't a measure of notability, either. While I was there I did not see anything that showed that the site was very widely known or notable in any way aside from the number of members (granted, this was some time ago, but as far as I can tell, it still applies). Whether I can say it's notable or not, it doesn't solve the problem that the deleted article did not meet the standards in WP:WEB. --Core desat 22:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cities cannot be equated to websites, simply due to the fact that the latter isn't bound by a physical location and is therefore easier to grow to 100,000 people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Alexa ranking doesn't mean automatic notability, and besides, A7 says "that do not assert notability", so if the article didn't mention anything which would make it notable, it's valid anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R G C Levens

I wrote a stub about the Merton Classics don, R G C Levens (Robert Levens) which was twice speedily deleted for notoriety. As he was well known at the time for his school edition of Cicero Verrine V how do I get the entry restored if such arbitrary methods are used? Alternately someone might provide a fuller entry----Clive Sweeting

Endorse deletion. He isn't notable, despite being the editor of some random Latin textbook. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a link to the AfD debate, if any. If speedied without debate, the decision is impossible for non-admins without access to the article to evaluate. Newyorkbrad 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the article said R G C Levens (Robert Levens)( - ) was Classical Moderations Tutor at Merton College, Oxford in the mid twentieth century. Married to the theatrical producer Daphne Levens (née Yarnold) he was particularly well known for his school edition of Cicero, Verrine Oration V. His only son, Andrew, was killed as an undergraduate in a traffic accident in Russia.. No claims of notability whatsoever. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" particularly well known " is a claim of notability, albeit somewhat strained. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 10 December 2006 (GMT).

Endorse Deletion Not notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but there is a case to make. The problem is that what was written gave no claim for notability except that he prepared a pedagogical edition of Cicero. It's exceptionally rare that an Oxford don produces such slim publication history. I would suspect that he far passes the Random J. Professor test, so the topic is probably highly appropriate, but the performance didn't give us anything to debate. Geogre 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD. I'd say the "particularly known" part is a controversial enough assertion at this stage to give it its AfD. Remember A7: "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Theory

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the listing. This article was deleted in AfD on December 3. On December 8, it was recreated, in a shortened form, by Horseshoesmith, and deleted as a G4 by Deepujoseph about an hour later. Horseshoesmith recreated the article, and I redeleted it, noting that the user had been left a message, explaining how to contest a deletion. I think it wasn't entirely clear what was involved, and after a couple of quick recreations and deletions, I finally protected the page and advised Horseshoesmith how to list the article at Deletion review. I think the article, as recreated, still contains substantial original research, and doesn't seem to get past the sourcing problems of the former version. Thus, I suggest we endorse deletion, but I'm open to being shown that this topic is covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources, in which case I'll agree that we can support a well-sourced article about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting case. The question is whether the recreation is substantially different from the AfD versions in the matter of argument. Is it different "where it counts," in other words. The article provides references to some people who have said things about the theory that are similar, although a stable and precise discussion of "horsehoe theory" instead of "the extremes meet" doesn't really work. (Jonathan Swift, in A Tale of a Tub, proposed that Peter (Roman Catholicism) and Jack (the Puritains) grow to look like each other during their fight (the Reformation and Counter-reformation), and that was in 1704. This isn't ever called a horsehoe theory, even though it is the observation being called that theory.) It's the point of view and application of a single term to this general observation that is original research. The general observation is a commonplace, but it doesn't have a single name or, to my knowledge, get a general discussion (only particular ones, like people swatting down the anti-communists who want to say that the Nazis were socialists). Endorse deletion or, and this is controversial maybe, send back to AfD for a new ruling on the more bolstered form. Geogre 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]