Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 4

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living person. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this individual's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and other participants' comments in that RfC, as well as recent threads on the notability policy pages for related discussion. In addition, it has been noted that this article's reports of unproven allegations raise WP:LIVING issues, and also that the proposed NOTNEWS guideline would also strongly support deletion. The closing administrator closed the AfD as no consensus, defaulting to keep, and it is not my contention that there was in fact a consensus to delete the article; but the "do no harm" test underlying WP:LIVING as applied to a non-notable person strongly supports deletion of this article, whose encyclopedic value is slight, as a matter of principle. It would be desirable for the community to have the opportunity to address this set of issues in a situation that is not wiki-notorious a la Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt. A deletion review is requested. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My reason for calling this "no consensus" is simply that as I counted it, the vote was 9-10, certainly not a consensus. As for the BIO concern, the person is notable IMHO for wiki and the rest of that is discussed in the afd.Rlevse 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policies are not determined by voting. —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article makes no assumptions (any new POV is removed) and is based solely on reliable sources, and passes WP:NEWS because it "has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services." This was a large internet meme the blog in question attracting millions of visitors a day. The subject and insuing publications have been the subject of media attention by at least three major news outlets. The subject is therefore not an otherwise unknown person. If this article should go, then all the articles under Category:Internet memes should also be removed. Sfacets 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone's blog is not a reliable source that qualifies as "secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services". —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Right call at AfD, almost. As one poster on the AfD noted, it is not the person that is notable, it is the overall incident. This guy is one of two or three main players in the overall incident. The article could be revised to be more about the incident to balance out the "attack" on this guy. Yeah, it's negative but BLP isn't a whitewash policy. SchmuckyTheCat 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the incident is notable, then information relevant to the incident belongs merged into a main article on that incident, not in a separate article about this person, or about each person involved in the incident. —Centrx→talk • 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an issue for AfD or DRV, but for WP:RM. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, just like in everything else like this. So long as there are reliable sources, being an encyclopedia trumps theoretical harm, because sourced information by definition is not private. -Amarkov moo! 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The mere existence of BLP concerns is sufficient to mandate actual analysis of the discussion and not mere vote-counting. AfD isn't a vote in any circumstance, but especially not in such a situation. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... okay, now could you explain why a proper analysis would lead to deletion, please? I didn't count votes. -Amarkov moo! 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my comments at the RfC I linked to above for my answer to that. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, you didn't close the debate. I am taking direct issue with the methods used by the closer and suggesting that the close was improper. That's what deletion review is for. That I would have closed as delete is of secondary, if not tertiary concern. However, let me tell you why I would have done so. This is a wholly negative article on a person who does not meet any real definition of a "public person." As such, its mere existence is a tantamount to an attack page. That the Daily Mail saw fit to cover it in depth speaks to the Daily Mail's editorial policies, and I care not to be their critic. However, our policy is quite clear on such pages, and absent any proof of wider significance (and, for that matter, an actual court case), I am firmly convinced that the existence of this article stands in direct contravention WP:BLP. The keep !voters did not, in my view, offer a convincing rebuttal of these arguments which, I would note, were made by Doc glasgow and other parties during the debate. There you are. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I supported deleting this article under WP:NOTNEWS, but there's no way it meets WP:ATTACKPAGE. We have plenty of articles about people whose notability stems entirely from their roles in crimes or scandals. Kla'quot 07:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The sources in the article are all articles in newspapers from a single news cycle. That does not make for independent sources; that does not make for secondary or hindsight analysis; and that does not make for an encyclopedia article. If this incident and this person are notable beyond a paragraph in an article about the history of blogging, Internet vigilantism, or Internet crimes, then there would be other reliable sources, beyond that single news event. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I honestly would suggest a merge in the article on ebay fraud. While it is not notable to stand alone as an article, it can help show examples of the kind of fraud that takes place on eBay. A possilble suggestion for the text is the following: "A widely reported case of eBay fraud occured in the United Kingdom when a ebay user took revenge on a seller by using internet vigilantism. The buyer was trying to purchase a laptop, but the seller sent him one that was below the state specifications. Using his blog, the buyer caused embarasment to the seller and caused the seller to diable his ebay account." Give or take a few words, and that sums up the whole article in a, hopefully, NPOV way. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• move The article is under the wrong name, As Centrx said above, it is the incident which is notable; if it has an established name, the article should be moved there. If not, as Mackensen said, it is possibly more appropriate under the name of the other participant, Thomas Sawyer. Selling a defective computer is not particularly newsworthy; what was newsworthy was Sawyer's response. I find it incredible that there is not even a redirect under his name. The present article is penalizing the victim and is an obvious example of bad editing. I have no objection to deleting--it will then only be necessary to construct a proper article under an appropriate title. Nor have I object to keeping--the article can be moved and the redirects entered. Neither takes Deletion Review. I am surprised it has remained in its present state for such a long time. DGG 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist, as the closing has been called into question and another five days of debate may enable us to find consensus. The BLP concerns are not necessarily a reason to delete, but they're a reason to make sure that we get this right. Kla'quot 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, Very reluctant endorse per trialsanderrors. Even the nominator agrees there was no consensus here, and the AfD ran for over seven days. We can discuss later whether to move it, merge it, or AfD it again. Kla'quot 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus decision I don't see a single argument here that challenges the closure. There is no such thing as a "functional attack page" and certainly no such thing as a "good faith attack page". Nomination and comments from previos delete voters are simply an attempt to re-run the AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I courtesy-blanked the AfD discussion as it had attracted an inappropriate comment after the close. Feel free to un-blank it if you object. Kla'quot 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have un-blanked the page, but also removed the comment made after the close. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. None of the arguments here actually demonstrate that the closure was inappropriate. Rather, they are of the type "... but I made a valid argument!". Granted, and I'm not sure which side I would have come down on had I participated in the AFD, but it is obvious that there was no consensus. If anyone is concerned that the article should cover the incident and not the individual, simply merge this article into the incident article (if one exists) or create an article about the incident if it doesn't. That's a relatively simple editing matter that requires neither AFD or DRV. -- Black Falcon 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Comments above pre-suppose that all people arguing to overturn !voted in the AfD, which isn't actually the case. I've no interest in re-running the AfD which is precisely why I identified vote-counting as the reason to overturn. Oh well...Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote-counting is perfectly proper way to close a discussion as long as the closer concludes that all opiners offer equally valid interpretations of Wikipedia policies. And as Black Falcon points out, nominations based on "my vote counts more" are very weak to begin with, not to mention nominations based on made up policies such as WP:LETSLEEPINGDOGSLIE or attempts to construct a higher morality than the reliable sources we routinely draw from. ~ trialsanderrors 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being the closing admin, let me throw in a few more tidbits here, the discussion here on the review proves, IMHO, that there was no consensus and such is still the case. I feel the article should stand as is or be renamed and tweaked to focus on the incident.Rlevse 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Meets relevant standards, that's all that matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure setting aside my own opinion as to whether or not we should keep this article (that decision can always be revisited in the future) the fact is that the closing admin was correct in finding no consensus to delete. Pascal.Tesson 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and delete. WP:BLP requires us to weigh the encyclopedic value of an article against a non-public or semi-public person's reasonable expectations of privacy. The status of a person as a "public person" is normally measured by the actions taken by the individual to promote him/herself, not by mere media coverage. This little tiff adds nothing substantive to the encyclopedia. The AFD discussion shows a misunderstanding by some of the participants of the requirements of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the article could have been deleted under the rationales of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. The argument that "it's an internet meme therefore we must cover it" fails to convince me. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn closure and relist We may now be a little more sophistication about these matters as a result of the lively discussion over other people. The question hinges on what is to some extent a content dispute: whether this guy was the relatively innocent victim--he sold a defective computer, but the person he sold it to was the only who made the notorious out-of-proportion privacy-violating stink about it. and it was that, not the fault in the machine, which wa responsible for the news coverage. If he is viewed as the victim the article is a violation of BLP, because he did not seek publicity--far from it. The other person was the one who sort publicity.DGG 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closure and delete per Newyorkbrad and Rossami. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a permanent record of trivial and harmful gossip concerning non-notable people. --Folantin 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete sometimes we need to rise above the tendency to vote count and source count. With the powerful medium we are comes some responsibilities - the fact is that we don't need this trivial rubbish, and we are a better encyclopedia without it. BLP isn't just a rule to be applied - it is a mindset to be adopted.--Doc^g 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn and delete. This is a piece of hideous vileness masquerading as a dispassionate account of a disgusting and unconscionable attack on a private individual. This has no place on Wikipedia. In view of the nature of the content, I have taken the unusual step of blanking the article pending the conclusion of this review. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted your good faith blanking. Please wait for the review to complete and dont try to censor wikipedia. GameKeeper 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be done through an AfD, not this "secret" process, that isn't told in the article. And I think that this article should be kept, it is about an event that was prominently reported in the media. --Tilman 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a 'secret' process, it is linked from the article talk page. GameKeeper 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of the latest internet memes. This article violates BLP on several different fronts, and uses information collected from a single news source. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not use information from a single news source, there are 3 separate sources linked all major UK news sources , more could easily be found online. It was not just an internet meme. It was widely discussed in the British press as the sources show. GameKeeper 07:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse closure - notable incident reported by notable sources. It is your own POV if you don't like it - the fact is, it is a perfectly acceptable article under Wikipedia guidelines as they currently stand. The article has already survived two AFD's. Sfacets 07:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Rossami and Doc Glasgow. A quite unremarkable event involving entirely unremarkable people. The head-counting AFD result is contrary to the intentions of WP:BLP and cannot stand. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure - article has survived two AFD, has multiple reliable sources and should not be deleted just because some editors disagree with or disapprove of its content. --J2thawiki 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per Bastique, Doc et al above. Of the five sources proffered, one is duplicated and one is a dead link, leaving only three; of these two seem very similar indicating a possibly-common source. Furthermore all stem from a very slim time window, a matter of a couple of days; there is no follow-up, nothing to indicate that this incident was anything more than a wikt:nine day wonder. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry L. Zubrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I created this article because this person is sited in a number of Wikipedia articles, most notably Goldman Sachs, Friends Central School, and Haverford College. The references stated in these articles were not added by me. I can assure you this article presents no conflict of interest besides the fact that he is related. I meticulously made sure that the article was unbiased and presented the facts, not opinions. This article should remain because Wikipedia should have an article at this person, which I wrote because no one else did. Barry L. Zubrow is a noted New Jersey diplomat and well-known former business executive. This fact is further conveyed through the many sources of information available on the internet about Barry L. Zubrow. I sited many of these sources in my article. There are many similar articles like this one which present greater conflicts of interest that Wikipedia should try to prevent instead of spending time worrying about this trivial conflict. It would be a travesty not to post this beneficial and unbiased article on this site.

Furthermore, there is no way to prove that this article presents a conflict of interest because one cannot prove that I have a relation to this person. Therefore, for all these reasons, this article should remain on Wikipedia. Mrzubrow 21:42, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close. MER-C 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the reason is "invalid A7". ~ trialsanderrors 06:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mrzubrow says that it is impossible to prove that Barry Zubrow is unrelated, but this is after you state in the previous paragraph that " this article presents no conflict of interest besides the fact that he is related." And then there's the unfortunate point that your username has the name "Zubrow" in it. So, yes it is impossible to prove absolutely, but why don't you enlighten us with a "alibi" and say who he is then, if he is not related. And by the way, I really don't know of many conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, and certainly you don't suggest that we ignore problems deemed too "trivial" to correct? Sure, let's just ignore trivial problems and our encyclopedia will be almost as good! SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Undeletion for Examination: It is probably worth looking at the page to assess if there is an issue of conflict of interest, because without that point, the argument is pretty flimsy; Barry Zubrow seems to be moderately notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 03:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Request Undeletion for Examination: This sounds like an unjustified speedy--let's see it.DGG 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: history restored behind DRV notice. Awyong J. M. Salleh 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Forbes mention definitely asserts notability. Awyong J. M. Salleh 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and suggest WP:TROUT for mrzubrow for attempted obfuscation of the COI issue, which can be construed as mild disruption (not major, certainly not blockable, which is why I suggested WP:TROUT.) ColourBurst 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not a A7 but a horrible piece of advertising, not helped by the COI issues or the attempts to obfuscate them. Maybe someone else wants to write an encyclopedic article on Barry Zubrow, although I doubt it survives an AFD. Investment banking partners are like bishops, career officers or attorneys. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List to AFD as a contested speedy-deletion. Include a note about the probable conflict of interest concerns. Personally, I think the subject fails our generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies but the page can stand discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Barry Zubrow, a rewritten repost of Barry L. Zubrow, by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Mrzubrow. I will be back later with evidence. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the histories together, protected the trailing redirect, and re-protected the original title so that it only contains a link to this discussion. —freak(talk) 20:38, Mar. 7, 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No necessary need for this article. Barry Zubrow is not known well enough to have a Wikipedia article. In essence, the former article is just a political campaign for noteriety. 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I had posted a speedy deletion request on that page as it is a re-post of the old deleted article Barry L. Zubrow. The author is none other than User:Mrzubrow, only trying to circumvent the rules by sock-puppeting as User:Ferraridriver303.

If you will look at their histories, all their edits are focused on Barry Zubrow (besides UserMrzubrow's discussion with the deleter of the first page, User:Merope, and the protests for undeletion of said page). User:Mrzubrow also makes two edits to the Pingry School article. Both users try to put the same picture on each page, only the first attempt was wrongly done, and on the second attempt, he figures out how to post it correctly. Both articles cite two of the same sources. Anyway, the two histories have been merged now, so after User: Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh edits, it is the second page Barry Zubrow and before that edit is the first page, Barry L. Zubrow. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Mrzubrow; he is Barry Zubrow's son. I would give more details, but I'd like to respect his privacy. I believe this qualifies as a COI. Ferraridriver303 seems to be a sock puppet. Atungare 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't want to sacrifice his privacy, at least not at first, but I personally know Mrzubrow as Barry Zubrow's son. This is why I was the first to welcome him; he told me he was joining Wikipedia beforehand. Also- the damning evidence- he told me that he was sockpuppeting today. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hating on Mrzubrow just because you're jealous of his 1337 skillz.

Tiny Mix Tapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It Is A Professional Reviews Source Mangle 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definition was wrongly deleted as advertising spam. Tiny Mix Tapes is a professional reviews source that has been running for over five years, with a readership ranking in the hundreds of thousands. They reciently added three banner ads to the site, but they are ads for music related material and not invasive. Please add this back in. There is no reason why this page should be deleted and other music sites like Popmatters and Pitchfork are allowed to stay. Why else is that "professional reviews" catagory on every album page?--Mangle 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I deleted this. The above editor created this article and has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. His edits (which I am in the process of reverting) are about 98% adding links to this website throughout various articles. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. This article (along with the various links) is advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The page was deleted for not asserting or demonstrating notability per WP:CSD A7 - it was not deleted as spam, as the user above asserts. (Although numerous links to the website itself were deleted as spam.) Page shouldn't be re-instated unless sources are provided proving notability per the central criteria of WP:WEB. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. [1] and discussed in a scholarly journal[2] --Dhartung | Talk 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media aspect of WP:WEB states that the subject must be the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works. The first article you gave requires a subscription so I know nothing about the contents beyond the two sentence mention at the top. The second article says: On the web, sites such as Art of the Mix (where users list and comment on one another's favorite mixes), Tiny Mix Tapes (with an "automatic mix tape generator" to match any word, phrase, style, or emotion one submits), and Mixtaper.com (with hundreds of mixes linked to free and legal mp3s) all reveal an enduring devotion to the plastic cassettes gathering dust in many a closet. That's it. A few words within a sentence that mentions two other websites. That would hardly count as non-trivial. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus the website you didn't have a subscription too. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others.--Mangle 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• IrishGuy, I apologize, I'm having trouble finding one that isn't behind a paywall. Here's a google cache of a Knight-Ridder story (syndicated by the Dallas Morning News) that is 100% about TMT. Here it's a Yahoo! Pick. Here's Wired News, one of four sites profiled; blog capsules from USA Today and The Age; a college newspaper points out it's one of three indie tastemakers (similar). Nevertheless, as stated, they meet WP:WEB criterion three. If that means nothing, perhaps we should remove criterion three altogether as misleading.--Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete for inspection so others can see if the deletion was reasonable. This is not a question of overturning an AfD where there are arguments available, but a speedy where the the nature of the process has made the evidence unavailable. DGG 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history restored. ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Special:Whatlinkshere/Tiny_Mix_Tapes. ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's so many links to that page because the site was spammed all over Wikipedia. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted, all of mine have been deleted. What's left on that list is all other editors, of which I'm sure you'll find a wide selection. Thus adding to the notability.--Mangle 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiny Mix Tapes is a pretty well established online album reviewer. Not quite Pitchfork, but certainly something editors would quote if they write articles on particular albums. As Dhartung pointed out, TMT is a featured reviewer on Metacritic. The linkspamming by User:Mangle is a conduct issue and not a content issue. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while the website might meet WP:WEB, the article I deleted met the criteria for deletion as there is no assertion of notability at all. No references. Nothing. It reads like an advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Awesome. So you admit tinymixtapes is a professional review source, and is therefor allowed to be linked to in the professional reviews catagory on album pages. Thank you.--Mangle 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point to where I said any such thing. Stop attempting to find loopholes to spam more articles. IrishGuy ^talk 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to say anything. The professional reviews catagory is for professional reviews and tinymixtapes is a professional reviews source. Done and done.--Mangle 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you start spamming again, you will be blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On article spamming, I agree with IrishGuy. It may be the prerogative of editors to add TMT reviews to album articles they write, but that doesn't give a WP:COI editor the right to mas insert them into articles s/he didn't author. Re IrishGuy, I don't see any evidence of advertising in the article or in the edit history. Also, lack of references isn't, and never has been, grounds for speedy deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was deleted for lack of references, I said it was deleted for not asserting any level of notability or imporantace. Look at the history yourself. It was a valid delete per A7. IrishGuy ^talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Intserting links in the provided professional reviews catagory to reviews of the albums in question. I ask, what else is that section for? I'm not trying to screw anybody here. I'm just trying to add content, which, whether it's mine or not, is relevant to the articles in question, as evidenced by the fact Wiki endorses a "professional reviews" catagory in album specific articles.--Mangle 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been trying to add your own content. You weren't trying to better articles. I note that the only links you added from TinyMixTapes.com were to articles that you had written. IrishGuy ^talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It wasn't deleted for lack of references (or for being spam), it was deleted for failing to assert notability per CSD A7. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mangle, please try to understand that "massively" (I'm not sure how many links you placed) placing links in articles to websites that you are involved with looks very fishy (look at it from our perspective; we're one of the highest trafficked sites in the world; and yes, that means lots of people want to link their site onto it). If you really want those links in there, let other people do it. If I knew which Wikiproject to bring the issue up, I'd actually put the notice in there. ColourBurst 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ALBUM has a list of acceptable reviewers for infoboxes. I don't think TMT is among them. ~ trialsanderrors 08:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, but right at the top of the list is Metacritic, which in 891 cases points to a Tiny Mix Tapes review. Nor does it anywhere state that the list is exclusive -- if anything it encourages searching and says that "professional review" should be interpreted broadly. (I certainly agree, however, that a review author linking all his own reviews is WP:COI self-promotion. The list of reviews for a particular album should be decided by consensus.)--Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastikas in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Closing admin based the closure on an inaccurate and unsupported generalization that there is "recent community consensus against 'in popular culture' articles" (there is no such consensus, more than 50% of pop culture articles are surviving AfD and there are no specific policies about in pop culture articles) - and also the closing admin called it a "mess" which is a personal bias. Request a neutral closure. Please close based on the specifics of the strengths of the arguments. In this case, WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish the entire article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale, many of the entries are perfectly valid for Wikipedia. Stbalbach 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn clear consensus to keep on AfD. The opinion of closing admin shouldn't matter really.  Grue  07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own deletion. AfD is not a vote and acting in accordance with policy is not personal bias. Nor are different AfDs closed by different people in the least bit relevant. A list where no-one knows what it's supposed to include (due to the confusion between its use by the Nazis, Indian religions, Oriental religions and numerous others) and is entirely based on random primary sources clearly violates policy, and the fact that including something on a list of "People and organisations who have used a Nazi symbol in their work" has the potential to be an extremely virulent accusation only leaves us less margin for error. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was a clear consensus to keep (or at least merge) the content. In addition to the fact that each article should be judged on its own merit, there is no "recent community consensus" against 'in popular culture' articles. Please see such discussions as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hawking in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano in popular culture, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture. If the problem was unsourced content, then unsourced statements could have been deleted and a merge performed of the remaining material performed. -- Black Falcon 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an incorrect closure. It that closure it was stated that it was being done on the basis of the merits of "in popular culture" in general, not of the specific article. The result of the discussion was to keep, as justified in this instance at least. DGG 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as nominator. The keep !votes were supported by such comments as "I've seen far worse" and a desire on the part of some editors (including the initiator of the DRV) to keep the trivia from being transplanted into the featured article Swastika. "I've seen far worse" is in no way a reason to keep an article. Creating garbage dump articles to keep trivia out of the main article is not a good or a long-term solution. All it does is shift the problem from one set of editors to another. I said in the AFD that the best solution for dealing with this kind of stuff is to delete it from the main article and delete the context-free indiscriminate list articles, to which Stbalbach said that he agrees that this sort of stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Given that he doesn't believe this sort of information belongs here, given that he was unable in the course of the nomination to refute the specific allegations about the article and given that his expressed reason for wanting to keep the article is to prevent its contents from ending up in the main article, I have to wonder why he wants to overturn the deletion. Otto4711 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also say in response to the notion that 50% of "...in popular culture" articles are surviving AFD that I'm not seeing that to be the case and most of those that are surviving (as "no consensus") are doing so on the strength of the same sort of "better in this article than in the main article" argument as Stbalbach made in this AFD. Otto4711 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And (sorry, I'll shut up after this) in response to the linked AFDs provided by Black Falcon, only one of them, Wheel of Fortune, closed with a clear "keep" (and as nominator I will acknowledge that it was a poorly-done nomination, not that the article isn't still terrible). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes have all closed in the recent past with deletes, as have a slew of pop culture-type articles that didn't happen to be called "...in popular culture" including List of fictional foods, List of fictional beverages, List of psychadelic rock songs, Timeline of Batman and a passel of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire contestants. Otto4711 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus for deleting a lot of these articles was not due to the fact that they were "in popular culture" types, but rather that they failed other WP guidelines or were of exceedingly poor quality. There is no inherent consensus to delete "in popular culture" articles that are salvageable. Finally, Wikipedia's deletion policy requires that each article be considered on its own merits. Deleting a "no consensus" discussion based on the outcomes of other AfD discussions is not sanctioned (especially when such articles are different in their quality). -- Black Falcon 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this reply but there really is no reason for me to do so. It's all been said already. This is really all coming down to the word choice of the closing admin. Because he included the phrase "recent community consensus" the keepers have a tiny peg on which to hang their overturn hats. Completely ignoring the actual reasons for the deletion, specified both there and here. Otto4711 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection - good call by admin.--Doc^g 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion closure looks fine to me. --pgk 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - In addition to above comments, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. A valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Macarenaman 08:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 13:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Wile E. Heresiarch 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unqualified votes are not considered here. Please provide a rationale. ~ trialsanderrors 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I'm fully signed up to delete the mass of the "..in popular culture" articles or sections as they are just a mass of films, TV shows, songs etc which have no real relevance to the topic. However, the swastika is a different concept. I have seen whole books on design devoted to it (this one and this one, for instance). I don't know what's in the article but I think it's a reasonable subject for an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Afd is not a vote; closing admins are allowed to use some degree of common sense, they don't just count yays and nays. The reasons for keeping the article revolve around WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and/or a desire to keep cruft out of the core article. While I do not deny that the swastika's place in popular culture is indeed worthy of some mention, this article is clearly substandard. Most of the occurrences are actually manji (which should not be listed there are all, and instead be a disambig line to List of manji in popular culture or whatever), others should instead be on Nazi symbolism or a page about Neo-Nazism in general (e.g. Harry the Nazi, where he wears a whole Nazi "uniform", not just the distinctive armband), or simply don't describe the significance of that work's swastika inclusion, either from an in-universe perspective or a real-world one. Its references are few and far between, and generally don't come from reliable sources. I would suggest a new section be added in swastika itself for the truly noteworthy uses, and that section be culled of rubbish entries the moment they appear. To me, A well-written featured article linking to a poorly-written child/cousin article reflects almost as badly on the FA as that content being in the featured article itself. Garrett^Talk 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - the majority of the keep arguments did not use any kind of argument based on Wikipedia's standards or practices. I would say more, but Garrett appears to have covered most of what I would have to say. --Haemo 09:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Offering for consideration the existence of Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century which still has problems but which appears to restrict itself to actual instances of the swastika and not manji or random things that an editor perceives as being vaguely swastika-shaped. So not only was the deleted article a mess, it was also redundant. Otto4711 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was not the deleted article about use of the swastika in the late 20th century rather than the early bit? Sam Blacketer 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted article was about any appearance of anything that an editor decided looked like a swastika, whether it actually was a swastika or a manji or a coincidental coming together of sections of a stadium roof or runways. Otto4711 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn While AfD is not a vote, it is also not a debate in which the closing admin's opinion is more important than that of the debate's participants. I fail to see a clear consensus to delete even though some (but not all) of the reasons in favor of keeping the article are not so convincing. One day, we might decide to change the policies of "keep if no consensus to delete" and "don't delete if the article can be improved to be acceptable" but in the meantime those principles do apply and I believe that the closing admin went too far in finding the required clear consensus to delete. Pascal.Tesson 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does the closing admin not have the discretion to determine that keep arguments are too weak to constitute blockage of consensus to delete? The arguments in favor of not deleting the article were "well-sourced miscellany article" (from a non-signing editor, and the article was not well-sourced), "merge three items" (out of a list of dozens, which is closer to a "delete" than a "keep") "I've seen far worse" (not a reasonable argument for keeping), "this is different from other similarly-named articles" (which doesn't seem that compelling on its face) "keep as a tool to avoid this crap being in the main text" (not compelling) and a cite of WP:SUMMARY (not relevant). There was no compelling or even decent argument offered to keep the article and the admin acted properly in discounting those arguments. Otto4711 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man... An editor writes

While there are unsourced sections, article has multiple sourced areas as well. I've seen far worse. Could use some cleanup to better meet quality standards, but not worthy of being deleted outright.

and you summarize this by "I've seen far worse". Another one writes:

This is an extension of its parent, and a merge might create a long page. All of this is verifiable, and if the medium was notable, the incident should be included. This is pretty much how it has been done so far as I can tell, but there could be some cleanup to do. This is not 'indiscriminate', in that it is a valid piece of another article.

and you summarize it as "keep as a tool to avoid this crap being in the main text" and so on... Pascal.Tesson 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "I've seen far worse" was the unique portion of that comment, as the sourcing issue was already mentioned in connection with another comment. "Extension of the parent" is an expansion on the rationale of "keep the crap out of the main text" and it seems odd to simultaneously claim that the content is both "crap" and "a valid piece of another article." And of course no one should be commenting here without having read the AFD to see the original comments anyway. Regardless of whether you think how I reported the sentiments of those two editors captures them or not, the point still stands that the arguments in favor of keeping the article were weak, the administrator recognized that and the admin deleted appropriately. Otto4711 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that, out of respect for people's honest opinions, you should make your point without twisting others' words. You might want to consider the possibility that others simply disagree rather than try to pass them off as idiots. Pascal.Tesson 03:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And I just want to note that I don't appreciate your false accusation of bad faith on my part. Directly quoting the portion of someone's comments that I believe accurately represents their opinions is not "twisting others' words." I did not attempt to pass anyone off as an idiot. "They made a weak argument" does not equal "idiot" anywhere but, apparently, inside your head, which makes the perception not my responsibility. Otto4711 13:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn deletion this article can reasonably considered different from the other --in popular culture articles, as there is a great many potential items. I do not think thee was consensus at the debate on this one. DGG 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unclear as to what the number of potential items has to do with whether the article should be deleted or not. Otto4711 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It seems clear that the only strong arguments for keeping this were to keep the cruft out of the featured article... which is a very unconvincing argument: if the cruft is a problem, why not remove it from the article? I know it's hard doing that constant work, but it's the right answer to that solution. Mangojuice^talk 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I have to agree with Mangojuice here. The strongest "keep" arguments were based on limiting the damage to the main article. That's not a good long-term solution for the encyclopedia. The closer clearly explained the reason for overriding the strict vote-count. Rossami (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn deletion - If it is a mess, it can be cleaned. If it doesn't exist it cannot. Sfacets 07:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Was tagged with a speedy notice with as reason: non notable. Since this entry asserted notability as being a program on a notable radio station, I think it at least deserves an AFD discussion. This is not blatantly non-notable to be deleted under CSD A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list on AfD. Notability is asserted. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I am not averse to a procedural listing to AFD as a contested speedy-deletion, I must endorse the speedy-deletion as an appropriate application of case A7. The total contents of this page at time of deletion were "Re:sound is a weekly one-hour program on Chicago Public Radio produced by the Third Coast International Audio Festival airing Saturdays at 1 pm on WBEZ 91.5 in Chicago. Re:sound is a remix of music, found sound, sound bites, and radio stories culled from around the world ranging from personal narratives to investigative documentaries, experimental sound art to humorous essays. The host of Re:sound is independent producer and essayist Gwen Macsai." I can find no assertion of notability anywhere in that content. If Mgm has an assertion of notability based on other sources, then overturn and list to AFD. If not, leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Chicago Public Radio is notable, and this is a program on it. Kla'quot 05:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify this opinion. The city of New York is notable. That doesn't mean that every person or building in it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Harvard is a very notable university that turns out many thousands of perfectly average graduates every year. (In fact, I can say with confidence that exactly half of them are below average.) Notability of a parent does not imply automatic notability of the child. What makes this program special? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically it's the same line of reasoning as the idea that if a band is notable, each of its albums is also notable. A radio station is only notable because of its finite set of programs. I wouldn't mind an AfD discussion on whether my logic makes sense. Kla'quot 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of listing it on AfD, would you consider merging it into Chicago Public Radio and calling it a day? Kla'quot 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9412 (Internet radio station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Page was deleted under CSD A7 due to a lack of assertion of notability. I submit that the station, being the first result under a Google search for "9412" and #8 for "classic rock" "internet radio", as well as having been listed on the iTunes Radio service for two years or more, should make it sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and I propose that the article be restored and edited to reflect that. (I'm not sure about actual listener figures, as such information is only readily available from Shoutcast stations, which this is not one of. Haikupoet 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability means that it has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, not that it is the top hit when you search for it. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, even if something is notable, it can still be speedily deleted if the article fails to even assert notability. Did the article assert notability before being deleted? —Dgies^t c 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to have been. That's why I propose restoring it and editing it to include that. Haikupoet 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the one who deleted it. The text of the article stated (formatted to reduce space)

  9412.com is an Internet radio classic rock station based in Rochester, Minnesota and founded by Chris Popp. It began as a Live365 station with several subchannels, but eventually narrowed its focus to classic rock only, and expanded to become a listener supported station with a full air staff of volunteer disc jockeys (mostly operating remotely from their personal systems) and an IRC chatroom that is manned by the DJs. Popp, still the proprietor of the station, states on the website that a great deal of the station's play list comes from his personal collection, having been raised by hippie parents who were rock enthusiasts. 9412 is available on the iTunes radio service.

  I did not see an assertion of notability in there. Let alone the fact that I'm pretty sure it wouldn't meet WP:WEB or WP:BAND, or some combination of the both, the article didn't even bother to make an assertion of notability. Hence, A7. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have deleted if it the first sentence had read 9412.com' is a notable Internet radio classic rock station? If you would have kept it, you are relying upon the technicality of wording-- there should be no specific magic word or phrasingDGG 04:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the record, from my talk: Google ranking is not a measure of notability, and being an iTunes radio station, in of itself, is not necessarily notable. A brief google search [3] indicates 68 hits for "9412 radio", of which only 23 are unique, and not all of those are valid pages (some are bookmarks, some are spambots etc.).⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A7 speedy. No assertion of notability. Internet "radio" stations (i.e. webcasts / podcasts) have a big hill to climb to establish notability, and there is no evidence this had got above base camp. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse What's more, you get to be #1 Google ranked by doing loads of links. Now, how can you get links without necessarily getting listeners? Ooooh, I know! Get a Wikipedia article! No verification, no notability, and Internet radio stations are here today, gone this afternoon. (I liked Radio Gaga. It lasted 18 months or so.) Utgard Loki 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgie Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

i think it was wrong to delete that article because its a notable person and she is a celebrity in her country. I would like to see the deletion of that page reverted. i dont now if im sending this message right. but in ohter case help me.--Matrix17 16:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Misplaced nomination moved here. ~ trialsanderrors 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to endorse my own deletion, but I deleted this because there was no credible assertion of notability per WP:BIO (and it was a recreation of an earlier deleted article though not an exact recreation). The subject is the mother of a celebrity and involved in a court case that happened to be televised. That's it. None of that is even an assertion per WP:BIO, thus the article was speedily deleted.--Isotope23 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith seems appropriate. Corvus cornix 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave deleted and endorse redirect to A.N.S. article, which has since been created. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse current redirect as is usually done for family members of celebrities. If she does something that can't reasonably be included in Anna Nicole Smith, make it a separate article then. Kla'quot 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Das.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

I`m in a edit war with User:F3rn4nd0. He created another image, DepAdSegColombia.png in order to use it for the article Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad. That article used to have my image, which is a logo with better resolution, scanned from my personal documents. User:F3rn4nd0 added to my image a speedy deletion tag, under the argument that it isn`t the logo for DAS. So I added the hangon tag and replied on the talk page, but admin User:JesseW ignored all this and deleted the image. I left a message for him and he hadn`t replied. So I`m requesting reverting the deletion of my image, in order to use it in the DAS article and replace the current one because it have better quality. Also, if you check the history for DepAdSegColombia.png a previous version say that he created the logo (someone already changed that) so I`m also working under the theory that he re-created the logo on Paint or something like that. ometzit<col> 14:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment declaring yourself to be in an edit war with someone isn't a good thing, and is unlikely to gain you much sympathy. Given the image is being used under a fair use rationale the image is supposed to be of low quality, so the issue of the image you had being better quality is of limited interest. It was User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who did the recent deletion, I suggest you discuss the overall issue with him. --pgk 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: 1. yeah i would try to revert it to my image but it was deleted. 2. The image currently on place is from low quality, yeah, and it qualify as fair use, yeah if the image had the right layout of colors (the blue one is very wrong). The other image is from low quality too, but is enough to be able to read what does it say, this one is blurry. Also is from a personal file, so we would avoid any possible copyrigth problems if it`s copied from another web page. 3. User:F3rn4nd0 image say that is was created by himself for Wiki proyects, and that cannot happen since Colombia government is the owner of this image. 4. The deletion log for the image say that it was deleted first by JesseW and the second for Future Perfect at Sunrise. I suppose first one was delete the image and the second one to allow Das.jpg be used again--ometzit<col> 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. You seem to misunderstand, I am not suggesting you should pursue an edit war, quite the opposite I am suggesting you discuss this and come to some sort of agreement (or follow some other dispute resolution) 2. I'll take your word for it regarding the colours 3. He certainly can create it (and evidently has), he won't have a 100% copyright stake however so licenses like PD or GFDL are inappropriate, but it appears to be listed as being used on the basis of the fair use doctrine 4. The date for JesseW deleting was 8 months or so ago, so I think you suppose incorrectly. --pgk 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok I`ll try contacting User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise cuz I don´t have any idea why there are two deletions--ometzit<col> 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse deletion. On one hand, the statement for the other image upload is very odd. (Trying to license a logo as a personal creation under the GFDL? And then breaking the license by saying that it can only be used on Wikimedia projects?) But on the other hand, this appears to be the logo, and I am very reluctant to undelete a low-resolution fair use image in favor of a high-resolution one. -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the original decision and delete the DepAdSegColombia.png image. - The image Das.jpg was deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise on 24 February 2007 as being "orphaned fair use, superseded by duplicate."[4] However, the creator of Image:DepAdSegColombia.png appears to have admitted to making a derivative work, which would be a violation of the logo holder's copyright in many countries if created without permission. The licensing for DepAdSegColombia.png does not indicate that the derivative work was created with permission from Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad. While a low-resolution image of the logo might be fair use, a derivative image of the logo probably cannot be fair use if the underlying image violates the logo holder's control over the creation of derivative works. In other words, the image Das.jpg does not appear to have been superseded by a duplicate. Rather, it was superseded by a derivative work suffering from copyright problems. Thus, the image Das.jpg should be restored and the image DepAdSegColombia.png should be deleted. -- Jreferee 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yess: finally someone understand my whole point. I`m going to notify Future Perfect at Sunrise to see if he agree. --ometzit<col> 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi ometzit. I'm glad I could help you out. However, please do not enter into an edit war or declare yourself in an edit war. It is important that we act with civility toward one another. Also, please do not initially assume that an admin or anyone else ignored information presented to them. Usually, that is not the case and it is much better to discuss matters with people before drawing conclusions. As for JesseW not responding to you, he last was on Wikipedia at 00:04, 23 February 2007 and the post on his talk page by User:Alextrevelian_006 (is that you?)[5] regarding the Das.jpg image was posted at 8:09, 24 February 2007. He likely has not responded because he has not been on Wikipedia to check his messages. In any event, you will have a much more enjoyable time on Wikipedia if you assume good faith in people's actions. -- Jreferee 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I know I`m just wikistressed cuz User:JesseW never answer me back, neither User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who deleted the image, neither User:F3rn4nd0 who added the image with a self work tag, then changed to a fair use tag, then returned to the self work tag and also was the one who added the speedy deletion tag for the image. But it`s good in case case, since i`m dealing with it via Mu Online so thanks to this mess i have been able to do reset a couple of times.--ometzit<col> 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note by deleting admin: Sorry I hadn't seen this was on review. My opinion: (1) I really don't care which of the two images gets used; they aren't that different in quality, they both have ultimately the same copyright status (legitimate fair use, arguably), and the issue of hitting the right shade of blue is not really that serious for me. I've seen a version on the organisation's website that is different yet again. I'm not sure about the problem with the "derivational work" described by Jreferee. (2) "Das.jpg" is a poorly chosen file name. (3) Whichever version gets used, the other must be deleted. - Therefore, I propose to undelete "Das.jpg" but under the name of the other file, so you guys can continue your dispute by just reverting between file versions of the same filename. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Restored as Image:DepAdSegColombia.png. Please modify the description page accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Red Alert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted and protected by Lucky 6.9. There is no AfD log for the page, and the admin who deleted it has since left the project. The page was deleted as a vanity page. However, the artist does have some notability, and I believe that he passes WP:MUSIC. "DJ Red Alert" comes up with over 1 million hits on Google. His entry in the All Music Guide gives evidence of some notable accomplishments, including membership in the Universal Zulu Nation and Boogie Down Productions, and hosting a show on WRKS-FM. He was mentioned in the VH1 documentary miniseries "And You Don't Stop: 30 Years of Hip-Hop." Stebbins 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Current Deletion, but allow recreation the version Lucky 6.9 deleted was an very obvious vanity spam, copyvio page, with comments like With his attitude toward life and professionalism regarding his craft, surely we are in good hands! the rest of the deletions were db-empty type articles but I looks like a notable DJ, and an article should be recreated with non-trivial reliable sources Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletions, all seem valid to me, but as noted above there is no reason not to create a valid article if reliable sources can be found. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Pioneer of Hip-Hop:

Mentions:

• New York Daily News "hooking up with rap act the Jungle Brothers through local hip-hop pioneer DJ Red Alert": [6]
• Daily news article on DJ Red Alert "a living legend of the hip-hop genre" "He's one of the founding fathers of the hip-hop movement, with influences that extend into the genre's past, present and future." [7]
• NYTimes: Highlited in DJ Domination: World Domination [8]
• NYTimes: Performed at Hip-Hop appreciation week [9]
• NYTimes: Hip-Hop pioneer [10]
• DJ on Power 105.1 FM.
• Show on Sirius Satellite Network [11]
• Mix Show called "Artical One" on Youth Radio 92.5 in St. Martin, U.S. Virgin Islands.
• DJ Grandmaster Flash's influence [12]
• Honorary UN Ambassador [13]
• Bronx Walk of Fame [14] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.122.177 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is just from a few minutes search. --69.203.122.177 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So write an article stating that. There is nothing in the deleted text that would help to create a good article. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once its overturned I can use its basis, plus these sources to do just that. --69.203.122.177 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the deleted versions I'm looking at, you'd basically have to start from scratch anyway, there wasn't really anything worth using in the deleted versions.--W.marsh 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main intention in nominating this for deletion review was simply to get the protection lifted (was deletion review the proper place to go for this?). I can't comment on the quality of the former articles. Stebbins 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can I have the article undeleted into my userspace so I can take whats above that the anon added, and mix it with the article. Then place a new article in its spot. Also need to have the protection removed as Stebbins noted. Thanks. --RapPhenom 13:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy, it meets standards. May have been valid at the time of the speedy, but the information provided here indicates it meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletions but allow recreation from verifiable sources if they are available. Reviewing the deleted edit history, I found no version worth recovering. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/ (restore|AfD)

John C. A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD 2|AfD 3)

Subject is a notable columnist appearing both in The New York Times and Washington Post. A news.google.com search shows many hits, as goes a normal Google search. He's a candidate for political office and he's been interviewed in the media and on radio. In fact, he's going to be on The Daily Show on March 9, 2007. It's clear deleters have a POV agenda and aggressive bias. He's a syndicated columnist. UIUC.rhh 02:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. A whole 8 news.google.com hits, most of them from blogs or discussions about blogs. He's a candidate for a school board, Wikipedia doesn't do articles on school boards. Corvus cornix 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. That's an awful uppity attitude towards blogs from someone who spends there time on Wikipedia. User-created journalism not good enough for a user-created encyclopedia? It's not like you guys are encyclopedia britannica. -- Christopher.perardi 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I just did a recent G-news search. [15] This reveals 11 hits, only 2 are blogs or about blogs. They include such non-notable sources of information such as ABC 7 News Chicago, the Chicago Tribune, and the News-Gazette. Mainstream newspapers are hardly blogs or discussion about blogs. -- Wistless 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Per nom... syndicated columnist. -- Christopher.perardi 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ← Confirmed sockpuppet of John Bambenek. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse all of the deletions. It is obvious that this man has no real world notability to have an article on himself. He only does self-publications, which are not reliable sources of anything. He exists, we know that. But his existance has not made an impact on society that he gets mentioned (not writes for) a major publication. And lately, this man has solely been a pain in the ass involving people who are attacking him because of his mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, note that Christopher Perardi while on Wikipedia is John Bambenek who has also been blocked indefinitely. Anyone who wants an article on Wikipedia so much as that they impersonate people who attack them (see AfD 3) should not be given an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Christopher Perardi on Wikipedia is User:Perardi per the AfD. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletions, no credible reason advanced for overturning. Above all, no n on-trivial independent sources about Bambenek were shown in the AfDs. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Undelete. His so-called "self-publication" include being reprinted in newspapers, a quick Lexis search will show that his commentary has been in the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post (among others). He's an editor at BC Magazine wihch is a 2-edit publication. He's also written for MercatorNet, also an edited publication. A quick survey of the sites he writes for shows he has a readership of almost 200,000. More people would read his column then read this AfD. It's clear people have an agenda here because he wrote a hitpiece on Wikipedia a few months ago, hence the creation of WP:BAMBI. Get over it guys. -- Wistless 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Having reviewed the contributions - dates and subjects - it's pretty clear that Wistless (talk · contribs) is another sock of Jbamb (talk · contribs), aka John Bambenek, evading an indefinite block. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse 3rd AfD No argument is offered why it should be overturned. ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note. Here is one story that is basically exclusive on John Bambenek from ABC Chicago [16]. His interview on the Daily Show airs tomorrow night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.95.122 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]