Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 13

VirusBurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This is crossposted from the closing admin's talk page: User_talk:W.marsh#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FVirusBurst

I weighed into this AfD thinking that it was a straight-forward delete: No evidence of

Whatever way we cut it, this looks like a clear delete to me: Nose counting (spit) give three-to-one in favour of deletion if you're into that sort of thing, and argumentation shows that the only evidence presented for keeping was Google hits, something the person who made the argument recanted. WM suggested I re-nominate it when I raised it with him, which I'd prefer not to do because a) This nomination has a clear outcome to me, b) The stigma of a renom leads to knee-jerk keepage often enough, and c) I can't create the sub-pages anyway.
152.91.9.144 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Why do people think that they can make an article verifiable by saying "It's verifiable!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Um. The AfD debate was largely a waste of server space, for reasons noted above, and although this is verifiable from AV vendors' sites that does rather place it in the category of a directory entry. Neither GNews nor Factiva shows any significant coverage other than press releases and AV vendors' threat databases. I say relist. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. If no sources are presented in the article or the AfD, the article should be deleted. AfD is not a vote,
  WP:V is a cornerstone policy, guess which wins. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's verifiable enough, the problem is evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Existence may be verifiable, but I see one directory listing in the article and one press release in the AfD which mentions the virus in passing. The AfD participants didn't come close to making an actual case for the article's retention in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is what I said above :-) Guy (Help!) 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's why I believe this AfD should have been closed as 'delete', and consequently we should overturn it. It doesn't seem a good use of Wikipedians' time to have the same discussion again (no new evidence has been presented that would indicate that a second discussion would be substantially different from the previous) just so we can hope it gets closed in a different way, when the purpose of DRV is to change closings when necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem with the debate was that it was almost entirely irrelevant to inclusion. My first searches show no significant coverage, but there might be some. I am undecided, hence I'd like to see more discussion of the content, not the process. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The keep arguments may have been irrelevant to inclusion, but the delete arguments weren't. Both the nomination and supporting editor cast the subject's notability into doubt, which is a good enough reason for deletion if no-one can debunk it by showing significant reliable coverage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "It's verifiable enough" is good enough for me. Do not overturn. You had your shot and it was correctly kept. It's terrible that this forum is used for a small clique to delete articles they could not manage to rid us of in a more widely read forum. Grace Note 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why does saying it's verifiable make it so? I also find it funny that people claim either that only deletionists come here or only inclusionists do, depending on which they are. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has been edited and verifiability demonstrated. I have just edited the article, added links to the pages about this virus from 3 of the major-antivirus producers in both the US and UK, (I could probable go on and find another 30 or so, because I found 198,000 ghits.) Probably I should have done this earlier, but to me at any rate, the Symantec link already there was verification enough. DGG 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... No you haven't. It hasn't been edited since the close of the AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links such as the one currently in the article should be considered directory entries anyway. Thousands of viruses are created, and it's Symantec's job (as well as McAfee's, Grisoft's etc) to document as many as possible, just as it's the Yellow Pages' job to document every person and business with a phone. We are not the Yellow Pages, or Symantec, we do not document everything, we document notable things, which means non-trivial coverage. ILOVEYOU is an example of a virus that received such coverage. I can't comment on the links DGG said he added, because he didn't add them, but the link currently in the article is definitely the equivalent of a directory entry. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Moving here from

Deletion log; 18:21, December 13, 2006 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z)" (WP:CSD A3 - no article content, this shouldn't be in article space. Userfied version already exists.)

My message before deletion to the admin who deleted article here:

Dear FPaS,

Thanks for your good faithfull commends.

You are right, there is no enough number of editor which deals with these kind of works.

I undertake a project (One contributor, me) to organize categories,templates,images and articles.My first job is to collect related categories,organizing,renaming and cleaning of them.That is reason why I have a subpage "deneme", I created a new article.There will be another one; "List_of_Turkey-related_categories(by topics)".I think, many categories was created accidentally, and needed cleaning and reorganizing. Also I will create a Category tree and user manual in WPTR. I hope in the future other/newcomer user will use categories in proper way. This project will take a big time of course( all linked articles are needed to scrutinized one by one), all helps are welcome. I need some bots to handle so huge number of articles, is it possible?

I think My message include the undelete reason.Regards

^TC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Admin's comment: Page has now been userfied to
  User:Mustafa Akalp/List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z). Sorry, I would have done so right away, but I mistakenly thought you already had a copy of it there. Also, for some reason I didn't see your message on my talk page in time. - That said, I think the deletion was correct, this is a list that doesn't belong in article space. Project space ([[Wikipedia:...]]) might be okay though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion and userfication metacontent like this doesn't belong in the article space. It is, however, exactly the sort of this that you can keep in userspace or, if you want others to help out, project space. Eluchil404 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per Eluchil404. We should never have articles which link to Wikipedia meta-content. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. What exactly is wrong with just using the higher-level Category:Turkey? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for close. I'm satisfied with the message of
  ^TC 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Darcy Burner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

• Delete or Merge with article on Election -- WP:BIO. Proponents for keeping the article during the July discussion centered on her viability as a candidate in the November 2006 election. As the election is over and she has lost, her notability seems to have declined. AndrewSaint 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, Speedy close There is no procedural error in the closure, so a new consensus can be found by renominating it at AfD. Nominating it here is just a time waster. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, speedy close, per above, no new info, Deletion Review != Articles for Deletion, take II.
  T · C ] 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close, send to AfD AfD's more than a month or two old should simply be renominated (see
  WP:CCC) rather than taken to DRV. Eluchil404 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, speedy close Send it through AFD again. Even though Burner didn't win the election, she received significant local and national press during the campaign. As for her notability declining.. WP is full of people who were notable for a short period of time and then disappeared off the radar, see
  Jessica McClure. --Bobblehead 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Request to Close My bad on the using the DelRev instead of re-AfDing.AndrewSaint 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Medical Advisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Legal Medical Advisor Certification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has been edited to comply with wikipedia TOS lpritchard 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please review this blatant spammer's contribution history, permanently block the user, and delete and protect the latest spam pages. -THB 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion and keep protected. Every version of it has been spam, no reason to believe the author is capable of anything else. Fan-1967 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion and keep protected. The author openly admits the
  WP:COI and ignores our spam policy. -- RHaworth 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, spam from a
  single-purpose account. Speedy close if possible, we've wasted more than enough time on this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Deletion of both and keep salted. Anytime I see "we" in a user's comments, that's a bad sign. -- Satori Son 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense Humor Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Page was deleted citing "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I would suggest that a college humor magazine that has published for more than 23 years, providing critical and alternative analysis of society and its publishing university, is significant. Article has autobiographic tendencies, but that's an argument for editing, not outright deletion. Toomuchjoy 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy organizations and publications of single colleges are generally not considered notable on wikipedia. I am suggesting that the deleting admin place a copy of the article in your userspace so that you can edit and improve it to show how this one is notable enough for an article. Things to consider are has it won any awards, has it published work by notable authors, has it been mentioned in other
  reliable sources. Eluchil404 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Send it my way; the magazine has indeed won awards, been covered in other reliable sources, etc., and it will be simple enough to recast the last current info in the listing to reflect that and its relevance in a larger scope. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

• Endorse deletion. A grand total of 24 Google hits, if you take Wikipedia and its mirrors out of the equation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the magazine is typically just referred to as "Nonsense," try a Google search of "Humor Nonsense Hofstra" and you get over 9,300 Google hits. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

• Endorse deletion, unless you can provide a reliable source. I can't find one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, below are a few from Newsday that I was able to dig up on short notice. Also, the magazine was awarded "2nd place, Special Interest Magazine" by the Society of Collegiate Journalism in the mid-80s (I'm still digging up specifics on that), has appeared in The Joe Bob Report. More to come if needed. Newsday articles, letters to the editor, etc. regarding Nonsense:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100187141&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104078480&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104782470&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104781543&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=49254948&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100891649&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100191828&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Coverage of when MIT plagarized Nonsense:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_110/TECH_V110_S0615_P002.pdf Toomuchjoy 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic League argues with Nonsense in The Catalyst, a magazine for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/1997_catalyst/197catalyst.htm#Anti-Catholicism%20Hits%20Campuses Toomuchjoy 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse although I would support a history undeletion, because any mention of the magazine should be at
  Dartmouth Review, have other reasons for articles than that they have a long run and/or popularity on campus. Geogre 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• McMaster University The Plumbline
• St. John's University, New York Spectator
• University of California, Berkeley Heuristic Squelch
• University of Maryland The Maryland Cow Nipple
• University of Maryland The Terrapist
• University of Texas at Austin Travesty
• University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Second Supper
• Yale University Rumpus Magazine

-- all have Wikipedia entries, but haven't been around as long as Nonsense, which was founded in 1982; thus it seems the requirement of "a long run" is arbitrarily enforced (I might politely add that allowing an entry purely because a publication has been around for more than 24 years doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the publication). Meanwhile, judging a publication based on "popularity on campus"--which Nonsense always has been (Vault.com characterizes it as "a student favorite" here: http://www.vault.com/survey/school/college/Hofstra-University-social-life-74210.html ) --contradicts the argument that the publication has to be judged based on its relevance to the world at large.

Toomuchjoy 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those magazine articles listed above appear to be clear candidates for deletion Bwithh 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense Humor Magazine was listed prominently in the The Directory of Humor Magazines and Humor Organizations in America (and Canada) 3rd Edition. Published in 1992 by Wry-Bred Press.

Nonsense was listed and sold by Spy Magazine in its December 1991 issue. "Spy Humor 101, Go Back to College for a Few Laughs". Spy got enough of a response to the listing to start buying advertising in Nonsense itself.

Heyitsal 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Couldn't find any hits in Factiva (which includes Newsday archives - though may not include letters to editors/some minor articles etc). I looked at a mirrored version of the deleted article here - I couldn't see any claims to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent, up-to-date version of the article--which is NOT the one mirrored around the web--had been updated substantially in November with a lot of facts, figures and information, in order to make it more of a comprehensive survey of the magazine's history. Please don't base your opinion of the listing on the meager (and inaccurate) version still floating around on the web. Toomuchjoy 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dot Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history

)

G11 does not apply here. The purpose of the article is to describe a company, not promote a company. Further, the company is notable by reference to the cited independent news sources covering Blue Dot. I feel it was quite rude to have the article summarily deleted with no discussion; the article was obviously well structured, informative, and undergoing a process of improvement. Mike Koss 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You say? I reckon you're the head cheerleader at Blue Dot, having a great time working to help Blue Dot "become a great service and a great company." You didn't mention that YOU LOVE BLUE DOT. Given your self-evident
  conflict of interest I'm more inclined to believe the Crazy Russian, and my own reading, and diagnose spam. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:CSD
  G11, notability never at issue. A non-COI user may recreate this if notable (on which I reserve judgment) - 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior to deletion, notability was in question, as which point I added citations to demonstrate notability. I don't deny I have a COI. But I would ask that you judge the article for yourself. I believe it displays a NPOV, and contains factual, valuable, and cited information. I've created a copy here so you can read for yourself User:mckoss/Blue_Dot_Inc. The article was not created by me, but I started to improve it when it came under question as to the notability Mike Koss 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. Comments like "Crzrussian seems to be a real a**hole here", even off-Wiki, are not very helpful in convincing us you can present this topic in an unbiased and dispassionate manner.
  WP:COI guidelines in the first place. Please let someone unaffiliated with the company recreate this article when it reaches a sufficient level of notability. -- Satori Son 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't know why my comments off of wikipedia are relevant. I have a long history of wikipedia edits accepted as NPOV. On my own private web site, I don't think I need to maintain NPOV. As yet, I've not heard any justification for speedy deletion based on the content of the article. I believe that should be the ultimate guiding principle - all other guidelines are meant to aid editors in making decisions. Mike Koss 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I am supporting the statement, but the
  Arbitration Committee is very close to passing a motion that effectively protects the right to call him so off-wiki without blowback on-wiki. See WP:ARBCOM(Seabhcan)#Calling_CRZ_an_arsehole.
  152.91.9.144 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am not even remotely suggesting that action should be taken against Mike Koss for his personal attack that is off-Wiki. I am simply stating that, because of his uncivil behavior and severe conflict of interest, he should be strongly encouraged to allow other, uninvolved parties to recreate the article if and when the time comes. -- Satori Son 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep deleted, clear bad faith request for undeletion and
  WP:COI violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You people have a clear problem with being civil. In what sense did I act in "bad faith"? I may not have understood the esoteric wikipedia guidelines. But I never acted in bad faith and have always been honest and forthright about by relationship to the company. I would like an apology. Mike Koss 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly say calling someone an asshole is not bad faith? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just playing the devil's advocate, it's possible to say something like that off wiki and still operate in good faith on wiki. Although in WP:ARBCOM(Snowspinner) linking to one's own nasty comments off-wiki was found to be uncivil, in WP:ARBCOM(Giano) Cyde's reposting and linking of Kelly Martin's off-wiki smear didn't even rate a mention. The ground is fairly well trod that unless off-wiki comments are death threats or lead to harrasment, we're meant to simply ignore them.
152.91.9.144 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dashed off a
  GFDL problems. - 152.91.9.144 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Aww sheezamageeza. Why did I not see User:Mckoss/Blue Dot Inc until after I wasted that twenty minutes? Note to self: Read discussions more carefully next time.
  152.91.9.144 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've taken the liberty of posting it at

asstalk 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. (BTW - Please accept my apology for the A**hole remark - it reflected my frustration at being cut off mid-discussion on the talk page, and that fact that you used sarcasm when making comments to me). I realize that the new page may be marked for deletion - I will just stay out of it (as recommended by COI guidelines). I am generally a big fan of wikipedia and have been amazed at some of the results. The problem, I think, in this case is that because of the speedy deletion rules - there is no record, debate is cut off prematurely, and a (potential) author is cut off with no sense that the community respect that there might be some value in the contribution. If the article is porn, profane, or link-spam, I can understand a speedy deletion reaction; but I don't think this article falls into that category. It's not just me - several of my friends (all potentially good conrtibutors) have written off even contributing to wikipedia again becuase of heavy handed administration. Mike Koss 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 193.1.172.163 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The term "barse" referring to the bit between the balls and the arse has been deleted 6 times from Wikipedia. It is a term I as an Irish person regularly use. I did not make it up. All my friends use it. People I don't know use it. I have met English people who use it. It seems to be a well used term in England and Ireland, and was probably coined on television. Reasons for deletion have included "hoax" "complete load of arse" etc. While it may be a vulgar/humourous term, it is certainly worth having a look at, unfortunately I do not have the time/resources to do this. I am responsible for the last article (my first on this site) and can't help but feel frustrated by the situation. Perhaps instead of googling the term you could use a blog searcher to search bebo or myspace for "barse". It is a part of modern culture, I am sure of it.[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps instead of asking others to do your research, you could locate
  Reliable Sources. Myspace and bebo, as well as blogs, do not qualify. Fan-1967 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. What are reliable sources for commonly used internet slang?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.104 (talk • contribs)

welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts

. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

• • The same as for anything else, independent sources, which are not forums, blogs, or the like writing about the topic (not just using the word). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Respectfully, endorse deleting and salting because, even with the most reliable sources in the world, this is an utter deletion from start to finish because it is a dictionary definition and therefore would belong at Wiktionary, if it could be validated. In the absence of validation, it's an inappropriate entry inappropriately done. Geogre 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not only is it a slang dicdef, it is also either a protologism or at the very best a highly restricted neologism (stated to be British Isles usage, and I live in England), and it's already been to BJAODN at least once. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]