Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 13

Feed Me Bubbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Since deletion has gain additional notiriety in it's field. ZDnet, On TV RLTV and BBC let me know if you need additional resources. If you doubt it's growing popularity and notable features just search google for Feed Me Bubbe and you will see a lot of big people including Jeff Pulver talking about the program. Chalutz 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Trivia. Not a patch on Lionel Blue. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation without prejudice, possibly in userspace at first, to see if the claim of notability has substantially increased in the 4 months since deletion. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nomination provides a blog, a web video and a trivial mention; no substantial independent sources on which to base an article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Actually, the nomination provides 2 blogs and a web video. No reliable independent sources on which to base an article. I looked myself and couldn't find any either. AFD is obviously valid. GRBerry 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete: Barkeater Lake is a comic distributed by United Media, deleted by User:Sandstein under A7, a user with a known bias against comics distributed online. The comic clearly meets any notability criteria as it is distributed by one of the largest print syndicates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I'm going to assume that the article mentioned it was a syndicated comic and say that this was another poor deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Website with no assertion of significance, so the speedy was valid. No prejudice against creation of a sourced encyclopedia article on this topic, though. Friday (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the article, in its speedied state, didn't mention the syndication? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it did not, in the final version before deletion nor by the time of the first non-anon edit after creation (which was way back when they could). I do not plan to check all the other revisions. Splash - tk 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, hang on. In my totally non-specialist analysis, I may have overlooked that it possessing a link to comics.com may be the syndication site? There was a sentence in the final revision that said "It ceased publication on Comics.com on 2007-01-06". In the earlier version, this was solely a link the external links section. I'd have deleted it, personally, because it didn't actually tell me it was syndicated. Splash - tk 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that's understandible, at least. Can't fault you on that, but this still should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No independent sources, hardly any content except a cast list and two unjustified fair use images, notability is not inherited, so valid A7 as failing to assert any compliance with notability policy. No prejudice against anyone creating a policy-compliant article in its place, as normal, and nothing is lost by the removal of this one. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can answer the question - did the article mention the syndication? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid A7 and the article never mentioned syndication. If it is syndicated, feel free to recreate it with an assertion of such. --Coredesat 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, unless anyone can tell me what the claim to notability was supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, re-create, relist if someone feels it's essential to do so. I am concerned that we are applying our notability standards in the area of contemporary comics in an unnecessarily rigid manner. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No assertion of notability. Zero sources. Two external links to the current site is an indicator of spamminess. Three days after the comics.com publication ceased, a crystal ball statement about when and where it would reappear was added by an IP, another indication of spaminess. No objection to a recreation by a Wikipedian creating an encyclopedia article from sources, but spam that doesn't bother to assert notability and doesn't have any significant encyclopedia content is unhelpful. GRBerry 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion of unsourced spam with no information on importance. --Dragonfiend 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Comics.com is United Media's main comics portal. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's A Dog's Life/Egg Yolkeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedily deleted as A1 (no context) although the context was undeniably clear even by what's in the deletion summary. Should be undeleted, we have articles on most Ren and Stimpy episodes. Also, as a contested prod, Pixie King/Aloha Höek needs to be undeleted - I'd ask the admin who did it, but s/he's on wikibreak. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No useful content, so no reason to restore. If someone wants to write an article on this, they can, but what we deleted was ""It's A Dog's Life" and "Egg Yolkeo" are 15-minute episodes of the animated television show, Ren & Stimpy." Friday (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. It's a stub - it's got context, it's not an A1. Invalid speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire contents of the deleted article was as follows: "It's A Dog's Life" and "Egg Yolkeo" are 15-minute episodes of the animated television show, Ren & Stimpy. That is not a stub, it's an unreferenced factoid. So: why treat them together, and what is supposed to be notable about these two episodes, and where are the sources for that, and how many other Ren & Stimpy episodes do we have articles for and how many of them are paired like this and - here's the clincher - how come there are fewer than 200 unique Googles for the titles?. Or put another way, Jeff, please persuade me that this content is worth the time you have wasted on it. Because to be blunt I think there are more productive uses of your time than challenging the deletion of worthless unsourced one-liner factoids. Or rather, in this case, re-deletion, as it has been deleted before. For exactly the same reason. Can't be bothered to write a full paragraph? Probably a bad idea for an article, then. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the first time it was deleted was for patent nonsense, not because it was a short stub. We don't delete episode articles not notability, nor do we delete articles with context. Is the content worth the time I've "wasted?" Well, I had asked you to undelete it before, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it wasn't worth your time then either. You could have written thirty or forty better stubs than this in the time it's taken you and me to debate this useless one-sentence factoid. Below, someone who cares has done just that. If you genuinely care about content, then make content. If all you care about is slavish devotion to process than I have wasted a lot of time treating you as someone whose opinion has some value. When the toilet is blocked, do not place unnecessary obstacles in the way of the plumber. Don't like articles being tagged for speedy? Go to CAT:CSD and untag the invalid ones and add a {{prod2}} to the rest, people will thank you for it, it will save real time and real content. What you are doing now is not saving time, not saving valid content, and not doing you or me much good. I'm done here. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be final arbiter of what's "worth my time." This could have been avoided when I first asked you about it, and I got stonewalled, so don't complain when I try to do something about it. Feel free to close this thing up when you're done, and there's still a prod undeletion to be taken care of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This obviously isn't about the article, since there's no useful content there, nothing worth discussing. So, DRV isn't the place for whatever this is about. Friday (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was about the article, which did have useful content and did have an improper deletion worth discussing. Since it's been recreated, however, I guess it's not really important anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've recreated the article in what is hopefully better condition (a whole paragraph and a source). Maybe now we can end the DRV and go do something better with our time.--Chaser - T 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cortex Command (http://www.datarealms.com) is definitely a notable game, which could be released as complete without disapproval. Irishguy claims that because the game is still being expanded on, it it not notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishguy#Cortex_command has the debate. Austonst 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid G11. The reason for deletion was not non-notability, but the fact that the article was an advertisement. --Coredesat 07:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 for sure. It could be released without disapproval? Come back when it has been, and has been reviewed in multiple non-trivial sources. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Todd Goldman accusations of plagiarism. Malkinann 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The above statement makes no sense. Please expand on your reasons for seeking a review. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of Purple Pussy has accused Todd Goldman of plagiarising Purple Pussy. This has been reported in one newspaper to date. The Purple Pussy article was deleted for lack of notability - these plagiarism accusations (which Goldman has acknowledged and apologised for) demonstrate notability. -Malkinann 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they don't, they demonstrate that one newspaper reported a plagiarism claim. Please cite multiple independent non-trivial sources on the primary subject of Purple Pussy. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, let's suppose that something like an accusation made a quantity of "note." To whom or what would it go? The strip, the accused, or the accuser? Perhaps it would go to "accusations of plagiarism 2007." Perhaps it would go to the host service. Perhaps it would go to the particular episode/strip being alledgedly copied. In other words, one guy making an accusation against another guy doesn't have any value for primary notability. Geogre 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what was in the article before, but I'd like to see what was in it. Given that it has been deleted and restored before, I believe there may be a couple of sources already in it. (For example, perhaps the ISBN of the book that Purple Pussy was published in.) Does an accusation have value for notability if it's true and verifiable? This plagiarism claim, and the newspaper article, (not to mention the coverage by the webcomic community) may help the case that Purple Pussy is notable by Wikipedia's standards. A couple of sources that I'd intend integrating into the Purple Pussy page, if it's undeleted: "Dear God, Make Art Thievery Die. Amen". Retrieved 2007-04-13. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/do/2007/apr/12/566637041.html - Retrieved: April 12, 2007 "Todd Goldman is a hack, throw rocks at him". Retrieved 2007-04-13.-Malkinann 11:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The AfD was in January. The plagiarism charge is much more recent than that. The article's subject needs to be weighed with that in mind, especially since the press about the incident has increased. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Increased to "has been reported in one newspaper to date", or increased beyond that? Barno 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a news service. "This comic was plagiarised, and it got in the paper" is not a reason to resurrect an article on the comic - at the most basic level, we require multiple independent sources, which by definition we can't have if the entire reason for notability (none other having been found earlier) is a single event surrounding a single strip (a single image, in fact). So far we only have the Las Vegas Sun anyway (the other being a blog and another webcomic). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the comic was deleted and restored once before, I believe there may be some more sources (for example, ISBNs) in the deleted page. -Malkinann 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Page: One newspaper APPARENTLY (I disagree) does not determine notability; but look at what it has NOW:
  Two newspaper articles.
  Acusations of, and ADDMITTANCE OF said plagairism by Todd Goldman, the one who did it.
  Many mentions of the plagiarism by many "notible" people in the webcomic community.
  If this does not attest to notability, then we might as well just delete all but the ten or twelve that are hyper-notible (Justyn 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The sources that were in the article before deletion were thoroughly investigated during the AFD discussion and were rejected by the community as grounds for supporting the article. (There were no ISBNs) The new sources listed above are about the artist and his ethics, not primarily about the webcomic itself. For the purpose of establishing the notability of the webcomic, they are passing or "trivial" references. They do not substantiate the overturning of the previous consensus decision. A redirect to the author's article might be in order but there is insufficient sourcing to support an independent article. Rossami (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'd rather see an article about Dave Kelly restored/created and a paragraph about purple pussy merged into that. Between the man and his comics, I'd think we have enough to support an article now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist It seems to be appropriate for another full discussionDGG 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and new information is unpersuasive. The articles are about Goldman and hiss paintings, not this webcomic. Being plagiarized does not make one notable. --Dragonfiend 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or relist. There seems to be enough material now. Additionally, PP was published in Keenspot Spotlight. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and head to Wikinews with news items. And "was published in Keenspot's whatever" is no indication of notability at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made a small survey of the status of Keenspot comics and AfDs which can be found on my user page. Of comics that have gone through AfDs, four were deleted, four were kept and six were kept as a result of no consensus. Since admins in general do not give their reasons for their final decision to keep or delete, it is difficult to make a detailed analysis of how Keenspot membership affects notability. It does seem to often be considered to confer notability according to WP:WEB's third point to a degree that many AfD's become no consensus. Epameinondas 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keenspot Spotlight is a comic book published by Keenspot. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]