Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 Deletion review archives: 2008 January January 16 >

15 January 2008

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Independent Schools Barbarians (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

A very significant new development in UK Rugby. Article was well written although needed work to make it encyclopedic, it also needed Wikifying. It was referenced. [1] Paste ( talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I have no access to the article so I am unable to assess compliance with A7. However, it is worth mentioning that unlike the US, where schools sports is a big deal, generally schools sports teams are not notable in the UK. However, junior rugby union is not well covered and this could certainly be incorporated in a new Junior rugby union in the United Kingdom page which would be a valuable addition to our coverage. BlueValour ( talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I have looked at the deleted article. The first point is that this club is to allow boys to play in a team that is better than their School's First XV and against representative sides. It is much more than a School team and it has the support of the Barbarian F.C.. Second, the article is too long, has a lot of POV and fluff and needs sources. I have no real opinion on whether it should be overturned, but perhaps it should have been sent to AfD in the first place and not speedied. -- Bduke ( talk) 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion I can't see an assertion of importance or significance in the article. GRBerry 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse my own speedy deletion per GRBerry. The article obviously took a little effort, so I made sure to look thoroughly for an assertion of notability. I might have missed something, I'll admit, but I just couldn't see anything. Xoloz ( talk) 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from the deleting admin: I deleted the article because I couldn't find an assertion of notability of this subject. Having said that, this doesn't appear just any ordinary rugby team. The subject might very well be notable enough for Wikipedia, so I have no prejudice against the creation of an article that does assert notability. A ecis Brievenbus 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I appreciate that we are digressing a bit but it is still just a representative schools team on a par with numerous others {each county has age-group teams for example), and this team excludes the top of the schools' talent as the article admits. I think it has a way to go. BlueValour ( talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list at AfD. It's enough to pass speedy. This is a prep school selective team from the leading UK schools, and prep school teams can in special cases be notable. I think this is clearly one of them. It is certainly enough of an assertion to pass speedy. Needs a full discussion at Afd. CSD A7 is not WP:N -- any plausible good faith assertion is enough. If this had been a team from a few US schools not notable for the sport, it might not be thought credible. But from Harrow, Eton, Rugby, et al, it is. DGG ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Corey Delaney – Deletion endorsed. The hysteria over this article and the discussion surrounding it have become a bit overblown. There is clear and repeated consensus, however, that the article fails WP:BLP#1E. Other issues in the discussion (i.e. age) are a bit of a red herring, but consensus surrounding WP:BLP#1E is more then sufficient for deletion, and the weight of discussion more than warranted the WP:SNOW closure that was applied. Obviously new events could come to light that would raise the subjects notability, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the status of the article can be reassessed should new events come to light. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 05:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Corey Delaney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Subject of article is involved with recent event that happened less than 48 hours ago. Article was in process of being improved (and vandalized) when AfD started. AfD had gone for about 14 hours when closed citing a "clear consensus". Disagree that there was a clear consensus and also feel the community process of decision making was cut short. The following is disputed; see belowClosing admin also cited vandalism, which I agree was a problem but by apply semi-protect would have mitigated the majority of those concerns. Benjiboi 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Although I agree that the filer should have done this, please consider it moot at this stage. I'm not overturning the close myself, and Benjiboi appears to want it undeleted, and no middle ground exists for a compromise (that has been suggested to this point). Daniel ( talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I'm happy to consider it moot, it's just it's the second time I've seen it happen in two days, and the last time it happened I was in discussion with the deleting admin. In this case I doubt there is an acceptable compromise. Basically you have to wonder if we need a new speedy based on fleeting news coverage. Hiding T 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I followed the link at the top of the Corey Delaney AfD page which brought me here. If I was suppose to do something else it wasn't clear. Closing admin's statement was pretty clear. I still maintain that closing the AfD in such a short time only allowed for those who were quick enough to vote. Benjiboi 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      To me the middle ground would be to let the AfD run its course. Benjiboi 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Why run it longer when it was pretty clear what the outcome was going to be? If you can't see the clear consensus demonstrated in the AfD, take a look at the discussion around you. It's quite clear that the article was to be deleted and to stay deleted because of the reasons discussed in the AfD, and I'm sure that if it was to be run longer it would only just unnecessarily clarify the decision of the community further. I doubt anyone who wanted to make a comment missed out on "voting", a lot of people made comments during the short period that the AfD was open, more then the usual. I see no reason to overturn the deletion, hence why I endorse it. Spebi 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
        • We'll simply have to agree to disagree then, I've never personally been involved in consensus discussion where the decision to end dialog came so quickly. Perhaps there was a lot of votes in the first 14 hours of the AfD debate but consensus can change and I felt that there was more to be discussed. Perhaps those concerns brought up in the first hours of the debate would have been addressed or otherwise answered - we'll never know now. Benjiboi 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Deletion; this isn't one of those situations where the notability of a subject can be altered through the unearthing of a reference. We know every reason why he might be deemed worthy of an article; and we can say that those reasons do not trump our BLP policies (not to mention NOT#NEWS). BLACKKITE 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Deletion: WP:BLP trumps consensus (and in this case agrees with consensus), I honestly don't know why this was brought to DRV, looks like an obvious case. Wizardman 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per others. I can see how an admin could justify a snow, there's only two keep arguments and one is from an anon. I don't think Wikipedia is too harmed in not having an article, all we'd be doing is regurgitating press that would otherwise top the search results. Hiding T 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Deletion per WP:BLP. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP cited above. — DarkFalls talk 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • overturn There is likely a BLP1E issue, and there is almost certainly a not news issue, but there is no good reason to not let the AfD continue for the full length. There's no compelling reason to speedy delete this. Let the community decide how much of an issue there is. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Premature closure fo the debate was probably unfortunate but I don't see any way that a longer discussion would have resulted in any different decision. The BLP issues are (just) sufficient to uphold the speedy-close. Rossami (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Note that WP:BLP actually trumps WP:N. Orderinchaos 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment An AfD that ran what, 3, 4 hours? ALLSTAR echo 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
You fail to note that 21 opinions were submitted to that AfD - an average is closer to 6 or 7 or at most 10 for most AfDs - and that no policy reasons have been given for keeping the article. Orderinchaos 07:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Are you aware that now it's in the courts, it may be against the law for us to report on it using his name or any source which references his name? The last thing anybody wants is for our Australian users to end up charged with contempt of court. Orderinchaos 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
See above. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He's been questioned by the police, not charged and before the courts, as for a editor being in comptent of court, since when does the Wikipedia Foundation allow editor details to be given to overseas law/legal enforcement agencies? . Surfing bird ( talk) 08:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Supposing what you say is true, and we don't know that because no names are mentioned. Orderinchaos, if its anybody who is in comptemt of court it is YOU. Mentioning the name of a minor in Australian legal proceedings is a criminal offence. Please delete you last comments and linking the subject matter to those court proceeding!!! Thank you. Surfing bird ( talk) 08:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Somehow, that argument really isn't a goer. Firstly, I have never named the juvenile. Secondly, ABC radio news have linked the case to the charges, without naming the juvenile. Thirdly, this debate will be over in a few hours, closed, archived and possibly courtesy blanked. An article on the guy, which you are arguing for, would be online for significantly longer. I finished first year at law school but I'm deferring to the real lawyers on this one when they come through (I've invited their input). Orderinchaos 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Are you guys confusing American and Australian laws? Only the proceedings and evidence before the Victorian Children's Court would be confidential. Whatever has already been reported would not be. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No but newspapers are, and they will ensure this matter does not die, so eventually we will have an article on the party and its aftermath. We don't get to decide what events attain notability. My assertion is that I believe within a month this event and its aftermath will be clearly important enough to have an article on. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
CRYSTAL is designed to address matters that are claimed that they will later happen, like a band that is going to release an album. CRYSTAL does not apply to clearly ongoing news issues. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • From a legal perspective, it is extremely important to note that there is no evidence that Delaney has been charged with producing child pornography, as reports clearly state that "detectives have interviewed two 16-year-old youths over incidents on the weekend. One male has been charged with producing child pornography and creating a public nuisance" (emphasis on "two...interviewed", "one...charged", and later on, "who cannot be named for legal reasons"), and the details of who exactly has been charged remains suppressed by Court order. Daniel ( talk) 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Australianteenpartythrowerarrested/tabid/209/articleID/43628/cat/41/Default.aspx says "Australian teenager Corey Delaney, who threw a wild party for 500 people while his parents were away, has been arrested by police. The 16-year-old was taken into custody this morning and is being interviewed at the Narre Warren police station. The tearaway teen has been charged with producing child pornography and public nuisance." WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
And, it should be noted, will be even after the trial is concluded. Hence any info we get on this will violate WP:RS. Orderinchaos 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh please, we know just who the primary individual was, we have all the sources. Let's stop with the amateur legal claims. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
lets see Hitler wrote a book, was decorate in battle(WWI twice), was the political leader of a country, and has been the subject of multiple independent publications. So irregardless of his other activities he's meets the notability guidelines. The subject in this discussion is said to have organised a party, and alleged to have committed unknown offenses, even now the all the reliable sources have removed his name from there public records due to legal implications so there isnt any way to verify any of the information via reliable sources. Gnan garra 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Actually, most international sources have not removed his name. And we have convenient archived copies of the other articles anyways. And many of the Australian sources haven't redacted his name at all either. [3](and there are many others that haven't such as [4] and almost everything on the first page of google news hits). So that's simply false. I agree that the Hitler comparison isn't very good. A better comparison would be Kent Hovind who we keep an article on despite the fact that all the info is almost universally negative. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break 1

  • comment There appear to be two issues here that people are essentially ignoring; one there are obvious limits to WP:NOTNEWS, hence we added for example an article on MS Explorer when it was sinking even though it is technically "news". Second, as I have discussed before, there's a point where prior notability overides claimed privacy issues stemming from BLP. I don't know if this is within that limit but it should have a normal process AfD during the week of which we can construct to see if their is enough sourcing. Since 1) the subject has already been discussed in multiple international news sources, and 2) the subject has willingly interviewed with various news sources going so far as to say that one lesson was that if you wanted a good party you should have him run it I'm forced to conclude the notion that we are somehow adding any additional privacy issues is at best difficult to understand. Heck, a number of news sources have already found our deletion to be sufficiently hard to understand as to talk about it. See [5](this isn't a minor newspaper, this is the front page of news.com.au). At minimum, we should be having a full length AfD. The current situation seems like an almost caricature of how extreme the BLP penumbra has been taken. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
[6] this story which is about our process and acknowledge that the article was deleted due to WP:BLP1E and has been edited since it was originally released to correct errors both in reporting editors comments and the time frame of the deletion and makes no refernce to subject beyond saying he organised a party which police atteneded, is reason to ignore WP:BLP. As for a comparison to Kent Hovind, he has been convicted of 58 tax offence and is serving 10 years in Jail, he offered $250,000 if someone can prove the theory of evolution Additionally he's been convicted over building violations, was a christain theme park operator definatley not a WP:BLP1E been the subject of at least 10 significant publications 7 court cases, and the article has 128 cited references. Compared to a minor who has only been alleged to have done something, even then the alleged offenses are unknown, not yet the subject of any court case(which because of his age cant be published). Oh and for the record WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Gnan garra 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Right, I agree that Hovind should have an article. So where do we draw the line? We have a process to do that, it is called AfD. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Actually we have a Policy WP:BLP that defines what is a notable in relation to a living person. AFD doesnt write policy its a discussion where we decide if an article should be deleted, WP:SNOW clearly was a valid action and could equally be applied to this DRV. Gnan garra 05:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
BLP didn't come about for no reason, and we need to be responsible in our coverage of human subjects. Agree with Gnangarra re his summary. Also, due to his age, any action or conviction will not be noted against his name by the media per the Children, Youth and Family Act 2005 (Vic). Orderinchaos 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
And you think it won't get mentioned in other countries? And that the overage people won't get their convictions mentioned in the media? Let's be reasonable here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comment Also note that google now shows 183 news hits for "Corey Delaney" [7] and that number is growing. As with the MS Explorer and others, there is a point where NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The proper forum to decide these issues would be AfD, not DRV. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • BLP1E trumps our need to masturbate over this kid being reamed by the news media for a one-note singular event. Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, so undelete this and make it a redirect to an article about the party which is what BLP1E would suggest. Regardless, whether there is sufficient reason to make this BLP1E or not is a matter of AfD, which should get a full length of community discussion, not a less than a day of time for people to look at it. (And this sort of thing is important, we include many people who might naively fit BLP1E such as John Hinkley. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The number Google hits isnt a valid argument for notability, have you check to see whether these 183 hits are all independent stories or they just repeats of a couple of Authors like AAP/The Herald Gnan garra 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - bio of a non-notable minor who made news for nothing notable. No need to time waste keeping it. Majorly ( talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion for now. Consensus can change even on the propriety of particular BLP deletions, especially in light of new evidence. Should this young person's ill-fame prove lasting, should he profit from it (in a manner akin to Amy Fisher), or should circumstances later elevate his notability so clearly such that he is no longer "marginally notable" or a private person (perhaps he'll be elected to office someday?), then this deletion can be reconsidered. For now, he's a minor who has done something stupid, unusual in its scale, but not its nature. Fundamentally, the nature of his present fame is unencyclopedic, so I have no problem endorsing this AfD closure on the basis of strength of argument. Xoloz ( talk) 18:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion A nine days wonder, and hopefully not even that long. This sort of thing happens more frequently and does not make its participants notable, per WP:BLP1E.-- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion WP:NOT, WP:BLP issues, nobody will have heard of him this time next month. Hut 8.5 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong overturn - If it makes worldwide news, it should be included. Period. If the incident has a last effect on laws, then it should documented. --David Shankbone 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. If media coverage of this individual continues over a relatively long period of time such as a few months or if he becomes particularly notable for any other reason, I may think in the future if those circumstances come about that Wikipedia might be able to have an article about him, but definitely not yet.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as nom. Had the Afd still been going we'd report this on it from Google news - "A boy who threw a house party that ended in a near-riot of 500 people has acquired celebrity status, striking a magazine deal, fielding lucrative offers to promote under-age events and inspiring supporters worldwide on social networking websites." I think whatever childhood scars we think we're protecting him from have healed up a bit and one way or another an article will be built to address this, as he's been the focus and seems to be now escalating in cult status we might do well to catch a ride on the clue train. Benjiboi 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment And if there's any more doubts this how now been covered in The Times. [8]. This is another article that notes the discussion on Wikipedia about whether we should have an article about him. JoshuaZ ( talk) 05:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
There is nothing new in there about the subject. Gnan garra 05:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Other issues raised by editors are that according to Victorian Law we cannot write about him. This is clearly demonstrated and spoken about in the same newspaper article:
Other developments in this story cannot be reported for legal reasons.
So we are quite within our rights to write an article on this person. We can pretty much guarantee that he is not going to disappear overnight, so it is best that we establish a neutral article on him now, that people reading all the sensationalist stuff in the media can use as a reference of truth. Fosnez ( talk) 08:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion

    User:Solumeiras

    My argument above probably says it all... -- Solumeiras talk 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, for now. For now, he's used up 14 of his 15 minutes of fame but as news outlets demonstrate above it's not over. There's more fallouts from this incident than simply holding a party and he is still making news in Australia. Until then, it's still a crystal ball prediction and this article should stay deleted by WP:BLP1E, but I get the feeling we'll be back with this one again when the fallout of this incident starts being covered, if this happens. But not at the moment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn deletion and recreate article. BLP does not apply here, he is not merely famous for this one event (yes that is what kick started it all, won't disagree with that. But that is besides the point, EVERY famous person can probably point to "one event" that made them "famous". What really matters is what happens afterwards). But for a multitude of ones that followed afterwards, such as his behavior during the ACA interview. His continual refusal to remove his "famous sunglasses". The being offered to host various other parties (as has been reported in the news). Even this event right here that is happening in wikipedia has been reported [9]. I could go on and on, but my point has been made. Likewise there are other reasons behind misuse of BLP that this should be recreated, but this comment has became long enough. Just restore it, and lets be done with this silliness. It is putting all of us here on wikipedia in a bad light, as well as being wrong. Mathmo Talk 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary section break 2

There was enough evidence before to show this was unfairly closed, and now more and more just keeps on coming to light.... Mathmo Talk 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. I endorse the result of the AFD and Daniel's closure was proper for a BLP about a not notable minor. In Victoria we are restricted in what we can report about cases that are sub judice (before the courts), as this case is now, and even more so with cases that involve minors. Thus I recommend that the article remain salted at least until the conclusion of the legal processes. If this boy really is notable, then he will still be notable when the court cases have finished and we can discuss recreation at that time. Sarah 17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. If this went to second AfD, I'd definitely scream "just because it's all over news it doesn't mean we care in a decade"; BLP1E is, in that light, a sane reason to nuke stuff. We're not a news source and stuff like this just tries everyone's patience. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
that is not the standard at AfD. Notability a decade hence is rather absurd, we write WP for our readers today--in a decade, who knows what the medium will look like & whether all of WP will not be of historical interest only, just as usenet is now. If it has real, not just tabloid importance now, that is sufficient. DGG ( talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Howard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The page seems to have been deleted six times (the last time in April 2007) because a nonnotable individual made the article about themselves. I wish to create a page by this name about the former New York Yankees secondbaseman ( [10]). It is currently under protection with the reason "deprecating protected titles". NatureBoyMD ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of recent automobile models by type (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Request for clarification ignored, delete votes believed to be misguided

  • Endorse deletion. Closing was a valid interpretation of the consensus, and no procedural errors appear to have been made. What makes you think that the delete !votes might have been misguided? Please be reminded that DRV is not AFD round 2. A ecis Brievenbus 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The delete votes mostly made reference to this information being duplicated elsewhere, as well as objecting to the term 'recent'. I looked in the places being mentioned and everywhere else I could think of and cannot find any duplication of the article content, so I requested clarification. Next thing, the article was deleted without any reply. I appreciate what DRv is for, I had not made a decision either way as I could not see on what basis the delete votes were being made. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. The delete !votes were perfectly valid. Lists whose criteria is subjective (like this one; there's no clear definition of "recent") are routinely deleted as unencyclopaedic. Also, I believe that the "this list is a duplicate" !voters were referring to Lists of automobiles, which does include recent automobiles. NF24( radio me!) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The article was listed by type, it is different to list of automobiles, which is by country and then manufacturer, and also woefully incomplete so as to be useless compared to the population of this article if I remember. 'Recent' is subjective, but that can easily be solved with some inclusion criteria. I'm getting the impression here people are just taking it as read and haven't actually looked at the content of the articles in question. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The problem is that I can't look at the article in question. I read through the AfD and used the arguments there to formulate a rough idea of what the article looked like. NF24( radio me!) 01:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment difficult to say what to do with this one. The consensus was clearly to delete, but in my pinion the discussion was inadequate and the consensus seems just plain wrong. When we have a consensus to keep and responsible people think the decision is clearly wrong, we deal with it by a second AfD, discuss it, and perhaps delete it. We need an equivalent, or else this appeal process is a one-way street. I have temporarily userified the article as User:NASCAR Fan24/List of recent automobile models by type to permit discussion here. DGG ( talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Looking at the list, I still believe that it should stay deleted. The list is way too unwieldy to the point where it, again, is unencyclopaedic. Also, the criteria for the list, as I and others have said, is entirely subjective as opposed to, for example, List of diesel automobiles. NF24( radio me!) 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Reinstate article on the basis that current comments comprise a new Afd and do not support the case for the original deletion, namely duplication MickMacNee ( talk) 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James H. Cobb (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The comment in the deletion log claims that the article qualified for speedy deletion under CSD A7, "no indication of importance/significance". However, the indication of importance is right in the article fragment shown: Cobb is a published novelist who has contributed to an undisputedly significant series. Also, a quick search of Amazon.com shows that he (an author by that name, anyway) has been publishing books since at least as far back as 1997. -- DocumentN ( talk) 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

As I and others have said before, my friend, perhaps you are notable. (and I agree that a book "on amazon" is not enough; a book by a major established publisher is an assertion, at least, though not enough for N necessarily. I apologize for not having emphasised that asserting a book by a vanity publisher or a self published book is not, even in my opinion, a credible assertion of notability. But, more important, looking at the Google links, it seems he is the author of 5 books, Choosers of the Slain (1996), Storm Dragon (1997), Sea Strike (1998), Sea Fighter (1999), Target Lock (2001) At least two are from reputable trade publishers. Best thing to do would be to rewrite the article to include them and resubmit. DGG ( talk) 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. I don't parse "X wrote a book that was published" as asserting or implying significance or importance. If Cobb merits inclusion in an encyclopedia then someone will start an encyclopedia article about him sooner or later. Not this time though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dance Dance Revolution games – Overturn all speedy deletions outright. Merging, nominating for AfD, and other courses of action are left to editorial discretion. – Xoloz ( talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dance Dance Revolution 5thMIX (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution BEST HITS (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution Disney Channel Edition (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution EXTRA MIX (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME (North America) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution Kids (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution Konamix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution Party Collection (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution STR!KE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution Solo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA 2 (North America) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)
Dance Dance Revolution ULTRAMIX 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

All deleted as "blatant advertising" by Deb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll readily agree that a number of these articles needed work. However, this work was needed because they were subpar, not because " advertising was in fact the sole purpose of the articles' existence". Most concerned topics which were pretty clearly notable, given the stature of the DDR franchise. At the very least, this deserves some sort of organized discussion. Zetawoof( ζ) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse Deletion - if there is enough notability a month from now then re-consider but for now, it's just a little over the top and can cause unnecessary drama -- Tawker ( talk) 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Are you sure this comment wasn't meant for another discussion? None of these articles are related to recent events; the most recently released game on the list was Supernova 2 (IIRC), which was released in September 2007; the oldest one I recognize - 5th Mix - came out way back in 2001. Zetawoof( ζ) 13:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, not speedies. As one of our oldest admins, Deb should know better. Neıl ☎ 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • What can I say? These articles were all tagged. I daresay the basic game may have some notability, but to me this is like creating an article for every version of Monopoly (game). I see nothing in the content that merits keeping any except the main one. Deb ( talk) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • You are actually incorrect. There are different versions of Monopoly (game) but the rules stay the same in the game. Just the theme changes. Every content of each version shows different features, different song lists, etc from the games on DDR. It's just like when there's a new book of a series (for example the Harry Potter novels). Each book has its own story and something new to it. Therefor each book has its own article. Same with the series of a popular video game by Konami. Oni Kidou ( talk) 10:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - The DDR series is just like a series of novels such as Harry Potter. Each game is different from each other as far as song lists and features and thus should has its own article. Oni Kidou ( talk) 10:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • comment just because they are different doesn't make them notable enough to deserve separate articles. A single consolidate article would make more sense; we are not here to provide webhosting for gaming manuals or to facilitate comparison of songlists. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment from the guilty party

I don't for one minute want to argue with consensus. There are clearly two schools of thought here: one that believes these articles are useful - not a point of view I find easy to understand, but to those people I apologise, because evidently I am in a minority in thinking the articles completely worthless and the subject non-notable. There seems to be another group of people who think the articles are inappropriate but wish to protest about the manner of their deletion. It's good to have principles, but I spend an awful lot of time deleting new and tagged articles that don't meet the guidelines (it's not a nice job, and I don't enjoy it, but it has to be done). However, it would be very hard for me to restore articles I believe to be worthless, and I elected to force a deletion review partly for this reason and partly because I needed to be convinced of the subject's notability and the contributors' good faith.
With regard to the argument about whether speedy deletion was in contravention of deletion policy, I would also point to the sentence in the guidelines which says that "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created. There is no rule that says an article can't be speedily deleted just because it's been around a long time. Some might argue that if an article is intrinsically unsuitable for wikipedia, the fact that lots of people have worked on it and failed to bring it up to standard is irrelevant. Deb ( talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
the fact that so many have worked on them in good faith is an indication that it was likely to be controversial and thus unsuitable for speedy. That and that there is a difference between "non-notable" and not assertion of notability. DGG ( talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Please read my first paragraph again. If only I could be sure that the contributors were not retailers who sell this game, life would be so simple. Deb ( talk) 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
You're kidding, right? Zetawoof( ζ) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Please read your first paragraph? That's all you have to say? That's not really much. And the retailers of the game are from Japan and I doubt they'd bother with doing Wikipedia articles here. Oni Kidou ( talk) 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
What you say is worthless is not to those who understand the game. As far as I know, those articles that you have deleted actually did provide information about the game itself and the difference between other versions of game in the past and were not actual advertisement. If you thought they were all advertisements, as you claimed, then why not delete Wikipedia all together? Since from what you're saying that anything that has to do with providing information is advertising. If that's how you really think then go right ahead and delete all of Wikipedia for us. Oni Kidou ( talk) 05:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Strong overturn. First off, lay off Deb, alright? I believe that the admin here made a good faith mistake, and I can see why they would. To someone unfamiliar with the games, it looks a lot like these are just different versions of the same game, it would be sort of like having a different page for each update patch of a PC game. That said, the articles should be restored quickly. They're in poor shape, but a key part of WP:CSD#G11 is that the article must be unsalvageable, and these articles, ugly as they are, can be fixed. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and merge. I don't believe there can be enough information out there for most of these games to warrant their own articles without resorting to listcruft. Perhaps give each article a chance to develop then they can be merged if this is not done. Rehevkor ( talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_15&oldid=1140155834"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE