Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 Deletion review archives: 2008 August August 21 >

20 August 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Silkroad Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Requesting unsalting only. Article was deleted over a content dispute (mainly gamecruft perceived as POV), then salted due to being "large." If undeletion would be preferred, that's fine, otherwise I have a new cruft free stub ready to make a fresh start. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the new article longhand from the User subpage into Article space. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Knowledge instinct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This page goes not have original research, everything is from published materials which are referenced. I agree that the style of the first version was not appropriate and I have changed it to the neutral style, hopefully making it acceptable.

I made a mistake by posting the new version of the page too quickly, as I lost the name of the admin who deleted it the first time. I hope one of the admins can find out who this was and add the appropriate notification. Thank you. Romanilin (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy-deletion. The problem with your first draft was not tone and style but copyright violation. Your text was almost word-for-word identical to a section of this page. If you are the copyright owner of that page, you need to follow the procedures at WP:CP to prove that you are authorized to release the text under GFDL. If not, you need to rewrite the draft from scratch in your own words. I strongly recommend using the amnesia test when you do so in order to prevent a recurrence of the copyvio. By the way, your reposted version still has many of the same problems. While some of the text is apparently in your own words, much is still copied from that site. We really need to delete even that second draft and give you a clean page to start over with. Rossami (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see the problem. I will get the copyright released, that will not be a problem. Romanilin (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this can be closed off then... Stifle (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the repost being deleted until the release is with wikimedia? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be normal. When the copyright release is confirmed, just contact any administrator and he/she can restore the deleted history so you can pick up where you left off. Rossami (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AFD 2)

I'm requesting that this keep (and subsequent speedy keep) be reviewed. The initial AFD was a mess of sockpuppetry accusations, disruptive comments, etc. I started a new AFD just yesterday because I believed I hada better rationale for deletion than the original nom. However, this morning my AFD was closed as "speedy keep" and I was told to bring it here. This is an article about an "unofficial" collection of people that hijacked an antisemetic Facebook group and started deleting its members. As far as I can tell, all of the provided third-party references that can be considered reliable don't actually talk about this group beyond that single event. The CBS news one is about the Canadian military telling it's soldiers to not post their photos on Facebook. The Computerworld article is about the Simon Weisenthal Center. MOST of the provided references in the article are from the group itself. A Facebook vandalism group doesn't seem particularly notable, and WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here as the overall breadth of coverage is pretty scant. Two articles about hijacking a Facebook group and an opinion piece that was written by one of the people who has edited the Wikipedia article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Keep. No one else felt it needed to be deleted. It's merely a convenience that all of the links all go back to the same group which publicizes what it does. If anything as time goes on this group gains more attention. So pushing for deletion seems absurd as this page is becoming more important. - Saxophonemn (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Saxophonemn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I think it's a shame as this is the first time I was ever inspired to contribute to Wikipedia and I was trying to help make this article more neutral in the first place, and as soon as everything dies down and we all start getting along and the article is making progress, it seems it continues to get vandalized w/ all of these deletion tags (despite the fact that most people seem to think it is notable enough and with enough reliable sources to keep it.) is this how it goes for all new articles? If so, it might be too frustrating to continue to try to help edit...--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*Comment:The two votes above should be ignored. RobNot an admin  21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Closing editor/admin's discretion. RobNot an admin  22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in this democracy my vote doesn't count, what's going on? I would also point out the tag added to my user name seems erroneous, I registered back and haven't had to do any major revisions until dealing with the JIDF article where things got all heated.Saxophonemn (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an election, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and you have very few edits that aren't related to this article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How was this determined? There doesn't seem to be objective criteria? Someone appears to have added that tag to my name as a discredit, I'm aligned with the majority opinion. As much as assuming good will goes it doesn't add up so cleanly.--Saxophonemn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was determined by the amount of edits you have done on that article. But I also note you have worked on some other articles. But you mostly work on this one. It was a BOT not a user that added that template. RobNot an admin  22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Saxophonemn. Further, I explained on the deletion request that most of the links Nobody of Consequence has listed here refer to the back ground section. Naturally this sets the context and does not refer to JIDF itself. There are references in the Jerusalem Post, Artuz 7, and the UK's Telegraph -- all specifically about JIDF. As discussed extensively on talk (and which there is concensus on) the nature of the group JIDF recieved press coverage for is critical to understanding the JIDF. It is one thing to say the JIDF aims to close groups that are in its opinion antisemitic, it is another to have third part references validating that the group in question was indeed widely considered antisemitic. As for WP:ONEEVENT, the take over of the group is a single event. The JIDF is an organisation and will most likely be notable again in the future. To remove an article now would be to raising the bar significantly from common practice, and an insult to those editors who have been working on this (these editors come from many different perspectives on this and have worked hard to reach common ground - the common thread is that we all agree an article is of benefit to Wikipedia). Oboler (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or Relist Most of the keep !votes at the original AfD acknowledged that the group probably wasn't notable for more than one event or a momentary burst of publicity. Despite heroic efforts, nobody has been able to provide more sources in the 12 days since the first AfD to better establish the group's notability. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The time span of the second AFD was too shot, and this AFD was a good chance to collect different POVs about the article, but deletion while the {{icu}} tag still on top of page was not logic, if any one checked the talk page, he will notice that the contributing editors understood the side effects of the subject and stated a joined effort to solve all of them step by step, the evaluation must be after they finished their work not before, please Malcolm X, I want you to take my point of view and put it in the form of the options listed above, I selected you as your comment was the most neutral one from my POV, and I don’t know how to add my comment to this stack.--Puttyschool (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep It is not the function of DRV to re-run an AfD, but to discuss whether the AfD was done correctly. It was.--Bedivere (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator replied on my talk page. I think that I would endorse per Oboler. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just spent some time cleaning up the article, verifying the citations, digging up some basic Who/What/When/Where info, and adding quotes from the few reliable sources available. Take a look and see what you think. Personally, I don't think this is really an "organization"; it's one guy, Daniel Appletree, with several Facebook groups, a web site, and a large buddy list. Notability, per WP:WEB and WP:ORG, is marginal. But there's some non-trivial press coverage in major news media, so we probably should keep it. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... no disrespect, but... all the RS references refer to a David Appletree as the spokes person. I don't there are even unreliable sources about a Daniel Appletree. ;) At any rate it is not unusual for an organization to have a single spokes person, particularly a campaigning organization. Unreliable sources (i.e. the messages from the group etc) point to a number of people coordinating the campaigns, at the same time there is nothing in a RS to support your OR claim that it is one person. (If it is he clearly doesn't sleep). Oboler (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's "David", not "Daniel". As to the size of the organization, that's an interesting question. They claim 5000 "members", but it's not clear what that means. You can send them money via PayPal, subscribe to their bookmarks, get their RSS feed, and add them as a friend on Facebook. "Members" are presumably counted as people who've done that. There's no indication that they have meetings, employees, offices, or a corporate existence. Also, the first usage of the JIDF name only seem to go back to May 2008, when they registered the domain. We're on the edge of WP:ORG notability here. --John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth many organization use "wobbly" tactics like these to count members - anyone who donates, anyone who gets a newsletter, etc. Banjeboi 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep This was the first article that I edited on Wikipedia. However, when I went back to continue editing, I noticed that most of my work was destroyed by one user. Now after the information has been removed and the JIDF seems irrelevant, the users that deleted the information are trying to have it totally removed from Wikipedia. The JIDF is a valuable growing group and they have done more than "delete one Facebook group" as was stated above. If the users that want to delete would check the history on the JIDF web page, they'd see much activity. For example, the JIDF just took over a new Facebook group which was supporting the terrorist organization Hezbollah and it had over 118,000 members in it. Shachna1979 (talk)
  • Endorse Keep:Like it was said above, this is not to see if some thing should be re-listed but to see if the AfD was correct and it was. RobNot an admin  21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment part of the problem I have with this article is that whenever someone questions the notability of the subject, someone else assumes conspiracy and bad faith. When I started a new AFD (which was apparently too soon after the first one, sorry about that), another editor decided to post this on the article talk page, which to me amounts to little more than an assumption of bad faith as well as an attempt at vote stacking [1]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. AfD's weren't perfect but I think we got it right in the case. The 2nd AfD never should have happened and DRV is not AfD 2.0 generally. I concur with Bstone that some digging through the editors involved in some of the more contentious dialog might have implications for other articles. Banjeboi 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist. We need to have a proper debate on the notability of this group, which received a handful of press references after its successful Facebook campaign but doesn't appear to have done much else worthy of our attention. Btw, would I be remiss in saying that this Deletion review has already turned into a circus (much like the edit history on the article itself)? CJCurrie (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep The article can use improvement, but there are claims of notability supported by sources. No evidence that there was anything out of process here to justify disregarding the result. Alansohn (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep At least the present form of the article is acceptable. Some of the arguments above seem based on the irrelevant claim that it once was notable, but is not any longer. The second AfD was much too soon after the first, and should not have been permitted. Counting this Review as effectually the third consecutive keep decision, I'd regard another AfD within at least the next six months as disruptive. DGG (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No definite opinion one way or the other, but if interesting were a criterion I would say Endorse. Because, notable or not, I found the article interesting. And not because of what it said, but because of what it didn't say. Who is this guy Appletree, and where does his organization (if there is one) come from? It looks from their web presence like someone is bankrolling them. It also appears, judging from the video clips posted on the site, that the group has strong links to Israeli right-wing, settler organizations. It's a topic that merits some good investigative reporting, which, of course, as slugs devoted to NOR, we wikipedians are forbidden to do. But I don't doubt that someone eventually will, and then we will have a really interesting and notable article.
It is interesting not only because of the specific political context, but because it is an example of how the Internet is being leveraged for political purposes by marginal political groups. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep. As long as there are editors willing to keep on top of it so it does not become a promotional for the guy. And make sure if there is any WP:RS evidence of criminal activity he is put in that category. Carol Moore 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}If there is one, do tell.


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

James Tramel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I believe this debate was incorrectly closed as delete. It was closed after only a day despite several keep votes - there certainly wasn't consensus. No policy was quoted as to the reason for this 'rapid delete' and dispute discussions with the closing admin User Talk:Moreschi#James_Tramel I still see no reason for the early close as delete. Closing admin has quoted WP:BLPBAN as his reason so I'm not sure this is the right place for review but as it seems the most logical place I've started it here. Comments in the AfD suggest that the article was properly referenced so I'd be surprised if WP:BLP has been breached. I have no idea whether this article should be deleted as I've not seen it - I'm asking for review purely on procedural grounds. Dpmuk (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn; there was a number of keep votes, from regular AfDers, who would have caught this if it were a clear WP:BLP issue. It's not a clear negative bio, despite what the closer said; the news is all about him becoming a priest and respected member of society, not the (well-documented) crimes he did. Just looking at the first article in the Google search[2] should make it obvious that this is not an open and shut AfD, unless you're an inclusionist, in which it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow AfD to finish. I can understand WP:BLP concerns but with the exception of one sentence alleging professional misconduct (I did find an RS, here), the article was thoroughly sourced and not negatively written. Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion notes that "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." The policy goes on to say that "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by BLP summary deletion." Whether this individual is a worthy candidate or not according to WP:BLP1E should be decided in that AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn'This was not a consensus decision, but done as an administrative rapid delete under BLP. In essence, he is a reformed criminal who became an ordained priest, and was subsequently suspended for an accusation of misconduct unrelated to his prior conviction (neither admitted nor proven, but responsibly reported). There are good newspaper sources for both the earlier and later parts of the story. This seems to be of fairly clear general interest. "One event," is clearly not applicable--there were three distinctive events over a 23 year period. There were keeps or strong keeps, some explained in detail, from six responsible editors, and 2 deletes besides the nom. and the closer. The keeps relied on one event, which seems contrary to the plain facts of the matter--he would have been notable even without the subsequent suspension from office. The close was against consensus, presumably based on personal conviction. DGG (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Based on the arguments presented at AfD there are perfectly valid justifications provided that the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard supported by reliable and verifiable sources. As there are valid claims of notability, combined with a consensus for retention, the "rapid delete" seems to be in violation of process. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

MyWikiBiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

As the article on MyWikiBiz was deleted through AFD previously (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination)), I thought bringing this to DRV (as I did with the Wikipedia Review article) would be a good step. While the old version of the article failed to assert sufficient notability, since April 2007, a lot more sources have appeared, most notably including Jonathan Zittrain's book. I believe the draft version of this article, which you can see for your edification at User:Neil/mwb, meets all the neccessary criteria for an article; it is neutral, it is referenced, reliably sourced, and it asserts notability. I am looking for a green light to move into article space. Please note this is not an AFD discussion. Thanks. Neıl ☄ 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move into article space as nominator and creator of draft article. Please note I have notified each administrator who has either deleted or undeleted the article of this discussion, based on the deletion log of MyWikiBiz. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject A large number of the citations are internal to Wikipedia or MWB. Additionally, several of the exterior citations appear to be coverage of Wikipedia or blogs, where MWB is incidentally mentioned. I'm not seeing the widespread or lasting coverage I'd expect for such a topic. MBisanz talk 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the 16 citations, 3 are Wikipedia (wholly appropriate as a ref for the topic (e.g., referencing the COI policy, which is mentioned in the article), and one is internal to MWB. 4 out of 16 isn't really a "large number". Zittrain's book, Die Welt, the Post-Gazette, the Chronicle of HE and the AP article are all widespread coverage that meet WP:WEB and WP:N. Neıl ☄ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so I am seeing 2 of the 16 sourced to MWB, 3 sourced to WP, the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece is from the Chronicle's online blog, not the actual magazine, then we have the Attack of the Show blog entry, The Future of the Internet covers it in under 3 paragraphs of a lengthy chapter, and contradicts other sources, saying that MWB is dormant (not active). The Heise article is about Friedrich Metz with 2 sentences referencing his coverage of MWB if I'm reading the german correctly. The Register article is about Jimbo and mentions MWB in passing, The Pittsburgh Gazette article looks like a copy of the MSNBC piece, not a separate coverage incident. The SBWire piece never even mentions the term MyWikiBiz and is a press release, not independent coverage. I'm seeing barely any MWB-focused, independent sources here. MBisanz talk 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you aren't seeing very well? I still only count one reference sourced to MWB, being #3 (unless you mean #7, which is a press release from MWB, sourced to 24-7 Press Release). Including and referencing a company's mission statement and the press release announcing its inception is hardly a bad thing. The CofHE piece is still fine - or is the Chronicle's web coverage not reliable? Three lengthy paragraph's in Zittrain's book is MWB-focused, detailed and independant. The Pittsburgh Gazette article is, yes, mostly the same as the MSNBC piece, but the fact multiple reputable media sources picked up the AP piece is further evidence of notability. Neıl ☄ 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflicted with Neil) Comment The issue here is inclusion-worthiness, which is usually determined on the grounds of notability, the encyclopedic/discrete nature of the topic, and whether or not there are conflict of interest/BLP issues. I don't think anyone would accuse Neil of the latter, an individual business/website is certainly an encyclopedic and discrete topic, and the article asserts and proves its notability through the following coverage: MSNBC, Chronicle of Higher Education, Die Welt, paragons of reliability whose coverage could not credibly be deemed trivial. Your objection seems to boil down to "too many bad references", which seems irrelevant to the inclusion-worthiness of the topic. It has enough good references, ergo it is notable. What's the real problem? Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space A significantly improved article that includes multiple reliable sources that cover MyWikiBiz as the primary subject. While some of the blog and Wikipedia sources could be questioned, sources from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Chronicle of Higher Education are the kinds of reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Alan - note there's only one blog as best I can see (and that's the official blog of a topic notable enough for its own article). Are any other sources blogs?Neıl ☄ 13:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with both you and the comments from Skomorokh above. I have no issue with the inclusion of these blog/Wiki references in this context. While there might be justifiable issues if these were the only sources, my point was that the bulk of the article is referenced by ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the topic and establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve notable, encyclopedic and free of spam/coi/blp concerns. Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space appears free of problems and well sourced George The Dragon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space Sources covering all bases. Internal sources are required to show internal policies (doh) Jacina (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Accept' into article space in its present form, regardless of earlier history of the article. DGG (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose still no evidence of notability, fails any test of a business getting into Wikipedia. If it weren't for the internal Wikipedia debates that have used it as a test case, we wouldn't be having this debate. The company perhaps merits mention in an article on Wikipedia, and might usefully redirect there.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is self-referential. It's only notable because there was a fuss on Wikipedia. Nobody outside Wikipedia would regard it as notable.--Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move It's a colorful part of Wikipedia's history, and it's received a suprisingly substantial amount of coverage. (Arguably more than Mzoli's.) But if an independent article is deemed unacceptable, some of this should at least be merged somewhere. Is MyWikiBiz mentioned anywhere in the article space? Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MBisanz. Almost all the citations are in reference to the Wikipedia community rejecting his business overtures, and not about his business itself. No evidence of notability for businesses at all. If the bar for inclusion is "someone, somewhere, mentioned you" then that will open the floodgates. --David Shankbone 21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation with Niel's draft Holding my nose here a fair bit. This appears to just meet our notability criteria. Having Kohs interviewed about MyWikibiz on such items as Attack of the Show and discussion in Zittrain's book make this notable. Also, if this is recreated can we please have the sensibility not to do something disruptive like nominating it at a DYK? (Aside from the fact that self-referential DYKs make us look like dicks) Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I don't think the revised version meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards for organizations. I reviewed every citation in the current version (and my rusty old german was barely up to the task). All were either passing mentions in an article primarily about another topic or were articles about the controversy with Wikipedia, not about the company itself. As Troikoalogo said, however, a redirect to the appropriate page about Wikipedia and the conflict might be appropriate. But not a stand-alone article based on those sources. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it not meet the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, exclude the sources that trace back to the company's own publishings. Self-published materials can be used to validate some facts in an article but under the rules of WP:CORP, they can not be used to establish the question of notability. They lack the necessary independence. Then subtract the sources that mention the company or it's founder only in passing. The standard set at WP:CORP is that the coverage must be primarily about the topic in question. Trivial coverage in a story about another subject is not sufficient to meet the sourcing requirements. When I excluded for those two factors, there were zero sources left of the list in the current version. Thus, the primary criterion was not met. Rossami (talk)
        • Eh, are you sure about that? I haven't read Zittrain's book but as I understand it there's a fair bit of stuff in there. Attack of the Show is independent (although I can understand since that's an interview format why you might exclude it). The Philadelphia Inquirer article seems to no longer be online but IIRC it was substantial. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Attack of the Show failed in my mind not because of the format but because of the content. It was primarily about the dispute with Wikipedia, not about the company in its own right. Likewise, the PI article. I must confess that I do not have access to Zittrain's book directly but relied on a review in that case. The review, however, did not imply significant coverage. I believe what I saw was "three paragraphs" - again, not on the level with expected standards such as God, Country and Coca-Cola. Rossami (talk)
    • The controversy with Wikipedia is part of this company's history. How are those articles that mention the controversy not about the company? And this article discusses the inspiration for the company and its subsequent development, so it's not purely about the controversy. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. A story about the company would talk about its business plan, customer base, economic impact, innovative products, expansion or contraction, etc. Exxon is notable for being a really big, famous and economically significant oil company, not for being involved in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. If the oil spill were their only claim to fame, we would redirect the page to the article about the spill. This company's only claim to fame is the controversy. Getting caught up in a scandal is a story about the scandal, not the scandalizer. (Not sure if that's the right word but it's late. I hope I'm not being too unclear.) Rossami (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A company being involved in a scandal or controversy is a perfectly acceptable way for it to become notable. If Exxon was otherwise not notable or barely so and then the Valdez spill occurred we'd likely have a separate article on Exxon. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's more an application of the "one-event" principle for me. Yes, I know we've only formally written that principle down on the BLP page but it has been an unwritten principle behind WP:CORP decisions for a long time. Organizations need to be notable for more than just the one event or product, etc before they get stand-alone coverage. While their notability is solely based on one thing, a redirect is strongly preferred. Rossami (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is the same reason why I can not have an article on Wikipedia. We aren't WP:SELF. Willy on Wheels would not have an article, despite his notoriety. When a person's main claim to fame is that their brush with Wikipedia had passing notice in the mainstream media, such as I have had, or even Dan Rosenthal (Wikipedia spokesperson and admin) and Cary Bass, it can be problematic to allowing that as the primary pass for criteria. I think that's right. If a person's main claim to fame is working on here, or causing a controversy on here, then we should only give that status when there are more sources about it independently. Right now, those company specific signs of notoriety are nice, but not "you have arrived" nice, or even "you're clearly a rising star in your field" ring to them. Do they to you? --David Shankbone 03:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • A company doesn't have to be a success to be notable. See Pets.com. And, from what I can tell, none of the redlinked topics have received the same extent of coverage that MyWikiBiz has. (But congrats on getting that interview! You should at least get a mention at Wikinews.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space Unlike other recent "rescues", this one isn't as clear cut, but it's just over to a bit over the threshold that I can see for WP:N. Whether or not that all spawned from, of, or before Wikipedia doesn't matter unless someone wants to get consensus to change WP:N to say otherwise (Good luck) rootology (T) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space, I think it's been established that the topic is marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace - notability is clearly established. The only real issue I have with it is that the last paragraph of the lead seems to exist solely to establish notability, isn't there any content from those sources to put in the article? Mr.Z-man 02:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into mainspace. Notability is easily asserted despite some people's dislike of the topic. —Giggy 03:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to mainspace notability demonstrated, WP:ASR arugments hold no water whatsoever. ViridaeTalk 04:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space. Neil is showing members of the community how things should be done - salvaging articles and improving rather than a blanket "begone from our encyclopedia". Notable, improved sourcing. Article need improving, but that's no argument for the article not to be present. Minkythecat (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space Failing a consensus for that, it might not be bad to have as a summary for the project space. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space. Clearly meets our notability requirements, and more importantly, is interesting and verifiable based on reliable sources.--ragesoss (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is reaaallllly stretching the bounds of notability. Half the so-called "sources" are links to Wikipedia articles. naerii 02:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to insufficient reliable sources. Setting aside any opinions I have about the subject of the article and the people involved, I have gone through the sixteen separate inline citations listed on the present draft and find that they really boil down to only two reliable sources:
Inline citations 1, 9, 11, and 12, although from different publications, all refer to the same wire story by Brian Bernstein and the only difference is the subediting. Citation 2, from a blog associated with another publication, is also a slightly disguised write-up of the same story. The same story written up by different publications is still only one source.
Inline citation 10 is a short guest opinion piece in a newspaper. I was unable to check whether it appeared only in the online version rather than the print version, but the author Mathias Peer has written nothing else in this spot. His normal beat is providing travel videos under the name "Journey into the Blue" which are website only.
There are then the non-reliable sources. Five of the citations (3, 7, 13, 14, 15) refer to internal Wikipedia or MyWikiBiz pages or press releases. Citations 6 and 8 are passing mentions in web-based news sites. Citation 4 appears to be a passing mention in a book. Citations 5 and 16 are blog entries. Taken together, this topic cannot reasonably be said to have been the subject of "multiple independent reliable sources" and therefore fails notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have been involved with a few articles where notability issues have arisen and I cannot see that by the standards that seem to prevail on WP, this subject can be considered notable.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. For a few weeks I have been in discussions over the notability of topics where I think the WP:N guideline tends to underestimate the notability of certain subjects (in particular, villages in developing countries). This is a case where a strict interpretation of WP:N will tend to overestimate the notability. The subject we are dealing with is a small one man company which was briefly active on Wikipedia. The impact this has on the world (outside Wikipedia) is minimal, yet the company gets covered in sources simply because it's on the internet and therefore easy to write about, whether it's an online newspaper or blog. It has piqued some interest because its unusual and because it involves a large website, but judging on criteria which I feel contribute to notability (revenue, employees, impact in society, fame, importance, etc.), I just cannot see why this is significant enough to cover in an encyclopedia which routinely doesn't cover most one-man businesses. It simply disturbs me that a company like this is being considered more notable than an unremarkable factory with ten times as many employees and a economic impact and revenue far larger than what this business ever was able to produce. I realize that my argument can easily be construed as IDONTLIKEIT, and I acknowledge that Neil has made a fair effort at writing this article. Therefore I'm kind of ambivalent to this whole thing. I just wanted to get it off my chest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space. There is enough independent coverage to justify an article. Ty 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak move to article space. Neil's draft is a good solid attempt at an independent, well referenced article, so first kudos for the attempt. I see three arguments against moving to article space mentioned above. A) references are weak/insufficient to demonstrate notability, B) article is self-referential re Wikipedia, C) only MyWikiBiz' interaction with Wikipedia/Jimbo is notable, not MyWikiBiz itself. A) I disagree with - most of those making that argument point to a subset of the 16 references provided and state that subset would standing alone be insufficient for notability. That may be true, but at least 2 of those 16 (possibly more) appear to be fully valid for showing notability and that is sufficient, regardless of the others. B) is a true claim, but being self-referential is not in itself a reason to exclude. C) is marginal; it is true that MyWikiBiz' main claim to notability is its history of interaction with Wikipedia and Wikipedia's community. However, that history is not a single event but an ongoing pattern, and WikiBiz' current form is in direct response to that pattern. So on balance I don't buy C) either -- ergo, weak support for moving. Martinp (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, 6th Lord of Monroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Despite Spanish Lords having no automatic seat in the Parliament, in Spain the title of Lord is as much a title as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess and Duke, and as so is recognized in the Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Beside that, Lords, as other titulars, as their owners, were the actual rulers of their towns, as were and are the Alcaldes, Mayors, and such. For that reason, they should be considered at the same level as such. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure about the modern descendants, but he was a 17th century figure, and I think they may still have been sufficiently important then to count as notable. 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh... 1: I don't know why I got a DRV notice on this. 2: There's no article history. If there a typo somewhere or, what's going on with this? Wizardman 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be temp undeleted so we can see the content?--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contents of this page at time of deletion consisted of one line about his title and three long paragraphs about his genealogy (marriage, children, distant relatives, etc). If this page had been cut back to encyclopedic standards, it would have read "Don Hernán (sometimes called Fernando) Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy, was a Spanish military and nobleman. He was Lord of Las Quebradas and a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and its Sergeant-Major and Commander of Moratanos." and maybe had a succession link to his father, the 5th Lord of Monroy. (By the way, if you follow that link, it's almost identical to the deleted page about the 6th Lord. Most of the discussion is not about the subject but about increasingly distant relations and what they did. Actually, go back a version in history because I'm going to try to clean that page up in the next few minutes.) Rossami (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? Maybe these "distant relations" were actually links to other existing pages. Besides, if you see any British titular's article you'll see the same "marriage, children, etc". G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you don't see are pages where that's the only content. (Or, if you do, that's cause to clean up those pages as well, not to perpetuate the problem.) Wikipedia is not a geneology site is solidly established as policy. Biographies in encyclopedias are supposed to be about notable people and what they did. If this page had been 95% biographical detail and 5% geneology, it probably would have passed muster. The ratios in this case were reversed. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed properly, not to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) as to why the article should be kept. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were useful sources for building an encyclopedia article presented, this would readily be overturned. genealogica.net is not such a source. The others were dead tree, but supporting only genealogical data in the article, so absent further evidence I doubt they can support an encyclopedia article. Generally speaking, nobles are not inherently notable in the sense we use. See WP:BIO for the explanation of our general notability standards as applied to people. The true test is whether we can find adequate sourcing to support an encyclopedia article. At the moment, endorse deletion as such sourcing is not in evidence. GRBerry 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • genealogica.net is not a source?... Right!... Why?... Because it's genealogic?... Beside, it was by no means the only source, only a complementary and corrective source to every other sources I've mentioned:
      They prove these people and these titles / charges existed. As I said above, and I repeat, Despite Spanish Lords having no automatic seat in the Parliament, in Spain the title of Lord is as much a title as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess and Duke, and as so is recognized in the Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Beside that, Lords, as other titulars, as their owners, were the actual rulers of their towns, as were and are the Alcaldes, Mayors, and such. For that reason, they should be considered at the same level as such.. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? Existence was not the question. The question is whether you can write an encyclopedia article about the person. Not a genealogy entry. Piling up genealogical sources does nothing to prove you can write an encyclopedia article. Find some sourcing for what the person themselves did or accomplished and write the encyclopedia article, don't waste our time presenting more copies of the basic genealogical data. GRBerry 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion per Stifle and GRBerry. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, that a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above).  Sandstein  15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some simple questions: are the contents and sources valid or not? Aren't they worthy a page despite not knowing that much about them, like it happens with biographies of ancient and medieval people? Someone said above that being of the 17th century - and older, I presume - would be enough in such cases. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't do it, since someone deleted it without warning and then it was too late, months had passed since that time. I know the article lacked of information, but that's what wikipedia is for, for someone, along the time, can complete and improve what exists. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jamie Anne Allman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

She was on 16 movies. Sixteen!... How can that be not notable? I've seen biographies in here with half of it!... The deleters didn't see them from between the many small guest starrings she did and which alledgedly weren't enough to make her notable. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look through this search and see if you can find some secondary sources. That would make her notability claim bulletproof. Plasticup T/C 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know I can't find a secondary source as complete in filmography as IMDb - which, by the way, is considered accurate in filmography content -, but I've seen biographies here without any other source. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--the AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Anne Allman DGG (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you about the process: if I hadn't made the mistake of adding some elements that allegedly violated some copyrights and had I just made the page with the filmography in the first place, I would've never been contested by any of these reasons. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD2 for you too!... I explained, you didn't get it or you never saw the previous discussion: the page was deleted because despite her more than 30 works, most of them were just guest starrings, which according to some people isn't enough to be notable. However, since they were too rush or lazy to read it properly, they missed that 16 of her works were actually films, and I've seen biographies with less than that never contested. In short, since she was in 16 films, she is notable enough, despite all the other small roles and special guest starrings. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've argued it twice with the previous two deleters. I chose this way this time instead. Beside, those were too old discussions, I had to start it new, that's why you never noticed this discussion taking place. I warned the deleter, I don't even know who the administrator is!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about notifying people that this DRV is taking place, I'm talking about asking the person who deleted the page to reconsider their decision before even listing a DRV. That's what the instructions on this page say to do. On the other hand, this is quite an old issue, so it's possible that the discussions are in archives or history that it would take too much trouble to find.
    Endorse deletion, per Wizardman. When an AFD discussion has determined that an article should be deleted, the only role DRV should take is to be sure that the process was followed and consensus determined correctly. It is not for DRV to reopen the matter. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, but allow a user draft One editor in the AfD notes copyvio problems, so I'm not sure if there's anything from this page history that could be put into userspace. Let's not forget that process is just one possible reason to bring something to DRV. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elements concerning name, birthdate and roles are good enough to be restored. If not, I'd like to know why. I could've made a new page without all that but as they did before they would've deleted it again because it is a recreated page - without knowing the content of the old page and just because the page has the same name!!!... If I had created a page without any vice at first they would have never deleted it: I've created one or another page with only a few films per actor and they were never ever even contested!... Go figure!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse process was followed correctly. IMDB is not a reliable source. No prejudice against creation and building of proper article in userspace for if/when she is sufficiently notable (and the notability is sufficiently verifiable by reliable sources). Number of appearances isn't the same as notability and IMDB on it's own doesn't show whether the roles actually existed or not (just that someone claims they do). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What??? You even doubt IMDb over the actual roles?... It's the only thing that is based on actual information from the films or shows. The site receives elements from the movie production as the technical sheet or whatever you call in America, and adds it. And then someone says that it was someone else who gave the information? Many people can assure that so and so were in this or that movie because it's true. How could we prove it, by watching every single movie that was made or by talking directly to Productors and Film companies?... It's absurd, where else would we find cinematographic information? No one challenges IMDb on that specific information. IMDb is CREDIBLE in filmography. About that, I want to quote another editor:
      • WP:RS says that reliable sources are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process". On IMDb, anyone can submit a credit and, unless it is obviously wrong, it gets published. There is little (if any) fact-checking involved. An example from personal experience: a friend of mine appeared in a movie under a pseudonym. I added the credits for that film, crediting him under his real name (also listing the pseudonym) and they accepted my word for it. On Wikipedia that's considered original research and is not allowed. Any source that allows original research is not a reliable source. An exception is listed here, in that IMDb gets their screenwriting credits directly from the Writer's Guild, qualifying only those as reliable. I would agree that their other credit listings are usually accurate but are wrong often enough to not be taken as gospel. Bottom line, I don't disagree with using IMDb for credits but biographical information has to be from somewhere else. Precious Roy (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same goes to information over cast and crew, also provided by reliable informants such as producers, companies, agents, managers, etc, etc. In fact, if you follow the link to a given film or series, you will find, at least in most of the times, the name of the actor in a non-contested page, the film or series' page. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Flat_Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I challenged the speedy deletion made under the ground of "unverified concept/slang" here Talk:Flat_Daddy nonetheless, the page has been deleted without further discussion. As specified, the concept is well documented and popular - and it has nothing to do with slang - in my view, criteria for SD by an admin are not met in this case. Note as well the concept has two interwikis already. Yesterday, I left a message to the proposer for the SD and today to the admin who did it.

I have no objection to putting the article through a "normal deletion" process properly discussed by the community, of course cheers --Ofol (t) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article has been undeleted and put into normal deletion process by Anthony Appleyard --Ofol (t) 10:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_20&oldid=1089445511"