Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 December 16
2010 December 18 >

17 December 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Transformers: Timelines ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page had no real third party sourced when nominated, when the initial votes were made. I then added several good citations. Sadly sock puppets got involved in voting, and one person kept advocating for deletion. Initially the page was found to have "no concensus", but then one keep vote was found to be a sock puppet, making the delete outnumber the keeps, so the page was decision was changed to delete by the admin. Still, I feel it has sources now, so despite some initial "delete" votes from when it had no sources, it should be acceptable as an article now. Mathewignash ( talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you find any sources like mentioned in the AfD? This includes:
  1. Any significant coverage of Timelines as a whole. (As in about Timelines material as it's own subject, instead of simply mentioning it as among the stuff you can buy at BotCon.)
  2. A third-party review of a set of Timelines toys or stories instead of a review of only one thing?
  3. Any reliable third-party review of Timelines fiction with a good plot synopsis
  4. Any reliable third-party source regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories.

No reason to restore an article about something without significant coverage. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

How about these articles: http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/botcon05-review.htm and http://mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/airastro-review.htm Mathewignash ( talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • It's a review site that has subscription, editors, advertising, etc. It's run by a company called Master Collector. Mathewignash ( talk) 14:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't use of the mastercollector website one of the things you get for joining the Transformers Collector's Club? (which is the source of much Transformers Timelines media) So yeah, reviews by mastercollector staff are not very third-party since they're somewhat affiliated with the collector's club. NotARealWord ( talk) 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Ahem, up until recently, people who join the transformers club get monthly copies of the mastercollector newsletter. Nowadays, they get to put an ad on one of mastercollector's websites. So yeah, they are soooo affiliated. NotARealWord ( talk) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not too sure about the RS critique here. Are there better sources which cover transformers collecting? If the best a topic has is stuff like this, some sort of a best evidence rule should apply. I specifically don't find the "not third party" critique compelling, because if applied fairly and universally, that would eliminate e.g. Rolling Stone as a source for music, because it is supported by ads from music distributors. DRV should not be a place where the narrowest possible interpretation of RS'es is used as a hurdle. Jclemens ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
This is from RS

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

& This from V

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The GNG says

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]
I don't think we need to apply any additional standard then this. Spartaz Humbug! 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Revert to non-consensusEndorse delete - The Transformers: Timelines name seems to imply that the article was a list of times (timeline) related to Transformers. However, "Transformers: Timelines is the toy line and annual fictional comic series created by the Transformers Collectors Club. Transformers: Timelines stories and toys are produced by Fun Publications each year since 2005." [2]. The delete reclose three days after the no consensus close was out of process. Consensus for the original close should have been delete, not no consensus, since the topic didn't meet WP:GNG as brought out in the original AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Master collector: SOOOOO not third party

This site is published by Fun Publications, Inc. (hereafter Fun Publications) 225 Cattle Baron Parc Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76108. Telephone 817-448-9863, weekdays, 9:00am. to 4:30pm. Fax 817-448-9843 available 24 hrs., Central Time. Copyright © 1995 Fun Publications, Inc.(...) Fun Publications has exclusive right to all material displayed online;

—  Master Colector disclaimer page

See, it's run by Fun Publications, the company responsible for Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Revert to non-consensus Looking at the AfD, such was the rather clear result . The references seem sufficient for the subject; they would not be for something like BLP, but different topics have different kinds of sourcing available, and consequently different standards for what counts as a RS. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • None of the third-party references matched the criteria given by Jfgslo, as in sources which are about the Transformers: Timelines comics and toys overall, instead of simply an individual toy or issue. I don't think there was even any source reviewing a whole storyline. (Yes, there are storylines going across multiple stories, but apparently most people don't realize that since most stories are only accessible to people who joined the Transformers Collector's Club. Even if hey can afford the fee, it doesn't seem to make since joining if somebody wasn't a collecor.) Also, see my list from earlier in this thread. NotARealWord ( talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • This is pretty much how it went with the nomination. Any time anyone tried to say anything positive about the article a single editor kept posting paragraphs of negative comments, repeating himself over and over. He seems completely oblivious that it's a developing page for a currently growing comic book series, that's being actively edited. It has at least the POTENTIAL for a full article, and therefore deserves the chance to develop. Mathewignash ( talk) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • When I think about it, storylines is too strong a word (unlesss one counts the magazine serial). But, fiction set in the same continuity have about as much relation as different episodes of a TV series, assuming that said TV series usually have episodes with self-contained plot (like he original Transformers TV show, I guess). More importantly, why do you accuse me for not paying attention to the article? And by the way, during the AfD, your explanation of the subject's "potential" was that new stuff is still being produced, not that there's already enough stuff to write an article about. NotARealWord ( talk) 05:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion- from a thorough reading of the debate and scrutiny of the supposed sources, my opinion is that the consensus was to delete. Furthermore, to argue that the debate should be closed as no consensus because it was tainted by sockpuppets would mean that socking works, and that in the long run would do the encyclopedia more damage than removing a single bad article of dubious notability. No prejudice against re-creating when and if real, reliable sources come into being. Reyk YO! 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance in this topic. The original discussion was closed as delete and was riddled with mass fraud in the form of sockpuppetry and vote-stacking in any case. My suggestion to the editors advocating for restoration is to use your energy in writing about encyclopedic topics rather than politicking, lobbying, and wikilawyering on behalf of any topic that even tangentially touches upon your vaunted twenty-year old plastic toy line. Pasupgalo ( talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Sock of banned user. – MuZemike 03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I would disagree that the goal of the sock puppeteer was to keep the article, it was merely to disrupt wikipedia. He voted under several identities both to keep and delete. If he intention was to use socks to keep the article inappropriately, he would have used all his puppets to vote keep. Mathewignash ( talk) 10:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • That's true with the Wiki brah socks, but User:Divebomb was more of a good hand bad hand case. Of course, it seems that all sockpuppeteers around Transformers deletion-related discussions have not been votestacking to bring the discussions any way or another. NotARealWord ( talk) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply

"Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

—  General notability guideline

I think this was addressed at the AfD that no sources have Transformers: Timelines as their main topic. I'd like to point out again that nobody seems to have found third-party sources regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories. Those stories make up the bulk of Timelines fiction, but they don't seem to receive any reliable third-party coverage whatsoever. NotARealWord ( talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion. Of the three keep !votes, only Mathewignash's was valid in any way. The other two were both socks. Five non-sock users support deletion, three with valid policy-based reasons. That looks to me like a consensus to delete. Alzarian16 ( talk) 20:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - However, it should be pointed out that some of the delete votes were made because the article lacked any sources when the nomination and voted, which were later added. So the article really deserves a second shot. Mathewignash ( talk) 21:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The "second shot" bit is only true if (and only if) the people who !voted delete did no bother rechecking the article after a while. You're assuming that most people who !voted "delete" simply !voted and never checked again to see whether or not they should change their !votes. The fact that they did not comment further could mean that they did not find the later "references" convincing enough to change their !vote. I'm not sure which one is true, should somebody ask them? (By the way, there was a least one person who cast their !vote quite a while after more references were added. Also, the initial third-party references were found to be unreliable, but they were mostly removed before the AfD had ended.) NotARealWord ( talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Just Ines ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

NEW SOURCES The film is notable and has reliable sources now, a selection of which you can find attached. Deleting admin Ron Ritzman suggested to open a Deletion Review. JUST INÈS featured in German national broadcast: http://www.swr.de/tv/-/id=2798/did=7224930/pv=video/nid=2798/c6wa5g/index.html
JUST INÈS featured in UK blog: http://roomsmagazine.blogspot.com/
Film France webpage: http://www.filmfrance.net/v2/gb/home.cfm?choixMenu=actualites2
There are also several mentions of the film on Screen International: http://www.screendaily.com/grant-and-meadens-shipwreck-starts-post-on-just-ines/4035825.article http://www.screendaily.com/marcel-grant-starts-shooting-third-feature-just-ines/4033170.article http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/other-festivals/-bizes-the-life-of-fish-opens-59th-mannheim-heidelberg-festival/5020513.article
Just Inès page at the IFFMH: http://iffmh.de/Comp_Just_Ines
Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118026904?refCatId=1061
Review of the film at NEGATIV-film: http://www.negativ-film.de/2010/11/iff-mannheim-heidelberg-just-ines.html
plus several printed newspaper articles

Marquitox ( talk) 11:41, 17 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Ephraim Shapiro ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deletes clearly outnumber the keeps. In fact, there are 7 of them. But as the AFD was coming toward a close, there were attempts made to address the issues in the article that lead to the deletion proposal. Toward the end, there was one keep and one person who offered to change a delete to a keep if these changes were made. Someone was already in the process of working on adding sources from long in the past that they claimed existed. I, myself, tried to offer a compromise solution. The main problem is simply that "time ran out." There was no time to discuss what to do following these changes, which I did not even get to see myself. The AFD reached 7 days in length, and therefore, a closing admin came along, saw all the deletes, probably thought automatically this was something to delete, and quickly closed it as such. Evidence of this can be seen in that the admin simply wrote "The result of delete" and nothing more. This page should be restored, at least for now, to allow more time to discuss. Xyz7890 ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse result The closing admin clearly went with the consensus here. I feel that it would be appropriate to userfy this to Xyz7890's user space if that user is willing to work on it -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ alternative account of Phantomsteve 04:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and possibly relist The consensus to delete took place only before I added the sources I did. I believe the sources that I added, which cover several decades, are enough to make the subject notable, and had they been there, at least some of these people would not have said delete. I know at least one person said they would change their vote, but it got closed before there was a chance for that. Linda Olive ( talk) 04:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Please either temporarily restore the article for DRV purposes, or userfy it, to make the history visible. It's impossible to judge the truth of the nomination without sight of the article's history.— S Marshall T/ C 08:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you to PhantomSteve for restoring the article for DRV purposes. It's now clear for all to see that several new sources were introduced in Linda Olive's edit of 15th December, and that all the "delete" opinions predate the addition of those sources. Under the circumstances a relist is appropriate.— S Marshall T/ C 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It sounds like you do agree with me, that the title of this can be renamed, and the focus of the article could be made into something else. With that in mind, I suggest that you change the heading of your comment from "endorse" to something else to reflect that, and we can discuss here what we should change this article to. Xyz7890 ( talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Re: "you do agree with me." Well, sort of. If the AfD were overturned, then it would be a few months or so before this could again come up for deletion. If Ephraim Shapiro deletion is endorsed, then that makes that biography topic subject to WP:G4 and would compel a retooling of the approach to the subject matter. A new article, such as Allegations against Ephraim Frank Shapiro, might get you past the dreaded WP:G4, but would immediately be subject to AfD, which is a good thing in view of the topic. The best way to approach this is to gather all the raw reliable source articles on the topic, use those to develop a chronological article, then stand back and perceive the overall gist of what the reliable sources are saying as set out in your chronological article. Then, write an article name that captures that overall gist. In about a month or so after the close of this DRV, when passions have cooled and everyone has moved on, move to article space and let nature take its course. An alternate approach to a stand alone article is to add the material to an existing article. I can't think of any article to which the subject matter is relevant enough to be included. Another approach is to contact reliable sources and get them to write more about the topic. A detailed write up by the New York Times or a national magazine on this guy would go along way to the topic finding a permanent home in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I think that the best option is to rename the title to one or your suggestions or similar immediately following closure, and from there, work on making appropriate changes. If this article were to be deleted, the edit history would be lost, and in this case, the edit history is important because it is especially useful in seeing older versions and being able to create the new article. It would be much harder to start something like this from scratch. An article that has been overturned in DRV cannot be G4ed. Xyz7890 ( talk) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment with the sources I added after the consensus to delete because of lack of notability was formed, the subject should be notable enough to have a standalone article. These sources are not about his molestation that was discovered after his death. They are specifically about him, during his lifetime, his accomplishments, positions he held, etc. Even if you left out the molestation completely, he would still be notable. Linda Olive ( talk) 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse but prefer a relist sources added in good faith that late into the debate probably indicate a relist is appropriate. That said a deletion closure is within admin discretion though IMO a second choice. Hobit ( talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
As the one who added the sources late, I would be okay with a relist. Linda Olive ( talk) 18:04, 24 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Elektronika kroz istoriju ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article is part of student colaboration project on Serbian Wikipedia. The user who created i mistakenly made it here, who please undelete the article and move it to his userspace. It is urgent, today is deadline for evaluating student works. --  Bojan   Talk  02:45, 17 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:EdwardRobertArmstrong.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No notification to my talk page, no valid reason to delete beyond deleter saying rationale wasn't good enough, the person is dead. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Restore There was no fair notification to Richard Arthur Norton, who could have possibly made changes to prevent deletion. Linda Olive ( talk) 04:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • There is no requirement to notify the uploader although its a usual courtesy. The tag would have flagged up on RAN's watchlist and sat there for 7 days. If he wasn't watching it then that's his look out not ours. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This was a copyrighted image with no FUR. Deletion was perfectly appropriate in the circumstances and as usual RAN failed to discuss the deletion with the closing admin. In these circumstances I see no reason why he can reasonably complain that the usual courtesies were not extended to him. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Could you post the complete fair use rationale you propose to use, please, RAN?— S Marshall T/ C 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse can't see a problem with the process. Of course if a full rationale is provide there should be no reason this can't be undeleted (notwithstanding any future challenge for such a rationale) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there's more of a history behind this deletion than it first appears: you can read an appropriate and brief history at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 30#Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822 and my talk page. In summary, Richard has uploaded a lot of images, and a few users have asked him to write better rationales, which at one point he was declining to do. It looks like it's calmed down a bit and he is adding rationales: [3]. As I stated on my talk page, I wasn't aware that Richard was unnotified (at which point I certainly would have notified him and given him another week, or just added it myself). I have asked Richard what he wants me to do on my talk page, and I have yet to receive a response, so I've not acted. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yup, another editor nominated almost every image I loaded to Wikipedia to punish me for opposing him in an AFD. He must have spent hours adding the deletion tags to all my photos including images of myself on my userpage. I have to admit it was a great strategy. Here is a novel strategy: When you find an image that doesn't have the newest template, or doesn't have the exact wording that is now required, add or fix it instead of deleting it. It takes a fraction of the time to fix instead of delete, and the reference work we all trying to improve wins. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Richard, the image had no FUR whatsoever just a tag. That's not acceptable and, as the uploader, the onus is on you to fic it rather thenc complain that otjer people should clear up after you. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Hmmmm, do you think if someone notified me, that could have helped? That is the difference between deleting for the sake of deleting, and fixing to make a better reference work. As always in the time it took to delete that time could have been spent fixing the deficiency, with a dead person, it isn't hard to figure out a proper rationale. If the effort is the same, where do you think people's time is better spent? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Well to take a couple of snippets - "do you think if someone notified me, that could have helped?" and "It takes a fraction of the time to fix", yet here we are. You are now aware, and it will take little time to fix, so why aren't you just providing a full rantionale, that seems to be the sensible action for someone trying to improve the project. Arguing it here isn't going to alter anything else of yours tagged for deletion, if you want to bring everyone here it's going to take a long time to go through them all, and at the end of it they are all still going to need the current level of rationale. If you think that some else has listed these for illegitimate reasons, you want WP:DR not WP:DRV -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
If your rationale is "If he wasn't watching it then that's his look out not ours", your goal isn't to improve the project, but to enforce for the sake of enforcement. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 08:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I guess we already lost sight of the fact that you have been asked for the FUR several times. I guess its easier to attack other people then fix the problem eh? Spartaz Humbug! 09:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, No. There was never a notification to me on this image ever sent to me. Again, your wikilawyering to justify the deletion of an image for a dead person, where anyone could have supplied the FUR template using a fraction of the time we are spending here. Again if the goal is delete as many images as possible, this is the best route. If the goal is to have the best reference work, fix before deletion. Anyone can fix, not just me, and especially the person who finds the rationale inadequate, since they know what secret word is missing in the text version of the rationale. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    You clearly became aware of the deletion by some means before listing it here. You could easily have provided the rationale at that point and I'd have thought pretty much any admin would have undeleted it on mere request. If there is an issue with the behaviour of the editor tagging the deletion, then that's something for dispute resolution not DRV. If you think that notification of such tagging should be mandatory, again that's not something DRV is going to be able to fix. So I'm at a loss as to what your purpose in bringing it here, whereas you yourself note that providing the rationale didn't take much time. As a side note I don't think we can actually insist that the person tagging should have just provided the FUR, if it were the case that there is always a rationale then we wouldn't need rationales at all, and the person tagging need not believe there is an actual valid rationale (particularly when you get into issues of replacability, and increase in understanding, I for one can't see how that image signficantly improves the understanding such that not having it would be detrimental to understanding.) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It seems blatantly unfair to nominate this image for deletion without notification. The built-in delay is explicitly for the purpose of fixing the rationale--this is not a matter of immediate speedy. It's time we finally dealt with this once and for all by writing a bot for this, but pending that the least we can do is make it required. I think its a matter of basic minimal politeness, and if there was a previous or ongoing discussion about related problems with the user , all the more reason to be scrupulous. As for the watchlist, very few of the really active contribs can follow it carefully or at all-, and the newcomers don't know about it--the point of notices is to make sure the really important stuff gets called to attention. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Or the common-sense solution is to, y'know, not upload images without fair-use rationales in the first place. The fault here is squarely on Norton's shoulder's, and no one else. Tarc ( talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That's pretty much unfair, as far as I can see the original upload contained a basic rationale in the edit summary, and at that time the requirements for rationales was very weak. The requirements for more detail in the rationale have come along since then. WP:FURG's creation post dates the original upload date from the log -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse ALthough it would have been best for the uploader to have been notified, it is not strictly a requirement. The image had no FUR, and so was eligible for deletion from what I can see -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- yes, it would have been politer to tell RAN and no, mild discourtesy in not a reason to overturn a deletion that was done according to policy. Reyk YO! 04:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I consider this much more than "mild" discourtesy. The failure to observe basic fairness is a negation of the principles of cooperative working. In this case, the user subjected to it was an experienced user, but this sort of treatment when applied to new users has been shown time after time to drive them away permanently from Wikipedia. It is the sort of mindlessly arrogant practice that are found in so many of our processes. the encyclopedia depends for its future on new users, who obviously must be given an opportunity to learn gently. Anyone who thinks it too much burden to notify manually manually can get a bot written. It's time we showed some degree of responsibility to the people who work here. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC) . reply
This is the same courtesy that RAN failed to show the deleting admin by failing to discuss the deletion with them and by refusing to provide a FUR so we can undelete the thing. The kind of disruptive behaviour that wastes other users' time arguing over something that could be fixed immediately with a less confrontational approach. Yes? Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 19 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Blowupradio.com ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The BlowUpRadio.com page was deleted for being not being significant. Every line of the page had been attributed to a source. The website/internet station is the only 24/7 swtation to play NJ bands, has been around 10 years, has helped break many well known bands, and done benefits to help the community and non-profit organizations (again all attributed on the page). I ask that the page be reinstated as it is clearly of significance. Also, a link and mention to BlowUpRadio.com was deleted from the NJ Music page as being spam, [4] even though BlowUpRadio.com is the only station that plays NJ music 24/7, and has been doing so for 10 years. I do not understand how that reference is considered spam. Please reinstate the mention and link. --  ;  Talk  02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)— Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • Unrelialble or trvial? Newspapers and respected music websiters (which have wikipedia pages so must be considered significant) are considered unreliable or trivial? The site is the only site out there supporting NJ bands. It is a godsend to our music scene. It has helped to break artists that are nationally known. if that is not sgnificant, then I am appalled at the way wikipedia is run. What do I have to do to get you guys to reinstate this worthy page. I'll do it, that's how important this page is to the local music scene here in NJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) — Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • It's fairly easy to get round an A7 deletion, just say a few words in the article about why it's notable. Unfortunately, it'll be re-deleted again pretty quick unless you can prove it's notable. Wikipedia's detailed definition of notability is here, but the cliff notes are, it needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (note the plural—there needs to be more than one source). The article needs to say what the sources say.

    Wikipedia's detailed definition of reliable source is here but basically it means, not a blog, not a messageboard post, not any website connected with the subject, and nothing that accepts user-submitted content. (Yes, this does mean that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by our own definition.) You're best off looking for articles in local newspapers or magazines. If there aren't any such sources, then a Wikipedia article isn't going to be allowed, I'm afraid.— S Marshall T/ C 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Right, they're not assertions of notability (one of the standards for AfD), but of significance or importance (the standard for A7). Ron abbreviated it IoS (which took me a second to get, too). -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. I think Ron Ritzman's points are all correct, but speedy deletion shouldn't be a means to coerce an article out of the mainspace by misapplication of the criteria. Since the article is deleted, I can't see whether it's the product of a signle or multiple contributors. Could the page be restored or could an administrator answer? If it is the product of a single contributor, I think it would be advisable for that user to consider userfication, because this article would be at risk for its lack of reliable sources. If there are multiple contributors, I think incubation would be advisable if all agree. But absent that, the article should be restored. It was deleted for lacking credible claims of significance, when it did in fact have them. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We don't normally restore something to mainspace if it is obvious that it would be highly unlikely to survive an AfD, whether or not it technically passes the CSD. Userfication/incubation sounds fine, per Ron and Cunard. T. Canens ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but articles for which reliable sources exist, even if they're not in the article, are usually not deleted at AfD. Doesn't that make it unobvious whether the article would be deleted at AfD? -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Heh, that line is a bit fuzzier than that - since if it is obvious that it won't survive an AfD we simply don't restore it at all, userspace or not. With a crappily-written article that has some potential of surviving an AfD, though, userfication is the better option IMO (this also avoids bombarding the nominator with process after process). Really, the question is whether the encyclopedia is improved by the existence of a crappily-written article on a potentially notable subject in mainspace. I think not. T. Canens ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (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/2010_December_17&oldid=1078424477"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 December 16
2010 December 18 >

17 December 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Transformers: Timelines ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page had no real third party sourced when nominated, when the initial votes were made. I then added several good citations. Sadly sock puppets got involved in voting, and one person kept advocating for deletion. Initially the page was found to have "no concensus", but then one keep vote was found to be a sock puppet, making the delete outnumber the keeps, so the page was decision was changed to delete by the admin. Still, I feel it has sources now, so despite some initial "delete" votes from when it had no sources, it should be acceptable as an article now. Mathewignash ( talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you find any sources like mentioned in the AfD? This includes:
  1. Any significant coverage of Timelines as a whole. (As in about Timelines material as it's own subject, instead of simply mentioning it as among the stuff you can buy at BotCon.)
  2. A third-party review of a set of Timelines toys or stories instead of a review of only one thing?
  3. Any reliable third-party review of Timelines fiction with a good plot synopsis
  4. Any reliable third-party source regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories.

No reason to restore an article about something without significant coverage. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

How about these articles: http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/botcon05-review.htm and http://mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/airastro-review.htm Mathewignash ( talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • It's a review site that has subscription, editors, advertising, etc. It's run by a company called Master Collector. Mathewignash ( talk) 14:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Isn't use of the mastercollector website one of the things you get for joining the Transformers Collector's Club? (which is the source of much Transformers Timelines media) So yeah, reviews by mastercollector staff are not very third-party since they're somewhat affiliated with the collector's club. NotARealWord ( talk) 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Ahem, up until recently, people who join the transformers club get monthly copies of the mastercollector newsletter. Nowadays, they get to put an ad on one of mastercollector's websites. So yeah, they are soooo affiliated. NotARealWord ( talk) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not too sure about the RS critique here. Are there better sources which cover transformers collecting? If the best a topic has is stuff like this, some sort of a best evidence rule should apply. I specifically don't find the "not third party" critique compelling, because if applied fairly and universally, that would eliminate e.g. Rolling Stone as a source for music, because it is supported by ads from music distributors. DRV should not be a place where the narrowest possible interpretation of RS'es is used as a hurdle. Jclemens ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
This is from RS

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

& This from V

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The GNG says

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]
I don't think we need to apply any additional standard then this. Spartaz Humbug! 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Revert to non-consensusEndorse delete - The Transformers: Timelines name seems to imply that the article was a list of times (timeline) related to Transformers. However, "Transformers: Timelines is the toy line and annual fictional comic series created by the Transformers Collectors Club. Transformers: Timelines stories and toys are produced by Fun Publications each year since 2005." [2]. The delete reclose three days after the no consensus close was out of process. Consensus for the original close should have been delete, not no consensus, since the topic didn't meet WP:GNG as brought out in the original AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Master collector: SOOOOO not third party

This site is published by Fun Publications, Inc. (hereafter Fun Publications) 225 Cattle Baron Parc Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76108. Telephone 817-448-9863, weekdays, 9:00am. to 4:30pm. Fax 817-448-9843 available 24 hrs., Central Time. Copyright © 1995 Fun Publications, Inc.(...) Fun Publications has exclusive right to all material displayed online;

—  Master Colector disclaimer page

See, it's run by Fun Publications, the company responsible for Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord ( talk) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Revert to non-consensus Looking at the AfD, such was the rather clear result . The references seem sufficient for the subject; they would not be for something like BLP, but different topics have different kinds of sourcing available, and consequently different standards for what counts as a RS. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • None of the third-party references matched the criteria given by Jfgslo, as in sources which are about the Transformers: Timelines comics and toys overall, instead of simply an individual toy or issue. I don't think there was even any source reviewing a whole storyline. (Yes, there are storylines going across multiple stories, but apparently most people don't realize that since most stories are only accessible to people who joined the Transformers Collector's Club. Even if hey can afford the fee, it doesn't seem to make since joining if somebody wasn't a collecor.) Also, see my list from earlier in this thread. NotARealWord ( talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • This is pretty much how it went with the nomination. Any time anyone tried to say anything positive about the article a single editor kept posting paragraphs of negative comments, repeating himself over and over. He seems completely oblivious that it's a developing page for a currently growing comic book series, that's being actively edited. It has at least the POTENTIAL for a full article, and therefore deserves the chance to develop. Mathewignash ( talk) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • When I think about it, storylines is too strong a word (unlesss one counts the magazine serial). But, fiction set in the same continuity have about as much relation as different episodes of a TV series, assuming that said TV series usually have episodes with self-contained plot (like he original Transformers TV show, I guess). More importantly, why do you accuse me for not paying attention to the article? And by the way, during the AfD, your explanation of the subject's "potential" was that new stuff is still being produced, not that there's already enough stuff to write an article about. NotARealWord ( talk) 05:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion- from a thorough reading of the debate and scrutiny of the supposed sources, my opinion is that the consensus was to delete. Furthermore, to argue that the debate should be closed as no consensus because it was tainted by sockpuppets would mean that socking works, and that in the long run would do the encyclopedia more damage than removing a single bad article of dubious notability. No prejudice against re-creating when and if real, reliable sources come into being. Reyk YO! 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance in this topic. The original discussion was closed as delete and was riddled with mass fraud in the form of sockpuppetry and vote-stacking in any case. My suggestion to the editors advocating for restoration is to use your energy in writing about encyclopedic topics rather than politicking, lobbying, and wikilawyering on behalf of any topic that even tangentially touches upon your vaunted twenty-year old plastic toy line. Pasupgalo ( talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Sock of banned user. – MuZemike 03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I would disagree that the goal of the sock puppeteer was to keep the article, it was merely to disrupt wikipedia. He voted under several identities both to keep and delete. If he intention was to use socks to keep the article inappropriately, he would have used all his puppets to vote keep. Mathewignash ( talk) 10:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • That's true with the Wiki brah socks, but User:Divebomb was more of a good hand bad hand case. Of course, it seems that all sockpuppeteers around Transformers deletion-related discussions have not been votestacking to bring the discussions any way or another. NotARealWord ( talk) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply

"Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

—  General notability guideline

I think this was addressed at the AfD that no sources have Transformers: Timelines as their main topic. I'd like to point out again that nobody seems to have found third-party sources regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories. Those stories make up the bulk of Timelines fiction, but they don't seem to receive any reliable third-party coverage whatsoever. NotARealWord ( talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion. Of the three keep !votes, only Mathewignash's was valid in any way. The other two were both socks. Five non-sock users support deletion, three with valid policy-based reasons. That looks to me like a consensus to delete. Alzarian16 ( talk) 20:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - However, it should be pointed out that some of the delete votes were made because the article lacked any sources when the nomination and voted, which were later added. So the article really deserves a second shot. Mathewignash ( talk) 21:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The "second shot" bit is only true if (and only if) the people who !voted delete did no bother rechecking the article after a while. You're assuming that most people who !voted "delete" simply !voted and never checked again to see whether or not they should change their !votes. The fact that they did not comment further could mean that they did not find the later "references" convincing enough to change their !vote. I'm not sure which one is true, should somebody ask them? (By the way, there was a least one person who cast their !vote quite a while after more references were added. Also, the initial third-party references were found to be unreliable, but they were mostly removed before the AfD had ended.) NotARealWord ( talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Just Ines ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

NEW SOURCES The film is notable and has reliable sources now, a selection of which you can find attached. Deleting admin Ron Ritzman suggested to open a Deletion Review. JUST INÈS featured in German national broadcast: http://www.swr.de/tv/-/id=2798/did=7224930/pv=video/nid=2798/c6wa5g/index.html
JUST INÈS featured in UK blog: http://roomsmagazine.blogspot.com/
Film France webpage: http://www.filmfrance.net/v2/gb/home.cfm?choixMenu=actualites2
There are also several mentions of the film on Screen International: http://www.screendaily.com/grant-and-meadens-shipwreck-starts-post-on-just-ines/4035825.article http://www.screendaily.com/marcel-grant-starts-shooting-third-feature-just-ines/4033170.article http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/other-festivals/-bizes-the-life-of-fish-opens-59th-mannheim-heidelberg-festival/5020513.article
Just Inès page at the IFFMH: http://iffmh.de/Comp_Just_Ines
Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118026904?refCatId=1061
Review of the film at NEGATIV-film: http://www.negativ-film.de/2010/11/iff-mannheim-heidelberg-just-ines.html
plus several printed newspaper articles

Marquitox ( talk) 11:41, 17 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Ephraim Shapiro ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deletes clearly outnumber the keeps. In fact, there are 7 of them. But as the AFD was coming toward a close, there were attempts made to address the issues in the article that lead to the deletion proposal. Toward the end, there was one keep and one person who offered to change a delete to a keep if these changes were made. Someone was already in the process of working on adding sources from long in the past that they claimed existed. I, myself, tried to offer a compromise solution. The main problem is simply that "time ran out." There was no time to discuss what to do following these changes, which I did not even get to see myself. The AFD reached 7 days in length, and therefore, a closing admin came along, saw all the deletes, probably thought automatically this was something to delete, and quickly closed it as such. Evidence of this can be seen in that the admin simply wrote "The result of delete" and nothing more. This page should be restored, at least for now, to allow more time to discuss. Xyz7890 ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse result The closing admin clearly went with the consensus here. I feel that it would be appropriate to userfy this to Xyz7890's user space if that user is willing to work on it -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ alternative account of Phantomsteve 04:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and possibly relist The consensus to delete took place only before I added the sources I did. I believe the sources that I added, which cover several decades, are enough to make the subject notable, and had they been there, at least some of these people would not have said delete. I know at least one person said they would change their vote, but it got closed before there was a chance for that. Linda Olive ( talk) 04:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Please either temporarily restore the article for DRV purposes, or userfy it, to make the history visible. It's impossible to judge the truth of the nomination without sight of the article's history.— S Marshall T/ C 08:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you to PhantomSteve for restoring the article for DRV purposes. It's now clear for all to see that several new sources were introduced in Linda Olive's edit of 15th December, and that all the "delete" opinions predate the addition of those sources. Under the circumstances a relist is appropriate.— S Marshall T/ C 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It sounds like you do agree with me, that the title of this can be renamed, and the focus of the article could be made into something else. With that in mind, I suggest that you change the heading of your comment from "endorse" to something else to reflect that, and we can discuss here what we should change this article to. Xyz7890 ( talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Re: "you do agree with me." Well, sort of. If the AfD were overturned, then it would be a few months or so before this could again come up for deletion. If Ephraim Shapiro deletion is endorsed, then that makes that biography topic subject to WP:G4 and would compel a retooling of the approach to the subject matter. A new article, such as Allegations against Ephraim Frank Shapiro, might get you past the dreaded WP:G4, but would immediately be subject to AfD, which is a good thing in view of the topic. The best way to approach this is to gather all the raw reliable source articles on the topic, use those to develop a chronological article, then stand back and perceive the overall gist of what the reliable sources are saying as set out in your chronological article. Then, write an article name that captures that overall gist. In about a month or so after the close of this DRV, when passions have cooled and everyone has moved on, move to article space and let nature take its course. An alternate approach to a stand alone article is to add the material to an existing article. I can't think of any article to which the subject matter is relevant enough to be included. Another approach is to contact reliable sources and get them to write more about the topic. A detailed write up by the New York Times or a national magazine on this guy would go along way to the topic finding a permanent home in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 08:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I think that the best option is to rename the title to one or your suggestions or similar immediately following closure, and from there, work on making appropriate changes. If this article were to be deleted, the edit history would be lost, and in this case, the edit history is important because it is especially useful in seeing older versions and being able to create the new article. It would be much harder to start something like this from scratch. An article that has been overturned in DRV cannot be G4ed. Xyz7890 ( talk) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment with the sources I added after the consensus to delete because of lack of notability was formed, the subject should be notable enough to have a standalone article. These sources are not about his molestation that was discovered after his death. They are specifically about him, during his lifetime, his accomplishments, positions he held, etc. Even if you left out the molestation completely, he would still be notable. Linda Olive ( talk) 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse but prefer a relist sources added in good faith that late into the debate probably indicate a relist is appropriate. That said a deletion closure is within admin discretion though IMO a second choice. Hobit ( talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
As the one who added the sources late, I would be okay with a relist. Linda Olive ( talk) 18:04, 24 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Elektronika kroz istoriju ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article is part of student colaboration project on Serbian Wikipedia. The user who created i mistakenly made it here, who please undelete the article and move it to his userspace. It is urgent, today is deadline for evaluating student works. --  Bojan   Talk  02:45, 17 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
File:EdwardRobertArmstrong.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No notification to my talk page, no valid reason to delete beyond deleter saying rationale wasn't good enough, the person is dead. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Restore There was no fair notification to Richard Arthur Norton, who could have possibly made changes to prevent deletion. Linda Olive ( talk) 04:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • There is no requirement to notify the uploader although its a usual courtesy. The tag would have flagged up on RAN's watchlist and sat there for 7 days. If he wasn't watching it then that's his look out not ours. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This was a copyrighted image with no FUR. Deletion was perfectly appropriate in the circumstances and as usual RAN failed to discuss the deletion with the closing admin. In these circumstances I see no reason why he can reasonably complain that the usual courtesies were not extended to him. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Could you post the complete fair use rationale you propose to use, please, RAN?— S Marshall T/ C 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse can't see a problem with the process. Of course if a full rationale is provide there should be no reason this can't be undeleted (notwithstanding any future challenge for such a rationale) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there's more of a history behind this deletion than it first appears: you can read an appropriate and brief history at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 30#Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822 and my talk page. In summary, Richard has uploaded a lot of images, and a few users have asked him to write better rationales, which at one point he was declining to do. It looks like it's calmed down a bit and he is adding rationales: [3]. As I stated on my talk page, I wasn't aware that Richard was unnotified (at which point I certainly would have notified him and given him another week, or just added it myself). I have asked Richard what he wants me to do on my talk page, and I have yet to receive a response, so I've not acted. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yup, another editor nominated almost every image I loaded to Wikipedia to punish me for opposing him in an AFD. He must have spent hours adding the deletion tags to all my photos including images of myself on my userpage. I have to admit it was a great strategy. Here is a novel strategy: When you find an image that doesn't have the newest template, or doesn't have the exact wording that is now required, add or fix it instead of deleting it. It takes a fraction of the time to fix instead of delete, and the reference work we all trying to improve wins. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Richard, the image had no FUR whatsoever just a tag. That's not acceptable and, as the uploader, the onus is on you to fic it rather thenc complain that otjer people should clear up after you. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Hmmmm, do you think if someone notified me, that could have helped? That is the difference between deleting for the sake of deleting, and fixing to make a better reference work. As always in the time it took to delete that time could have been spent fixing the deficiency, with a dead person, it isn't hard to figure out a proper rationale. If the effort is the same, where do you think people's time is better spent? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Well to take a couple of snippets - "do you think if someone notified me, that could have helped?" and "It takes a fraction of the time to fix", yet here we are. You are now aware, and it will take little time to fix, so why aren't you just providing a full rantionale, that seems to be the sensible action for someone trying to improve the project. Arguing it here isn't going to alter anything else of yours tagged for deletion, if you want to bring everyone here it's going to take a long time to go through them all, and at the end of it they are all still going to need the current level of rationale. If you think that some else has listed these for illegitimate reasons, you want WP:DR not WP:DRV -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
If your rationale is "If he wasn't watching it then that's his look out not ours", your goal isn't to improve the project, but to enforce for the sake of enforcement. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 08:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I guess we already lost sight of the fact that you have been asked for the FUR several times. I guess its easier to attack other people then fix the problem eh? Spartaz Humbug! 09:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, No. There was never a notification to me on this image ever sent to me. Again, your wikilawyering to justify the deletion of an image for a dead person, where anyone could have supplied the FUR template using a fraction of the time we are spending here. Again if the goal is delete as many images as possible, this is the best route. If the goal is to have the best reference work, fix before deletion. Anyone can fix, not just me, and especially the person who finds the rationale inadequate, since they know what secret word is missing in the text version of the rationale. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    You clearly became aware of the deletion by some means before listing it here. You could easily have provided the rationale at that point and I'd have thought pretty much any admin would have undeleted it on mere request. If there is an issue with the behaviour of the editor tagging the deletion, then that's something for dispute resolution not DRV. If you think that notification of such tagging should be mandatory, again that's not something DRV is going to be able to fix. So I'm at a loss as to what your purpose in bringing it here, whereas you yourself note that providing the rationale didn't take much time. As a side note I don't think we can actually insist that the person tagging should have just provided the FUR, if it were the case that there is always a rationale then we wouldn't need rationales at all, and the person tagging need not believe there is an actual valid rationale (particularly when you get into issues of replacability, and increase in understanding, I for one can't see how that image signficantly improves the understanding such that not having it would be detrimental to understanding.) -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It seems blatantly unfair to nominate this image for deletion without notification. The built-in delay is explicitly for the purpose of fixing the rationale--this is not a matter of immediate speedy. It's time we finally dealt with this once and for all by writing a bot for this, but pending that the least we can do is make it required. I think its a matter of basic minimal politeness, and if there was a previous or ongoing discussion about related problems with the user , all the more reason to be scrupulous. As for the watchlist, very few of the really active contribs can follow it carefully or at all-, and the newcomers don't know about it--the point of notices is to make sure the really important stuff gets called to attention. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Or the common-sense solution is to, y'know, not upload images without fair-use rationales in the first place. The fault here is squarely on Norton's shoulder's, and no one else. Tarc ( talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That's pretty much unfair, as far as I can see the original upload contained a basic rationale in the edit summary, and at that time the requirements for rationales was very weak. The requirements for more detail in the rationale have come along since then. WP:FURG's creation post dates the original upload date from the log -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse ALthough it would have been best for the uploader to have been notified, it is not strictly a requirement. The image had no FUR, and so was eligible for deletion from what I can see -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- yes, it would have been politer to tell RAN and no, mild discourtesy in not a reason to overturn a deletion that was done according to policy. Reyk YO! 04:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I consider this much more than "mild" discourtesy. The failure to observe basic fairness is a negation of the principles of cooperative working. In this case, the user subjected to it was an experienced user, but this sort of treatment when applied to new users has been shown time after time to drive them away permanently from Wikipedia. It is the sort of mindlessly arrogant practice that are found in so many of our processes. the encyclopedia depends for its future on new users, who obviously must be given an opportunity to learn gently. Anyone who thinks it too much burden to notify manually manually can get a bot written. It's time we showed some degree of responsibility to the people who work here. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC) . reply
This is the same courtesy that RAN failed to show the deleting admin by failing to discuss the deletion with them and by refusing to provide a FUR so we can undelete the thing. The kind of disruptive behaviour that wastes other users' time arguing over something that could be fixed immediately with a less confrontational approach. Yes? Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 19 December 2010 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Blowupradio.com ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The BlowUpRadio.com page was deleted for being not being significant. Every line of the page had been attributed to a source. The website/internet station is the only 24/7 swtation to play NJ bands, has been around 10 years, has helped break many well known bands, and done benefits to help the community and non-profit organizations (again all attributed on the page). I ask that the page be reinstated as it is clearly of significance. Also, a link and mention to BlowUpRadio.com was deleted from the NJ Music page as being spam, [4] even though BlowUpRadio.com is the only station that plays NJ music 24/7, and has been doing so for 10 years. I do not understand how that reference is considered spam. Please reinstate the mention and link. --  ;  Talk  02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)— Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • Unrelialble or trvial? Newspapers and respected music websiters (which have wikipedia pages so must be considered significant) are considered unreliable or trivial? The site is the only site out there supporting NJ bands. It is a godsend to our music scene. It has helped to break artists that are nationally known. if that is not sgnificant, then I am appalled at the way wikipedia is run. What do I have to do to get you guys to reinstate this worthy page. I'll do it, that's how important this page is to the local music scene here in NJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) — Guysmiley13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • It's fairly easy to get round an A7 deletion, just say a few words in the article about why it's notable. Unfortunately, it'll be re-deleted again pretty quick unless you can prove it's notable. Wikipedia's detailed definition of notability is here, but the cliff notes are, it needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (note the plural—there needs to be more than one source). The article needs to say what the sources say.

    Wikipedia's detailed definition of reliable source is here but basically it means, not a blog, not a messageboard post, not any website connected with the subject, and nothing that accepts user-submitted content. (Yes, this does mean that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by our own definition.) You're best off looking for articles in local newspapers or magazines. If there aren't any such sources, then a Wikipedia article isn't going to be allowed, I'm afraid.— S Marshall T/ C 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Right, they're not assertions of notability (one of the standards for AfD), but of significance or importance (the standard for A7). Ron abbreviated it IoS (which took me a second to get, too). -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. I think Ron Ritzman's points are all correct, but speedy deletion shouldn't be a means to coerce an article out of the mainspace by misapplication of the criteria. Since the article is deleted, I can't see whether it's the product of a signle or multiple contributors. Could the page be restored or could an administrator answer? If it is the product of a single contributor, I think it would be advisable for that user to consider userfication, because this article would be at risk for its lack of reliable sources. If there are multiple contributors, I think incubation would be advisable if all agree. But absent that, the article should be restored. It was deleted for lacking credible claims of significance, when it did in fact have them. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We don't normally restore something to mainspace if it is obvious that it would be highly unlikely to survive an AfD, whether or not it technically passes the CSD. Userfication/incubation sounds fine, per Ron and Cunard. T. Canens ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but articles for which reliable sources exist, even if they're not in the article, are usually not deleted at AfD. Doesn't that make it unobvious whether the article would be deleted at AfD? -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Heh, that line is a bit fuzzier than that - since if it is obvious that it won't survive an AfD we simply don't restore it at all, userspace or not. With a crappily-written article that has some potential of surviving an AfD, though, userfication is the better option IMO (this also avoids bombarding the nominator with process after process). Really, the question is whether the encyclopedia is improved by the existence of a crappily-written article on a potentially notable subject in mainspace. I think not. T. Canens ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (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/2010_December_17&oldid=1078424477"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE