Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 20

I'm closing this: Richard Norton was assuming this article was about the child prodigy composer Alex Prior, but it was about some other Alex Prior that lives in Brisbane instead of London, and is seemingly a typical student. If anyone wants to create an article on the Alex Prior mentioned in the sources, go ahead. Mangojuice^talk 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

featured on BBC The World's Alex Gallafent has the story of 14-year-old prodigy Alex Prior who composed a ballet that's made it to the Russian stage. The work premiered this evening in Moscow. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't see the article for this A7 speedy as I'm not an admin and there was no cache but can you provide a link to the BBC article?
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  [1] & (from Richard) [2] The Novaya Opera in Moscow is actually the best opera in town. Undelete

  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn and keep I think Alex Prior meets the notability test. --Jmbranum 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion
  Alexander Prior the content of that article was "Alexander Prior was born in Janurary 1993 and lives in Brisbane, Australia. He has recieved much credit from activities such as debating and music. He came second in the 2005 ASX Sharmarket challenge." --pgk 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm DRV'ing my own action here, because I'm sure some will consider it controversial. However, over the course of a couple of days aggressively trimming down the article it became clear that the only reason this article exists is to disparage its subject. Unlike some G10 speedies, though, this was sourced - some people have done some very deep research to find unflattering details about this person's life in tangential mentions of minor news media. Ingram is a private investigator who works for the church of Scientology (note to closer: please beware of vote-stacking here), a former cop who was fired amidst some minor controversy over 25 years ago. There are a couple of sources covering that but there are no other sources about him, but some that mention him in passing. There is no substance to the article, no indication why anyone would want to read an article on this person, but plenty of unflattering information. So I deleted it per

• A couple more notes. There is some additional discussion at
  WP:BLPN, WP:ANI, and WP:ANI again. Some merge suggestions have been brought up, but since none is apparently being worked on, and eventualism is deprecated for BLPs, I moved ahead with deletion. Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I note that Thatcher131 had a few days earlier BLP deleted and then self-reverted due to the AFD. However, I think this is a reasonable deletion under
  GRBerry 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse deletion I strongly disagree with using CSD#G10 to delete well sourced articles. At most, they should be blanked with an AfD so we can reach a consensus. That said, I have trouble seeing this as an article that will be or should be kept if we go through AfD. This is precisely the sort of article where a privacy consideration should matter. He is not a public figure, has not attempted to be a public figure and any notability is very borderline. (The fact that he appears to be a jackass and a good representation of the sort of people that the church of scientology hire isn't really relevant to his privacy as such). JoshuaZ 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think G10 has ever cared whether the article was sourced, just whether the only purpose of the article was to attack someone/something (not necessarily the article's subject). BLP, on the other hand, has traditionally only been valid for for unsourced content, but covers negative material that has at least one non-attack reason for existence. Which is why I endorsed the result under G10, to avoid a undesirable expansion of BLP.

  GRBerry

• Overturn I think this is an example of the destructive nature of the BLP rules as they are evolving. He is a public figure with respect to scientology, and those with interest in the controversies regarding scientology would have reason to use the article. Opinion otherwise can be seen as an individual's feeling that oneself would not have occasion. This is an example of how those in denial of a particular factual situation can make use of BLP to censor WP. We are in danger of forgetting our roots when we prohibit sourced negative statements about people. About unsourced, we all agree, about even sourced ones irrelevant to the main thrust of an article we also agree. But about sourced ones in regard to the main activity of the person?DGG 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you figure he's a public figure with respect to Scientology? Moreover, apart from that he is in some sources, why should we have an article on him? And I think it's disputable that this is a case where the sources were relevant to the main thrust of the article. Mangojuice^talk 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think that we need to be very careful on creating BLPs where very little biographical detail is available and undue weight inevitably rules - especially on marginally notable figures.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse this is a non-public person with no true notablity. We can never write a full biography on this person that is well balanced and follow our core content policies. FloNight 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Given that this is a borderline case (according to the nominator himself), how's about undeleting the history so interested parties can actually see what's at issue? --Calton | Talk 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Click on the "cache" link from the first line of this discussion. Mangojuice^talk 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Cool trick, by the way. --Calton | Talk 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I wondered about this one myself but held back, I applaud Mangojuice's bold and IMO entirely correct action. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Overturn BLP permits articles with sourced negative material if the material is relevant to the main thrust of the material, and it clearly is; this was a policeman, now private investigator, against whom a number of charges were brought; he was not convicted, but the material is based soundly on articles in major national sources, including several interviews granted by the subject himself--who apparently has no objection to the matter being widely discussed. In the absence of those interviews, it would have been different & BLP might have been relevant. BLP does not permit deletion of articles such as this, nor should it. BLP should be strict, but narrow. DGG 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Second opinion, struck bolding.

  GRBerry 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Sorry about that. But we do seem to be going in circles this week. (smile) DGG 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I retract my suggestion that this could be borderline. Rap sheet disguised as a biography, and even some of the allegedly neutral material phrased in pejorative ways ("employed as a desk sergeant"?). --Calton | Talk 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translations.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

I’m writing in reference to your deletion of Translations.com. Although a company owned by TransPerfect I believe it has significant scope and international influence to be justified as an individual entry. I was editing today to improve the NPOV and to introduce external links, citations and wikilinks so that the article's merit would be demonstrated. This company works with virtually all the Fortune 1000 and independently of the parent company, making its removal questionable. The speed at which business is growing globally means that the technologies, terminologies and influence of Translations.com is of significant public interest and therefore relevant for Wikipedia. I ask that you restore the pages and allow me some time to improve the NPOV to your standards? 217.204.103.106 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC) --217.204.103.106 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at AfD from the cache I can see this was not a valid G11. It might have been a bit POV but it was not blatant advertising. -N 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now neutral. I think the article looks fine but the COI (including a IP who just deleted a big comment on this page) makes it look fishy. -N 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment now posted below, I had put it in the wrong place so deleted it. Like i said, Im still getting used to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.103.106 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse current redirect, noting in passing that both articles were substantially the work of
  single-purpose accounts. Unsurprisingly, given edits like this, the requesting IP resolves to TransPerfect, inc. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse myself. This was part of a major coordinate promotion campaign by two clearly affiliated users. [3][4][5][6][7]. Theoretically speaking, Christie and Excelsior deserve indefblocks as spam-only accounts. Any op who reads these words may feel free to do so if s/he agrees. -- Y not? 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My intention is not to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, it is a genuine belief that the thousands of people who require information on technologies, terminologies, market developments and influential companies in the globalization and localization industries should have that information available to them. This is a cutting edge industry and Translations.com works with virtually all the Fortune 1000 companies who require these services, making it an important inclusion on Wikipedia. My intention was to link all articles, external inks, citations that are available on the subject to these sites, making them genuinely neutral. This is an interesting subject matter to me, and many others. I am new to Wikipedia and if the activity of extending the article to include more links has raised concerns then please inform me or direct me to a better means of doing this. I ask again that Translations.com be reinstated. Thanks, C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.103.106 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse merge A redirect to an article which does not mention the subject is not a useful way of doing things; fortunately, that can be fixed by inserting a paragraph about this site in the article for the company that runs it. I think it's notable enough as article content. C, would this be acceptable? DGG 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no independent reliable sources have written a feature length focus piece on this website, so it isnt notable. All I can find in Google News Archives are press releases and invester bulletins. I have added a few snippets of information on
  John Vandenberg 23:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

ALF (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was no concensus to delete; the nomination search for sources was quickly shown to have been lacking, SlimVirgin's rationale for deletion was "I've read elsewhere that people have been having trouble finding third-party sources for this" and user BPMullins and Jquarry both claimed that the only sources were by the language creator, which was contested without response. The reason I contested it was the paper "Logic Programming Tools for Advanced Internet Programming" in Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 1997 International Symposium was written by Paul Tarau, who is not listed as an author of ALF. Besides a general

• Overturn now, sources have been provided. Delete again if article is not cleaned up by DRV close. -N 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Disagree with delete again statement. Recommend instead to Stub the article and clean it up when possible, without artificial timetables. SqlPac 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn the deletion. The rationales for deletion were thoroughly refuted by several people who cited several
  Verifiable
  sources (which ideally will be included in the updated version of the article.) Those who voted to delete did not bother responding to those who contested their statements. Some indicated that they did not even bother checking the sources supplied, and made their decision based on the title, which seems wholly insufficient to delete an article. Based on the sources and the number of published works, ALF appears to be notable. Citations provided include works by:

• Prof. Simon Thompson, Director and Professor of Logic and Computation at Kent University
• Harold Boley, Adjunct Professor, Computer Science, University of New Brunswick and Leader, Semantic Web Laboratory, Institute for Information Technology - e-Business, NRC; member of the
  W3C and co-author of the Semantic Web Rule Language
  spec.
• Rolf Grütter, scientific project manager and lecturer, Institute for Media and Communications Management, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
• Prof. Michael Wooldridge, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool

And several others who are not the original language creators. SqlPac 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - is this a joke? It's well known in academic circles. By the way, I remember it from my comparative languages class at Tech which is why I was so shocked to see it here. It's definitely an encyclopedic topic. --BigDT 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I originally closed this as delete, and then after a while I changed my interpertation to no consensus. I am reopening this to allow this DRV to run its full length to allow for addition comments regarding this closure of afd per request. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. The arguments for keep were cogent and those for delete were weak (and incorrect). Even if all statements were weighted equally, there was no consensus. Notability is established in the article and sources given. Clearly the article can be improved (by giving a non-technical introduction) but the article is not particularly weak. Thank you for undeleting temporarily (so I could see the article!) and I realise that it may be difficult to assess what is inevitably a technical article. Thincat 10:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - The article is sourced to the creator of the language, 90% of the sources in the google scholar search results posted by editors in the AFD are either authored by Hanus (the creator), co-authored or edited by him. After filtering through the remaining ones, most references to ALF are 'an example of such' complete with a list or are written by the authors Hanus worked with on the project or on books about it in the past.
• A single brief mention as an example of that type of language does not make a notable language. Also, to BigDT - why would it have been a joke? It had gone via AFD and there is a 66% majority in favour of deletion (which would be a supermajority, but not necessarily a consensus). As the keep comments, in my view don't actually manage to show notability, I would say it was a good decision to delete.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 83% in favour of overturning deletion consistutes a superdupermajority. SqlPac 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a joke because of exactly what Tony said below - this is the kind of thing I would expect to be discussed in an encyclopedia. I learned about this language at Tech. Things that you learn about in school are kinda sorta the things you think would expect to find in a reference material that holds itself out as containing the sum of human knowledge. Garage bands from Singapore that have a MySpace page and got a write-up in their local newspaper once or twice we can do with out. But articles on academic subjects ought to be in here. --BigDT 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the point - there was an AFD, so why would you talk about 'is this a joke'? Procedure was followed, so it isn't a joke. My point is that you should stick to your reasoning rather than making hyperbolic comments such as those - otherwise you are simply being offensive to those who disagree with your viewpoint.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There seems to be enough sources to justify article. Loom91 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn if it's the Alf discussed here: http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~mh/systems/ALF.html

  This is the kind of thing I'd expect to be discussed in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's the same ALF currently under discussion. Pound for pound it seems you find less academic content and more stuff about state flags and celebs du jour around here. SqlPac 23:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And don't forget about plot summaries of every episode of every TV series ever made. --BigDT 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep the personal opinions about what should be generally here to yourselves, they are inappropriate. Also, you say 'yes this is the thing discussed here' - but that is because it is the site of the author! Hanus created the language...-Localzuk^(talk) 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your personal opinion about the author of the site is irrelevant, please keep it to yourself. The poster asked if it was the same "ALF" described at another website. It is. That's that. Your opinion of that website has no bearing on anything in particular. SqlPac 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you miss the point - Hanus created the language, so citing him on anything to do with it in order to show notability is flawed and pointless. My opinion on the author of the site wasn't even mentioned - it is simply that he is the creator of ALF and as such not a suitable source to show notability. My other comment about the the inappropriate comments stand - they serve simply to do one thing, belittle the opinions of other editors. This is simply uncivil and is A Bad Thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fortunately for me I did not cite "him on anything to with it in order to show notability". I also don't take much interest in peripheral side-arguments that miss the point of the main discussion entirely. There are already more than enough bureaucrats trying to
              WikiLawyer their opinions onto others. SqlPac 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • No, you didn't cite him - but you did respond to a DRV that is based on an AFD which called for the deletion of the article based on the fact that notability has not been proven, and then an editor based his comment on the creator's website - completely missing the entire notability argument. Also, I don't care about your perceptions of bureaucrats or wikilawyers and find the comment to be completely odd and irrelevant, a side argument if you will. None of my arguments have been side-arguments, all are related directly to endorsing the deletion of an article which fails to show notability.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • One of the arguments for the AfD was that notability had not been proven. If you were actually concerned about disproving notability, then look up the published works provided above and then respond to the statement that these published works indicate notability. Everything else is an irrelevant side-argument, if you will. Including accusations that I cited "him on anything to do with it in order to show notability", which you called "flawed and pointless". Which, by your own admission, I did not do. As for the question at hand, it did not ask whether the item was "notable" based on the website given; it asked "are we discussing the same thing as what's on this website". And the answer remains an emphatic YES, and nothing you've provided so far in this thread changes that fact. Perhaps you have something to prove that the ALF in the article, and the one on the website are actually two different things? If not, then I believe this thread is finished. SqlPac 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is right to bear in mind the self-publishing caution at
  WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) but when someone creates a programming language it is not unreasonable to take the creator's papers as being reliable about the nature of the language itself. This in itself does not establish notability. If the creator and his colleagues are the only people to use ALF, the topic may well not be notable. So, seeing as the matter has been challenged, I have added to the article a reliable third party reference to the fact of the language's (notable) existence and use. The many citations of Hamus' publications about ALF also establish notability though I do not think it helps the article to quote these. Example applications using ALF, and a non-technical introduction, would help the article (in my view). Thincat 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If "notability" standards tell us that this language isn't to be included in the encyclopedia, the standards are unreliable in this case and should be ignored. Most likely they were compiled by people who have little experience with this subject. A bit of common sense goes a long way. As this is an academic programming language, asking for example applications is missing the point somewhat. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article did not have the delrev template posted on it and as such some people may not have known this discussion is occurring. I have posted it now. I'm posting this comment so that whoever closes the DRV can take this into account when considering how long it has ran/-Localzuk^(talk) 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also for whoever closes this review: The AfD did not reach consensus, as pointed out by the person who deleted the article after AfD and Localzuk during this discussion. SqlPac 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stephen Myron Schwebel.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Stephen Myron Schwebel.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image was deleted with reason: "Replaceable fair use to be decided after 6 June 2007". I'm motioning an overturn because although this photograph is courtesy Max Koot, it has been cleared for free publishing on the web. It took me about an hour to wade through all information available regarding upload instructions and licences, however did not know there was such a thing as DRV. I hope we can resolve this manner without too much bloodshed, since if you'd really want to play hardball, you'd have to consider removing a lot more honourable photographs than just this one. ExpendableAsset 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse replaceable image of living individual, request made by single purpose account, no argument for undeletion besides
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -N 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I'm the editor who deleted this image. The subject is important, and deserves an image on Wikipedia, but it will need to be a free image. Hopefully someone will provide one. By the way, I love hardball, and I remove as many non-free and replaceable photographs as I possibly can. I've deleted literally thousands, and there's still more work to do. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you focus your energy on providing replacements instead of deleting material that is technically replaceable but never gets replaced? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I criticize you for the cleanup tasks you choose to do? A

backlog exists, and I take care of it. Also, please note the thousands of free images I contribute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not the responsibility of the deleting admin to carry a camera around the world in hopes of catching a glimpse of every individual whose non-free image they delete. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide only images which meet Wikipedia's policies. Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If we don't delete the replaceable images, they never will be replaced. If we are willing to use a promo photo that is unlicensed or which is given to us under a restrictive license, then nobody is ever going to give us a freely licensed one. Think about it - for an article on "Bob", Bob's company has a vested interest in having the article look as nice as possible. So they have an interest in giving us a photo under whatever terms we ask, but they certainly aren't going to give us a less restrictive photo if we are willing to take a restrictive one. Are we going to get one in every case? No, but we will get them in a lot of cases. --BigDT 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I really don't like the policy that images that might theoretically be replaceable with a free image must be deleted, but consensus is against me there, and this is definitely plausibly replacable. And sorry, but we have more restrictions on what can be considered a free image than just permission to freely publish on the Internet. -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia does not accept images of living people that are unlicensed or available only on a restrictive license. --BigDT 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The deletion was in accordance with policy and aims of Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As the subject of the picture is alive, and the only purpose of the image is to show what he looks like, standard WP practice is to presume that the image is reasonably replacable. Without an argument against that, I can't see challenging the deletion. ExpendableAsset: yes, there are probably lots more pictures that violate the policy, and they should all be deleted too, and we're working on it. Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]