Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 October 10
2007 October 12 >

11 October 2007[edit]

  • Chet Jablonski – Deletion endorsed. Userfication available upon request. – Xoloz 13:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chet Jablonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This biography of a professional wrestler was deleted in an AfD debate in June. It was nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G4 today and I deleted it as a recreation. The creator, 72.74.216.208 (talk · contribs), has asserted that the new page is substantially different and that the subject of the article is notable. As what I know about professional wrestling would fit comfortably on the back of a postage stamp I have brought it here with no recommendation from me. Please note that if the result of deletion review is to overturn or to relist, the article will need to be removed from the Protected titles list. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I should note, I am not the original author. I noticed the article this afternoon from the already existing templates requesting editors to establish the subjects notability, provide references and wikify the page. I did so, reformatting the page in line with other wrestling related articles I have previously created through Wikipedia:Afc. This included a substantial rewrite, although I admittedly assumed the external links I had provided would satisfy providing references until I had a chance to provide additional cited references. The article was speedily deleted by another editor shortly after these changes, apparently assuming that this article had been recreated from another version which had been previously deleted. I believe my rewrite at least invalidates the claim that the article is a repost of a former deleted article, the reason given for its deletion, however I can provide further specific references if needed. 72.74.216.208 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. It seems that the reasoning for the delete was a lack of notability. No matter how the article is rewritten, it won't make the person notable. Smashville 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you'll note the most recent entry in the deletion log, the reason used for deletion (Criteria G4: reposted after previous deletion.). Under this, the article's deletion was deleted as being suspected to have be a reposting of a previously deleted article not due to the subjects notability. I had already established the subjects notability prior to its request for speedy deletion. 72.74.201.144 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The article has already gone through AfD and the subject was determined to be non-notable. The wrong speedy-delete reason is not a reason to overturn. Smashville 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm unaware of the content of the article at the time of its prior AFD debate, the version I wrote did establish notability of the subject. I've outlined my reasons, many of these points being used in several wrestling related articles, of the terms the subject meets according to Wikipedia's notability policies. I realize the external links I proved may not have been enough as far as references go, I am however able to provide reliable references in accordance with WP:RS. 209.213.84.10 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for comment. It's not a G4, because the article isn't a recreation. However, I still don't see even an assertion of notability in the newest incarnation of the article, which makes it a valid A7. Could you elaborate on why the subject is notable? Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've responded to Mr. Blacketer on his talk page, the article passing the following according to WP:BIO:
  1. Chet Jablonski has competed, and won championship titles in, World Wrestling Entertainment's developmental territories the Heartland Wrestling Association and Ohio Valley Wrestling. He was, until very recently, the promotion's heavyweight champion. He has also made several PPV appearances in Ring of Honor and held the tag team title with Kasey James in IWA Puerto Rico, an major international promotion. (The person has received significant recognized awards or honors)
  2. He has faced several notable wrestlers in those same organizations including Tank & Chad Toland, Matt Stryker, Johnny the Bull, Nigel McGuinness and CM Punk. All of these are considered notable competitors, specicifally noted for the exact same achivements Jablonski has attained. (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field)
  3. Jablonski was listed four times in Pro Wrestling Illustrated's PWI 500, an annual listing of the top 500 professional wrestlers in North America. (The person has demonstrable wide name recognition)
  • Keep. Article is friggin' awesome. Bobsbasement 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus at the AfD was that the article failed WP:V, WP:A, and WP:BLP. The recreated article did not overcome these deficiencies but recreated copy that had substantially identical deficiencies as the deleted version. The changes in the recreated page did not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. CSD G4 applies. It would not make any sense to have a consensus delete and then to permit one editor to bypass that consensus by recreating a deleted article without significant new information. To preserve our consensus system and keep individual editors from overriding consensus, Wikipedia maintains DRV as the placeto review article recration requests for those articles deleted at XfD and speedy deleted. Making up new text from which to recreate an article might be new, but it is only significant if the reason for deletion have been overcome. The recreated article still fails WP:V and WP:A and has not overcome the AfD consensus. The article was properly speedy deleted under CSD G4. -- Jreferee t/c 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May I ask what exactly constituted as libelous or otherwise negative information in regards to my version ? I believe my rewrite was quite NPOV, although you are correct that the external links were not considered reliable references by themselves. I did not simply "make up new text" however, my additions were based on research from various sources which I can provide if given the oppertunity. If anyone would care to see my previous articles created through Wikipedia:Afc, I hope I might be given the benifit of the doubt. 209.213.84.10 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I have already explained, the links in question were not used as cited references. I added those specific links as part of a general formatting rewrite, however I did not use these websites as cited references nor have I ever argued these were reliable sources. I had intended to further work on the article later that evening, which included specific cited references however the article was deleted several hours after my initial edits. I should note my additions did add significantly new information, such as his early career as well as his championship title reigns and his PWI listings. Also, if you'll note the introduction, the deletion review was suggested by Mr. Blacketeer not myself. As the version I had previously not longer exists, I don't see how I can submit it to WP:DRV or Wikipedia:Afc. 209.213.84.10 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With all due respect sir, I was asked to explain the situation by Mr. Blacketer. I do not wish to debate or otherwise discuss the prior Afd debate. However, I can easily cite reliable sources for his title reigns and other achievements at either the Puroresu Dojo, Solie's Title Histories or of course Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories. I am also able to cite appearances at notable wrestling events and against notable opponents by ProWrestlingHistory.com, 1wrestling.com as well as the Pro Wrestling Torch and Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer newsletter. These are sources I've used in many of my prior articles (George Wells (wrestler), Glenn Kulka, Dean Higuchi, Mark Rocco, etc.) and are used frequently as reliable sources in professional wrestling related articles throughout Wikipedia. 209.213.84.10 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation in user space and then we should decide Given the re-creation I think it appropriate that the community is not asked to buy a pig in a poke here. While reasonable minds may differ on whether there areWP:BLP issues, there are certainly WP:RS and WP:V and WP:A issues that should be solved in a userspace draft before we take it on faith that they will or have been solved. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • SMART Recovery – The challenged deletion was also a copyvio. That's not really negotiable so there is nothing to discuss. Why not try creating something better in userspace and then bringing it back here – Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SMART Recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted on June 2nd as part of a mass deletion of pages of organizations that provide services similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. The deleting admin (Coelacan) is no longer active, and so cannot respond to questions about it. The reason given for the deletion was wp:csd#a7. LifeRing Secular Recovery is a large, established organization that has hundreds of meetings each week. Since then, this specific page has had two attempts to create pages that violate the SMART Recovery copyright. It is important to recover the original SMART Recovery alcohol treatment page. Robert Rapplean 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LifeRing Secular Recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted as part of a mass deletion of pages of organizations that provide services similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. The deleting admin (Coelacan) is no longer active, and so cannot respond to questions about it. The reason given for the deletion was wp:csd#a7. LifeRing Secular Recovery is a relatively large organization (>5000 members) that has around 100 chapters across the nation. Robert Rapplean 18:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moderation Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted as part of a mass speedy deletion of pages of organizations that provide services similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. The deleting admin (Coelacan) is no longer active, and so cannot respond to questions about it. The reason given for the deletion was wp:csd#a7. *Request for comment. is a medium sized organization (>1,000 members) that has meetings across the nation on a continual basis. Robert Rapplean 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was not a copyvio but it contained nothing but unsourced pov and original research and even bits with possible BLP concerns. I'd be willing to look at this if you could find some real world sources for the article. The answers mirror of the article is here for anyone who wants to view the deleted text. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be neutral, pro and con coverage of this organization [1], so it's certainly reasonable that we could have an article here. But Spartaz is right... what was deleted seemed like just rehashed versions of their official literature... not very encyclopedic. Maybe someone should just start from scratch? --W.marsh 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Moderation Management is too moderately sized. Bobsbasement 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The statement "founded in 1994 and now supports both face to face groups, listservs and chatrooms worldwide" is enough to overcome CSD A7 importance/significance. No other speedy delete criteria applies. The deleted article also referenced New York magazine and CNN. AfD rather than speedy delete seems the appropriate place for a consensus decision.-- Jreferee t/c 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The articles cited not only provides an assertion of notability, but in my opinion proves it. given this publicity ,the size of the organisation would appear it relevant. But certainly not a speedy. DGG (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I can find any assertion of notability in the text - and I can't see how the part quoted by Jreferee amounts to such an assertion. The significance of this program is still not asserted at this review. I do not believe all programs with 1000+ members are notable. If third party sources discussing the programm exist, I would have no objection to recreation but I don't think a case for the undeletion of the original has been made. WjBscribe 20:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted I believe it may be possible to write an article on this topic, but that the actual claim of notability for the group will be severely limited by the WP:BLP policy, due to the nature of the online confession that led to the group having any notability. It also appears that the concept is more notable than the group with the same name (as some press refers to that concept but not the group) and that the concept itself is of only limited notability (as that press described the concept as "obscure"). I disagree that the bit Jreferee quoted is an assertion of notability, and the entire article needs to be rewritten from the ground up in accordance with WP:INDY and WP:FORGET. I suppose, since I do think there is an assertion of notability in the article, that we could restore and AFD, but I'd rather just see a good encyclopedia article written solely from independent sources than waste time with AFDing the deleted version. GRBerry 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It's mildly amusing that some people think that "founded in 1994 and now supports both face to face groups, listservs and chatrooms worldwide" is an assertion of notability or importance or significance. It ain't - there are many organizations that were founded in 1994 (was that a good year for being founded?) that have face-to-face, listservs and chatrooms: whether they are parish organizations, dating services, X-rated picture swapping services, sewing circles, or what have you. NN. No assertion of N. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Kanakuk Kamps – contested PROD automatic restore, I note that the article needs improvement or is likely to be deleted again – GRBerry 18:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kanakuk Kamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as the result of an uncontested prod, with the reasoning that it failed to provide sufficient evidence of notability. I disagree - this was a deletion done in haste; a cursory glance at Kanakuk's homepage or a quick Google search would've answered that question. With over 15,000 students visiting a Kanakuk camp each year [2], combined with widespread recognition among the Protestant Christian community in the U.S. (do a quick Google of "kanakuk" and "youth ministry"), there's no question about this being more notable than the average youth camp which sometimes pops up here. Please don't be too trigger happy when going through prods. Overturn deletion (and please restore a redirect at Kanakuk). 66.90.145.25 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Samnaun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1|AfD#2)

No consensus was reached on either vote. Amplification - I have twice nominated an article for deletion as it consists of only one sentence, and twice it's been closed out by Punkmorten (talk · contribs · logs) without consensus: Samnaun AfD#1 and Samnaun AfD#2 As you can see, at neither time was any consensus reached. (Most likely, Punkmorten will mention my comment on the second nomination where I called him a "moron". Yes I said it, and yes I know that comment was wrong. There was no excuse for that comment and if a sanction is enforced against me as a result, I'll comply with it.) PunkMorten claims that consensus was already reached via WP:AFDP and that a consensus on this article is not needed. WP:AFDP is a guideline and not a policy. The official policy WP:Notability states that notability must be shown in the article. This article did not show it. The votes themselves did not show consensus of any kind. Without any kind of consensus, Punkmorten then removed the AfD tag and proceeded to enlarge the article. (After the second AFD was filed) In both cases the closing admin was Punkmorten. I am asking that this be looked into, and if I'm wrong, feel free to let me know in any way you see fit, including sanction for my admitted violation of WP:CIVIL However if I'm right, and no consensus was reached I would like to have this AFD reinstated and let whatever consensus be reached that needs to be reached. -- KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closing, cities, towns and villages are always notable. -- the closing admin Punkmorten 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure although I would have let it stay open a bit longer, personally. Consensus is pretty well established, as Punkmorten says. It's not so bad to reaffirm that every once in a while though. --W.marsh 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure not supported Once again, WP:AFDP is an essay and therefore cannot be used to prove notability. WP:Notability, on the other hand is a guideline and therefore can be used to prove notability. This article did not show notability, stayed in a one line state from it's creation in March of 2006. Consensus was NOT reached on either vote, nor could it, except that it be based in the essay of AFDP. NO Consensus was reached and therefore both closures violate the steps shown in the deletion process. -- KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - Consensus has demonstrated time and time again that all towns/villages are notable and the speedy closing was an attempt to save editors time. But it seems the nom took the closure personally and then created this bigger time-waster after having unleashed a personal attack that included name calling [3], a true violation of WP:CIVIL. At the time of this DRV creation, the nom claimed the article "consists of only one sentence" when in fact it had already been expanded beyond one sentence [4]. The nom is clearly confused and seemingly vindictive. --Oakshade 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There is really no debate, this is about as black and white consensus you will ever see. RFerreira 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I've seen scores of deletion debates of towns and municipalities, and the only one I can remember that resulted in deletion was because it was an outright hoax. Absent such a claim, the speedy closure was perfectly reasonable. —Cryptic 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse.Yes, WP:OUTCOMES is an essay...but...it's based on the outcomes of AfDs. It has been established time and again that any inhabited geographic location is notable. Nominating it a second time was a time waster, taking it to DRV...seriously, why? Smashville 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AfD#1 and relist. The close of AfD#1 was out of process. Even if articles on cities, towns and villages inherently include a reasonable assertion of importance/significance to overcome CSD A7 (which is not established policy), how can we possibly conclude in advance that every city, town, and village in the world has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? That does not make any sense, which is why the general notability guidelines list no such expectation for every city, town, and village in the world. And of course, closing an AfD after only a few hours and only one editor argues that the topic meets CSD A7 is going to piss off someone. Civil behavior and respecting each Wikipedia right to have an opinion always trumps content. AfD#1 should have been left open long enough for a consensus to develop, particularly since the nomination was clear on the deficiencies to be discusses. The posting of AfD#2 was out of process since it was too close to the close of AfD#1. AfD#1 should have been brought to WP:DRV instead of posting AfD#2. -- Jreferee t/c 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS has long concluded that towns are inherently notable just by their confirmed existence, even if they are not the the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources. Many towns in every country (including the US) have zero coverage. But they are confirmed in existence and population by various sources like government records, reliable maps like google maps or Times Atlas. WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly at the top "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Consensus has repeatedly found population centers as one of those common sense exceptions. --Oakshade 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Regardless of whether or not it was improper to close the AfD so speedily, it is patently obvious that (given prevailing attitudes towards notability of towns & villages, and given that the article is now referenced), any relisting would a complete waste of everyone's time. I have no idea what User:KoshVorlon is trying to achieve here. --Stormie 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure to do otherwise is an exercise in bureaucracy. And WP is WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Cities, towns, municipalities are inherently notable. End of discussion. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Belldandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The case was closed as "irrelevant", it should have been either allowed to continue on or closed as keep as per the vast majority of comments. AFD's aren't just about the standpoint of the nominator on a specific article. There was a reasonable concern over notability and I merely taken it to AFD contradicting my own views. -- Cat chi? 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Given that the wording of the closure doesn't change the result, a keep. I merely seeked clarification with this but as pointed out below it seems unnecessary. -- Cat chi? 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse close — very-pointy nomination. --Jack Merridew 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that I see your post here JUST 2 minutes after mine? -- Cat chi? 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Because I'm sick of your disruption. --Jack Merridew 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly am I disrupting? -- Cat chi? 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse, speedy close and suggest block of nominator if they continue to refuse to let this rest. I count 15 keeps, 3 merge suggestions, and not a single vote to delete. Comments made by nom during the discussion (such as "I am allowed to make nominations contradicting my personal views on any topic and this isn't the first time I have done so") strongly suggest the whole thing was, and continues to be, a WP:POINT violation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why the HECK wasn't it closed as a keep? -- Cat chi? 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Because the closer detected its WP:POINTiness (not much of a feat, really), thereby invalidating the AfD as a legitimate consensus-building tool. Look, I agree with you that these articles should be kept, but the way you're going about it is very, very wrong, and ultimately likely to hurt your case rather than help it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore close The original nomination was a WP:POINT nomination to demonstrate Cat's ownership of the articles. Speedy close was the only valid option for the closing admin. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close haggling over whether the closer used the word "keep" or not is ridiculous and bureaucratic. --W.marsh 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
St. John Bosco Interparish School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was closed as a no consensus, even though an issue with the sources weren't met. None of the sources were independent of the subject, or reliable and a concern was met, but ignored, while the comments in the keep side was very weak, only because of those unreliable sources were added Overturn and Delete. Jbeach56 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - With some of the delete reasoning focusing on importance/significance (a non policy argument), sources added to the article during the AfD (at least one was valid), and a few editors moving away from delete, the closing admin could reasonably believe that consensus was not clear. After doing a search, I agree that the topic probably does not meet WP:N. Put the article on your watch list and list it at AfD. If the close was keep, waiting three months before listing AfD#2 would be typical. Since the close was no consensus, one month might be sufficient before listing AfD#2. Just don't jump the gun by quickly relisting at AfD, 'cause you'll end up with a snow keep and may have to wait three months after that. -- Jreferee t/c 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - give it a few months and come back if it hasn't been better sourced. The deletion arguments fell into bad arguments as much as vice versa. 128.118.161.244 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep for now. However, suggest re-nominating the article again in a month or so if it hasn't been substantially improved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result, no consensus is a perfectly sound closure here. Clearly there was no strong sentiment to delete but no strong sentiment to keep, and that's the beauty of no consensus - there's no prejudice against renominating it if no one bothers to improve it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse perfectly sound no consensus.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If it isn't improved in the next few weeks or months, nothing is preventing any one of us from re-listing it. RFerreira 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I might have closed this differently, but within admin discretion. If it isn't improved soon, it'll likely be nominated and deleted. The warning shot over the bow has been taken. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Slipknot's 4th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_Plenty of sufficient info Dark Executioner 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_11&oldid=1138431234"