Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 2

Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png (edit | [[Talk:Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image is the only source for the historical 1900 Brooklyn baseball uniform. There is no free alternative for this image which was included on the 1900 Brooklyn Superbas season page to show the teams uniform at the time. Also restore all other historical Brooklyn uniforms deleted including File:Nl 1934 brooklyn.png, File:Nl 1935 brooklyn.png, File:Nl 1936 brooklyn.png and others. No reasonable alternative for showing this information exists. Spanneraol 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I presume the deleting admin's assumption is that it's replaceable because someone could make one. There's nothing particularly unique about this image; it's just a modern replica somebody drew. So somebody else could do the same and release it under a free license.
  Chick Bowen 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only way to make one would be to copy the original versions since there are no other sources of what the uniforms looked like. They don't exist anymore and old photos are blurry and hard to make out. The same copyright issues would be prevailent in duplicating the image. No reason why the existing images can not be used. Spanneraol 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The description of the uniform is well-known enough, and anyone could draw their own version of that picture. It's pretty clearly replaceable. --Haemo 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The old versions from the early 1900s are not well-known. Spanneraol 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would a drawing by a Wikipedian improving on the blurry, hard to make out old photos be
  original research? If the blurry, hard to make out old photos are the best available images and they are free, shouldn't they be used over potentially fair use images? -- Jreferee t/c 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Of course it's not original research--it's how we do all such images. See, for example,
  Chick Bowen 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse as original deletion nominator. Until last month, we were using these non-free images from the Baseball Hall of Fame to illustrate team uniforms on virtually all of our major league baseball team articles. If you look at the articles now, the uniform pictures have been replaced with free images made by Wikipedians. These Dodgers uniform pictures are pretty much the last non-free uniform images we have on Wikipedia, and they can be replaced with free images as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 6 (Image:ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG) for the last time this issue came up at DRV. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The decision made then, which I disagreed with, was that someone could take a picture of the player in uniform, which is obviously not possible with a uniform from 1900. Spanneraol 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They ended up being replaced with drawings, not photos, which can also be done in this case. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was the admin who deleted this image. It was tagged as replaceable by another user on September 28, and no one disputed the tag. No one added {{
  Replaceable fair use disputed}}, and no one bothered to state that they thought the image was not replaceable, either on the talk page or the image description page. After 7 days without dispute, I speedied it under CSD:I7. I can't see any way of arguing that the deletion was out of process. As to whether it's truly replaceable, it's a drawing. Someone drew it. Someone could draw a similar picture at any time that would give the same information. (The image description page even notes that the copyright-holder is not known -- a violation of NFCC#10 as well as NFCC#1.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not accurate Quadell, I put the {{
  Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on most of the images with reasons why it wasn't replacable. And the files were deleted on October 2nd, that is certainly not seven days after September 28. Also, the image description page said who the copyright holder was. Spanneraol 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Looks like we have a policy conflict.
  WP:CSD says seven days. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This deletion review is for
  Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag, and it never had a reason why it was non-replaceable. Look through the logs. I didn't delete the others. The image description page clearly gives two possibilities of who may hold the copyright, not specifying which. Further, you did not bring it up with me before bringing this to DRV, as required in the instructions, and you didn't notify me afterward either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well Videmus never notified me that he had tagged the 1900 image... I had a number of images he tagged and I placed the other tag on the ones I noticed. Spanneraol 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I said that the other images would be tagged as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Links to relevant policy were requested. The basis for not using non-free drawings is, of course,
  WP:NFCC#1, which says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is all solidified by the Foundation's licensing policy which says we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." It just stands to reason that if a drawing was made then, a new drawing can be made now. Compare the examples of unacceptable images: "A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted" and "A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The original drawings were done by Mark Okkunen for his "Baseball Uniforms of the 20th century" book and were the result of extensive research. That research can not be easily duplicated. Someone would have to basicaly copy his images anyways. Is that preferable to using the images that are available already on multiple baseball websites, not just the hall of fame. Spanneraol 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not "copying his image" to create a new image from scratch based on the data in his image. (The data can't be copyrighted, just the creative content.) That's analogous to the difference between rewriting sentences in your own words, or copying someone else's complete sentences. Yes, it's preferable to create new sentences from scratch that basically say the same thing. In fact, it's prohibited to copy someone else's sentence in these situations. For the exact same reasons, it's preferable (and required) to recreate your own drawings that contain the same information, rather than use non-free images that are found on the web. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is that anyone can write a sentence, creating a quality drawing requires a measure of artistic talent that not everyone possesses. Spanneraol 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the requirement is not that a particular person can create the image, but that some Wikipedia can reasonably create the image. I suggest again that you contact User:Silent Wind of Doom, who created the other baseball uniform drawings. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a huge difference between a photograph of something and creating a drawing.
  WP:NFCC#1 should be read to expect only a reasonable effort, such as "... or could reasonably be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Expecting someone to redraw the uniform images that otherwise meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria seems unreasonable. Redrawing copyrighted work does not create free work, it creates a derivative work that still needs to meet fair use criteria. In particular, if Wikipedians used the non-free images from the Baseball Hall of Fame that were illustrating team uniforms to generate their own drawings and included major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original drawings, then the images made by Wikipedians are derivative works, each of which would need to meet Wikipedia's fair use requirements. They certainly would not be free images. In addition, if the three dimensional uniforms in question are not 100 years old or otherwise fall in the public domain, three dimensional uniforms are protected by copyright and creating drawings of the actual uniforms worn by baseball players would be considered derivative works if those drawings included major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original drawings. If you compare Image:NLW-Uniform-LAD.PNG to [1], the Wikipedia image obviously includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original drawings. Image:NLW-Uniform-LAD.PNG is not free and needs to meet the fair use requirements. -- Jreferee t/c 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is not a derivative work to create a new drawing of a player that uses the information from the copyrighted drawing. Remember, data cannot be copyrighted, only creative content. If you attempted to copy the way the figures are standing, for instance, you might be copying copyrighted content. But if you're using their information about the uniform layout, which they obtained through "sweat-of-the-brow" research, you're not using their copyrighted material. The uniform itself isn't copyrighted -- just the drawing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare Image:NLW-Uniform-LAD.PNG to [2]. All the major elements have been copied. The stylized lettering of "Dodgers", the way "Dodgers" angles up the shirt from the right arm to the left arm, how "Dodgers" resides just above the third button, the red/blue/white scheme of "Dodgers", "5", the hat, and the belt, how "5" sits to the lower right of "Dodgers", the "LA" patch on the left arm sleeve, the stylized "LA" on the hat, etc. SWoD did not just copy the factual, utilitarian features of the Dodgers uniform (the fact that there is a hat, a shirt, a belt, pants, and indicia), he copied the creative expression as well. There is not one major copyrighted element that SWoD did not copy. And "copy" is the operative word of copyright. While the clothing itself may not be copyrighted, the features that can be identified separately from and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of clothing are copyright. The indicia on that uniform fits this separately identifiable language and is copyrighted. I do not see how anyone could say that SWoD's drawing of the Dodger's uniform is anything other than a derivative work. -- Jreferee t/c 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think it's unreasonable to think that a baseball uniform pattern could be drawn, how do you explain those ones that SWoD created? I think the
  WP:NFC example of unacceptable use ""A chart or graph. These can almost always be recreated from the original data." indicates pretty strongly that recreating this sort of image is not unreasonable at all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The drawings created by SWoD are
  WP:NFCC#1 would seem to not require that Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png be deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The SWoD drawings are not violations of BBHoF's copyright at all. You could take them to
  Feist v. Rural – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This derivative approach idea to the baseball uniforms issue was a bad one. Not only can we not use SWoD drawings, but we can't even use the original drawings from baseballhalloffame.org under fair use. Since SWoD's drawings are sitting in Wikipedia's database, the original drawings from baseballhalloffame.org reasonably can be created. Thus,
  WP:NFCC#1 prohibits fair use of the original drawings from baseballhalloffame.org that have corresponding SWoD drawings sitting in Wikipedia's database. And we can't use SWoD drawings under fair use because they are derivative works. -- Jreferee t/c 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• (Unindenting) Perhaps I'm confused about the argument Jreferee is making. The main image that is contested here, Image:Nl 1900 brooklyn.png, is a recent drawing of a uniform from 1900. The design of the uniform is not copyrighted. Do we all agree on this? For the others, so long as they were designed before 1978, they will only be copyrighted if the designs themselves were submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, looks like no one disagrees with that point. So elements of the design of the uniform (the stylized lettering of "Dodgers", the way "Dodgers" angles up, etc., that Jreferee mentioned above) are not copyrighted. Only the BBHoF images are coprighted, and (as SWoD has helpfully demonstrated), definitively replaceable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This pertains to the article Ronald A. Carson He is a wonderkid african-american political operative who has worked with American President Bill Clinton and has worked alongside James Carville, Hollywood celebrities, notable U.S. Senators, Governors and professional athletes. He has a following of thousands upon thousands. Many young African Americans saw his page as inspiration that they also can be something. The main hang-up appeared to be his notability. Well, the aurora advocate articles are two articles that were specifically written about him. That is a third party, neutral account of his notability. Thousands of people saw his article as a reason for hope. Please allow them to continue to dream and see one of their own in a positive light. There is no question that he is notable. This would be a huge injustice if his page were deleted. Alinob77 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. - No assertion of notability was made. By the cached article, it doesn't look like any assertion of notability could be made. There are thousands of people that work on every presidential campaign. That doesn't make them notable. Notability is not inherited, and this is a key example of why. Being an employee of a notable company or notable person does not in turn make you notable. Speedy was the correct response. -- Smashville 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Actually, I think the professor with this name deleted back in 2006 looks more likely to be notable, and certainly had a stronger assertion of notability. That could change; please do let us know if he ever makes any progress toward his "aspirations of one day becoming President of the United Sates". For those without access to the deleted article, the citations were "1.^ The Aurora Advocate, September 2, 1998. White House is not unfamiliar spot for Lombardo Carson 2.^ The Aurora Advocate, February 7, 2001. Lombardo-Carson eyes life in politics" (no links used). The subject is apparently a resident of
  GRBerry 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - A7 applies. Comment: The cited references list "Lombardo Carson" and the topic is about "Ronald Alphonse “Ron” Carson." I'm not sure if the cited references are about the Ron Carson. -- Jreferee t/c 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, a valid application of
  criteria A7. Working in a junior capacity on election campaigns is not an assertion of notability; political campaigns will take on almost anyone who volunteers. A senior campaign operative who directs the strategy for an important candidacy is notable but that is not what we have here. Sam Blacketer 10:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• UNDELETE Comment. On the contrary, Ronald A. Carson appears to be much more than a "volunteer" He is indeed "A senior campaign operative directs the strategy for an important candidacy" Therefore, he is notable. A national advance aide is all of these things and he has done all of these things at a very young age. Very notable. -- Alinob77 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDELETE Comment. I would tend to agree. The case has been made that said subject is notable enough for inclusion on our site. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDELETE Comment. I have spoken with the editor of the newspaper of the articles that were cited as sources. He has confirmed that the articles were indeed written about Ronald A. Carson, aka, Ron Lombardo-Carson (mother re-married) He has also stated that he would be more than happy to confirm the presence of these articles. He stated that the articles on Ronald A. Carson were written before the paper decided to put their archives online. The archives start in 2002 and the articles about Ronald A. Carson were written in 1998 and 2001 respectively. However, they still exist in hardcopy and on microfilm. I also have learned that Carson is one of the most notable individuals in the history of Aurora, Ohio. This is great grounds for fitting the notability requirements. If you need independent confirmation the editor of The Aurora Advocate can be reached at [email protected]. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDELETE Comment. The article states that Ronald A. Carson is a national advance aide to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman that is trying to become the first female president of the united states. For, those of you who are not familiar, a national advance aide IS a high level senior chair position for a campaign. It seems that Ronald A. Carson is far more than a volunteer as many of these posts seem to indicate. It seems to me that Ronald A. Carson has had a significant and major impact on all of the high level campaigns, to which, he has been a national advance aide on. A national advance aide shapes the message and image of a candidate in each city across the country that said candidate visits, therefore, Carson in effect has been a high-level campaign strategist/operative for well over ten years, which would make him a "wonderkid" the above post suggests. This would fit the bill for notability. Also, as the above post suggests, we should also give high consideration to the fact that not only is he a wonderkid, but he is an African-American wonderkid, which is even more rare. I think that we should give strong consideration to allowing this page to remain. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The Aurora Advocate articles don't seem to me to confer enough notability to meet WP:Notability and with respect to the political campaigns, I agree with User:Sam Blacketer. Since this has been speedied six times and seems to still have enthusiastic support, it may require SALTing. Accounting4Taste 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclusion warranted. The fact that the editor of The Aurora Advocate tends to believe that Ronald A. Carson is notable seems to be very convincing to me. Also, we are not talking about a mere volunteer for a political campaign, this subject has been a high level strategist and operative on all campaigns to which he has been a member of, to trivialize his accomplishments seem very unfair and inaccurate. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I did SALT it on the sixth speedy for the reason you suggest. —David Eppstein 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added a strikethrough on four of the five votes by the same user. Signed unsigned comment by same user. Alinob77, please sign all your future comments (here and on other talk pages) with for tildes like this ~~~~, so that your signature will properly appear. Improbcat 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just to note that Alinob77 is busily removing all the strikethroughs... I'm not going to return them all by hand, since I think this is almost over, but I do now recommend SALT. Accounting4Taste 19:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible COI - I was doing some Googling, and it appears that Alinob77 shares a last name with the subject of this article (proof noted on their user page. As you can see on their user page I asked if they were connected and pointed out the possible COI issue. They responded to my initial question by denying the name connection. I have since posted further proof there of them at least sharing a last name, and am awaiting a further response. -- Improbcat 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would suggest that users "improbcat" and "Accounting4Taste" attempt to devote more attention to articles that actually need to become deleted from Wikipedia, instead of attempting to dig up wrongdoings on the part of individuals attempting to contribute to the public good by creating worthwhile articles on subject matters that are pertinent to the Wikipedia community. Ronald A. Carson's article has satisfied Wikipedia criteria for notability, as well as a biography of a living person. I suggest that the above mentioned users concentrate more fully on patrolling the Wikipedia world for individuals that are contributing nonsense to Wikipedia and "salt" them. The aforementioned users seem to be well versed on Wikipedia guidelines and they need to put their knowledge to good use, rather than, attacking the obvious notability of subject matter, Ronald A. Carson. Also, accounting4taste, appears to use the term "salt" a bit too liberally, his motives need to be called into question and his words and opinions need to be given less weight. The same can be said of improbcat who seems to be on a witch hunt of monumental proportions that is unwarranted. It is a shame that we have to devote this much attention to a particular subject that obviously belongs on Wikipedia. -- Alinob77 (talk · contribs · logs) 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• —
  few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Obvious notability" appears to be in the eye of the beholder. As does conflict of interest and single purpose editing. Corvus cornix 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please choose your words carefully when commenting. You have accused me of a "witch hunt" for researching on this article (& its creator) and asking you about it. You have recreated this article six times, and argued for it in several user talk pages, and in this deletion review. And during that you have claimed repeatedly that it meets certain criteria while not actually proving it does conclusively. Also you have thrown around accusations and commented on my "tone" when I asked you a simple question regarding COI, while being unwilling to answer such question. If my doing some Googling on my break and asking you about it is a "witch hunt", then what do your actions count as? -- Improbcat 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Improbcat - Please do not modify other's DRV post such as by striking out their text. -- Jreferee t/c 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete--and then edit very carefully and sharply with a NPOV. COI is a indication for scrutiny and editing, not rejection. The tone of the current article is unfortunate, but that can be changed. I'm prepared to remove some of the fluff. DGG (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How does COI affect an article when the only contributor, and (prior to you) only proponent of it's reinstatement is the one with the (potential) COI issue? -- Improbcat 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The article asserts some notability, but working for a political party or campaign isn't a notable thing unless you're in the media regularly and recognized for it. There are lots of people who work on political campaigns who don't meet
  reliable sources but not enough - then we can't really have an article. (And the fact that all of the "undelete" opinions (well, before the edit conflict) have come from one editor doesn't help much either.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Deletion - Agree with above (Tony Fox). Author believes that working on political campaigns is notable. It could be notable, but not in this case, as there is no verifiable notability and he was not well known. The comment above (RE:
  conflict of interest) should definitely be noted, as it is a great possibility that the author is in some way connected to the subject. -- Rjd0060 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please note that the following 4 comments should be disregarded as they were made from confirmed sockpuppet accounts (who have now been blocked) of a user who already commented on this Deletion Review. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77. - Rjd0060 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. I concur with user DGG the comments of improbcat especially and also accounting4taste and rjd seem extremely inappropriate and lopsided. Their comments are also unprofessional and there is no room for that here. I think that they would be better served with providing ways to improve the article "Ronald A. Carson" rather than being quick to delete it. They are not doing there jobs properly. I have reviewed the article and agree that it should stand, however, as honorary editors, perhaps we can assist with making it better. Also, the above users do not seem to understand the American political process. I happen to know what a "National Advance Staffef" does and it does indeed qualify as a high level position in a campaign and if he has done these things at his age, I think he is worthy of a Wikipedia page. We should further investigate the motives of improbcat, rjd and accounting4taste more fullym perhaps they take exception to the fact that Ronald A. Carson is an African-American. And, I do not like their "tone" either and it also appears that they are indeed on a "witch hunt" against the page of Ronald A. Carson -- Rubesnsteinh (talk · contribs · logs) 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• UNDELETE - I have read the page and it is quite impressive. We would be lucky to have a subject like Ronald A. Carson on Wikipedia. It appears as though the above subjects in question, improbcat, rjd0060,accounting4taste and others are ill-informed on American Politics. Also, I agree with user dgg, we should attempt to help the page become better, rather than vigorously attacking it as the above named users are attempting to do. The above post may have some merit, perhaps improbcat, rjd0060 and others have a problem with Ronald A. Carson's race, rather than his apparent notability. He also seems to have had articles written about him, that seems notable. This page should remain. -- Ogradyr (talk · contribs · logs) 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. - Some of these comments are abhorrent! And, unfortunate. The page, Ronald A. Carson is notable, it has sources it has a subject matter that is quite remarkable and it was an interesting read. It deserves to stand. Some of these arguments for deletion are biased and users rjd0060, improbcat, accounting for taste, etc. seem to be out of line! I agree with the above posts that their motives are to be questioned. I will be more than happy to assist with editing Ronald A. Carson in a manner that allows for it to stand. That is precisely what the users in question should have been doing. I agree with user DGG on this point. --Jacksons1 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete. The article seemed to be notable and appropriate to me. I have also read some of the talk pages around this article and I do not either like the "tone" of improbcat, rjd0060, or accountig4taste. Who do they think they are? I agree with some of the earlier posts, perhaps they have a problem with the race of Ronald A. Carson. They also seem to be wikipedia bullies. Last I checked this is a user/volunteer driven website, there is no room for dictators and their comments seem to give the appearance of such. They also seem to be slanted towards vanity. Ronald A. Carson seems to me more notable than a great majority of pages that are permanent on wikipedia. the page has cited sources and it seems to me that his standing on campaigns has been in high level roles that have influenced the outcome of the campaigns. I also agree that perhaps the best course of action is for us to help clean-up and edit the page. Deletion is not an option here. -- Goldberg32 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the previous 4 comments should be disregarded as they were made from confirmed sockpuppet accounts (who have now been blocked) of a user who already commented on this Deletion Review. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77. - Rjd0060 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the above four users: Rubensteinh, Ogradyr, Jacksons1 and Goldberg32, are single-purpose accounts created today whose only edit has been to this page. Accounting4Taste 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, and probably run an RFCU.
  ム 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Endorse Deletion, Too many problems in this article to list here, most (ie it's clearly a vanity article) of them irrelevant for deletion review anyway. But key for me is that there is no reason to hang on to an article that has not substantiated notability with a single independent source. The two references cited from the Aurora Advocate don't even have the same individual's name in the titles. Who is Lombardo Carson, the name given in the reference? (I could not verify content of the article at the Aurora Advocate's website, even though the website suggests such articles could be found searching the online archives. This leads me to wonder why the two articles named, and the reporter "Sue Fuller", are not easily found with other articles archived there). And Ronald Carson makes news for his contributions to politics when he's just 21 years of age (1998)? Too many suspicious improbables for keep, especially given the self-authored content.Professor marginalia 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Simply not notable. Political operatives at this level are quite simply a dime a dozen, and forward-looking profiles of young people who might one day occupy the White House are not any kind of proof of notability. I suspect this entire, increasingly desperate attempt to secure a Wikipedia article is related to Mr. Carson's future employment prospects more than anything else. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Even if notability were shown - which it isn't - the article would need to be substantially rewritten to come up to the standards expected by readers of wikipedia. At present it is just one long eulogy, no better than a political manifesto. If I were an American, the author's conduct would put me right off ever voting for poor Mr Carson. Deb 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet that has been blocked See Block log - Rjd0060 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDELETE. The article, as user DGG points out needs to be edited further, however, it seems notable enough to me. As professor marginalia points out, he was merely 21 when he accomplished some of these quite impressive feats, making him as the earlier user pointed out "a wonderkid" It also seems to me that users improbcat, rjd0060, accounting4taste, et al, are too anxious to delete this article. They seem to be abusing their powers as administrators and we need to look more closely at their motives. They have forged some strong allegations here. Who's to say that they are not "sockpuppets" of some user themselves. Last I checked, it was not against wikipedia guidelines to have more than one user account from the same ip address. Perhaps, this is a college, or university, or maybe even a high school that has seen the abuses of improbcat,rjd0060, et al and are merely stating their support of the article, what is wrong with that? The above named users will be pointed out to Jimbo Whales. This article deserves to be made permanent.Devonshirep 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Devonshirep 17:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet that has been blocked See Block log - Rjd0060 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. Notability seems apparent. The articles check out "Ron Lobardo-Carson" is the name of the subject prior to the subject's mother getting re-married. It appears that improbcat, rjd0060 and accounting4taste are in error. It also appears that they are rogue administrators whom need to put their obvious intellect to improving wikipedia, rathe than continuing on with this "witchhunt". I also agree with user DGG this article needs our help, but once we clean it up, it will suit our fine standards here at wikipedia. Also, I am going to report the possible "sockpuppet" abuse of rjd0060. The comments of this user and improbcat/accounting4taste appear to be eerily similar. I will do some investigating and run this up the wikipedia hierarchy. I was also called into service after reviewing some of these character assasination attempts by sockpuppet rjd0060, will I be blocked also as seems to be the case with other users on this page that have supported this article? These administrators should not be allowed to abuse their prvileges such that they have. Ogilevye 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment I am not and have never been an administrator. I also find it amusing that sockpuppets of a blocked user are accusing me of sockpuppetry. Please, by all means report me for sock puppertry with accounting4taste, the page to do so is here. I think you will only succeed in making your actionslook like even more of a farce than they already are. Improbcat 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, neither accounting4taste nor myself are administrators. - Rjd0060 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet that has been blocked See Block log - Rjd0060 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. This article albeit rough is acceptable. What type of society do we live in when free speech is nullified as improbcat/rjd0060 have done above to the user's comments.They have also blocked users for being supportive of an article that they belive in and rendered them "sockpuppets" This should be grounds for immediate suspension of improbcat/rjd0060. Said users, improbcat/rjd0060, have taken advantage of privileges entrusted to improbcat/rjd0060 by wikipedia. Those type of actions do not belong here. Nonetheless this article should stand. Rollistong 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Rollistong 18:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the above comments have been posted by yet more new socks.Professor marginalia 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question-Deletion reviews are intended for reassessing the original deletion process for cases where there may have been procedural problems or other irregularities of involved editors. What is the basis for this deletion review? If this is simply an exercise taken to overrule the findings of the editors involved in the first deletion decision by padding the new jury with socks, this whole review is a complete waste of time. Again, what's the alleged problem with the original decision? If there was nothing irregular about it, then as far as I'm concerned this review is over and the article should be re-deleted.Professor marginalia 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. The review was put up by the same user (Alinob77) that recreated the article six times after speedies. As far as I can tell the deletion review was only used because the final speedying of the article included salting it so they couldn't recreate it. Once they brought it to deletion review and the votes were overwhelmingly against them they began voting multiple times. After their duplicate votes were turned into comments they began bringing in sock puppets to try and boost the votes in favor. Also at the same time they have been unwilling to answer questions on their talk page regarding whether they have a COI with the article subject. So we have one user willing to ignore or violate all the rules of wikipedia in a desperate attempt to protect an article they can not show conclusively meets the criteria of wikipedia.

At this point the only reason I'm still watching this review is that I can't wait to see how much deeper Alinob77 buries them self, and this article. Improbcat 18:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously a non-notable footballer, but now an international who went to the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup. ArtVandelay13 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Full international footballer, meets
  WP:BIO. King of the North East (T/C) 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion he does not seem to have played for a professional team, so the guy still fails
  WP:BIO. There's no track of a criterion regarding international appearances on WP:BIO, so the previous comment is wrong. --Angelo 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Has played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". This is specifically what this criteria has in mind. Smashville 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Football/soccer is not an amateur sport, though, it is a professional sport, therefore the criterion you quote doesn't apply ChrisTheDude 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment countless players have passed AfD by playing internationally. It is clearly the highest level, and therefore passes WP:BIO. If it is not specifically mentioned, then it is an oversight, one that has probably slipped through because it barely needs spelling out. ArtVandelay13 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Playing internationally for Guadeloupe (which is by the way a national team unrecognized by FIFA) is not such a high level if compared with major European teams. There's no mention of international levels on WP:BIO, this is fact, I looked deeply inside it to find at least one sentence referring it, but I found nothing. --Angelo 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps it needs rewording. He played in a continental championship, if that's not enough, I'm not quite sure what is. ArtVandelay13 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as member of international team. Smashville 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Most recent deletion cited both A7 and the prior AFD. Since the prior AFD was before the international play, the consensus therein may well no longer apply.
  GRBerry 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Undelete Even if he is not a pro, he is an international. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there a reliable source which shows his participation on the Guadeloupe team at the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup - no source is provided either in the team's article nor at the championship's article. If a source can be found: undelete; if not, keep deleted. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In the deleted article this shows he was on the team, but not that he actually played. Is it reliable? I didn't take the time to judge.

  GRBerry 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion - All the info I can find only contains a sentence or two each and then only in the context of his game play. (e.g., "Sam Allison was running away from goal when he was brought down by Ludovic Quistin." "Substitute Ludovic Quistin's long range strike flew past Darren Chitty to put the Linnets ahead." and "But it was Boston who fashioned the next opportunity when Clarke smashed wildly over from Ludovic Quistin's low cross.") Football: Mills banks on know-how (August 10, 2007) mentions Quistin, but only lists his name. Even if he is an international who went to the
  WP:RS wrote about it, there is nothing to include in the Wikipedia article on him. Neither Google news nor Google books has any info. Until someone can cited to source material for the article, the article should remain deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you search elnorte.com for Ludovic Quistin, you should find the Estilo francés June 19, 2007 article, which mentions Concacaf and Ludovic Quistin. A search of reforma.com for Ludovic Quistin brings up two hits. -- Jreferee t/c 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, has not played on the highest level of a mainly professional sport. "Amateur" criterion is irrelevant. Punkmorten 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the amateur criterion irrelevant? There are two criteria. He meets one of them. Smashville 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline says a player has to have played at a professional level or at the highest level in an amateur sport. This means that in sports which are only played on an amateur basis, the highest amateur level is OK. It doesn't mean that in a sport like football which is played professionally a player can have an article if he has played professionally or at the highest amateur level. Professional football and amateur football are not two separate sports, therefore in the case of football the requirement is to have played professionally.... 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs)
      • But international football is the highest level of football, above club football, professional or amateur. ArtVandelay13 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, or allow recreation. I'm afraid I don't have the reading of
  WP:BIO that others do, i.e. that there are two kinds of sports, professional and amateur, and that a sport may only be one or the other. My reading is that one can rise to the highest level of amateur play and be notable (e.g. the Olympics or other international competition) regardless of whether professional activities for that sport exist. Indeed, the Olympics (or many of the member sport governing bodies) specifically restricted professionals crossing over until relatively recently. If a player is good enough to make it into a national team, even if they haven't been signed by a professional team, I don't see why they fail inclusion. Accordingly, this article has passed from unnotable to notable.--Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Undelete in this case, or just allow re-creation of the article. I think there is a chance this one can pass
  Burntsauce 17:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Undelete this player has clearly played international football which surely makes the article a valid one, I have to be honest there are so many people on here who think they rule the world, who is anyone to delete this article, its a disgrace. Stew jones 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Overturn per
  WP:BAND it was notable. Definite improper close. Smashville 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletions AFD is not a vote, so comments about 2-1 are irrelevant and indicate that policy has trumpted the stampede. Let's see whether it has: The keepists misread the applicable portion of
  WP:BAND, let me quote "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." (my emphasis) "May" is what is called a permissive as opposed to a mandate, it also implies indefiniteness as in may or may not. Let's see, so if the band is notable, the album may be - how do we tell: "should include independent coverage." Again, "should" is a permissive but a guideline stronger than "may". The article had no sources showing independent coverage whatsoever. That is something that it should really have, it is not error to interpret such failure as making the album fall in the "may not" side of notability and delete regardless of how many people vote or !vote whichever way they choose. The recreation of the article after the Afd was absolutely G4 bait and that deletion is endorsed as well - as it should have been regardless of how one comes out on the initial deletion because re-creation is not the correct response to a contested deletion (DRV is) and we don't need admins with G4 candidates being called upon to not only see if the prior deleted material was the same but whether the deletion was entirely proper as well. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn
  WP:BAND is pretty clear here... not sure what the AFD closer is talking about or if he read the guideline in question. --W.marsh 23:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  W.marsh, I'm not sure either, although based on your comment, I can say I'm pretty sure you haven't read the guideline in question.

  ム 12:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, I just wrote parts of it, is all... read the section on albums. Where does any of it say albums of notable performers should be deleted? I found your comment to be pretty insulting. It specifically says that if nothing else, they should be merged, not deleted. So please don't say I didn't read it. That's wrong and insulting... you're the one arguing to delete based on a guideline that says "merge, don't delete". --W.marsh 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Closer interpreted the debate correctly. Comment - An August 3, 2007 article in the westernmorningnews.co.uk entitled, "Bands are thriving on tour," mentions that the Blackout were to perform at "The Hub on Thursday, August 9, previewing songs from their debut album We Are the Dynamite, produced by Romesh Dodangoda (Funeral for a Friend, Bullet for My Valentine, Ian Watkins) and due for release on the Fierce Panda label. It was recorded at Longwave Studios in Cardiff and the end result is a collection of rock monster melodic meltdowns bursting with exuberant hooks." Not enough info to write a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, "We are red, we are white, we are Danish dynamite" is a most popular chant football chant and might meet
  WP:N. Others include "We are red, we are white, we are English dynamite."; "We are red; we are white; we are Laupheim dynamite."; "We are green, we are white, we are fucking dynamite." (Ireland); and "We are blue, We are white, We are cricketers Dynamite, We are Bharat, We are Mahan, And we did beat Pakistan." -- Jreferee t/c 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Nobody is arguing that the band is not notable, and there is abundant evidence of the band's notability. U-Mos appears to have selectively quoted
  ム 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If this article is restored, it should be placed at
  U-Mos 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Lancashire Hotpots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted under CSD A7 despite the article including a source to a national newspaper. Other coverage includes being played on national radio[3], being featured in a Regional television news programme[4] and featured in some other major newspapers[5][6]. This clearly does not meet speedy criteria, and an AFD should take place to decide whether or not the article should be deleted Darksun 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically, the article didn't make any claims of importance, you would have had to go to the external link to find some. I'd say Undelete though and improve with the information mentioned above. Do you want me to userfy it so you can add them? --W.marsh 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - Speedy did apply, but there seems to be enough material to write the article. There's Never Mind The Hotspots - The Lancashire Hotpots; [7]; Wigan Reporter, Wigan Evening Post and Wigan Observer. (August 9, 2007) Lancashire hotpots are at hit.; Preview: The Lancashire Hotpots; Liverpool Echo. (August 31, 2007) Why you all love the lads who've put a smile on your face. by Jade Wright. Google books has some hits, but perhaps in a different context. -- Jreferee t/c 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]