Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 9

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

I wasn't finished editing page, but regardless the references I did manage to add regarding Zoey Grey publicity with the Dreams Take Flight program included multiple mentions and appearances on mainstream Televised News Reports (Ontario) and International Radio Stations (FL/NY/Toronto), and refernces will likely be expanded to include newsprint. This should be sufficient to establish atleast questionable notability worthy of Review not Speedy Deletion. The article was deleted while I was creating it regardless of "in use" and "under construction" tags being present. I'm requesting that the article be restored so I can finish writing it (and compiling incoming media references) and then if the offended editors still insist on following up on it's deletion that it be done via the appropriate method. Thank you for taking the time to review and hopefully restore this article. ZoeyGrey 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could restore the article to my user page so I can complete it before reposting; currently her commentary (representional of a notable peer group) has been featured on

As this is an active current event there will likely be additional media references to follow once they return and additional articles regarding the program she is a part of are scheduled for tomorrow morning in the Toronto Sun. While the future press article (may or) may not feature Zoey's publicized commentary I would like to assert that it is directly relevant as it refers to a undertaken done on her behalf and that she has openly spoken for in multiple mainstream media feeds. ZoeyGrey 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If name dropping counts Zoey is currently being shaperoned on the trip by

P.S.S. Contrary to my username I am not Zoey Grey and will be happy to change my username if it causes conflicts with the TOS, otherwise it is intended for personal reference to allow me to manage related contributions (Air Canada, Dreams Take Flight, Zoey Grey, etc).

If you are the Zoey Grey that is the subject of this deletion review, then of course, you can use your real name. However, if I am reading that you are not him, I will suggest to get the username changed, due to issues of impersonation. See me at my talk page and I can help you go in the right direction. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to userfy it once a username change has been performed and work with you on the development of the article.

Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Just userfy the page, per the nom's request. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article about an actor consisted largely of a filmography which had been copied from the listing at the

• Overturn, as deleted, it was no longer a copy/paste from IMDB. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per nom, not a copyvio. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not a copyvio. Definitely needs cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Original version was an IMDb copypaste, as were two other articles by the same user which have since been speedied, but this one had been modified to the point where it was no longer speedy-able. --Finngall ^talk 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but part of my point is that even a pure IMDB copypaste, if limited to a filmography, is not a copyvio and should not be speedy deleted. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I missed the subsequent wikification, for which I apologise unreservedly to DES, this is a simple list of facts with IMDB style formatting. The article in it's first creation contained this:

• Au Pair III
  (2007) (TV) (filming) .... Alex Caldwell
• "Medium" .... Boy (1 episode, 2005)

Coded (2005) TV Episode .... Boy

• "The Young and the Restless" .... Young Michael Baldwin (1 episode, 2004)

Episode #1.8002 (2004) TV Episode .... Young Michael Baldwin

• "Boston Public" .... Steve Gough (1 episode, 2003)

Chapter Seventy-Four (2003) TV Episode .... Steve Gough

• "The Legend of Tarzan" .... Ian Doyle (1 episode, 2001)

... aka Disney's the Legend of Tarzan (USA: complete title)

Tarzan and the Protege (2001) TV Episode (voice) .... Ian Doyle

• "Touched by an Angel" .... Joey (1 episode, 2001)

The Face of God (2001) TV Episode .... Joey

• Au Pair II (2001) (TV) .... Alex Caldwell
• "Charmed" .... Fairy (1 episode, 2000)

Once Upon a Time (2000) TV Episode .... Fairy

• Au Pair
  (1999) (TV) .... Alex Caldwell
• "The Hughleys" .... Ralph (1 episode, 1999)

Jungle Gym Fever (1999) TV Episode .... Ralph

• "Party of Five" .... Young Bailey Salinger (1 episode, 1998)

Go Away (1998) TV Episode .... Young Bailey Salinger

Are we saying that this isn't a copyright violation of this --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Under the Feist rule that source has no copyright protection, it is in effect a public domain source, just as a telephone directory now is. DES ^(talk) 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. As I understand it, the information isn't copyrightable but the arrangement can be. And this arrangement is a direct cut-and-paste of IMDB's arrangement. In any case, you can undelete it if you like, but that just means a five-day life extension, just long enough to go through the obvious
  WP:AFD Discussion of Doom. Process for its own sake is pretty silly. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Not a copyvio. As for the previous "arrangement" comment, it's almost impossible to "arrange" a chronilogical order listing of films any differently. Use double spacing perhaps? --Oakshade 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding year subheads if there are sufficient items, as seem to be the case. Overturn DGG 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete non-infringing versions and expand. Has the potential to be more than a list of films/shows; this article would be a good place to start.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted version was already a little more than a simple filmography, it included information about an award nominmation this actor had recieved, with a citation to a non-IMDB source, plus links supporting the detials of the filmography from other sources as well. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - regardless of any minor procedural flaws, it's pretty clear from the IMDB listing reproduced here that the subject does not pass
  WP:BIO. Save us all the trouble of an AFD and keep this gone. Otto4711 04:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Award-nominated child actor, with multiple major roles -- I think this does pass
    WP:DRV. From the "purpose" section of the instructions for this page: This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content. This is one of the very few wikipedia pages that is and should be primarily about process and procedure, IMO. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion. No evidence that he's done anything but appear once in a while in TV series. He was nominated for an award, but imdb shows no awards that he has won. I see no major roles. Corvus cornix 22:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) it shouldn't matter, this was deleted as a copyvio which it isn't, questions of whether this passes BIO should be left to an AFD where all can see the article. That's what the "Relist" choice is for. 2) three of thsoe listings are for full-length made-for-tv movies, and 2 are for films, not TV shows. Still sure this woudn't pass BIO? DES ^(talk) 01:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Not a second Cfd. Per Corvus, we can't put every person with an imdb profile on wiki. Sleep On It 09:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment that argument may well be right, but its an argument for discussing at AfD. WP:SNOW seems to be the argument above, but its clear the matter is not-quite so one-sidedas all that. The speedy was as a copyvio. it isn't. There's no justification for speedy on other grounds--notability is asserted, though not certain. If one can't justify a speedy, one's left with AfD. We can't be deleting articles on the basis that they probably won't survive AfD. Better to have the discussion than appear unfair. DGG 05:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daxflame.JPG (edit | [[Talk:Image:Daxflame.JPG|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was uploaded by

Wouldn't it be better to wait until after we've established contact? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to instruct a new user on how to apply a licensing template to an image that has been deleted. —

talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Once you contact him, you can ask for clarification on the release and then have him reupload or ask for undeletion as clarified. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is this image to be used for?
  WP:CSD#A7 and the user has no other contributions other than to his user page. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Non-notability is not a criteria for deletion for images. If the user is willing to properly license the image, there would be no reason it couldn't be orphaned indefinitely. A potential use might be in the general
    talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• It was a question, not a recommendation. Using an image of yourself uploaded by yourself on the YouTube article would, of course, invite assertions of vanity. But the main use appears to have been i the trice-deleted article Dax Flame, and with that article gone I'd be faintly surprised if it had any use. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• On Commons maybe, but it would be a bit silly here as we strive to be an encyclopedia not an image repository. --kingboyk 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion As above, I couldn't imagine a reasonable use for such an image. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in my reply to Guy, could be used in the
    talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I would think that there would be many more pictures that fit that criteria. Keeping them all would be quite a thing to do. I know that WP is not paper... but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of screenshots from youtube. -- Ben 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Let's not kid ourselves: there is no way this picture would have been used for anything else but to add a picture to an already deleted page. The argument for adding the picture to YouTube's article is irrelevant -- we can't judge things on what they might have been used for. We act based on what it was, which was a picture without proper copyright tags and was jusifiably deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It could probably be used on User:Dax_Flame, if the user was so inclined. Lots of Wikipedians have uploaded photos of themselves to use on their userpages. That said, I'd be inclined to keep it deleted unless the user in question expresses a desire to use it in this manner, as the potential encyclopedic applications seem somewhat limited. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai Nyu Rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

NOTABILITY 209.145.167.81 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one published literary source mentions the Priory Rugby Club by name as the oldest and most accomplished junior rugby team in Missouri (see "In Good Soil": http://www.amazon.com/Good-Soil-Founding-Priory-1954-1973/dp/0966210417/ref=sr_1_1/002-8021912-0026420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178681222&sr=1-1 Since "notable" is defined as " "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". [It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education...] The fact that over a dozen junior league teams now exist in Missouri due to the efforts of the Priory Rugby Club, I hope this would qualify it as having had a demonstrable effect on athletics and education (granted, ony on a regiona level) Consider also the following links: http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ru/rugby_football.htm http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Rugby_à_XV http://www.recipeland.com/facts/Rugby_football http://www.solarnavigator.net/sport/rugby_union.htm http://www.123exp-sports.com/t/01984570350/ 209.145.167.81 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Still a high-school sports team. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete And has been for fifty years. High school status notwithstanding, it is still important. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by 209.145.167.81 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, arguments to keep at AfD were properly addressed and rebuked by Wikipedia notability guidelines. As for the book, per the Amazon listing, it is published by Saint Louis Abbey, which runs the school; therefore it is a primary source and cannot be used to establish secondary notability; more imporantly, the book was mentioned in the AfD and therefore does not indicate "new information" in the sense of deletion review. Indeed, deletion review is not AfD part deux per se, and this is essentially the same argument made by the nominator in the AfD. Neither the deletion rationale nor the links above provide any indication or
  WP:ORG, and would read like a website for this club, and thus recreation is not recommended. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think you mean "non-independent source", not "primary source" But of course that, too, isn't usable for notability. DGG 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

We failed to reach consensus last time; many of us were left feeling as though emotions ("I feel she's notable...") and identity-politics ("She is important to all of Quebec") were ruling the day on Wikipedia. Some have pointed out, correctly, that Ms Couture-Nowak is indeed the subject of multiple, independent articles. That might usually imply notability. But not here. Witness:

• From
  WP:BIO
  "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." True, but:
• "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." I think the coverage has been fairly superficial, being a recitation of the facts of her life, ie obituary-like; but even if we grant this, we read:
• "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There are multiple sources, yes; but:
• "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." And therein lies the problem -- all of the articles written about Ms Couture-Nowak, while not "trivial", have been essentially obituaries stemming from the attention she received being a victim in the massacre, not based on Couture-Nowak's life itself: that is the definition of incidental. (The rest: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable." Moot to this argument.)
• In conclusion: Not for Wikipedia, should be moved to WikiBios, where the above criteria do not present a problem.
  I exhort everyone -- for the sake of having a real dialog, please keep your comments non-insulting, and cite policy pages specifically. It doesn't help things to have people show up and write "Keep/Delete, as per nom" or "as per so-and-so" because this is not a vote! Pablosecca 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I'm the closing admin of the AfD, so I'll remain neutral): I closed the debate as no consensus because there was exactly that: no clear consensus, with plenty of arguments, convincing and unconvincing, on both sides. The purpose of DRV is to review deletions that may have been improperly closed; if you feel my judgment was incorrect, feel free to continue this DRV, but as stated at
  talk) 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I appreciate your comment; in my notes above I should have been clearer that I thought that your closure, with its lack of commentary, terse as it was, showed poor judgment in that there was consensus, once one strikes out simple "Keep/Delete" votes and votes that neither cited nor expressed recognized Wikipedia policy. From Wikipedia:consensus: "Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons." It is your responsibility as an admin to adjudicate on these matters with all lucidity, the which you did not. Did the admin even read the discussion? Assuming good faith, let's say he did; but that was not evidenced in his decision, which silenced a complex debate with a decision of "no consensus". There is a difference between a genuinely unresolvable matter and a complex matter. It does harm to policy-building to have pages survive by virtue of default through "lack of consensus", especially when the details of that "lack" are so conspicuously absent in the admin's decision.
    SECONDLY, there is no reason to treat matters that have ended in a judgment of "no consensus" as being somehow final. I affirm they are not, but are instead to-be-decided or deferred. In this case, the authors of the article have time to find more material. Pablosecca 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse AfD Closure and very recent DRV- Within the last 10 days we've had an AfD that was overturned by a DRV and and 2nd full AfD that ended in no consensus. Unless the AfD closure was out of process or seriously flawed, there is no reason to yet again review this. This is not a place to re-hash deletion/keep arguements, especially if we just went through them 3 times. --Oakshade 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oakshade, when you re-opened the AfD decision, your reasoning was parallel to mine: that the decision was improper based on the merits -- and now you say that any such reasoning is wrong? Forget it; let's say you learned your lesson: in any event, the decision reached by the admin was not Keep or Delete but "No consensus", which isn't something necessarily permanent; by definition, it is a decision reached through a lack of decision, a lack of decision that I am arguing was erroneous and unjustified. Compare Waleed Shaalan's AfD, which ended in delete -- another so-called "lack of consensus" which the admin was trenchant enough to see through -- vs Loganathan's entry, which I thought should be deleted, but wasn't -- but in the end, the admin made a decision to keep Loganathan, and I now accept that. The point is, Krimpet's adjudication was flawed and weak, as it did not sufficiently engage the issues. We need either a Keep or Delete; or if it's no consensus, very specific explanations as to why. Pablosecca 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A 'no consensus' close is short for 'no consensus to delete, therefore default to keep'. A 'keep' close is short for exactly the same thing. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy:"...pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." It's all just semantics. If it really bothers you, I can go change the result from no consensus to a keep if you want. - Bobet 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The concern seems to be that this persons notability is somehow not "Strong enough" for each of the several phases of her life. She is an educator, but not one who is famous for a great discovery, an political activist, who just started a school system, not overthew a Government, and is just another american shooting victim. If I look at the subject, I have to ask myself if this subject would be in the Canadian encyclopedia. (yes Wikipedia is a world wide project but that means that it must include topics that are noteable in major areas of the world.) Just her contributions to education in atlantic canada would justify her incluion in TCE. The article may have been written as someone made note of her from the shooting, but she would certainly be notable in her native land.
  • The question for Wikipedia is if someone is natable in say Germany, or Australia does that make them notable for the encyclopedia as a whole? I would urge that decison to be yes. We are no dealing with a limit on pages here like a phyical publisher, so including someone does not mean removing someone else. The question is more will anyone be interested in finding out about this topic or person. In this case since she has made a minor contribution to several fields, I would guess that the chance of someone wanting to learn more may in fact be grater than of someone who has made ONE contibution in one field.
  • There is some barrier where their is the desire not to create an article for every shooting victim, where there only contibution is being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but when someone comes to our attention in this way, it is only right to read the obits carefully to decide if the subject has in fact made a contribution to society that would create interest in the future.
  • Finaly before I stop, may I say that repeated attempts to delete content are not in the spirit of of an open resource. Yes you want to delete spam, advertising, and quirky uninteresting posts, but any article where there is not consenus that it falls into the catagory where it SHOULD be deleted, probaly has merit to remain as part of the whole. I would think that the "resonable doubt" has been created in this case and this article should stay.cmacd 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn no consensus closure and close as keep. Very few, if any, delete suggestions dealt in policy, and rather went with poor arguments that didn't address the issues at hand. The only problem with this closure is that those arguments weren't weighed properly - the end result, that the article continues to exist, was proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, that was a quite arrogant if not insulting comment. Delete arguments were "poor" and "not dealing with policy"? Can you come up with some theory on why so many of us feel that this article should be deleted, other than the fact that its existence here violates policy? Medico80 14:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]