Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 21

Category:Stuart Little – Relisted at CfD by original closer – trialsanderrors 07:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn closure and delete - of three comments expressing an opinion, two were to delete and one was a weak keep specifically noting that deletion was also acceptable. How this can reasonably be construed as "no consensus" is a mystery to me. At the very least this should be overturned and relisted but it seems abundantly clear that a CFD that closes with no one opposing deletion should be closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nomination was based on something that was fixed almost immediately. Endorse and relist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there were two issues raised in the CFD. One was the use of the cat as performer by performance, which was corrected, and the other was the lack of need for it as a navigational hub because of the interlinking of the various articles. Otto4711 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per nom. CalJW 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13 so we can have some more discussion. Tim! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Charlotte's Web – Relisted at CfD by original closer – trialsanderrors 07:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn closure and delete - of four comments, three were to delete. There is no reasonable way that 75% in favor of deletion can be construed as "no consensus." At the very least, this should be relisted to allow additional comment but I don't know how much more clear it has to be made to the closing administrator that this should have closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete per Otto4711. CalJW 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The keep argument was a general statement nearly amounting to WP:USEFUL, and not necessarily an argument for keeping the category. Otherwise, there was consensus to delete. --Core desat 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13 so we can have some more discussion. Tim! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Latitude and wealth – deletion overturned unanimously – GRBerry 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article was started under a poor title by Futurebird (talk · contribs) and immediately sent to AfD (after a prod was removed). Within a day Novickas (talk · contribs) turned into a high-quality article on the macroeffects of geography on economic development, referencing the pertinent literature, roughly following the survey article by Jeffrey Sachs et al. in the Scientific American, and discussing both causal factors (climate, disease) and exceptions (natural resources, political regimes). The nomination nonsensically claimed this was a POV fork of latitude, and most of the delete !votes roughly fall into three categories: 1. outright unsupported dismissals ("NOR bullshit"), 2. hang-ups on the title ("Where's the latitude?"), 3. comments that made clear the commenter had no grasp of the subject matter ("there are exceptions so it can't be correlated"), and should have been ignored by the closer. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The article itself is in the Google cache DGG 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the full history can be viewed at the article title itself behind the TempUndelete notice.
Overturn. This is a rare instance where AFD got it wrong. The deletion claims were based on an assumption that this was original research. It is not. The thesis may ultimately be wrong but the bulk of the content is well sourced to independent, published articles. Rossami (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist Agree that many of the Delete votes should be discounted. Laughhead 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Clear failure of AFD. FCYTravis 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the nomination here clearly spells out why this was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's also worth noting that of the related articles, Development geography#Geographic variations in development has one reference, and North-south divide has zero. So the fourth kind of argument, that this topic is covered elsewhere, fails to convince. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I just viewed the text in the page history, and this seems to be a well-written, well-sourced article. I have no idea why it would have been deleted in the first place. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Crotalus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the article changed significantly during AfD. I do think the original article was problematic, and I'm pretty sure it was cut whole cloth from a contentious part of the Latitude article, which is where my POV fork argument came in. The title is still a problem, IMHO, though. Mak (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. Wimstead 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some background: I saw this in the new articles list and was unaware of its contentious history. Took me a while to realize that someone had used it as a place to stuff the cold-makes-your-brain-bigger theory; this is easily dealt with since everyone with a basic knowledge of anthropology knows the original brain expansion took place in the Great Rift Valley, see [1] etc etc. (This particular reference attributes it to fish, yuck). Yeah, it needs some work. About the title; latitude is a fair proxy in the sense that tropical and temperate are usually defined using latitude. Also it would seem that permafrost in the highest latitudes also impedes wealth, but since Siberia and northern Canada are not independent countries it's harder to source. But the discussion on the proxy issue, title, and so forth could be continued. Novickas 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I disagree with the above description "poor title" - it's debatable but not poor. Novickas 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Poor" in the sense that at least 1/3 of the delete opiners tripped over it. It also implies a causation whenit's really just a correlation, so yeah, I would recommend changing the title. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I was a delete voter in the AfD, nom puts it well. Pete.Hurd 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the nom, from another delete !vote. I remember this one well, and the nom here makes some good points. Under the circumstances, I think putting it back will be acceptable - but it would need to be made to feel unlike WP:OR if it doesn't change. (I do remember that it felt a lot like original research, thus my own !vote.) --Dennisthe2 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about geography and wealth? [2]Novickas 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- To expand: this reference, a Purdue University release citing the Toronto Star, uses the phrase "geography and wealth" in the course of a feature covering the SciAm piece that is, as trialsanderrors pointed out, roughly followed here. Novickas 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

ADERANT – restored and listed at AFD by deleting admin – GRBerry 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Someone has an itchy trigger finger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nricardo (talk • contribs).

Endorse Speedy Deletion - Article did not assert why the company was notable. Perfect candidate for CSD:A7. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion no reasons have been shown as to why the article shouldn't have been deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
resorted and placed on AfD even though I disagree about the A7. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Editors need to be given a chance to to amend deficiencies in articles. This can hardly be done if they are deleted with no warning whatsoever. --Nélson Ricardo 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been undeleted and is now on AfD, so I think this deletion review can be closed. --Conti|✉ 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists – deletion overturned, further actions at editorial discretion – GRBerry 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn: This is an anthology compiled by noted cartoonist Ted Rall. It was deleted as "advertising" (CSD g11), though last time I saw the article it was nothing of the sort. Articles on the other two books in the series remain and I am lead to wonder if it was deleted because it is about webcomics. The previous two wer about political and alternative cartooning and remain as of this post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this deletion, which made no assertion of notability and was supported solely by a press release, but without prejudice against another go (you can have the deleted history if you want). I find the list of redlinks worrying, mind, since there is a lot of webcomic material on Wikipedia - if we don't have these articles, I'm inclined to think there is a reason for it. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, of the 21 strips included in the book, we already have an independent article about the strip and/or the creator(s) for 18 of them. I don't think we'd be opening the barn door particularly wide here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. My assumption is that the style is similar to the first two, and thus shouldn't have been deleted as such. Without compelling evidence to believe it was spammy, best case scenario is to overturn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Reasonable book stub, and Rall is notable enough that his work deserves coverage. It looks like there are a LOT more mainstream reviews of the first two volumes, however. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google cache of the deleted page here. Seems comparable to the other two to me. All need further attention, but what on the site doesn't? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After seeing the cache, I have no clue how G11 is warranted here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editorially Merge the three into something like Attitude (anthology) or Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists; The page on the first notes "two sequels and three spin-off titles", so I'm calling Chicken Soup for the Soul on this one. Nifboy 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The articles may have been created by a User:TedRall, but they weren't CSD material. Nifboy's idea is pretty good though, for editors to consider in future. - hahnch e n 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn an obviously inappropriate use of speedy. DGG 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not written as an advert, and has suitable content as per the other books in the series. I would also support a merge for the whole anthology. -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This article was obviously deleted due to it being about webcomics. Yikes! Webcomics will take over wikipedia! Anyways, my prejudice aside... Ted Rall is notable enough to warrant a (long) article on Wikipedia, and thus I think a book by him should be considered notable on that merit. The fact that the book hasn't warranted a lot of (online) reviews is probably due to the fact that it was just published and is about comics, which generally don't garner book reviews to begin with. Considering the fact that the editor who deleted this has a noted history of being anti-webcomic, and the fact that the previous two volumes of this serious have Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, I think this one should be allowed to stay. That said, I like Nifboy's merger idea. Tedzsee 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedzsee (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I'd also like to point out that Sandstein also deleted the book's cover image as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looking at the comics linked to the article, Sandstein deleted Fighting Words 5 minutes later. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion of an article whose only sources was a reprinted press release, though history ought to be undeleted and redirected to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists as per Nifboy, Hahnchen, Dr Haggis, Tedzsee, etc. --Dragonfiend 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which speedy criteria is that? By the way, Editor and Publisher isn't a press release. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is a reprint, that still doesn't answer the first question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Badlydrawnjeff, you write above that you "have no clue how G11 is warranted here," so I think you're already aware of which speedy criteria this was deleted under. If you're still in doubt, just check the edit summary on the article's deletion log. --Dragonfiend 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Being cited by a press release does not make a G11. I know full well that it was incorrectly speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Royal National Theatre Company members – Categories restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus supports this closure. Although it was argued that no information would be lost by replacing categories by lists, this argument is not supported by current deletion policy which relies solely on consensus, the purpose of categories being navigational not informational. Tim! 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Thoughtful, well-reasoned close. Changing a category to a list is not deletion of information. Also, consensus is not determined by counting the votes, but by weighing the arguments and whether these rely on policy/guideline or on personal opinion. >Radiant< 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as Radiant! says a thoughtful close. Listifying in this instance allows for more contextual information; if we kept these we'd soon need to split them into various subcategories for people who were famous before, famous as a result of, and not famous despite, appearing in a production by one of these (and why only these?) companies. 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Overturn and recreate A clear-cut abuse of administrator power. Deletion of the category is deletion and is sophistry to pretend otherwise. The discussion was moving firmly towards retention. The closer blatantly acted on his own opinion rather than on consensus, introducing (weak) new arguments at the point of closure which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge. CalJW 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is nothing within this debate that justifies ignoring the continuing consensus that performer by performance categories are a Bad Thing and should be deleted or listified. The case for an exception was not made here. On the broader issue, turning a category into a list is improvement, and preserves the information contained in the category. No sophistry involved, and unsupported claims of "abuse of administrator power" never make for a very convincing argument. The purpose of categories is indeed navigational, and that purpose is not served by the addition of performer by performance categories. Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent, but not wilfully so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing arbitary about this inconsistency, it was deliberately chosen on the basis of real world facts. Honbicot 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore The referee didn't like the way the game was going, so he picked up the ball in extra time and put it in the net on behalf of his preferred team. These are career defining category for British stage actors, and once this was made clear a consensus to keep began to develop. Haddiscoe 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The decision clearly did not comply with the relevant criteria: "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." Wimstead 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus for deletion. If the closer was not happy with the outcome, the appropriate course of action was to leave a decent interval and then renominate, not to over ride the outcome of the discussion, which was moving towards retention. Honbicot 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn we should have another chance to think about it and attract more people to the discussion. The closing admin said very clearly that in the absence of consensus he was deleting it based on his own personal view of them matter, which he explained in detail. Closers are supposed to be neutral so they can fairly judge the discussion. DGG 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the closure must have been a misjudgement on my part (although I thought about it very carefully before deleting it). I have restored and repopulated the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like no-one to imagine that I reversed my deletion because of baseless accusations of "abuse of power". I object very strongly to comments by CalJW questioning my motives ("…which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge"); I perceive accusations such as these as part of a trend towards confrontational discourtesy by many Wikipedian editors, a trend I deplore partly because it is so unnecesary and counter-productive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, so can we please collaborate? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. Choalbaton 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral There were good arguments presented also to show why lists were more suitable here. Overall, I think the closure took a fair balance, and it would be justifiable to endorse it. However, the discussion here has shown that what was thought to be consensus might not have been so, and probably the question should be discussed some more. There was nothing antagonistic about the discussion, and if people think we should have exchanged views some more, there's no reason not to. DGG 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think RobertG made a good well-reasoned decision. I'm sorry I missed this CFD, my comments would have been similar to the closing comments. Closing xFD's is not about counting votes, it is about trying to reason through the comments as best you can. RobertG acted in good faith. It looks like CalJW's incivility and lack of good faith in response has driven a valuable admin away from Wikipedia. I find this distressing. -- Samuel Wantman 09:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - this is a textbook example of a situation where consensus is not all about the numbers. The reasoning for listifying it was solid, the keep voters (and vote they did) did not address the issues at hand. WP:CCC, but five users asserting that the companies in question are notable does not overturn the consensus that already exists. Too many users fail to understand this. Chris cheese whine 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I think that the wording of this nomination is a nasty case of putting process before product. Chris cheese whine 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Penn, Schoen & Berland – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Notable company article with legitimate critical commentary Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended rationale: The Google cached version of the article clearly had its problems, including a PR-boilerplate lead and overview and a "contact" section. But there were also separate sections on controversies in which the firm has been a party and the external links led to a number of news articles demonstrating notability such as [3] and [4]. In any case, the principal Mark Penn (official bio) is known as a pollster closely associated with Hillary Clinton going back to international work done for the Clinton administration. I believe this shows at least the possibility of an appropriate article and I believe an AFD is in order rather than deletion. If the whole of the article had been advertisement I would not challenge. From what I can see, it is possible that the article was only recently turfed with sections at the front and back, and the history should be examined to determine how much editing work was really promotional. (Note: Mark Penn was speedied a year ago, I have no knowledge of the contents of that article. AFD may wish to decide whether the firm or the man is more notable.) -- Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, not a G11, as it wouldn't require a fundamental rewrite to meet our prose standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Unholy Alliance – duplicate request – >Radiant< 10:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Request History only undeletion to enable restoration of unquestioned portions (no middle paragraph) with last version on the discussion page for reference. Tried to do some of that, but network failed and had to reboot. --MBHiii 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as there is already a DRV discussion on this article that has not yet been closed. Arkyan 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

G.ho.st – Speedily closed, no substantial new information – trialsanderrors 05:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

New External References that validate novalty, please see http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 213.6.46.103 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two previous DRVs from 6 February 2007 and January 16. The Amazon link doesn't change a thing. Speedy close as been there, done that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse as above; the piece is written by them, which makes it useless for showing notability. I'm not quite sure it's that clear-cut, though, so I'll leave it for someone else to actually close. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.