Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 17

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

It is no longer a new and relatively unknown wiki (as was the case when it was originally deleted). There are

• Is there any reason to contest this deletion that isn't
  WP:ATA? Are there reliable sources covering this wiki? Do they cover it in significant details? Protonk (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Other wikis, such as PlanetMath and PhpWiki give no sources other than from the site itself. Therefore, they fail to establish notability. However, they have been kept, so if you want to delete Bulbapedia's page, you should delete theirs, too. --Oboeboy (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't.
      Other stuff exists. Whether or not one page is deleted has no bearing on another. Just because we delete one page without sourcing doesn't require or empower me to go out and delete every page without sourcing on it. For all I know those other wikis have lots of sources. Again, if your only argument is that other pages don't have sources this deletion review will be short lived. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn the deletion as per Oboeboy. The original deletion discussion cited the reason that Bulbapedia was relatively small and unknown. That was several years ago; now it is one of the largest wikis in existence. --Binarypascal (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted until/unless someone produces some significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline -
  WP:WEB - and preferably produces a userspace version of the article to demonstrate this notability. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What about those other pages that Oboeboy and I listed that have no real-world context given and which don't cite any reliable, independent sources? --Binarypascal (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are not improved then at some point they will no doubt be put up for AFD and deleted as well if notability is not established. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted unless evidence is presented that the subject meets the
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to overturn deletions. Hut 8.5 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question- are there any sources out there that show the notability of the wiki? If so, perhaps allowing a userpage draft to be created, then brought here for review, would make the most sense. If not, then I'm not sure what grounds there would be for overturning the deletion/re-creating the article. Just saying that articles on other wiki's exist doesn't really say anything about the status of THIS article. (Disclaimer: This is coming from a Pokefan) Umbralcorax (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Never mind that the deletion discussion was several years ago, the subject still has not shown any signs of notability in that no reliable sources have given it significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted The AfD itself was correctly closed in 2005. Adequate coverage of the article in nontrivial detail by independant, reliable sources, as per WP:N, should be shown before the article is allowed to be recreated. Themfromspace (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per all above. If the nominator feels other articles exist which should not, he is free to nominate those for AFD.
  talk) 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted — I could not find any reliable secondary sources about this wiki on Google, Books, or Scholar that can provide any verifiability of anything. A recreation of the article would likely fail
  WP:V and would be deleted again. MuZemike 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Everyone who thinks the page should remain deleted, please see
  WP:IHATEIT. --Oboeboy (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That essay enjoys limited support.

  talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep deleted. I hate it. And Wikiepdia is not here to promote other wikis. But mostly I hate it. Or was that sarcasm? Guy (Help!) 22:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

It would contain many articles that would show, at a glance, the large number of Jewish actors contributing to America's successful and influential entertainment industry. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8 gave a reasonable consensus for deletion. The deletion of the category does not reduce the recognition of the contributions made by Jewish Americans to the entertainment industry, rather it indicates that the actor's religious background is not of much consequence to their career as an actor, and that categorizing in this way does not provide much benefit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Agree with Sjakkalle, the CFD discussion had consensus to delete, and "would contain many articles" is not a reason to overturn. --Kbdank71 16:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know that !nvotes are !votes, but two keeps vs. three deletes hardly indicates a strong consensus for the previous deletion. Rklear (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus != vote counting. --Kbdank71 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, !votes are !votes. However, there is a case being made that this deletion was a rock-solid consensus, when in fact it appears to have been rather weak. Rklear (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then. When you said consensus was weak based on nothing more than "two keeps vs. three deletes", I assumed you were counting votes. --Kbdank71 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I don't think anything has changed in the interim that would suggest that the previous decision should be overturned. As for the merits of such a category if considered anew, articles may be categorized at Category:American actors and Category:Jewish actors, but I don't think we need the intersection of the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Consensus was not reached, and in any case it is over a year and a half since then. There are many more biography articles that qualify for inclusion now, due to the massive expansion of Wikipedia during that time. Some Jewish American actors are strongly influenced by their culture, e.g. Woody Allen. The category Jewish actors is large and does not have any subcats. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the same argument to keep from the original CFD, and rather shows that despite that year and a half passing, nothing has changed. Then as now, for some actors, being Jewish is an important aspect of their life and their work. Then as now, this category would be dominated by actors for whom being Jewish is a coincidence of birth and upbringing. Then as now, this category would mostly be a coincidental collision of attributes, along the lines of Category:Actors whose name begins with A, as Al Jolson scarcely has anything more to do with Soleil Moon Frye than he does Andrew Duggan. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The rationale for deletion (non-notable intersection/overcategorization) is still valid and no indication has been made as to how the deletion process wasn't followed.
  talk) 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore, The close was incorrect in refusing to consider the categories separately. I think probably the entire group should be relisted, individually, and i think the present consensus would currently be to keep most or all of the categories. DGG (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly, many subcats of American actors were deleted with little discussion, and no consensus. None of the subcats (including this one) that were deleted back in August 2007 were discussed individually. Therefore the list of cats were wrongly deleted and should be restored. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - no errors in process in the original CFD, no new information here indicating that anything has changed that would allow for recreation. "It would have more stuff in it now" is not an appropriate argument for this forum and even if it were would not be a valid argument for any category other than those deleted per
  talk) 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: the rationale that it is a non-notable intersection of ethnicity, nationality and profession is not true, as there is a significant Jewish influence on America's film and television industry. Woody Allen's acting is very Jewish, he isn't merely an actor who happens to be Jewish. Any suggestion that the cat should be deleted because there are no similar cats is wrong, as the cat Jewish American musicians exists. There is more Jewish influence in America's acting than in its music, so the recreation of the actors cat is justified. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because something else exists doesn't mean this should. BTW, what does "[his] acting is very Jewish" mean? And how is anyone (or thing, I guess) "very" Jewish? Do you have to be very Jewish to be considered "Jewish American"? What if you're "just a little Jewish"? And why would your amount of Jewishness matter for categorization? I'm honestly confused by your comments, and just trying to understand your reasoning for wanting to overturn the deletion. --Kbdank71 17:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My reasons for wanting the category to exist are that it is a valid, notable, highly populatable intersection, which would help improve coverage of a notable topic - the great Jewish American influence and contributions to film, theater and television. That Jewish Americans, who from a fraction of 1% of the world population do so much to entertain the world is a something which deserves greater recognition. One criteria for a category of this kind is that it is feasable for an article to be created about the subject, although such an article does not have to actually exist for the cat to be created. There is no doubt that an article called Jewish American acting (or something similar to that) could feasably be created. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - The CFD was seriously flawed with respect to this category. It should not have been lumped in with all of the others in a mass nomination, for two reasons:

1) Nearly all of the other sub-cats' articles could/should have been upmerged [I'm not sure if this happened] into parent categories that were not challenged: Category:Asian American actors and Category:Hispanic American actors. That at least preserves their Xyz-American ethnicity to a degree, which was completely lost for this category.

2) As with pretty much every Jewish occupational category, the overwhelming majority of articles are about Americans. In this case, Category:Jewish actors currently has over 800 articles -- and as a consequence of Category:Jewish American actors having been dumped into it, the articles about non-American individuals have been completely swamped, making it exceedingly difficult to find them. For that reason alone, the American sub-cats of Jewish categories should almost always be kept, as they perform a crucial -- but often overlooked -- function with respect to navigation. Cgingold (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories were not deleted and were not included because they are not just coincidences of birth and upbringing. The difference between a Jewish-Ameican actor and an African-American actor is that Soleil Moon Frye can play a character of any religion, whereas Will Smith would need extraordinary measures to play a character who isn't black. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be made against classifying actors by nationality. The history of Hollywood is replete with actors playing the roles of foreigners, and not just Americans playing others. Australian actors like Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts have been playing significant roles as Americans for years. Rklear (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can, but "[Nationality] [profession]" is the standard first breakdown for biographies. "[Vaguely-defined ethnicity/origin] [nationality] [profession]" is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - I must say I don't see much of a consensus myself (the nom has 2 supporters and 2 opposers ... someone seeing consensus there might well be giving their own opinion undue weight) and the other related and much more detailed cfd
  talk) 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• But yeah, Keep deleted. Most of the restores seem to be rehashing issues already raised in the CFD (previous CFDs, arguing about the importance of this intersection, the number of members of this cat). This is not CFD 2. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Jewish American actors make a very notable cultural contribution, just as Jewish American film directors and Jewish American writers do. The only real difference there is that the actors subcat is deleted, whereas the other two still exist. None of those three come under the overcategorization criteria. The cat Jewish actors needs an American subcat because: a) they should be distinguishable from Jewish actors who are not American (there are more Americans in the Jewish actors cat than non-Americans); b) there is a significant difference between American Jews and non-American Jews. That this subcat was deleted without proper discussion or consensus means that the deletion should not have happened in the first place. My recreation of it was speedily deleted under the criteria of being a recreation of a deleted cat. But as the deletion in Aug 2007 was wrongly done, the speedy delete was wrong as well. Therefore it should be recreated. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Rehashing the arguments of the CFD again is not convincing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted: the reason it was deleted still hasn't been convincingly addressed with facts that show Jewishness has any effect on acting. Also, by categorizing in both American and Jewish categories no information is actually lost. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a keep deleted case. A non-specifying or notable intersection of independently notable but randomly combined information about BLPs. No evidence of a major upset in the deletion process as the Admin used best judgment in a CfD with relatively unclear consensus. I will AGF, but the motivation of this DRV seems to me to be disagreeing with the result, not the process of the CfD in question. I am aware that the same arguement could (and maybe should?) be made against other ethnicity-origin-profession and religion-origin-profession categorizations. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not the version recently speedied, but the version deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Sokaluk. The article was neutral, sourced and clearly marked as under construction when nominated for deletion. The AFD ran for only 30 minutes before being deleted. More reliably sourced information has been made available since deletion. It was closed after less than a day. Why the hurry? This clearly did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Yes, one event put him in the spotlight, but after that other things happened to make him a centre of media attention. The subject is tremendously notable (over 10,000 Ghits, over 1,300 Gnews hits) and this is an excellent example of why BLP1E is so dumb (deprecate BLP1E to Ignore All Rules). The spirit of BLP is to "do no harm", I don't see how keeping an article for a short period of time on a subject that is currently receiving massive international media attention can cause harm. Per WP guidelines, deletion is the last resort. Overturn and relist for the full five days. Burning Ring of Fire (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion The guy is actually not notable enough for a biography - we know nothing about him, there are only claims in nand the allegations against him have not yet been tested in court. Given the capacity of the police to scapegoat when under pressure to find people to blame for tragedies, he may even be an innocent person, for all we know. Orderinchaos 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion The clear BLP issues were sufficent for a speedy close, especially given the online vigilantism against this guy (see, for instance [1] - Facebook and Myspace have had to crack down hard). So far he's only been accused of the crime and he can be covered in a few sentences in the article on the bushfires. As a note, I've just speedy-deleted and salted the article after a new version of it was recreated. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion
  WP:BLP1E. Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion as deleting admin - the man has not been convicted, is notable only for being arrested and we are not a news site. The outcome of the deletion debate, as viewed through the various policies cited above, was clear and not in doubt. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Clear BLP1E issues, and the idea that the subject is now notable because he has been subject to online threats is an interesting interpretation of WP:N and the "do no harm" principle. While I am here I have some queries about the editor
  if it quacks... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion Per on what Timeshift has pointed out. Brendan Sokaluk is innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law and not by the media or Wikipedia) and we haven't even gone to trail yet! Yes we can have a small sentences in the 2009 Victorian bushfire article about him being charged of lighting the fire (No article about him is needed). Bidgee (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per all above.
  talk) 09:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - while the coverage is large and growing, it is still coverage of
  2009 Victorian bushfires article, where it is already discussed. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Innocent until proven otherwise. Oh, and
  WP:BLP1E etc. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia:Wikistory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

Along with Wikipedia:Wikistory (Sentence), this longstanding bit of silly fun was speedily deleted as patent nonsense, but it has meaning to many of the people who have participated over the years. ragesoss (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that any page with ~3,000 edits to it shouldn't be speedied. It was in the Wikipedia namespace. It was marked as humorous. People got enjoyment from it. Sure, while they were messing around on it they weren't editing articles. fine. But this isn't a work camp. I understand AMiB's position in deleting it but it strikes me as a motivation which would have been better channeled into an MfD nom than a decision to speedy the page. And specifically with regard to the speedy, I'm going to call bullshit. It wasn't Wikipedia:Patent nonsense: "Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." The argument could be made that it was criteria 2 of patent nonsense: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." but I would disagree and I wager that a predominance of reasonable editors would disagree as well. I saw the page as a long running gag related to collaborative editing. It is clear that the chaos of the narrative points to that. Misconstruing the page for actual nonsense might have been possible, except for the fact that the top of the page carried a disclaimer (the humor tag) and an explanation of what followed. Therefore, it would have been near impossible to read the story without context and with context it would have been near impossible to say that it was "so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." In order to avoid the possible dramarama that might swell from this discussion I implore AMiB to simply reverse the speedy and nominate the page at MfD should he desire. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (and list if necessary) Seemed a harmless enough page, was appropriately marked so noone would mistake it for anything serious. It didn't meet the criteria for which it was deleted, as Protonk states in more detail above. Orderinchaos 07:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kind of disappointed that Ragesoss didn't bother to discuss this with me first, but oh well. It was gibberish. It was a word salad that failed the HTBFANJS test. It was a bathroom wall where people had scribbled things meaningful to themselves and only themselves. It wasn't even a one-word-at-a-time story as the intro claimed; there's no narrative, and no hope for narrative given the lack of interplay or audience. The sentence story was no better; much of it was just random quotes from pop culture or nonsense from random sentence generators. Protonk reads a meaning into it, that it's somehow a joke about collaborative editing, but the fact that you can read your own unique meaning into something doesn't make it any less incoherent gibberish with no meaningful content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others had already brought your attention to objections at the Department of Fun talk page and suggested the possibility of DRV, and you didn't seem inclined to change your mind about it being a legitimate speedy, so this seemed the most straightforward step. I'll contact you first next time.--ragesoss (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody seemed to have disagreed with me there. The process went "Hey, can you explain why you speedied this?" "It was unfunny patent nonsense." "Oh. That's cool. You may want to speedy this as well." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two people expressed misgivings about the deletion, even though they weren't concerned enough to wade into process (and thought, reasonably, if one, why not the other). Anyhow, while HTBFANJS is a great page, and good advice for amateur internet humorists, I think it's a bad idea to use it as a basis for getting rid of community-building pages on Wikipedia. The main purpose of the Wikistory pages is not to be funny, but to have fun.--ragesoss (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how this qualifies for speedy deletion. Regular deletion, sure, but it's not what G1 was envisaged for. Overturn and list at MFD.
  talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I agree that this shouldn't have been speedy deleted given that it wasn't an article, but it definitely should be deleted one way or the other for being pointless nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 isn't limited to articlespace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list Agree with above that it did not qualify for speedy deletion as it was not patent nonsense. However there does seem to be some support for deletion so list at MFD to allow the community to reach a decision on whether it should be deleted or not. Davewild (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Protonk (I'm not a
  per X guy, but I can't offer anything he didn't). Joe 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and list. A quick look at
  WP:CSD
  shows that this was, in fact, directly against policy:

• Relist where I hope the consensus will be to get rid of this in the proper way. DGG (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

this is the second time this older, established article has been speedy deleted in two days, the last admin who deleted it

Superseded, placed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saya Mochizuki Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]