Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2007 August 27
2007 August 29 >

28 August 2007

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

This should be fairly straightforward, hopefully. The page was apparently the victim of repeated attempts to insert a barely notable, unflattering incident into the bio. Since the article was a stub there were both WP:UNDUE and BLP issues. It survived an AfD in January, but was speedied & protected in June by Jimbo Wales after an OTRS request (#2007011710000088). I rescued the uncontroversial, cited content via a WP mirror and placed it in Ten O'Clock Classics, an organisation Mr Segev co-founded, where it subsequently proved useful. Anyhoo, I posted at JW's talk page the other day to request that instead of being a protected deletion, could Ronen Segev be a protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics? He seems amenable to the idea (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev), but since I suspect he doesn't do much in the way of sysop housekeeping these days, I said I'd just bring it here. Cheers. --DeLarge 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Speedy close – Restoring talk page since main article is already restored. No DRV is actually necessary here; the nomination was only possible because the article was undeleted with no notification to the deleting admin. – — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The talk page has claimed to be delted for a page that does not exist per WP:CSD#G8, but the main page did exist at the date of deltetion of, 29 June 2007 this page needs to be restore so I can contest a new PROD on that page. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arguments to keep are a stone's throw from WP:ILIKEIT and do not address main issues of lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. Assuming AfD really is not a vote, arguments to delete that point out the article's failure to meet basic policy/guidelines without sufficient -- in this case, much of any -- refutation should lead to that article's deletion. --EEMeltonIV 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure—for fiction in general, it's good to review other options before AfDing or PRODding articles; this is one of the compromises that allowed WP:FICT to be accepted despite its strict standards. Some time should be given. — Deckiller 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire - Closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Consensus seemed clear on delete and the reasons for delete. Unlike most Wikipedia fanfic AfDs, there was no outpouring of Keep during the eight day AfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse my closure. Deckiller expressed an opinion which is the same as my thoughts on the matter, and I don't think there was a solid consensus on the matter (except for the two sub-nominations). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also note that I think this is an improper use of DRV (which means "deletion review" not "I didn't get deleted the article I wanted deleted at AfD, so I'm going to run another pseudo AfD here to see if I can get it deleted outside the established system" review). DRV is for review of deletions you disagree with, not attempting to run another AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please assume good faith and take a look at the portions of the DRV page that point out, for instance, that DRV can also be used for reviewing the retention of articles. My rationale at the top of this note did not reiterate the argument I made at the AfD, rather that I believe the decision at closure (i.e. the process, which DRV focuses on) did not reflect the sum of the (non-)arguments. --EEMeltonIV 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read an implication of bad faith into my comments, I apologize. I was merely expressing concern that you were basically running another AfD here since you obviously disagree with my decision against your opinion in the AfD. Given the discussion here so far, it appears that even here the opinions are ambiguous, so I am even more firm in my belief I made the correct decision. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire and Moff - Endorse deletion of Supreme Chancellor (*catches breath*) The overwhelming bulk of the interventions to the debate had well argued arguments for deletion based on policy. There where three pages for deletion, and closing admin proceed to implement I solution proposed by a single editor and seconded by no one. It makes no sense to delete Supreme Chancellor but not the other ones: closing admin ignored the bulk of the editors to concentrate on one proposal only - which failed to gather consensus - a travesty of what a debate seeking consensus should be.--Cerejota 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only matter being reviewed is Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold, with some regret. Most of the arguments--on both sides--are unhelpful. Notability in itself isn't a criterion for deletion; failure to meet that standard or WP:FICT would imply a merge, not a delete. If material can't be merged anywhere then it isn't encyclopedic, but only one editor asserted that (Burntsauce) without explaining why. A digression on fancruft: any editor who cites fancruft as a reason for deletion is arguing, in effect, that said article does not meet the notability standards, is not properly attributed, and does not contain any material that could merged. There was clearly no consensus on the latter point, and editors in this case are obligated to explain why this article fails on those counts. That being said, those who would keep the article mustered few positive arguments--liking the material isn't sufficient, and vows to cleanup and source the article are usually the first step on the path to the second AfD (wherein the article gets deleted). Now, the important comment was left by ChunkyRice, who correctly asserted that, as it stands, the article is original research and completely unsuitable. It's also an open question whether a proper article can be written on a topic where the actual canonical sources either disagree or are undermined by on-screen inconsistencies (which suggests, strongly, that the matter should be covered in an article dealing with the films themselves). If it had been up to me I might well have deleted it for being such an ugly violation of the attribution policy, but given the confusion in the debate, and the fact that this was the article's first direct AfD, I can't really fault Nihonjoe closing it no consensus on the main article, and merging Moff into that article. Supreme Chancellor I've redirected to Galactic Republic#The Galactic Senate. Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete (the two not deleted) Because none of the keep voters provided any sort of real world notability. Notability should be a reason for deletion, for otherwise we'd be flooded with material that some editors think is important, but cannot back it up by coverage from independent, reliable sources Corpx 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletions arguments such as "it fails to meet the manual of style (WP:WAF)" are clearly not relevant. Reasonable call by closer. >Radiant< 09:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Mackensen. Poor arguments on either side, but no real consensus emerged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Personally, i would delete the article, but the discussion clearly had no consensus, so such was the correct close. DGG (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Media Publisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wow, what a frustrating process this is! This page was nominated for deletion a month or so ago, I exchanged some messages about it on this board, and an admin ended up closing the debate and reinstating the page. Now I check back and it's gone again! I can't find any more debate, and since the page is gone there's no Talk page. What happened?? EricAlderman 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. This is a review of Media Publisher AfD#1 since it was the last deletion event. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was previously deleted via the Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion method which works by unanimous consent. Any objections and it is withdrawn or restored. However, since then there has been an Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Publisher in which a consensus was formed that the company does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. (For the record, I endorse the deletion as proper. Eluchil404 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the closer interpreted the Media Publisher AfD#1 discussion correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for explaining the process -- after I posted the above, I did find the page you refer to with the archived discussion. Unfortunately I had not checked the AfD pages during this period and so did not have an opportunity to respond while several people voted for deletion and "consensus" was reached. I have read the notability page quite carefully. Can I ask for the basis of the objection of lack of notability? Is it because a) the coverage is not "significant", b) the sources are not "reliable", or c) the sources are not "independant" of the subject? In terms of "significant coverage", the standard is "more than trivial but less than exclusive." Most of the links provided as sources fit that definition just fine. The standard for "reliable sources" are those with editorial integrity. Again, the websites and periodicals quoted met that bar. Finally, none of the articles cited lacked "independance" of the subject; they were articles in magazines, not ads, press releases, etc. Also: what exactly is meant by the comment "another small company", or using 165 as some magic number about Google hits? Is there some set of unwritten rules somewhere the rest of us should know about? EricAlderman 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say because the articles only mention Media Publisher in passing. The articles aren't about Media Publisher specifically and only seem to mention it in passing. This is kinda discussed in the primary criterion of WP:CORP. How I typically interpret this is that a significant amount or fraction of text should be specifically about the object/company/person in question. For example, a review of a Media Publisher product or a few paragraphs about what they or something. There are no magic or unwritten rules (or shouldn't be at least). I just think that the articles in question are good sources of information, they just don't give enough information about Media Publisher to be able to write an article about them. Wickethewok 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK -- but again, you're using a new phrase to define the significance of the coverage: "in passing". the primary criterion of WP:CORP actually just refers to the references not being "trivial", which by the definition given they certainly are not. EricAlderman 17:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually says "Trivial or incidental coverage", and I think this coverage can be considered incidental as it only has passing mentions of the company. Anyways, the sum of the information of the articles about Media Publisher is...
  • VBrick in the first quarter plans to ship a video encoder appliance with integrated management software from Media Publisher Inc. After it’s been installed centrally and at remote locations, the appliance can digitize, compress and decompress video feeds for WAN transmissions. Media Publisher CEO Rod Bacon says massive video broadcasts of events to PCs will be possible. “We all see that having large-scale events is the golden chalice,” he says. The goal is 100,000-plus seats. “That’s pretty challenging,” admits Howard — especially over a WAN.
  • ...says Steve Pattison, vp of marketing and business development of Media Publisher, a video-on-demand and Web-casting company
  • But now that it has a software platform from Media Publisher to manage the video content and broadcast it over its network, it's looking to do more fast-turnaround video, such as analysts commenting on market events for investment advisers and even VIP customers
  • The university pushed an e-learning initiative based on Media Publisher's video and web conferencing technology to help students with housing and transportation issues.
  • Lamar administrative staff use a number of web conferencing applications, including Media Publisher, whose logging capability can generate reports that show who has looked at an archived video training segment and for how long.
I just don't think anyone can write an article based on a couple short mentions from a few publications. Wickethewok 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Reality film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe that the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film misinterpretated the debate as "no consensus." There was a consensus to delete the article because it's about a neologism. Pixelface 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. AFD showed consensus (which would have been 7-4 if someone had told me about the AFD), and the majority's arguments were based on policy. The article's sources are gamed, and no two use the neologism the same way. Endorse closure as no consensus Per Arkyan and to avoid a fuss. The article is as good as it will get, and it can be deleted in a month when it doesn't improve. THF 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (changed 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There was clearly no consensus to delete in this debate. Don't forget that a "no consensus" closure does not preclude future nominations. If no one seems interested in improving this article and it still appears to be in a "poor state" just nominate it again in the near future rather than bring up a DRV. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete, and we now have two more votes, one delete, one keep. The concept of "Reality film" as a film that has sprung from reality television is a much-discussed genre/idea/film descriptor that it merits an article, at least one given the opportunity to flourish. This DRV was brought almost immediately. What's the rush? What's the harm? It's not a BLP or controversial topic; it's about movies based upon reality television shows. --David Shankbone 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; I would also have endorsed a keep closure. The delete arguments are weak, and can mostly be fixed by editing. The arguments about WP:NEO are misguided here, because this article is not about the term but rather about what the term refers to. We should avoid using a neologism as an article title... if there is a better title. If not, the neologism may be the best we can do. Mangojuicetalk 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my closure, I wasn't notified of this DRV. AFD isn't a vote, and I didn't see any consensus to do much of anything. --Coredesat 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure per Mangojuice. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure – Substantial new information available, only a small sampling of which includes:
    • Goodwin, Ty. (August 15, 1992) Los Angeles Times U.S. Designers Want to Alter Oscar Pattern. Movies: Some say the academy overlooks costumes for "reality" films in favor of those in period pieces. Their proposal? Create two awards." Section: CA-Calendar; Page 6
    • Moore, Frazier. (January 20, 1996) South Florida Sun-Sentinel Reality films are really bad. Section: Lifestyle; Page 3D
    • Goodman, Tim. (July 15, 1997) San Francisco Examiner CNN decides to stick with reality film cameos banned after "contact". Section: News; Page A1
    • Bark, Ed. (March 28, 1999) The Dallas Morning News LifeTV: Reality films are fiction, but we may be headed that way. Section: The Arts; Page 1C
    • Barney, Chuck. (April 4, 1999) Contra Costa Times As Seen on TV – Reality films assume we'd like to watch. Section: Time Out; Page C1
    • Koshie, Nihal. (November 21, 2001) The Times of India A koole obsession with reality films.
    • The Gold Coast Bulletin (May 23, 2002) Reality films made in Mexico. Section: Entertai; page 4.
    • Kettmann, Matt. (January 25, 2007) Santa Barbara Independent Reality film-making. Volume 21; Issue 54, Page 43
    -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost none of these sources refer to the term described in the article, and many of them have single quotemarks in the headlines and don't use the term again at all. Including these would violate WP:NEO, which is why the article should have been deleted in the first place: there are no sources non-trivially discussing phenomena in relation to this term. Still, endorse closure, "no consensus" was the correct read of this AfD, and editors are certainly free to discuss a merge. Cool Hand Luke 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I only listed some of those that use the term in the headline. There are hundreds more that use the term. Also, the term does not define how it is used in the reliable source material. The relm of reliable source material defines the term. There is a significant amount of reliable source material that makes use of the 'Reality film' term. The reliable source material understands what that term means and the Wikipedia article is there to bring that out. Deleting the article will not assist in bringing out the reliable source material uses of that term. In any event, the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and endorse closure Antonio Martin 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and endorse original closure That's one hecka well-referenced "neologism." Let's not spend any more time on proposing to debate a well-referenced and well-researched and well-written article when there's so much crap out there needing attention. KP Botany 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Within a Deep Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Much more notable now than when deleted. 30,000+ google hits. There are also articles relating to this at Knytt and Nifflas that pass notability guidelines, so this should too. Phyte 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a review of the 21 June 2007 delete +cascading protection. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Lauren Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lauren caitlin upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This needs a full discussion. It appears to have been speedy deleted without an AfD. Miss Teen South Carolina, 3rd runner up for 2007 Miss Teen USA and a huge internet sensation (over 2 6 7 9 10 million youtube hits) due to her interesting answer during a Q&A. Was the primary subject of multiple secondary pieces by reliable sources like The Guardian [1], People Magazine [2] and a host of other TV and print media (Google news search). This is NOT a private individual, either before or after the speech. An embarrassed one, maybe, but not private. --Oakshade 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is a review of Dweller's 15:19, 26 August 2007 speedy deletion of Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Caitlin Upton was the only article posted before the !votes started. The remaining articles above were added to the nomination well after editors !voted. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Today, August 28, 2007, she is in the news "Miss Teen South Carolina makes her mark with flubbed response to geography question." -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD per recent incident, but I'll venture a guess (and argue there) that it'll get deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 07:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and await an explanation of why "BLP" was cited. Winning a state beauty pagent, and finishing high in the US beauty contest, makes the person a notable person. As in the nom, several sources are present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion This article was deleted by user:Dweller, but I deleted the same text the previous day. I would suggest that being the third runner-up in a beauty contest is not notable. Whether she is a youtube sensation, given that this is not mentioned within the article, is wholly beside the point. A version of the page does, indeed, comment on an allegedly fatuous answer she gave to a question on live television. If everyone who had made a stupid comment on live TV were to deserve an article, I venture to suggest that even wiki's large capacity servers would be overwhelmed. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid) is in a similar position, yet his remains? Tdwinz711 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Star wars kid is not a bio, nor should it be. Some 'incidents' are noteable enough to have their own articles, however these are specifically not bios and should not be written as such. Some incident's are not noteable enough to be mentioned at all. Finally, some 'incidents' are noteable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia but not in their own articles. She appears to fall into this category. The incident is mentioned on the Miss Teen USA 2007 and is likely to remain but there is still no call for a bio article solely because of the incident Nil Einne 22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But these are not criteria for speedy deletion. --Oakshade 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-notability-bio is. But let's just put it to AfD and get a consensus. Really, keep or delete, either is fine with me. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're confusing not having an assertion of notability (CSD 7) with a users opinion of non-notability, which in itself is NOT a criteria for speedy deletion. Yes, that's what this DRV is about, it should go to a full AfD, but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted without a discussion. --Oakshade 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not actually confusing the two aspects, because when notability is asserted it is still necesary to form an opinion as to whether the assertion is justifiable. To take a gross example, I could write an article about some wholly insignificant person, and say "This person is notable". That would be an assertion, bit a wholly unjustifiable one. So opinion does play a part. But, as we all seem to agree, let's go to AfD. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - She was just a guest on The Today Show [3]. --Oakshade 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I am, however, favorable to seeing if we can put together an article that goes beyond naming her profession and one embarassing incident. WP:BLP and many recent precedents support the decision Dweller made, but BLP does not mandate deletion if a well-written, compliant version is available. But so far I'm not seeing evidence of that. Right now, there are no reliable sources. Yes, there was no AfD, but for a case like this, we should debate the inclusion here in DRV rather than undeleting solely on process grounds (again, many recent precedents on that point, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Mangojuicetalk 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are now over 200 reliable sources that have written about this topic. You are referring to a version that was deleted almost immediately after it was created with zero chance for anyone to cite the reliable sources in the article. I see nothing about this topic that fits the WP:BLP case for speedy deletion. And I very much disagree that a DRV is a place for AfD discussions (usually people argue the opposite here). --Oakshade 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment stands. If we can put her embarassing answer into proper context and not give it undue weight, I think it would be okay to have an article. If all we can do is name her and then point out one embarassing moment, it's not an appropriate biography. Perhaps we could cover the issue at List of internet phenomena or somewhere similar. And you might want to remember about unique Google hits: there are only 15 in that search [4], many of them give trivial coverage [5], for instance. Those that don't focus exclusively on her embarassing moment and don't even provide any other information we can use. Mangojuicetalk 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd suggest that, in view of recent DRV practice (see, e.g., List of sportspeople by nickname, Ward Churchill misconduct issues), there seems to be a consensus for our considering, in situations as this, only whether BLP counsels/mandates deletion, and where BLP speedy deletion is overturned, for the article's history's being restored, the article's being blanked, and the issue's being listed at AfD for consideration of both BLP and general (e.g., notability, verifiability) concerns (which is, I gather, basically Sjakkalle's suggestion). Joe 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list at AfD It is ridiculous to believe that the winner of a state beauty pageant has anything resembling a strong BLP right. At the point where there are literally hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the matter. There may be a concern with Wikipedia is not news but there's no reason not to have that discussion at AfD. JoshuaZ 18:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. - Overturn and list at AfD - Does not meet speedy delete criteria. She has been in the news since December 2006 due to Miss S.C. Teen USA and Miss Teen USA pageant. There could be a decent biography written on her. If Wikipedia can't handle these incidents, then we need to change businesses. If more than three or four sentences in that biography are devoted to today's TV flub, please feel free to trim down to size per WP:BLP. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC) This DRV request for the speedy deleted Caitlin Upton article was posted at 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC). Five hours after the DRV request, ChesterCharge (talk · contribs · logs) created Lauren Caitlin Upton at 12:39, 28 August 2007. It was speedy deleted 12:50, 28 August 2007. Westonma (talk · contribs · logs) then created Lauren caitlin upton seven hours after this speedy deletion at 19:56, 28 August 2007. It was deleted 12:50, 28 August 2007. Given the BLP problems of the article, the relatively little pre August 28, 2007 reliable source material available, and these Wikipedia procedural violations, an article on this topic is not maintainable by Wikipedia at this time. Please repost DRV request in a month or two. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So keep it deleted as a punishment? There are plenty of sources so I don't see why an article isn't maintainable, other than drive-by BLP deletions every few hours... but that's a problem with the admins, not people actually adding content to the article. --W.marsh 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is 100% content issue and nothing to do with the article topic. Per BLP, any unreferenced material in any biography needs to be removed, but that doesn't magically make the entire topic's notability or assertion thereof non-existent. You're advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater or the "let's kill it in order to save it" mentality. It would only take a short time (likely very short) for that unreferenced content issue to be resolved. --Oakshade 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above. Are we here to provide information, or to advance a biased and unprofessional view of what journalism should be? I always thought it was the information thing... maybe I'm naive. At any rate, our goal should be finding better ways to provide that information, not just whisking it under the rug at all costs. 6 million people have viewed this on YouTube in the past 2 days, and many come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information on what they just saw, but find a blank page no one can edit? We're derelict in our duty to provide information here. Note that I've deleted a weird article that appeared at Lauren caitlin upton, most of which was a copyvio or seemed to be. --W.marsh 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the Lauren Caitlin Upton version, submit to AfD as needed. BLP is not offended as damaging claims are sourced. We look bad when we summarily delete in-the-news articles under less-than-perfect rationales. Neither A7 nor BLP justify the deletion of this article. -- Y not? 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Unprotect Frankly this is a little upsetting that this article was protected before a proper AfD was ever done. No offence but I know that there are contributors out there who are die hard against any articles having to do with internet celebrities but frankly that is how our world makes its celebrities these days. Lauren Upton not only deserves an article for being Miss South Carolina Teen USA but also for being 3rd runner up in a national beauty pagent but she also is even more deserving of an article because of the publicity she has receieved on countless National and yes International media sources. I will list links to references that could be used in the event her article is unprotected, note they come from all over the World.Her Official Bio, FOX, Boston Mass, USA,New Zealand,UK, New Zealand, France, Canada, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], There are plenty more references...actually there are THOUSANDS more but I don't have the time for them all. I just want people to recognize whether you like to admit it to yourself or not she is indeed notable and is deserving of an article. If this article is unprotected it should still be semi-protected to ease off of vandalism obviously. I do stronly believe that a very well sourced article can and should be created.--Joebengo 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - we are not here to write about people who are notable solely for making fools of themselves. Merge the content to somewhere else, if you wish, but one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make. Moreschi Talk 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She had other claims to notability... have we gone so far down the BLP slope that because someone does something we deem embarrassing we delete their article without discussion? We can write a decent encyclopedia article here given the volume of sources... that's all notability required until BLP got dramatically rewritten in the last 6 months. --W.marsh 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a repository for trivial news events. Eusebeus 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have articles on many Miss Teen USA delegates from over the years (Category:Miss Teen USA delegates). Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD, especially if one goes far in the national competition. It seems like this article was deleted only because she got more news coverage than the other ones.. I find it hard to believe that even the current BLP was intended to justify deletion, let alone speedy deletion, of people who meet inclusion standards but got some potentially embarrassing press at some point. I'm not sure if people endorsing the deletion realize this is not just someone from Youtube but that there is independent notability... or if we're trying to set a new even more extreme precedent for BLP allowing the deletion of articles on notable people if they do something we think is embarrassing. --W.marsh 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD - That would actually seem to be "no, it's not":
  • I've participated in hundreds of DRVs... believe it or not I don't really remember how most of them turned out off the top of my head, I don't follow them that closely. As for the AFDs... a lot were closed due to lack of sources, which isn't the case here. I just don't understand this obsession with getting rid of articles where we have plenty of sources... way too anti-content for me. --W.marsh 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If this article is going to be deleted, then so does the article about Ghyslain Raza (see Star Wars kid). There is not more to discuss other than the fact that he has an article about him, so should she. He is famous because he was was made a fool of. He had no accomplishments prior to this, unlike her who had won the South Carolina Miss Teen USA. The end result, if her article is to be deleted, so should his. Claim that one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make, but Ghyslain only had one-idiotic-incident. End all arguments Tdwinz711 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a read of this, Your Lordship, before banging down that gavel. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Mr. Know-It-All I have, have you read of this, or this, or this? All of which has been argued here. The point is, people are claiming that she is not notable, however I argue that she is notable. Since "notability" is a subjective term (see this) I was merely referencing another article that can be used as a comparison. Subjectivity needs reference points, agree? Also, you should read the introduction to that essay as it makes the statement "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." But then again, that is me reading the whole thing and not just the parts that I believe apply... Tdwinz711 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really doesn't need any further discussion. It should be allowed plain and simple. If you disagree, just search Wiki for Star Wars kid (as someone else put on this page). The integrity of the administrators (or internet bullies) are at jeopardy. Blahblahblah98 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Winning a state-level beauty contest is pretty meaningless, and one silly incident isn't sufficient, either. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that opinion does not make the article a candidate for speedy deletion. This is not an AfD but a Deletion Review regarding the speedy deletion. --Oakshade 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, either, and those who enjoy process for its own sake may want to sign up at their local law school's moot court instead just to keep in practice. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're citing regulations, policies and guidelines all over this board but now you're using the bureaucracy argument. It's becoming pointless to even respond to you now as your arguments are self-contradictory. --Oakshade 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mind pointing me to those "regulations, policies and guidelines" I'm citing "all over this board"? Hint: making up hypocritical arguments and attributing them to your opponents to demonstrate their alleged hypocrisy is really not a road you want to be going down. Nor are handwaving and bureaucratic wikilawyering really effective rhetorical techniques. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh... Perhaps this doesn't quite fit the speedy criteria but I'm pretty sure it will end up being deleted on AfD. Borderline notability + mild BLP concerns usually mean deletion and while I have no objection to listing at AfD, I'm not sure there's any point to doing so. Pascal.Tesson 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and recreate She is clearly notable. what she said will be referenced for years (yes i know about WP:CRYSTAL but im basing this on similar things in the past). After the incedent, she appeared or will soon appear on news/talk shows. She deserves a page or at the very least a redirect and a section about her in the Miss Teen USA pageFrank Anchor 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion this would not have survived afd and to go through the procedure just to confirm that seems wasteful. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - she is not notable for winning the local pageant (as confirmed by deletion of other such winners in the past). Even though her stupidity made it to the media, this wave of interest will be over in no time, so Wikipedia is not news applies here. Also, it's covered in the Miss Teen 2007 article.--Svetovid 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is covered at Miss_Teen_USA_2007#Final_Competition, why not just make this a protected redirect there? Right now, probably thousands of people are looking for information and just getting a redlink. Seems better than nothing. --W.marsh 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. I am not necessarily in favour of keeping this article but I think it is worth sending it for a proper discussion. I am the original author of the article and voluntarily requested its deletion following the deletion debates and subsequent deletion of a number of articles on other Miss Teen USA 2007. Straight after the pageant I was still of the belief that she was not notable but as the saga has continued and a number of international news media have covered her and she has appeared on the Today Show, I have mellowed quite a bit. There is precedent that an article a non-state winner who became notorious for quitting America's Next TOp Model was kept because of the combined notability of all these things (see Blnguyen's comment at that AFD) and I think that applies here. At the very least, it deserves a full discussion at AFD. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Note, I am the admin who salted this article. Following the outcome at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 16 all 51 articles for the contestants of Miss Teen USA 2007 were deleted, based on insufficient notability of the state pageant winners. The old link to all these articles can be seen by admins who can view the deleted versions of Template:Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates, specifically this version where you will see redlinks for all of them except the eventual winner, which was rightly recreated. Now that being a state winner alone is established to be insufficient for notability, there must be sufficiently additional notability to permit the article. In my opinion one viral video does not meet this standard. Given the BLP concerns and vicious vandalistic history we have seen to date at this article, I think that it should stay deleted and possibly re replaced with a protected redirect. --After Midnight 0001 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the other pageant candidates articles got deleted doesn't make this one a candidate for speedy deletion. And this individual, not any of the other contestants, has multiple (many in fact) secondary sources written about her. Your viral video opinion is an AfD opinion, not a reason for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion for BLP concerns is moot as this is not a private person; As long as the content follows the strict WP:BLP guidelines (everything verified, etc.), as with any public individual, there is not a reason to speedy delete this article not to mention salt it. If there is a BLP violation, then the violating content should be removed, not the article speedy deleted. --Oakshade 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because the other pageant candidates articles got deleted doesn't make this one a candidate for speedy deletion - If she's part of the same group, yes, it is, since that was the whole point of the group nomination. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This person wasn't included in that group nomination (so we automatically speedy delete similar articles to others that have been deleted?). Besides, this individual has arguably much more verified notability than any of those. --Oakshade 01:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • FYI - the group nom was a test case that convinced the original creator and other contributors to the articles to themselves nominate the remaining articles in the category, which led to some {{db-author}}s. --After Midnight 0001 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • To elaborate: I picked 4 of the 49 articles and nominated them separately, then afterwards added -- for official process's sake -- a group of others which I had PROD tagged earlier but which had had their PROD tags removed. Note also that the header title is "Canden Jackson and other Miss Teen USA 2007 contestants". Short answer: yes, she was -- inherently -- part of this group nomination. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions - there is an outstanding precendent that we don't leave articles like this lying around - vios of A7, G10 and BLP. One youtube video doesn't make you notable. Process is pointless for stuff like this. Martinp23 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Notable enough as a statewide pagent winner and an internet meme/news story to at least deserve an AfD (on which I would argue for a keep, BTW). This is not a case of A7 and BLP is satisfied with ample available sourcing. Any article should be protected for a while, however. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, BLP is there to protect people from libel, not public figures from their gaffes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While the viral video seemed trivial to me at first, I've seen it referenced as a particularly poignant and ironic example of the American education system and the Pageant itself. Along with other factors mentioned by others, I think there is sufficient notability for the article to be restored. Desspec 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that the original deletion of Caitlin Upton wasn't exactly a "speedy deletion without a proper AFD". I requested speedy deletion of the original article (in June/July, prior to the pageant) because of the "delete" decision in the afd and subsequent deletion review of Shauna Sabir, among others. Had it not been for those afds, the article would still exist. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It had been recreated since then when circumstances very much changed, ie multiple secondary sources about this topic. It's that recent speedy deletion is what's at issue.--Oakshade 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"... would not survive AFD'" is a pure WP:CRYSTAL statement. WP:BLP1E applies to "essentially low profile people" in which someone who, as already Miss South Carolina Teen, willingly participates in a nationally televised national beauty contest is not. WP:NOT#NEWS is not criteria to speedy delete an article. --Oakshade 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll withhold my delete argument until this is listed on AFD and deleted like the rest of the beauty pageant contestant articles. --Coredesat 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. 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 universities that offer the PPE degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

First off, I disagree with the closer of the initial deletion debate who found that "consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory." Review the debate yourself and I think you will find that the comments are rather mixed in their support the of deletion. I also disagree with the deletion itself. While Wikipedia certainly isn't a directory it does contain numerous lists of notable items which pertain to an entry including the List of library and information science programs, which is obviously very similar to the PPE list (disclosure: I did recently update the library programs entry). I would also argue the sheer utility (which several members argued in the initial debate) of the PPE list. PPE is an unusual major and, as such, no list of programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the PPE programs are small, not very well publicized, and, at times go by other names, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a PPE list. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a PPE program will naturally find the PPE entry and list and would likely contribute the programs they know of. Furthermore, the frequent additions of program information to the main PPE entry (which is exactly what I did) indicates there is a definite interest in a PPE list. The deletion of this article has not merely destroyed unique and useful information but has prevented and continues to prevent the creation of such information. -- Patrick Mhnin0 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many will say that this is typical nationalistic story. In the end this is true but my problem is that wikipedia must be neutral because of what it is not possible that she has article Serbophobia and not Croatophobia. Both words are created during or after Yugoslav wars. To show examples of Croatophobia I am giving this 2 links which has been in article (I have forget others..): [16] (Croats do not exist but they are catholic Serbs) and [17] (on Croato-Serbian) order to Serbian media for not writing Croat forces but Ustaša hordes. Better sources are in new article deleted yesterday but...Article which is deleted yesterday is similar to article deleted before bit it is different article !! To say simple my position we need to have both articles or both must be deleted. Any other solution is POV.Rjecina 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a review of the 27 August 2007 Speedy Delete.
Note - This newsarticle uses "Croatophobia", as in "None of that has been altered by the fact that in the meantime France, under the leadership of President Chirac, has also distanced itself from the Yugoslav complex, with its pronounced Serbophilia and elements of Croatophobia, which had its roots in the anti-German movement created in 1919 in Versailles." -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_28&oldid=1067397779"