Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 22

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

Vijinfrugal (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a wikipedia article with the title Urbanfrugalchic.com has been deleted by administrators. The reason they suggested was lack of notability.Actually the article was a description about two noted people Cynthia childs and Khristal Jones who run a corporation called Urbamfrugalchic media. They have a website blog with regular updates on various frugal living styles which is liked by many people.I made several discussions but the administrators denied the restoration of the article.

I request to reconsider the decision and restore the article. The article is only for general publicity of the people behind it and not for any product or blog promotion.

Vijinfrugal (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Malformed DRV fixed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please explain to us how Urbanfrugalchic.com meets our criteria for notability. You can do this by linking substantial coverage in reliable sources (which does not include blogs, press releases, messageboard posts or any kind of user-submitted content).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I note you say here that you are their assistant, as such you should probably read the conflict of interest guidelines. You state that the article is "for general publicity of the people behind it" - wikipedia is not a resource for gaining publicity, it's an encyclopedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, it was perfectly reasonable to speedy-delete that one. And there's no indication the individuals would be notable either... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorese solidly handled.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good speedy. Tim Song (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, standard non-notable website. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am not sure about A7: it is possible to regard "Launched on 25th May-2009, it has grown tremendously with an average of one hundred people logging on each hour." as an indication of possible importance. But it was also deleted as G11, promotional, and i agree with that. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse perfectly valid speedy deletion, and the author even openly states that the purpose of the article is because they want publicity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Schäfer (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were no !votes either way and per WP:RELIST such a discussion should either be relisted or kept as a no consensus result. When I raised the issue with the closing admin, he indicated that he felt the discussion was enough to form consensus, so we're here. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- the only rationale to delete was the nominators, and that isn't enough to justify deletion. If the deleting admin felt it should have been deleted, they should have cast a vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Hobit. I have no idea whether Schäfer is notable, but at a minimum this one should have been relisted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Peculiar. I wonder if my remark was interpreted as a delete !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it as a weak delete. You correctly noted that the article needed sources to be kept, and that you had found none. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall's !vote looked like a polite delete to me, substantially backing up the nominator's clear reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary I used was fairly clear, I think. I meant my remark to indicate that while I had not found reliable sources, it is quite hard to do an exhaustive search. (Searching for "Willy Schäfer" in German is equivalent to searching for "Bill Jones" in English). I'm personally of the opinion that there was insufficient input in that debate for a reliable consensus to be determined as yet.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• meh, I probably would have relisted this but there clearluy isn't enough evidence of sourcing for this to be retained in the longer term. I generally take the view that afds with only the nomination can be treated as prods if there is no opposition so 'endorse close as a reasonable conclusion from the discussion - such as it was,- but also undelete as a contested prod if anyone really cares enough to challenge the deletion on that basis. I treated an AFD with no votes after one (or was it two?) relist(s) as a prod recently and deleted it on that basis. Was that wrong too? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say WP:RELIST is pretty clear. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not !voting as I relisted the debate; but I do note that the close was roughly 3 days after the relist. Tim Song (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. After a relist an early closure is allowed if consensus has formed, but it hasn't. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I see consensus to delete, backed up by clear guidelines. Userfy for any editor in good standing on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was only one person commenting in the AFD, a person who has stated here that his comment wasn't meant to be taken as a delete, how exactly can there be a consensus? Umbralcorax (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. I see no reason provided to actually keep the article... just a purely procedural arguments that we should relist it to get the supposed quorum of 3 votes. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... a deletion shouldn't be overturned unless there's an actual reason to keep the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My worry is this results in us deleting articles that meet our guidelines. I spent a few minutes looking and I believe he meets WP:ENT as being in 120+ episodes of Derrick. [1], in addition to a number of other roles. [2]. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand the worry, deleting an article as a lump of text is not the same as deleting the topic or forever banning the topic. As an article apparently it didn't meet the guidelines as it wasn't sourced. As usual if the reasons for deletion can substantially be overcome the article can be recreated at any time by anyone. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your argument would be a reason to delete all unsourced articles here--after all once sourced they can be recreated. I don't think there is consensus for doing so. Nor do I believe we should delete articles in AfD without an actual discussion. We should only delete articles where we have consensus to do so. That's at the heart of AfD. In all cases, this actor meets our guidelines for inclusion per WP:ENT.Hobit (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse echoing the above WP:BURO point. Eusebeus (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn An AfD needs some minimal procedural requirements. One of them is someone commenting on the deletion proposal. The person is an actor in a long running role in 170 of the 281 episodes of what appears to a a very major German serial Derrick; The German WP article for the serial lists several books about it, including: Die Derrick Story. Fotos, Fakten, Fans. Der offizielle Bildband. Burgschmiet, Laura Morretti Nürnberg 1998, ISBN 3-932234-63-4; "Derrick und ich. Meine zwei Leben by Horst Tapper (the actor who plays the protagonist) --the other books listed there and in the enWP are apparently novelizations of the series. The German WP article list 19 actors in the series who have separate articles, of whom this is one--and the deWP is noted for relatively restricted coverage of popular culture--as well as for not bothering with precise sources. By the standards of the deWP, I think they would have simply expecgted someone to check the main article. It is always good to check the article in the other Wikipedia for a subject from that language area, as S Marshall did--but I looked a little more widely once I was there--partly because i recognized that including an article on an actor known mainly for one role (according to the de and en IMdB entries) was quite unusual for them. This is why there needs to be procedural requirements--without enough participation, it's easy to miss things. We seem to have too many AfDs to keep track of; Timn Song properly relisted this once, but it was closed after only 3 days--there is no rule requiring the full 10 days after relisting, but perhaps there should be, or it defeats the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closer seems to have misinterpreted SMarshall's comments, which leaned toward keep and quite accurately identified the problems in identifying non-English-language sources for a subject with a common name. No explanation was given for cutting the relisting period short, and in light of SMarshall comments the afd should have been left open for the standard 7-day relisting period. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do want to say that my position remains that the article needs sources to be kept. To his credit, DGG mentions a source above, but has not read it (and neither have I). Nobody else has provided one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two sources. the Nurnburg and the Topper. True, I haven't read either. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. No consensus to delete. As for sourcing, I have a source for his DOB and the fact that he played Berger. Derrick is a significant series. Except for Derrick and Klein, I would say that Berger was clearly the most important character. decltype (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No one arguing to keep after a relist. Looks pretty clear to close as delete to me. Wizardman 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this a clear delete, when nobody at the AFD actually argued FOR deletion, aside from the nominator? Umbralcorax (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. No one argued against deletion. Wizardman 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody voted for delete. Meaning no consensus. And the rules still in place still say that no consensus should default to keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm having a hard time understanding why this page was deleted. I didn't comment at the AFD myself, if only because when I looked at it, based on policy and knowing that it was thoroughly well-sourced, it was a clear WP:SNOW keep, but apparently the AFD was held open a few extra days just so a thin number of !votes could ve aquired to make it a delete, despite WP:NOT#Democracy. The closing admin admits as much during his explanation to another user for the delete[3]. It's fairly obviously notable; multiple articles show up mentioning the site on Google news in only the last month[4] Kendrick7^talk 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "no consensus" with a hint of "merge and redirect to Criticism of Google. Delete arguments cited notability, which is not a good reason to delete when there is a merge option. The delete arguments only meant that the a stand alone article was not warranted, not that the information didn't belong somewhere. The several keep !votes offer good justification for why the information should be kept somewhere, if not in that article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...with no suggestion of a procedural problem. An editor mgith add the sourced information to Criticism of Google, and if that happens, Scroogle should exist as a redirect as a reasonable search term, and undeleting the history prevents possible violation of WP:Copyrights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, there's no way to see consensus for deletion in that AfD. I don't understand why it was even relisted -- there was a clear consensus for keep. On both counts, closing this one as delete was unjustified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Closing admin does explain further how he came to his closure; I find that to be a decent reading of consensus. And please remember to assume good faith; I see no evidence of collaboration between Tim Song and MZMcBride. NW (Talk) 19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator, as well as Tim Song (mentioned by both the nominator and myself), notified of the DRV. NW (Talk) 19:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Rationale copied below.

• --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CONS references consensus, which defines the word as "general agreement". How do you get from "the argument [is] slightly in favor of deletion" to "general agreement"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Perfectly satisfactory interpretation of consensus. Process has been followed correctly. GlassCobra 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not commenting on the close, but I certainly did not relist it so that it can get a few more deletes. And I have had, as far as I remember, no interactions with the closing admin before, during, or even after the relist, on or off-wiki. My relist was based on the fact that there was less than three non-SPA !votes on either side, and so I felt that relisting for a somewhat wider discussion may be better. Indeed, in response to an query from another admin on IRC, I stated that I'd be ready to NAC it as keep if it attracted a couple more keeps. I have no opinion on the subject. Tim Song (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus or overturn and relist. Reading the AfD (which for some reason is currently blanked, but could be looked up in the history log), I don't see a consensus for delete. The closing admin said that he saw the overall discussion leaning slightly in favor of deletion. That may be true, but the AfD had just been relisted less than a day (I think about 16 hours) before the close. There was no particular reason to rush with the closing so soon after relisting; in fact I thought that after an AfD is relisted, the customary practice is to wait another seven days before closing it or at least until a clear picture regarding the consensus situation emerges. I cannot see the deleted article now and I did not participate in the AfD itself, but I do find the outcome surprising. GoogleNews[5] shows a fair amount of newscoverage, quite enough, I think, to pass the ordinary WP:N standards. Apart from the refs mentioned above, here is, for example, an article in the Times specifically about scroogle[6]; here is another story specifically about scroogle in WebProNews[7] and here is a couple of paragraphs specifically about scroogle in a book[8].; and so on. Does not look like a particularly marginal notability case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn I don't understand closing an AfD early (yes even after a relist) if consensus isn't solid. I just don't think there is a rush. Also, given the nature of the discussion I think SmokeyJoe got it right--a merge would have been a much better outcome even if closing at that point was necessary. And finally, with the sources provided by Nsk92, I'd say we are at the point that overturning to no consensus is pretty obvious. So lots of reasons to overturn this. NC or a relist are both fine by me. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? The discussion was closed after seven days. What are you talking about "early"? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I read WP:RELIST after being relisted the debate should be left open until there is a clear consensus. "It may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." As the consensus wasn't clear at all (as evidenced by this DrV and the comment that "...which puts the argument slightly in favor of deletion") I don't think it should be been closed until it was clear or until another 7 days had past. All that said, I think merging would have been the right result and that's a much stronger reason, IMO, to overturn here. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see anything out of process (relist doesn't require a full extension). Closer's rationale is sensible & logical. Good call. Eusebeus (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder whether this would've led to a "delete" outcome if Daniel Brandt wasn't involved.

  The thing is that the "delete" arguments from various users completely failed to take account of this rather pertinent source. Times Online is very clearly and definitely a reliable source, and I must admit that in assessing this debate, I would give a great deal less weight to the delete !votes because of that lapse.

  I'm curious to know whether MZMcBride took account of that in his close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, closer, please don't interpret my remark above as an "overturn". I specifically believe it's for the best that Wikipedia contains nothing at all about Daniel Brandt or any of his enterprises, and I approve of Alison's blanking of the debate. I just think that if we're going to ignore the evidence, we should be more honest about why.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. 3/4 split in !votes (discounting the SPA) is generally "no consensus", not delete, and cutting short the relist period appears to have been inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist In the first part of the discussion, there were only keep !votes; after the relisting, there was mainly deletes. This distribution (or it's inverse) sometimes indicates a unreasonable attack or defense of the article in one or another of the halves. It is a good reason for being careful, and making sure that all editors with a possible interest are represented or at least aware. I do not see that it was listed for attention by any of the WikiProjects. We have no fixed time for a relist, but this has come up in several cases here, and I would suggest we may need a rule that unless the circumstances amount to SNOW or a valid speedy argument is raised, the relist should be for the full additional 7 days. Doing it shorter defeats the purpose of getting additional attention. I agree with S Marshall, btw, about the actual rationale involved, but not necessarily with his conclusions from it. The relisting will be the place to consider this. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I should think Wikipedia's spent all the time and effort on Daniel Brandt that we can usefully spend. The whole matter's always been ludicrously expensive, in terms of editor time, and it will certainly stay expensive if allowed to re-ignite; and it's the most horrendous drama magnet. Right now we've managed to achieve a stable state where Wikipedia is officially oblivious to the man, and I think that's for the best.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about him, & share your opinion, but I think that is totally irrelevant to any factor involving keeping or deleting an article in Mainspace about software he wrote. The principle here is NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

I understand that, but the thing is that Brandt's got a long history of finding and outing people who say things he doesn't like. Which wouldn't bother me (I already edit under my real name and my date of birth and location's evident from my userpage, because I choose to edit in such a way that I don't mind being found)—but there are children and other vulnerable people among our editors who might seriously regret an ill-considered edit to something Brandt's involved in.

Look, my position on whether MZMcBride can be trusted with the "delete" button hasn't changed but I do think he was morally right to rid us of this. And this DRV should probably be blanked as the AFD was.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Looks fine to me procedurally. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the closing admin left a good, clear and sensible rationale, IMO. I'm not seeing an issue here whatsoever - Allie ^❤ 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't really say there is an error in User:MZMcBride's closure, however I would have voted to keep the article if had a chance to !vote, as I was looking to read it in Wikipedia just hours after it was deleted. (An article in a neutral point of view). So if a totally new article appears it may be from me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - AFD was closed correctly closed per procedure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no procedural errors that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. That's what the discussion indicates and if anything the keep arguments are stronger. There was no consensus to delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plogically stronger though they are, there seems a great deal of emotion on the other side. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No clear error in the close that requires correcting. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Not in line with normal closure decisions, the previous nomination, or the notability of the article. --LjL (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (as nominator) Unsurprisingly, it's the usual cabal of a handful of usually sane editors who dislike the creator[9][10] of the software who are !voting, yet again, in an attempt to throw Mr. Brandt upon the dustbin of history. They should be completely ashamed of themselves, obviously, but for those of us here trying to write an encyclopedia, and not to use it to carry out personal vendettas, this is a clear overturn. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already effectively voted in the nomination so please can you change this to a comment to avoid confusion. I also suggest you refector that last comment as attacking other editors in that way is rarely productive at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I immediately noted that I was the nominator. Like AfD, this isn't a vote, and, believe you me, after many a monthly Brandt-related-AfD, I know whereof I speak, and I stand by my characterization of the dubious motivations of my fellow editors. I'm deeply saddened, of course, by such malfeasance towards the project's ultimate goal, especially by editors I otherwise hold in the highest regards but I'm not here to bite my lip. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]