Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7

Cricut (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I hear a lot about something called "Cricut" that's apparently popular in scrapbooking, so I decided to create an article for people to build on. I created a stub consisting of the sentence: "The Cricut Personal Electronic Cutter is a die-cutting machine used in scrapbooking." Someone immediately put a speedy-delete tag on it, which I contested, and then someone else deleted it. I don't see how my one sentence could be construed as "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". - Brian Kendig (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the last version, with the most information, reads like an entry in a product brochure designed to sell die cutters, not an encyclopaedia article. The single sentence was even less encyclopaedic and could arguably have been deleted under
  WP:CSD#A3 as well (although the longer version couldn't). Even though this is less spammy than some of the versions from 2006, it doesn't even attempt to show what makes it notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you; that's reasonable criticism that I can do something with. I still don't agree that my original one-sentence article was so irredeemably spammy that speedy deletion was the proper recourse, nor do I agree that it qualified as "no content" (see

WP:NOTCSD #9), but at any rate the stub isn't significant enough to bother with a deletion review. I withdraw the deletion review request and I will re-create the article from scratch with more information so as to establish notability. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Five Dollar Refund (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article for the band Five Dollar Refund was deleted unfairly, and should be brought back. They fit the requirements listed on wikipedia for a band to have a wiki page. 75.66.236.230 (talk · contribs). 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed nomination. Article talk page has further comments.--
  Tikiwont (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse speedy deletion as deleting admin. I took a second look at the deleted article, and stand by my decision, as there is no claim to notability, or anything else to differentiate them from all the other Myspace bands out there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse "unfair" is an awfully big word to throw around without providing some evidence that that was indeed the case. Nominator further provides no reason for the article to be undeleted, nor provides any elaboration on the apparently baseless claim that this "fits the requirements". For what it's worth I have looked at the deleted article and agree that it is a valid A7 speedy as written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Valid application of
  WP:CSD#A7, no new information presented in this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Questiont Does the individual wanting this overturned have evidence to back up the claim that they now meet the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion for a musical group? What are they covered under in
  WP:BAND? Simply asserting they meet it isn't very helpful. We are not psychics. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Electric Retard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In January 2010 I made an attempt to write an article on the controversial webcomic Electric Retard on Wikipedia. Despite the fact that previous attempts by other users had been deleted, I had a go at writing the article because the webcomic's notability status seems to have increased over the last year or two, especially here in Australia. I've also noticed that while Electric Retard's notability status has been debated on by other Wikipedia editors, many other webcomic articles which are a lot less notable have not been challenged or removed. If they have to get the chop, why does Electric Retard have to? I have diplomatically discussed this matter with the Wikipedia user who removed the article. Hoping to hear a response soon. Cheers. LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation - While the content might have looked the same as the 2008 version (hard to say since I can't see that version), newer sources arguably demonstrating notability were provided in the 2010 version, an important difference thus not making it a CSD G4 case. I have no opinion if it should go to AfD or not. --Oakshade (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The most recent version (which can be seen with the Google cache) does not address the lack of coverage in
  reliable sources that was the key reason it was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard. In the newest version, three sources are cited:
  1. http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/ is a blog.
  2. http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx is a student newspaper.
  3. http://wikibin.org/articles/electric-retard.html – Wikibin is not a reliable source.
  These sources do not establish notability. When news organizations with a reputation of fact-checking write articles about this web comic / shock site, the article can be restored; but for now, it should remain deleted. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If this version is a significant improvement over the one deleted at the AfD debate, I would not object to overturning the
  G4 deletion and listing at AfD. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question- Okay, so the wiki and blog website links may not be regarded as reliable sources, but how come a student newspaper website isn't? --LoofNeZorf (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Student newspapers have not received the reliable fact-checking and editorial control that reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines have received. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is complicated. Student newspapers can be used as reliable sources. Like all sources, there is leeway and hard and fast rules can be problematic. Some student newspapers will be more reliable than some actual newspapers, while many student newspapers will have zero oversight. In general, as I understand it, student newspapers at a university level can be used to source statements that are not severely controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The "blog" isn't a fan's livejournal, but a webmagazine with multiple contributors and editorial control over its content, what would be considered a
  Huffington Post, many blogs are reliable sources. But these are AfD arguments anyway. The point of this DRV is that this shouldn't have been deleted per CSD G4, the stated reason. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've replied below. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion and send to AfD the most recent version shared little similarity with the version deleted at AfD, including citing independent sources which the earlier version didn't, and actually reading like a proper article rather than a quick attempt at a fan page, so
  WP:CSD#G4 was no appropriate. It should be for the community to discus the reliability of these sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • As an admin, when considering G4 deletions, I don't just look at how many words have been replaced or how the article is formatted, but at the greater concerns brought up at AfD discussions, like subject notability, sourcing, etc. The community has already discussed the subject, insisting on community adjudication on every questionable source is a myopic exercise when the information itself is non-controversial. If this was an article on a notable subject, I would not necessarily argue against the inclusion of sources of a similar caliber among others that clearly support notability. But that's not the case. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Cunard's assessment of the "sources", above. Absolutely zero chances that would pass an AFD. If the nominator is really interested in restoring this then a well-written userspace draft backed up with rock-solid reliable independent sources is the only way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a disgreement over the reliability of at least one of the sources, indicating that it not a foregone conclusion that this would be deleted at AfD. So per the letter and spirit of
    WP:CSD#G4 this should get a full hearing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The tone of the blog does not read like that of a reliable source. A glance at the blog's homepage (http://www.readplatform.com/) confirms that the website is not reliable. If other editors disagree with this interpretation, we should list this at AfD, but I do not see the point, as none of the sources are close to being reliable. Because none of the sources address the notability concerns raised at the AfD, I believe that this should remain deleted until sufficient sources surface. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that these are all AfD judgements.
        WP:CSD#G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." The second version, other than being about the same subject, was nowhere near "sufficiently identical" or "substantially identical" to the first version. The first version cited no independent sources, was badly written and did not contain most of the information that the second version did. All these factors mean that the article was significantly different and substantially improved, whether the improvement was sufficient is a job for the community to decide at AfD. DRV is not a second AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • "[P]ages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" - see? I can selectively quote policy too! Yay! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed you can, and the snippet of policy you quote supports my argument. The reason for deletion was that it had no sources. There are now sources, therefore the reason for deleting no longer exists. (talk) (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • At the AfD, HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) wrote, "I don't see any reliable sources from a Google search, just mainly blogs and forums." This recreation has not rectified the sourcing concerns brought up at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The AfD was just over 2 years ago in January 2008. The most recently deleted version contains information about what happened during 2008 (although it doesn't say when in 2008, it's likely to be after January) and 2009, for which sources could not possibly exist at the time of the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You say it does, yet unless you read minds you don't know the reason for deletion. Again, as an admin, you have to look at the substantive basis behind the editorial judgments to delete beyond an either-or sourcing scenario. There's a real topic behind the discussion, one that was not proven notable through coverage. The sources were insufficient because they were obscure (as in difficult to find) and referred to an even more obscure topic. Currently, the topic and the new sources don't address the notability concerns, regardless of the re-arrangement of the text. The obvious counterpoint is that we're here for DRV, a forum which doesn't require a substantive basis beyond mere policy interpretation, which means that a legalistic argument could conceivably be made to support any interpretation of deletion criteria. Which leaves us with the self-serving bullshit of quoting policy snippets to support a context du jour. When I consider your argument in view of the pragmatism of even having an RS/N/AfD policy, it falls apart. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wow, harsh. But you can't blame user Thryduulf for trying. --LoofNeZorf (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I actually do not have an opinion about whether the sources do actually show notability or not. That is not for deletion review to judge. The only question at deletion review of a speedy deletion is "Was the deletion correct?". The speedy deletion criteria states that the article must be both (1) substantially/significantly the same and (2) unimproved, and (3) that the reason for deletion must still apply. I have explained above that 1. The article was significantly different, 2. the article was substantially improved, and 3. the reason for deletion does not still apply. I am continuing to argue this case because I believe it is important that incorrect speedy deletions are not allowed to stand, as otherwise there is no point in having the strict criteria that we do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD, as it is clear from the comments here that there is disagreement among established editors on the sourcing provided. Where there's a legitimate disagreement, AfD is the correct venue.
  talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • AfD was the correct venue, now DRV is. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. Detailed discussion about the reliability of new sources does not belong here, but at AfD. Some sources were added since original version was deleted. One of the sources appears to be an online magazine noted in the mainstream media, see readplatform.com "about us". As for homepageDAILY, although labels itself "the world first global student newspaper", it's pretty clear it is not a
  ping 10:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and list at AfD, following
  Roxy Jezel and Abbywinters.com, so does need longer discussion) but it is still very poor any editors interested in keeping this article need to do a lot more work on it quickly. (Emperor (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Overturn and list at AfD per Thryduulf. This discussion is not about the sources, but about whether or not the speedy deletion of this article was in keeping with the guidelines. I cannot see the old version of the article, but I trust the analysis of Thryduulf and Emperor and I think it is better to err on the side of more community discussion, not less. AFD is the correct venue for that discussion. (Disclosure: I was directed to this discussion by a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Cerebellum (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In preparation for the AfD, I have asked Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to review the reliability of the sources. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Readplatform_and_Homepagedaily

• Encourage userfication, and give User:LoofNeZorf a fair chance to build something before testing it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be the ideal option, it looks very shaky and restoring it and then deleting it if it isn't improved) seems an odd exercise. Better to leave it deleted until it can be improved enough to stand an AfD. Is this an option or would it be seen as second-guessing the AfD and we need to let the process run its course? (Emperor (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • I'm all for the idea of letting it get tested at the AfD. --LoofNeZorf (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

This article on the Crescent Tool Company founded in 1907 was deleted by User:Tbsdy lives for "[duplicating] an existing topic, Adjustable spanner." Following this logic, the article on Chevrolet should also be deleted for duplicating an existing topic, Car.

It's not clear to me why this article was deleted without any discussion, since it wasn't obvious spam or a copyright violation, but I suppose it's not my site and the rules don't have to be sensible.

The article I was "duplicating" was not even mentioned until the summary line in the deletion log, which, as you can imagine, is a bit too late to be constructive. typhoon (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I used the deletion reason proposed, that probably was a bit silly for a reason, if you'd just asked me to I would have restored and taken to AFD. We might as well go through a DRV now though. -
  talk 05:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Speedy Deletion and perhaps rename
  Crescent Tool Company. This article topic is not duplicating an existing article topic, which wouldn't be a speedy deletion criteria anyway and redirect would've been more appropriate. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close The article has been restored by the deleting admin, and I have added sources to the article and expanded its scope. In the future, the nominator, Typhoon (talk · contribs) should consult with the deleting admin before going to DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions). Cunard (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]