Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2007 January 28
2007 January 30 >

29 January 2007

Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted for a legitamate Pro Wrestling Company that provided a history and ability to find out the current historical information of wrestling in the Central New York Region. The suggestion that only one person contributed context is false. People seeking this information no longer have a place to go. Rock345 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Maintenance note: - I fixed the spelling in the header and the above links; the article listed here was a redirect to Squared Circle Wrestling, for which I've linked the AFD above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no new information presented to indicate there's any notability as compared to the article that was discussed at the AFD. Year-old small feds don't seem to have much in the way of notability, and the arguments in the AFD didn't hinge on providing notability, but instead suggested those !voting to delete were the competition. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Unsourced articles don't annoy me. People who assume and claim delete voters (that have explained their arguments in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, no less) hate the subject of an AfD drive me insane. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yes they do, it's called the Square Circled Wrestling website. Don't have one? It's simple to create, and there are many free webhosts. Wikipedia is not one of them. ColourBurst 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If people who want the information no longer have a place to go, it's
    original research. -Amark moo! 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

So you're telling me that having the NWA/TNA Championship defended twice in a federation makes it not noteable. In fact, that's what I was going on their to update. If you're going to let other originizations in the area run wiki sites with less information just becasue they are a year older that's fine. Just letting you know I disagree with it. Rock345

Which organizations might those be? If they don't have
reliable sources we might certainly consider those for deletion as well. Existing articles don't guarantee immediate inclusion of other articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Mind showing some
coverage of these title defenses in a published, reputable source? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stepanavan Youth Center – Restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stepanavan Youth Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The AFD (

WP:ORG states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And those reliable third party sources were provided, both in the article and in the AFD. So the fact that this might let other youth centers in means very little; notability was clear, and selective enforcement is detrimental to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Restore. Based on Coelacan's comments above and after further review, I believe I may have made a mistake in closing this one. ···
    joe 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn per nom. This could be interesting... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In the heady Bwikipedia(tm) of my daydream fantasies, this article wouldn't pass muster with current sources and claims to notability. Under the current, actual regime, an overturn appears to be in order. Bwithh 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, possible merge and redirect. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore I wont know if it would pass muster until I see it, so the only fair way is to overturn, and then it will presumably be listed for AfD again). Anyway, possibly a speedy overturn if there is such a thing, based on the closer's comment above. DGG 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I think it really should go through AfD again, this time without a bad closure. The fact that there are many similar things does not mean that something can't be notable. -Amark moo! 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, do not relist. If the closure was bad (and the closer himself accepts this), so it should have been closed as a 'keep', what's the point of putting it through AFD again?
    ► 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of BitTorrent sites – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of BitTorrent sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was AfD'd in september, under the grounds that it was little more than a web directory, and not much of a comparison. I userfied a version of it before its deletion and worked on it for several months, until I had grown satisfied that the arguments made at the AfD were no longer valid. I then recreated the page, leaving a message on the talk page about why I had chosen to recreate it.

This page was speedily deleted by

Proto a few days later, with the summary "CSD G4 - Receaation [sic] of deleted content". As I stated above, it is correct that the article had been deleted before - however, the old version was substantially different from the new version (diff) to not qualify under CSD G4. I contacted proto informing him about his error, and asked him to either recreate it or, if he thought that that was not possible, to userfy it so I could have a backup version (I naturally didn't want to lose several months' work). He chose to userfy
it. I contacted him again, a week ago, reminding him that it didn't qualify under G4, and asked him again to restore it to the mainspace. He still hasn't answered, so I chose to take it here, to DRV.

As you've now probably gathered by now, I think that this page should be recreated because the new version is an actual comparison, as opposed to a web directory, that it is sourced, and that it is substantially different from the original deleted version to not satisfy CSD G4. Even though it's a weaker argument, I'd also like to point out the high traffic it used to get, and the messages asking why it was deleted (1, 2, 3). Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These comments are asking for you restore it on another site outside of Wikipedia. I think that's a good idea.
    ► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What relaible sources is this comparitive table built on? How many articles on torrent clients do we have? There isa fair bit of precedent for excluding form such comparisons those for which we do not have articles, else they rapidly pass
    the spam event horizon. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. I was going to conjecture that the addition of two extra columns would not change the AfD participants' minds, but then I saw that I don't need to conjecture. Ultra-Loser said in the AfD "New columns have been proposed, which will make it more encyclopedic." to which TheFarix replied "Neither of the proposed columns will make the article encyclopedic, nor are they particularly useful." No-one contradicted him. The AfD still applies in full and this was a valid General-4 deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The columns proposed were different from the columns that are there now - I don't remember the exact two, but I remember that google pagerank was one of them (I later decided that alexa ranks would be more useful). Plus, there are more than two extra columns - scroll down to the private trackers section, for example.
      Also, I forgot to mention that at one point there was a criteria for inclusion to stop the article from turning it into a spamhole, but proto removed it. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this was a line - in the actual article - that informed people of the rules for how to add things to the list.
        ► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Endorse (my) deletion, G4 applied. It also remains an annotated list of external links, so could have just as easily been deleted for other reasons.
    ► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and AfD. I'm not sure about the G4 at all, honestly. Looks like a lot of new material to make it pretty different from what was originally there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an identical unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links, but it is a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links. Fails
      WP:NOT a link farm, and also fails the same criteria which got it deleted last time. Of course we could waste some more time, or we could simply accept that lists of weblinks with subjective and unsourced additional data are not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Seeing as
        WP:NOT isn't a speedy criteria, and "similar" isn't "substantially identical," and discussion is rarely a "waste"... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • That would be relevant if there weren't an AfD. There is. G4 is a speedy deletion criterion, and the mian part of G4 is failing to fix the things that led to deletion. Thise things are not fixed, and the deletion debate specifically indicates that cosmetic changes will not fix those problems. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • G4 has nothing to do with fixing things that lead to deletion, but only the recreation of a substantially identical version of something previously AfD'd. I have no clue where you came up with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jeff, we deleted a list of weblinks with no secondary sources. This is a list of the same weblinks still without secondary sources and based on the original content userfied. That's a G4, in my book. Waste of time AfDing again, since the last AfD specifically said these changes would not sort ther fundamental problem. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your book needs some fixing, then. Check the diff, there's a major content difference between the two. They are not substantially identical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you say. Me, I don't see the point in allowing the re-creation of an article which will immediately be AfDed and, because the previous AfD already addressed the issues "fixed" here, deleted for failing exactly the same policies as it failed before. It's a quirk of mine. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Whether you see the point is not relevant. G4 doesn't allow speedy deletion of a previously deleted article simply because it'll be deleted again. The language is very clear and direct for a reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The common sense application of General-4 is clearly to articles that were validly deleted where the same reason for deletion still applies. Interpreting 'substantially different' any other way means that reversing the order of the list from Z to A, or grabbing a thesaurus and replacing all possible words with different words while keeping entirely the same content, merits wasting editors' time with another AfD. Do you plan on giving any argument as to why this article was not suitable before, but is now?
                      "Check the diff" indeed. General-4 is not about "if you diff the new and old version and more than 15% of the words are in red, the article needs another AfD". --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links - it's a sourced, highly expanded comparison of websites, complete with internal links. The arguments made at the AfD were to the effect that it was a simple repository of weblinks, and now it's not a simple repository of weblinks. Therefore the AfD no longer applies, and neither does G4. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not one single one of the clients listed is a Wikilink, every single one is a weblink.
          synthesis of data from primary sources, what with the Alexa rank baing sourced from Alexa and the number of torrents being sourced in each case from the website of the client itself. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • None of which fit the speedy criteria, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • G4, as stated. The original AfD also applies to this content. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's the process wonk answer. Me, I'm more inclined to a Clue-based approach. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The clue-based approach tells me that you don't abuse the system that tends to benefit your position, but hey... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actualy, nine of those sites (not clients, those would be the programs in
            Comparison of BitTorrent software) have wikipedia articles and are wikilinked appropriately. What's more, the NOR policy only applies if the facts are synthesized "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Here, the facts are just presented, so it isn't OR. The new page has twice as much information on it as the original, and more than was covered in the AfD. Plus, this isn't the place to discuss whether or not it's a linkfarm (which it is not, hence the criteria for entry proto removed), this is the place to discuss whether or not the G4 applied. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Endorse Deletion, a lot of BT sites host files that are licensed in the US, thus creating a copyright problem. Let someone else have this list. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that has nothing to do with anything. There is no copyright problem. There is no potential for a copyright problem. Go try to AFD The Pirate Bay and you'll see what I mean. There is substantial media coverage on most of the large bittorrent sites. That is not a legal problem for the media, and it's not a problem for us. (Just a clarification. No vote from me.) — coelacan talk — 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning. The original article as AfD'd and the recreated one are identical in substance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Guy. It's a reposting with the same problems, and running the AFD again for the same result for the same reasons is processwanking at its finest. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist The new site appears different, gives different information, and gives quantitative information. I do not see how the old discussion is applicable. It would furthermore seem the obvious course to do this discussion as an AfD---at least by the criteria of common sense. It will be much more straightforward to discuss the new site simply as a site, without the minutia of whether it was not validly reconstructed, or validly deleted by speedy, or which rule applied. WP:LAWYER is only an essay, and was in fact written to stem unfair tricks to keep an article, but it makes just as much sense the other way round. DGG 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid G4. >Radiant< 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-redeletion. I've compared the latest version with the version as it stood during the AFD discussion. I am not finding the kind of substantive changes which would indicate that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion have been successfully addressed. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. The point of G4 is to prevent people from recreating the article in a form that does not solve the problems raised in the AFD. If the new article has the same problems as the one that was AFDed, it doesn't really much matter if it's identical, "substantially similar", or just similar;
    Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Restore, as per badlydrawnjeff "The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process". (once it has been recreated then those who oppose can slap an AfD tag on it and get it deleted, this however is not the place to run through a new AfD on a new article). Mathmo Talk 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The point of G4 is to make it easy to delete things where it is obvious that the concerns were not addressed. It is not at all obvious that the concerns were not addressed. -Amark moo! 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T.H.E. Fox – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T.H.E. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
For the purpose of review, I have made a copy of the comic strips under debate. It will be removed after the conclusion of this debate. The comics have been altered from their original file format, but other than that they should be undisturbed, including the non-extension portion of the file name that dates them. GreenReaper 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally come to deletion review, but I'm surprised at this one as there was no consensus to delete. Five votes for keep, two (or possibly three) for delete. One previous vote had been converted to keep on the basis of arguments establishing the comic's notability (namely, that it appears to be the first comic distributed online, dating to 1986 and onwards). WP:WEB is an inappropriate metric to apply to content that appeared several years before the web itself existed, and being the first "webcomic" that we know of in the world seems a clear claim to notability. In response to the closing administrator's comment, I disagree that an interview conducted with the author by the Commodore Roundtable group does not count as a source. Indeed, I would have thought them rather well-placed to determine the comic's provenance and to challenge any inaccuracies. Moreover, several facts from the interview were independently verifiable, as noted in the AfD discussion. GreenReaper 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Wills (wrestling) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Wills (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

On the AFD discussion of the page, there was no clear consensus of how editors felt about the article and not enough editors participating to make any consensus. 4 editors wanted to delete the article (2 of which are questionable/non-prolific editors), and 5 wanted to keep it. One of the editors found a link to a message board about the deletion of the article. Despite valid reasons given on both sides, it was deleted early under WP:SNOW. There was no barrage of keep/delete votes, and the editors did not give enough time to others to find reliable sources (although the article did list some) and just deleted it. Booshakla 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a grand idea, I'll try it next time. ---
WRE) 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't had a chance to look for sources yet, but I am fairly sure that some can be found. And it can be confirmed that his clip was used on
Jimmy Kimmel Live, for sure. But with the 4 that voted to deleted the article, one was a vandal account (and was blocked for removing comments on the AFD), one was a single purpose account with around 100-200 edits, two others were established, but didn't real give any real reasons to why it should be deleted, just made jokes. That is not convincing to me. And I am also an experienced editor and I voted to keep the article and gave valid reasoning. I hope that this can be overturned or reconsidered. Booshakla 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Closing articles early has precedence. The article was created by a forum who has had a history of vandalism on wikipedia and the AFD was getting out of control by the same people. Badlydrawnjeff, I'm highly disappointed about your insulting and incivil additude here. ---
    WRE) 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There are tons of articles here about people with "15 minutes of fame", that's a pretty sharp comment to make. And also, for some more sources, look for some wrestling shows that he's been involved with as a ring announcer. He's done this on a lot of major shows and I'm sure they could be found, since he is a popular wrestling draw in the mid-south, and is probably more notable than most of the independent wrestlers featured on this site, that have got no national TV time, where Dave has. Booshakla 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Clock Crew – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Clock Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

They are an active community (www.clockcrew.cc). See Talk:Clock Crew for more on why this article should be back on Wikipedia. The last admin to change the article is on break. Lurcho 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GRBerry 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bay Ridge Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

I would request a review of the deletion of the above article. While the college does not currently hold accreditation they have applied. Several pages link to the college to include

Warner Pacific College, and Association of Christian College Athletics. Additionally, I am currently researching the colleges move from Mississippi to Texas as a result of threats from the KKK. This would give the college notoriety from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement perspective.
Absolon S. Kent 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Endorse deletion also. Wikipedia is not a billboard for every fake wannabe pseudo-something. And the above poster's comment is not ad hominm; the original poster used a stream of irrelevant non-information as evidence of why his make-believe school should be taken seriously by an encyclopedia.
    Sys Hax 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion, but then again I'm kina feeling what DGG is saying. I'd advice Absolon S. Kent to create the page in his userspace and improve it there. Then come back with an article that you can show us would probably survive another AfD. Mathmo Talk 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recommend continuing in user space. Want a userfied copy? Article doesn't have independent sources, so the only change I see relevant to the AFD discussion is that the college's website is live now. Given that the head of the school has changed since the AFD, there might well be new sources findable, but recreation should start from the sources.
    GRBerry 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thank you for the review/discussion. Much of my original research into the college ("finding the RSs that say X") was contained in the article. Is there anyway to retire the information without starting from scratch to build the page in my user space? On the personnel comment note: I'm a little disappointed in the response tone in what I considered a legitimate request for review. I in no way wanted to present myself as a research expert, but instead was simply stating that I was looking for additional sources on the college. Bay Ridge Christian College is a small institution with limited funding and an interesting history to

Church of God (Anderson) movement. I was not attempting to do any free advertising for the college, but was instead trying to provide information on a top which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about.
Absolon S. Kent 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[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_January_29&oldid=1140437386"