Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 8

Who Am I Living For? (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Too little input to determine a "keep" consensus, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Even though this got relisted twice, nobody made any further comments beyond two keep votes. What they overlooked in WP:NSONGS is how:

1. Artists talking about their own work doesn't count as notable coverage

2. Coverage from album reviews does not establish notability, and songs that only get coverage from album reviews shouldn't have their own articles, no matter how much input the album reviews give.

The question is: between overturning to redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or overturning to delete, which is the better option? Aside from one source giving a self-description, the only coverage available on the song is from album reviews. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus seems pretty clear considering only you, the nominator, felt the article should be deleted. The AFD ran for almost a month, so the closing was fine. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also felt it could be redirected, and 2-to-1 isn't necessarily consensus. Also, niether of the "keep" voters used WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS correctly in their rationale. WP:CONSENSUS indicates that consensus in things like AfD is determined not by votes but by strength of arguments and use of guidelines/policies to support argument. I tried to explain that they misinterpreted parts of it, though apparently that wasn't enough. Perhaps I should've elaborated further in the AfD, but I still cited WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS correctly. Another AfD might be needed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - while the sources generally cover it as part of the larger topic of the album, the album article is already over 100k, and thus requires splitting. Arranging this as an article is essentially an editorial decision, in which headcount should be given a lot of weight. WilyD 09:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100k? It is only about 10k in size. Headcount isn't the only factor. If we were to take out the album personnel and self-comment (which WP:NSONGS indicates is not notable coverage at all), we're essentially left with a stub at best. WP:NSONGS indicates that songs which do not have significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the album should not have their own articles. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Headcount isn't the only factor, but it's an important factor where the policy arguments aren't very compelling and/or are reasonably well balanced (and a relatively unimportant factor where they are very compelling and/or wildly unbalanced), although the two tend to go hand in hand anyhow. That an obscure guideline suggests this arrangement may not be the best practice is something to consider, but it's hardly compelling on it's own. That several editors looked at it and found it uncompelling is critical to understanding the consensus of the discussion - one can't ignore that. WilyD 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I should've elaborated during AfD itself, but at least I cited WP:NSONGS correctly. The whole bit on her having a lengthy quote being "enough" not only comes off as an WP:ILIKEIT argument (which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions) but also cannot be counted as notable coverage as WP:NSONGS (which is most definitely not an "obscure" guideline) indicates does NOT count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not the best AfD ever, but keep and NC were both within editorial discretion IMO. Already enough relists...Hobit (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NC would be more understandable as there was definitely not a "keep" consensus when the "keep" voters didn't cite WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS correctly. Is another AfD in order perhaps? We definitely can't just disregard WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Good close.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and DRV cares about NSONGS about as much as we care about all the other SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would people disregard notability guidelines in favor of keeping an article when they know it fails them, though? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse low turnout, but also unanimous Keep aside from the nominator. Had already been relisted twice, so no realistic cause to assume relisting again would have made any difference. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a case of WP:SNOW or anything, and "unanimous" doesn't seem like the right description as AfD nominators' rationales can't just be discounted. I am aware of how it got relisted twice, but the simple fact is that the track is not notable since it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Votes aren't everything per WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. Why are people disregarding this? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local consensus can override our guidelines. Some classic examples is that "Michelle Obama's Arms" is a topic that easily meets the GNG (apparently there are entire articles on the topic), but conscious was clear that we don't want that as an article. By the same token, we sometimes have articles that we do want that don't really meet the standard guidelines. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're suggesting to ignore all rules (which so far it seems like all "endorse" voters are doing), that is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions. This also actually did NOT officially reach WP:CONSENSUS, which states that consensus is reached by arguments supported by policies/guidelines and not just mere head count. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you misunderstand WP:IAR and the nature of consensus at Wikipedia. Local consensus can override "the rules". I'm not 100% with this being a keep outcome--I'd have gone with NC. But we give the admins a fair bit of leeway on making that call, and the line between NC and keep generally pretty small and rarely overturned as both have the same basic result (article stays). Hobit (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is NC, but still IAR is an argument to avoid per WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, which also states "that's just an essay" and "that's just a guideline" are arguments to avoid. The "determining consensus" section of WP:CONSENSUS states "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was entirely satisfactory. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not rules, and the closer may (indeed should) take account of coherent arguments. In this AFD the opinions were indeed coherent and I see that they were expressed with regard to the guidelines. Thincat (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niether of the "keep" voters used WP:NSONGS correctly, though, and one of them was essentially an WP:ILIKEIT argument. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I don't particularly disagree with you. However, and this is merely my personal view, I find arguments such as "Although WP:POLICY says this and WP:GUIDELINE says that, I think in this case the article should be kept/deleted for this reason" are just fine. Better, maybe, than "I think in this case the article should be kept/deleted for this reason" and far better than "I think the article should be kept/deleted". I am less sympathetic to "This article should be deleted because it violates WP:GUIDELINE and rules are rules and must be obeyed". Thincat (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - nothing wrong with the close and we need to remember that not liking the result is a different thing to the result being wrong. You have every right not to like the result, or the opinions of those who contributed to the discussion. Had there been one or two strong opinions in favour of deletion, it likely would have closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep anyway. So you were a long way from this meeting an acceptable consensus threshold for deletion. That aside, given the low rate of participation, I don't think anyone would see re-nomination as particularly disruptive. I wouldn't suggest you do that right away (that would be pointy) but if you let it sit for a couple of months and nothing more in the way of coverage becomes available, there's an argument that it should be considered again. Stalwart111 08:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wasn't planning to just renominate right away. However, it isn't so much me "not liking" the result as it is bafflement at how it got kept when I pointed out specifically in the review how it failed notability per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It seems like a stretch to say I was a "long way" from reaching consensus when it was 1 vote citing policies (me), 1 vote not using WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG correctly, and 1 WP:ILIKEIT vote also not using WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG correctly. As I stated, this wasn't WP:SNOW. Good to know that another AfD wouldn't be seen as disruptive, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, well we can agree that you don't agree with the interpretation that led to the result, rather than that you just don't agree with the result but the result is the same. Right? Ha ha. The point is that it seems most agree that the interpretation was within the confines of reasonableness. You can disagree with that, too, but again, the result is the same. Best to just move forward and construct a solid nomination rationale for the 2nd nomination. Stalwart111 09:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kids Rock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Little Kids Rock (www.littlekidsrock.org) is a reputable national nonprofit organization that seems to have been taken down from wikipedia. Here is the article explaining its deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Kids Rock

The deleter, who is no longer editing for Wikipedia and thus has not been available to debate the deletion, claims not to have been able to find any recent news coverage of Little Kids Rock on Google News. I find lots! Please refer to their news index: http://www.littlekidsrock.org/news-events/news-index/

Please also refer to their 4 star rating on Charity Navigator: http://www.littlekidsrock.org/news-events/news-index/

Finally, see all of the artists who have worked with them to help transform more than 300,000 kids' lives by donating music educational resources to their schools: https://www.littlekidsrock.org/friends/our-big-fans/

The person who initially created the page back when Little Kids Rock was a much smaller organization was, in fact, an employee there. The organization has since grown, as has its independent network, and the content has been edited drastically since the time it was initially created.

How can I get this page reinstated to Wikipedia and the relevant hyperlinks on other pages (like their artist supporters' Wikipedia pages) also reinstated? 71.187.199.120 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-list. In view of the comprehensive list of independent coverage and sources provided on the company's own web site, it seems clear that something was missed in the deletion discussion. Not faulting Mark Arsten for respecting the consensus, but in this case the "consensus" seemed to miss something, else that list would have been at least mentioned in the discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment out of those news links can the nominator point out the 1 or 2 they think are the strongest. i.e. they cover the subject directly in detail and aren't press releases (Press releases aren't independent coverage). The couple I picked at random were press releases. Really it's a stronger argument if you point out a few strong sources whih are valid rather than a wave towards a big list of "stuff". --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There appear to be new reasonable sources since the AfD. That's a valid reason to relist. Hobit (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if it is restored, some drastic editing is called for to eliminate the advertising: half the lede paragraph is a list of celebrities who have endorsed it, which does not belong anywhere in the article, but on their own website. The article reads like an article from the organization telling us why they are a good cause, not an article informing the reader who might come here wondering what it is. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. The deletion discussion (brief as it was) focused on notability and the discussion was presumably closed on that basis. In view of the list of sources provided that were apparently neither known nor discussed, re-listing for further discussion would be appropriate. If the outcome is to delete again due to being unsalvageable from the promotional content, then at least we have a more solid AFD case. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few reputable articles in the New York Times under the year 2011 and a more recent 2014 article on Examiner.com. Neither of these are press releases or focus on celebrities. The initial Wikipedia article about Little Kids Rock was written in a tone that was too promotional because the author did not understand the purpose of Wikipedia or the tone in which to write about the organization. As the person who will now be taking on that responsibility, I plan to edit the original content so that it is no longer written in the same tone that it was. If any of the new content DOES appear to be too promotional, rather than delete, I am 100% open to editing again until it meets the criteria. I am open to discussing this matter further if necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.199.120 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 April 2014‎

  By the way, the Wikipedia community doesn't consider examiner.com to be a reliable source because of its reputation for having near-zero editorial oversight or fact-checking, and in fact it is blacklisted from being linked on Wikipedia. The Wall Street Journal reprint of an AP article is a good start although fairly brief. The New York Times blog has very good coverage, although, well, it's a blog, although we do use news publication blogs as sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, if you search for all of the "watch here" hyperlinks on the news index (http://www.littlekidsrock.org/news-events/news-index/), you'll find several news clips from regional news stations covering Little Kids Rock donations, deliveries of instruments, celebrity involvement, events, etc... from Dallas, to Los Angeles, to Tampa to, New York... from NBC, to FOX, to CBS, to Bloomberg.

• Probably leave deleted - but I nominated it for deletion, so in all fairness, I'm probably biased in favour of agreeing with myself.

I realise this isn't directly pertinent, but I don't find the prospect of someone else from the organisation "taking on the responsibility" of editing the page (exactly what the COI policy says not to do) appealing; what I think is pertinent is the edit history on the page, which is woefully sparse, consisting essentially of a yearly cycle where a shill for the company inserts a bunch of promotional material and someone else takes it out. In my view, a good hint that an organisation is notable is that uninvolved editors have some interest in editing the page in and of itself. By that metric, LKR is about as notable as my laundry list.

I agree with the suggestion above that it would be better to identify one or two clearly good sources than to stack up this mass of recycled press releases; "independent" is a stretch when plainly something has arrived from the organisation or a celebrity's PR flacks and been used to fill up an awkward gap on page 92. On the other hand, there is an argument that we don't judge that kind of thing; if enough reliable sources reprint that fluff, it counts.

If reinstated it should be radically cut back, and representatives of the organisation encouraged to keep their mitts well off the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very good point about a member of the organization not being the one to edit the article. I wonder though, how other nonprofit organizations are created on Wikipedia like The Quincy Jones Musiq Consortium, Charity: Water, Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation, etc. Did members of their organizations write the article and then was it edited by Wikipedia contributors? Or did they ask an independent source to write the article for them? Little Kids Rock has brought music education to 300,000 + kids in the past 12 years and though the initial article was promotional in tone, that does not mean that the organization is not notable or reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia that explains what it does. Within 5-10 years, music education in U.S. public schools will have gone through a major system change (teaching rock/pop-based music education called "Modern Band" alongside Jazz Band, Marching Band, Orchestra and Choir) and Little Kids Rock is the organization leading that charge, having partnered with dozens of public school districts in the United States' largest and most under-served cities. I believe that this is something that people interested in public school education, music education, and nonprofit organizations ought to know. My question is, how can this be done while still fitting into the guide lines of Wikipedia? If the answer is to send a draft of an article to Wikipedia editors to review and approve before being published to verify the non-promotional tone of the article, that can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.199.120 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is sufficiently common that we have a stock answer: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The article as written, sucked royally. It also had not one single reliable independent source. Please show us a compliant draft by a non-conflicted author if you want to have an article about this subject. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is if such a draft can be written--not if one is written. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources that have shown up since the last AfD [1], [2], [3], and a fair number more listed at [4]. While most of the coverage is local, we've got coverage in the WSJ, the Boston Globe, and coverage by local sources (many entirely on the subject) in LA, TX, NY, and CA. While someone could argue that the sources aren't enough (the ones that aren't local are "too short" or something) it's plain this meets WP:N by a fair margin and that we have enough in reliable sources to write an article. This is pretty straightforward, but we seem to have gotten off track. WP:COI isn't a reason for deletion, and a declared COI really isn't. If it were, I've got 100s of articles I'd be nominating (yes me). In any case, there are new sources that at least look okay, so the right thing to do is either allow recreation or relist. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - The topic clearly meets GNG: sfgate.com, mbird.org, nytimes.com, digitaleditions.sheridan.com, azcentral.com, etc. (Some potential early history 1998, 1999, 2001). The Wikipedia article was problematic and probably will be again if it is not created using independent, reliable sources. However, the AfD was based on WP:N rather than the article being too problematic. Since significant new information has come to light since the deletion that overcomes the AfD reason for deletion, I think it justifies recreating the deleted page. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maybe free media (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Usable for pages which may be free but have a non-free rationale and/or a non-free copyright tag. UpEpSilon (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't needed. We still have {{wrong license}} and {{NFUR not needed}} to handle those situations. This was discussed in the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_22#Template:Maybe_free_media. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In such circumstances, it would be absolutely crucial to explain to the user why it might be free or copyrightable. I worry this might cause more confusion than anything; copyright nerds like me might understand, but would the average person? Still, if people are committed to using the template correctly, I have no objection. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure which way to go here. On the one hand, it might be useful to flag files as possibly being unfree, and just giving users a heads-up and urging investigation into whether it is, but on the other it can be used by lazy users who can't be bothered to check it. Inappropriate usage of something or the potential thereof doesn't negate whether that something should exist or be allowed, so I have to admit I'm thinking this needs to be restored. LazyBastardGuy 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nomination amounts to "I disagree with the outcome", somthing DRV is specifically not for - not xFD round 2. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. This template is exactly the proper tag for cases where non-free media might have become free, either by release from the copyright holder, or where some time limit seems to have expired (editor unsure), and wp:NFCC expert users should check the index of WhatLinksHere/Template:Maybe_free_media to help decide the issue(s). In most cases, there should/would be a talk-page link to discuss details; otherwise, a template parameter "reason=" could be made mandatory. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to use the word "overturn" because the close was a good one. But in view of what Magog and Wikid77 say, I do think it would be reasonable to restore the template.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a relist with some notification at the various NFCC pages. Seems reasonable to keep this around, but I don't really know how useful it would be. The close was fine given the discussion, but it may not be the best outcome and a wider discussion seems useful. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voipfone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

As there was no legitimate consensus on the matter to keep Voipfone as an article. Ironically, after the article got the many keep votes on the bases of winning awards, not for the development of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which should be the general reason to be listed on wiki. Please note the vote approval of all general references to awards were removed weeks after the keep vote was announced. Outside the awards, there is no significant reason to keep the article listed. The company may be notable company in general, but the article is not anywhere near. Voipfone's article gives the wrong impression that any company has won any award has the right to remain on wiki. Besides there are over thousand telecom companies in the UK who sell VoIP products, and only hundred who won awards, and yet only several companies have placed an article on wikipedia. None of these companies have a legitment reason to remain, which includes Voipfone listing. Aculab is the only VoIP company that actually developed the product which notable references, Voipfone has only proven it has won awards, the queen did not invent VoIP. Which company do you think is notable and has actually pionerr VoIP tecnology and is benfically to wikipedia readers, voipfone or Aculab. 209.172.25.71 (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC) amended changes by 209.172.25.186 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the page's colorful history when I accepted the new article at AfC, however,none of the arguments above have anything to do with our policies for deleting articles, most significantly WP:CORP. The prior deletion discussion looks proper enough and was a good close by User:Northamerica1000. It does appear as though there has been a disruptive level of promotional editing, therefore I would propose semi-protection. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got my wires crossed - I did not accept this article out of AfC. It was put on my radar after glancing at user:Simon161388's contributions after reading this note. I notice Simon has been looked at for socking in the past and voted 4 times on the prior AfD, so I am left to wonder if this IP may be an un-intentional sock of a new user. He is not using the IP and username and a manipulative way, so there is no harm - just seems like a new user that needs help learning our norms and should move on. It's a big website and it's not healthy to brood on a single article. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure. It was the correct closure given the arguments and !votes presented in the AfD. The only issues with the AfD were a possible conflict of interest with the nominator, and sock-puppetry by the nominator, but these did not affect the outcome. The article has been the subject of spam in the past (including copyvios), but not in the last five months. If this is not notable, then it needs to go back to AfD, not here, although I suspect it would be kept again. Martin451 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - plausible enough case for meeting WP:N, which is not really dispited in the discussion anyways. No one makes a case that it's spam, it's just asserted, and it's not obvious (and as he noted, if DGG doesn't think an article about an active company is spam, it ain't). If someone made a compelling case, it could be reviewed, but as a bare assertion, it has to give way to headcounting. WilyD 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No Contest - I was more concerned as mentioned by an editor in Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ, therforth I am not questioning the article based on being notabilty, and spam. It is best to place this article back to AfD, but keeping based on the previous consensus is not acceptable. Considering there has been Sock Puppetry, and conflict of interest from one editor to persue the consensus to delete the article. There on the other hand disruptive level of promotional editing by another editor to persue the consensus to keep the article. Now that is consider a tainted consensus, which the next AfD should be decided by netural parties that have never voted on this matter. Considering two wrongs do not make a right, and even if this article gets deleted on the next consensus. This would make the highly notable company, would have to work harder to make the article stronger so it would not appear under the grey area of acceptable, this article is extremely underdeveloped and needs major work done. FYI, I am not associated with none of mentioned editors, and one editor should be lucky that there was no lifetime ban on their user account or IP for Sock Puppetry, and conflict of interest nomination AfD and consensus vote stacking. Sorry to burst your bubble, and I highly agree with an mentioned editor, not healthy to brood on a single article. Which you are doing so in the Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ, I know you are monitoring the outcome of this nomination. So there is my reason why I am putting this there, oh by the way get a life, and move on. 209.172.25.186 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The topic does not meet WP:GNG. All but a few of the 50+ articles that come up are press releases and the few that are not only have a sentence or two mentioning the company. I don't agree with it, but the AfD seemed to turn on "recipient of the Queen's Awards for Enterprise" makes the topic notable. A delete close would have been justified and a no consensus close would have been more appropriate than keep. However, keep seems to have been within the closer's discretion if "recipient of the Queen's Awards for Enterprise" makes the topic notable. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]