Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 20

< March 19	Deletion review archives: 2007 March	March 21 >

20 March 2007

Fixity of species

Redirect to History of evolutionary thought#Pre-evolutionary Thought. Content was moved there according to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_16. "Fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is referenced in every biology text book I have ever read. 199.106.86.2 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The decision in the referenced DRV debate was "endorse deletion", which means that content can not be moved to another article according to it. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red wings (Sexual Act)

Deleted for CSD#A5 before any AfD consensus had been reached. (CSD#A5 requires an AfD consensus of "transwiki") Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one took a little time to track down, but basically:
- AfD started on Mar. 4th.
- Transwikied as a dicdef to wiktionary on Mar. 7th, subsequently deleted by wiktionary admin.
- Speedied via A5 on Mar. 10th. [1]
- Article re-created and re-speedied via A1 on Mar. 16th. [2]
I don't really have any opinion on it, but it did appear to be a straight-up dicdef and was correctly transwikied, but wiktionary rejected it. Not sure what normally happens in these cases, just wanted to provide the background so no one else had to go digging for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Background - The phrase "to earn your red wings" may be a slang term used to describe performing cunnilingus on a woman when she is menstruating.[3]. -- Jreferee 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Every version was a mere dictionary definition. The fact that Wiktionary decided that they don't want it doesn't mean that we have to take it. Furthermore, the fact that Wiktionary with their skills and resources for researching words concluded that it's unsourcable/inappropriate confirms that the decision to get rid of it from Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse_Gjertsen

The page was was deleted and protected because Lasse Gjertsen was regarded as not notable. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a well documented article that states that he is notable. Hogne 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see inclusion is not notability. We have silightly different standards from other language projects? Not a surprise. Vive la difference, and endorse this deletion of "a musical/video artist whose work has become popular on youtube", as ever. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out, and all that... Guy (Help!) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD closure, but relist. I can't read Norwegian, but it seems like there are some substantial links and attention the subject has recieved. It's worth a look while weighing the evidence we have now and didn't at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, valid AfD. As noted, each language's version of Wikipedia sets its own policy and guidelines, so it's absolutely possible for a page to exist in one and not the others. Besides, the Norwegian article has only existed since January 31, and only two editorshave worked on it, so it's certainly possible it just hasn't attracted enough attention to get deleted yet. In any case, it certainly isn't anything that would override our own solid AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we may be misunderstanding the nomination. The assertion of notability, one would assume, comes from the multiple sources that are linked in the article. The issue appears to be more that they're difficult to read, but being in a different language doesn't preclude WP:BIO - multiple, non-trivial sources don't have to be in english. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that he is notable to a Norwegian-speaking audience, it's likely there are very few Norwegian YouTube "celebrities". Where are the on-trivial English sources? Guy (Help!) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need English ones? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the multiple norwegian interviews says is also presented in the wall street journal interview with him - Hogne 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have requested help from the Norwegian Wiki. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost in admiration for your determination to save an article on some pimply teenager who has never, as far as I can tell, sold a single record; God alone knows what titanic feats you would perform in support of a subject with some objectively provable merit :o) Guy (Help!) 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heart the obscure. My recent appreciation for old American lower-than-b-movies has given me a lot to play with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Translations of those Norwegian sources would be nice, but the WSJ article is enough reason for me to want it relisted. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game)

Biostudentgirl

Notable Resources/Shouldn't have been deleted PinklBabe 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The consensus of a previous deletion discussion disagreed with this - there are no new notable references that significantly change this. You should not have recreated the article - and it should be speedy deleted. Soap On A Rope 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article was previously deleted by consensus, and the sources in the article do not substantially change the article's status since the valid deletion. Leebo ^T/C 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I think the phenomenon has not gained enough notability to overthrow the AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the G4 deletions were valid (article was a repost) and the original AfD also looks sound. No credible reasons given for overturning the AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid Afd, no reason given to overturn. In case anybody's wondering, it got 106 unique Google hits at the time of the AfD, and more than 6 months later it has 119 unique Google hits, so it can't be said to have exploded in popularity since the AfD or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD, with no reason given to overturn but a vague assertion of notability. -Amarkov moo! 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos

Reliable source: Washington Post article about the game and its creators published Dec 24, 2004 http://www.kingsofchaos.com/post/ 129.174.184.3 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The only keep argument appeared to be WP:USEFUL, but there was not much input in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure That's a great source, 3rd-party, non-trivial, and detailed. However, it will take more than one such source for it to have a fighting chance on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. If the same thing happens, oh well, some people spent 5 extra minutes. But I'm not convinced it will stay deleted with a Washington Post article. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly worth finding out, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistock

04:30, 17 March 2007 Swatjester (Talk Rovo79 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was provided, as a result of adding Wikistock to the list of other Wiki's on the List of wikis page. Wikis listed on the List of wikis page, each have an interlink providing further information about the wiki.Rovo79 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there another reason why it should be included? We don't allow articles just because someone added the name to a list. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7 (article simply says what it is and that its content is relevant to stock traders, and that's it). No prejudice against writing a new article that asserts attributable notability. --Core desat 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikistock fits in no less perfectly than 80% of the wikis listed on List of wikis. Such as: Wipipedia, ZineWiki, Wikinfo. As with wikis listed on List of wikis, each wiki has a seperate page providing more information about the wiki, thus the creation of Wikistock.--Rovo79 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those articles all contain sourced assertions of notability - this one didn't. --Core desat 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Coredesat since I was deleter.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. True enough, a fair proportion of the others should perhaps go as well, a good number have already been nuked. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability? Who deems this worthy of notice title? Wipipedia, is notable? By whose standards? SkipperGuide, a cruiser guide is notable? Where do you draw the line on what is notable and not? --Rovo79 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also see Wikipedia:Notability. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, I would highly recommend avoiding the headache of such events in the future, and strip the list down to the essential kin of Wikipedia, and lock the page. According to Wikipedia:Notability,"The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works." is the main criteria. I doubt the majority of those other wikis have been published in anything of merit. Hmm, merit, another term subject to....subjectivity, which the page on notability claims is avoiding. It seems a transparent claim.--Rovo79 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Bernstein

The article was deleted initially by an editor that failed upon request to disclose if conflict exists with this subject matte. It was edited by several editors who failed to disclose if they had conflict, when requested. Although the reasons for delete were stated and changed to comply with wikipedias rules, several of the editors continued to move for delete. Certain of the comments made by editors were wholly false, ie that there were no sources other than press releases when several news articles were cited. Those editors claiming such had removed the news articles although being informed that they were from highly reputable sources and were unbiased articles on the subject not press release. Many of the editors, although all were asked to disclose any conflicts, refused such courtesy, casting a negative light on the whole review as biased and possibly jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia, these authors claimed even that editors are not under conflict rules themselves. Several of the editors were trying to work on the article to make it work and it originally was worked on and approved by the initial editor of a related article Iviewit, also under deletion review. Iviewit was also removed by the same editor who fails to disclose conflict here under repeated requests. If Wikipedia has no rules for editors to disclose conflict with their edits when requested than Wikipedia has lost its credibility and integrity and that will be a shame for all who use it. I request that these matters going forward, due to the nature of the issues involved and reasons already stated in the discussions, begin and end by editors willing to disclose conflict prior to action or opinion. No conflict, should equal no reason not to so state publically, it is not an insulting request it is a request to insure integrity in matters where conflicts could prevent unbiased edits and editors removing significant source material and then claiming it is not there. I would also like a rules committee to review the editorial conflict rules and assess if under extraordinary circumstances as these require, this is a viable request, upfront conflict dissclosure upon request, to maintain the integrity of the publication. Since these statements have no harm if no conflict exists, and greater improves the integrity of the publication it seems only prudent. --Iviewit 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse my deletion. The AFD had a valid consensus to delete, and the nominator of this DRV made no attempt to solve conflict of interest, POV, and sourcing problems presented in the AFD. Instead, he went on a tirade and accused all editors arguing for deletion of having a conflict of interest against the subject of the article (the nominator initiated a dispute with KPBotany and accused him of anti-COI, among other things), thus not assuming good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not a battleground, either. --Core desat 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Iviewit (talk · contribs) has falsely claimed on my Talk page that a) I closed the deletion discussion, which I did not; and b) that "After reading your biography, you certainly should have stated if you had conflict with Eliot Bernstein or Iviewit prior to and after your opinions." This is, of course, nonsense, and similar claims about other editors probably have equal merit. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse: Iviewit is not assuming good faith by accusing all users of having a conflict of interest unless they explicitly state otherwise, and twisting my words to make me sound homophobic. We tend to assume a lack of COI unless otherwise stated. Iviewit has also claimed that I closed the deletion discussion, which I did not, as I participated in it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse all DRV nominations that start with "The person who deleted this had a conflict of interest". People whose nomination starts with that do not have any valid reason. And in this case, there isn't even an attempt; not once does the nominator actually interrupt his long diatribe to explain what was wrong with the deletion, other than all these supposedly COI editors. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse pending any concrete demonstration that anything went awry with the deletion debate or closure. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Amarkov and Luna. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid AFD, and suggest that Iviewit might do better by assuming good faith on behalf of the editors who participated in the discussion. I *did* state that I had no idea who the person was prior to my comment on the AFD, but that doesn't seem to have mattered; after that, Iviewit questioned me regarding my "credentials" on my talk page. I read the required guidelines, and opined that the article didn't meet them. That should be all the credentials needed in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Interesting that User:Iviewit should assert conflict of interest on the part of the deleting admin without mentioning that www.iviewit.tv is run by Tony Frenden & Eliot Bernstein. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion and salt this title and Iviewit. (Eliot has this thing about COI so: I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Bernstein and am one of two people who deleted Iviewit.) Nothing has changed in the brief time since the AfD closed. I am sorry Eliot, but we just do not find you, your company or your claims in the slightest bit notable. -- RHaworth 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we find mostly the same nonsense from editors. I stated my conflicts with the issues in my first response and repeadetly throughout and explained the need for such conflict. I never acussed a single person of conflict, except stated that refusing to disclose if one existed seemed ridiculous when asked and remains jeopardizing the process. In fact, RHaworth who initiated still refains from confirming or denying if one exists. On those who stated if they had conflict or not, I stated their comments stood and was willing to work further. I tried to explain that in highly contentious situations such as Patentgate that centers on the Iviewit inventions and where car bombings in attempts to kill inventors of killer apps is the center of the article being discussed, conflict checks amongst editors is typical, customary and non-offensive in almost all press organizations. Conflict check is only offensive to those that have conflict, read carefully these responses from most of the editors, some continuing to influence without disclosure and you find they are upset about being asked. Clearly, with nothing to hide, it is against "good faith" to fail to disclose when asked. I did not state that anyone had a conflict, nor did I accuse anyone.

To see the full discourse on this subject please include the discussion of article Eliot Bernstein and all those comments where many of these issues were discussed in full. Again, the damage to a publication of Wikipedia to fail to have editors disclose conflict when requested and hide behind the request, claiming they are acussed of something, will have damning repercussions on the integrity of the publication. In fact, I think due to the fact that Wikipedia utilizes the Iviewit technologies across its video applications, was reason to request COI from anyone within the organization, not in an accusatory tone, just to maintain integrity. To all of you editors crying that you have been accused of COI, this seems like a way to hide behind the inadequacy of your edits on both articles.

Again, I stand ready to work with any of the editors who confirmed or denied and let their edits and works stand in getting the article done correctly. To close these articles now with perhaps conflicted parties may very well have the kind of bad faith this valuable resource tries to distant itself from. Clearly RHaworth speaks for others, many of who stated nothing of notabilty to endorse his views "I am sorry Eliot, but we just do not find you, your company or your claims in the slightest bit notable. -- RHaworth 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" when in fact other editors have found it notable or did not so state. This is the bias that could have been avoided had RHaworth in good faith stated if he/she is conflicted.[reply]

I would ask that this debate start again with the original documents and that all authors in good faith going forward either state conflict or no conflict and let the debate begin again. Good faith works both ways. In this instance, where conflicts have been found and ordered for investigation in Supreme Court bar organizations, etc. in these matters, it is very reasonable to start the process with acknowledgement of our good intent. --Iviewit 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding your comment that other editors found you or your company notable: I see zero people who disagreed with RHaworth in the AfDs and DRVs for this article and Iviewit, so your claim lacks proof. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who has supported your position. And if you think that a conflict of interest should preclude people from participating, then never edit any page related to this or Iviewit again: you have freely admitted (see above) that you are the owner of Iviewit, Elliot Bernstein, so you have the largest possible COI. Oh, and for the record: I don't have one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]