Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7

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

Yes, this may be deja vu all over again, but we got a draft of a new ED article with sources and everything up and running at

First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability should not be a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated.

This addresses the notability issue. But as I've yet to add any new sources to my draft, I don't think this review is going to go through. Though I personally think that any other article with the same amount of sources would have survived afd and that it's impossible for people to vote objectively on this (I can understand why).--

Rose 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Demetria_Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

This article had been up for the last 2 years. It also clearly meets or exceeds the guidelines of being included in Wikipedia. Dhartung stated that it should be deleted because "Self-published sources only" This is clearly not the case as none of the listed periodical articles are self published ones. It also clearly lists many more publications then many of the Bios on Wikipedia. Also a quick google search turns up many results ranging from the US to CH most of which are not from self sites, many of which are from published periodicals. Clearly there are as many or more results/published articles as any of the other alternative health community people that are listed on Wikepedia. -Thanks! Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This has been deleted in two separate AfDs. The AfD was up for 5 days and there were no keep arguments. Where are these non-self published sources? The article listed a few articles she had written in minor journals and websites. --Smashville^BONK! 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No sources available on the subject. The minor list of publications that the subject has written for doesn't constitute verifiable, reliable, independent sources. You need to have things about the subject, not things by the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please keep in mind that these "minor journals" such as Midwifery Today are major publications in the field. As for things 'about' the subject, I wouldn't argue that more content could and should be added. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Drumz, you are confusing what a person has written and published, which are always
  essentially relying on the subject themselves for accuracy, such as articles they publish, books they write, or interviews they give. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you for explaining 'self-published' makes it much clearer. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to see the article and its references before making a decision. Is it possible to undelete it while this discussion is ongoing. A brief review of Google search material has yielded no sources significant enough to meet our notability criteria, but my gut feeling is that this person is notable and we can demonstrate that with proper research in off-line sources. I've had good success saving marginal articles in the past but it is a lot of work. Any time that I see a great deal of discussion about someone on the internet, I think that it is a service to our readers to answer the question, "Who is this person?" Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. When you say it was up for two years, what you mean was that you reposted it after it was re-deleted the second or third time and nobody noticed. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No when I say it was up for two years I mean - I rewrote the article after it was weekly deleted the first time, to conform with the the standards at that time, and it has been online for the last two years. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My memory could be faulty, but I think the page was recreated several times by Drumsandspace (talk · contribs) and Drumzandspace2000 (talk · contribs) and speedily deleted just in the past couple of days. I think I noticed at while patrolling new pages, so it hasn't been up for two years, but my recollection could be wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little faulty but not too bad. What happened was that I rewrote the article around two years back after it was deleted. It pretty much sat untouched for the last two years flash forward to the other day and I noticed that it had been deleted I had a brain lapse and forgot the 2000 part of my username and in the process of trying to log in created the account drumzandspace and recreated the article. So yes I did recreate it but it also had been up for 2 years. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closure of second AfD was correct, though I probably would've relisted it myself. Still well within the closer's discretion. Usually, it's quicker to write a new version in your userspace that meets the requirements from the AfD and ask for it to be put back in mainspace than ask for an overturn. Feel free to bring this back here after you have one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • lifebaka Thanks for that tip I will do just that. After rewriting the article in my userspace, so that it meets the requirements where and to whom should I bring it up so that it can be put back in the main space? Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the deleting admin or bring it back here. I'd suggest checking with the deleting admin first, and only bring it here if they refuse to allow recreation or wish to check for how the community feels about it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD closures appear to have been correct, having seen a recent version of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It was deleted on April 28 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Demetria_Clark as the result of the second AfD, so to say that it's been there for two years is wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  WP:AGF. He means it was up for two years prior to the AFD. As I noted in my nomination, it had an odd history in 2006 (I can't see that anymore, of course) and then was left untouched (in deletion terms) until I found it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment lifebaka - thanks that is what I will do. So I would say that this matter is pretty much closed, for now. Life is a bit busy for me now but I will rewrite this sometime and then bring it up to the deleting admin. Thanks to everyone who helped her. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was unaware of the AFD, I was not informed, please relist for AFD so that I can present a rebuttle. The reason for nomination was invalid as the claim was that there are 13 restaurants and there are now more than that. Also the number of restaurants is not a factor of notability, there could be one restaurant and still be notable. I am unable to present a full rebuttle without seeing the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the deleting admin, I've pasted the last revision of the article
  Love 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Uphold per notability criteria, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Article is basically one paragraph and sources cited were company's own website (not independent) and two reviews from the local newspaper bordering on advertising. Correct to assert that the number of restaurant is irrelevant but that does not get over the problem of lack of multiplicity of sources. One newspaper does not satisfy that criterion. --Rodhullandemu 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion -- Looking at the userfied article, there are no reliable sources to verify the information. The Toronto Sun link is broken, and the final cite is just a yellow pages style directory listing. That leaves no procedural problem with the AfD close, as there are no sources to show notability at all. -- Kesh (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - our role is, as always, to decide whether the AfD was properly closed and not to re-run it. The AfD commentators considered whether the subject was notable and decided, unanimously, that it was not. On this basis there could have been no other close. BlueValour (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The problem, as I stated in the AFD, is not the number of stores, but the references. There was nothing indicating anything more than that it's a local restaurant. Compare Billy Goat Tavern, a six-store chain that is the subject of much local lore, a famed SNL sketch, and a book. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per BlueValour. Not wanting to be rude, but it is clear in the instructions that DRV is to correct errors in process.
  talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - there is no additional information provided to warrant a review of the debate or the article's status, in light of the concerns raised at AfD. I note that, if the restaurant's fortunes have turned for the better and their operations have expanded, then maybe an article would be acceptable - if and only if additional independent sources are available to document the facts of the article. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, however, and my own research turns up nit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nominator should be looking at his watchlist more than once every five days if he is interested in protecting his articles from AfD. That said, there's no policy-based rationale to suggest that this was an improper deletion. Consensus was clearly that the article wasn't worthy of inclusion with the available sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On the one hand, there is no requirement that article creators be informed of AFDs. On the other hand, there is also no requirement that editors visit every day. I note that Popo... visits about 5-6 times a week, not quite daily. Finally, AFD is not formulated as a trial where each side presents an argument. The best argument for protecting an article is to source it impeccably to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Responses to procedural related comments -

1. 1. Nominator should be looking at his watchlist more than once every five days if he is interested in protecting his articles from AfD, I note that Popo... visits about 5-6 times a week, not quite daily - Response: I normally put an article on my watchlist after I created it. In this particular case, I learned after the fact official name was "Hero Certified Burgers" so I moved the article after putting it in my watchlist and assumed that the move would watchlist the new article as well. I didn't find out until Lara speedied the redirect "Hero Certified Burger" that I found out about the deletion.
   2. There is no requirement that article creators be informed of AFDs. Response: It might not be the official policy but it's considered a good practise and seeing as how I'm the creator and sole writer of the article why not just post a note to my talk page?
   3. AFD is not formulated as a trial where each side presents an argument. The best argument for protecting an article is to source it impeccably to begin with. Response: Yes it is. The Keeps and the Deletes presents an argument as to notability. It's completely open to their interpretation as to what constitutes notability. If it was as simple as you say, then we wouldn't need an AFD and it would be an easy matter to have admins speedy non notable articles after creation.
   4. there is no additional information provided to warrant a review of the debate or the article's status, in light of the concerns raised at AfD, our role is, as always, to decide whether the AfD was properly closed and not to re-run it, The AfD commentators considered whether the subject was notable and decided, unanimously, that it was not. On this basis there could have been no other close. Response: I'm not saying overturn, I saying undelete and relist or at the very least simply undelete and open up the AFD for a few more days to let a broader audience have there say. Besides myself I'd like to get
      WP:IAR if you like. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
   5. The Toronto Sun. Response: It doesn't mean that it can't be used. Just because a source isn't online anymore doesn't mean it's invalid. The Toronto Sun is one of three major newspapers in Toronto. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• question Does someone have access to the original Toronto sun article? That might help in deciding how much of an assertion of notability was made. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it under a new link Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Actually it looks like I just screwed up the reference in the original article to have a comma come after the link. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to notability related comments I believe this restaurant is notable because any company that rents a cow to walk through Toronto's most notable street is notable. And this was a notable cow used in Chicago's columbus day parade. The number of restaurants is not up to date on the website and if you count the number on the side it's actually 17 not 13 locations. In addition to the sources provided, we can also add Metro News "Four beerlicious days ahead" by Ann-Marie Colacino/Metro Toronto. Metro News is part of the Toronto Star. Furthermore, this company is notable because of the uniqueness of the niche it is in (making all burgers with angus beef). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metro article doesn't have much coverage but the Toronto Sun piece looks substantial. The Toronto Sun also mentions that "HERO Certified Burgers opened to rave reviews"- do we have any of those reviews? I suspect that one of those together with the Toronto Sun piece would be enough to reasonably allow recreation. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found 6 third party reviews on their website. One of them is the Toronto Star. I haven't read them yet. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There's nothing preventing you from recreating it once you've established notability. You can work on improving it in your sandbox and then move it back to the mainspace once you've expanded it with reliable sources. I would like to say, however, that I don't see how local reviews establish notability. We had a little Thai restaurant here that received rave reviews in the local newspapers, but I don't see how that makes it notable for an encyclopedic entry.
  Love 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sounds good. I will work on the article with some of the sources I've found above and move it into mainspace when I'm done. If local reviews don't establish notability then I think we will be biasing our restaurant articles towards the bigger chains. I think we should have an open mind. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion The reliability of the Toronto Sun has just taken a further hit--it never had much, for its just a tabloid modelled after British tabloids, & we never count on them much for notability. Reading that "article," it's entirely an advertisement for the company. Half of it consists of quotes from the owner and the rest sounded as if he dictated it. " But, if you happen to be walking by a HERO Certified Burgers, it’s best that you stop, head on in and enjoy quality from the very first bite." is not a restaurant review, its a PR placement. There is, unfortunately, nothing more common for restaurants than to do this with local papers & tabloids &c.. And even for the Sun there is some extenuation: it was not in the regular section, but a special section on the festival, and such sections are in most cases at least half-way towards advertising. DGG (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A positive article doesn't mean that we can't use it. We have to be neutral but individual citations don't have to be neutral. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were writing an article about a subject that I wanted to keep, I would steer clear of such obvious spam, even be it print spam. It just doesn't help an article when other sources are so thin. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There has been a fair bit of discussion related to this topic in the past, so please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion before commeting here. The 4 February DRV, especially, contains a fair few sources or claims to notability, to which this DRV will add.

Since our February discussions, Delaney has continued as a well known figure in Australia. He is set to release a single, "Fight for Your Right (to Party)" (a Beastie Boys cover), and when news.com.au reported this, they also noted that "Since January, when he became either the most loved or hated party boy, Worthington hasn't stopped fielding offers for work". source Delaney also recently entered the Big Brother house in Australia, and has received significant coverage on Google News for this; see the numerous articles listed here. As well as reports on him being in the house, there have also been responses to his entry, and criticism of what this means, see for instance this AdelaideNow article.

While Delaney's notability does still stem from that party he held, I believe it has now expanded beyond

Note: I have used the name Delaney, but there is some debate as to if he should be called Worthington...Delaney is the name I'm used to, and there should be no percieved bias (on my part) in which title is to be chosen ultimately.