Soxman ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page was originally deleted by nomination. The original nominator no longer even has a wiki page and left immiediately after nominating this deletion, implying something other than integrity. His claim was that there was no verifiable sources or citations for the individual. The claim was that I referenced articles written for my Google news site, which I consider a verifiable source as it is recognized by the biggest search engine in the world as a legitimate news source. Still, I rewrote the article providing multiple citations of print news articles, and programs he appeared as a guest on and I also included links to electronic versions of a sample of the writer’s works for the Tribune company and to his appearances on WGN television, WCIU, and on MLB.com, all legitimate independent sources. What more do I need to do to establish notability for a local Chicago individual? The request for speedy deletion told administrators to at least review external links before deleting. I know you all have to review several of these a day pro bono but I feel as the I have satisfied the requirements. When considering to comparable individuals please see Ronnie Woo Woo, Andy The Clown and Robert Szasz, who also have approved articles for simply being fans. This fan is a proven journalist as well with documented works on the proposed article and popular in Chicago Sports media, especially among White Sox fans. Comparative to other published articles of similar stature, the fact that I complied with requests for citations and provided external links where one newscast refers to him as “the biggest fan in Chicago,” and MLB.com recognizes him, I feel this warrants reconsideration. I would also if possible like his images reposted as the bot deleted them automatically when the page was deleted. Thanks for any consideration you can offer or guidance you can provide in offering approval. Please ensure my last submission deleted on May 28th is the one considered as it is in compliance with all requests of the deleting admin. sportsbank Sportsbank ( talk) 15:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Nominator identifies no flaws in the unanimous AFD. The fact that the AFD nominator left Wikipedia (after five years and a long record of legitimate editing) has no bearing on the merits of this nomination. Just because a source turns up on GNews doesn't mean it satisfies WP:RS, especially for a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse + close Per the nom's here's rationale, the Nominator of the DRV doesn't have a wiki page and has focussed solely on this topic, implying something... Seriously speedy close per the basic principal that DRV is not a platform for attacking other editors. -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Not so fast. I told sportsbank that if he had additional sources that he can present them here so let's see what he has. I have temporarily restored and blanked the article. The original version deleted at AFD can be viewed here and the new version deleted by G4 is here. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Did you also tell him that coming here and bad mouthing the original nominator was a good idea? To be clear it should be closed until such time as the nominator is willing to raise the review without the accusations of bad faith. -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 07:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Sportsbank, one thing that's really working against you is that the original nominator has identified a serious conflict of interest on your part. Your username strongly suggest that you are associated with thesportsbank.net. While COI editing is not prohibited, just discouraged, it's a problem for this article for 2 reasons. 1. A minor indicator that a subject might be notable (but in itself not enough to satisfy WP:N) is if an editor unconnected with the subject "takes note of" the subject and writes an article about it but you are not that editor. 2, Some people who patrol new pages and participate in AFDs will see this obvious COI and !vote "delete" without checking for sources as thoroughly as they otherwise might because they assume the article is "spam". If Soxman is really notable and as popular as you claim then it would have been better to wait until one of his many fans wrote the article. If you look at the histories of Andy the Clown and Robert Szasz you will see that they were not written by the subjects themselves or anybody associated with them. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, without prejudice against recreation should better sources turn up. The presence or absence of a nominator is irrelevant. The deletion debate centered on notability -- the degree and nature of coverage and "notice" obtained by the subject. The discussion reached a unanimous conclusion that editors felt the sources did not support an article. The administrator closed on that basis, correctly respecting the consensus. If there is a significant (non-trivial) change and the problems with sourcing ceased in future, then undeletion or re-creation could be considered. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse unanimous debate; as FT2 points out there is nothing preventing recreation in the event that someone finds better sources. Stifle ( talk) 12:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ok can some please assist me here as I think the point of my request for review is being lost. You can remove any references to the sportsbank as I beleive the merits of the indivudual and the article stand on their own. This is not in any way about self-promotion for any site I'm affiliated with. I aplogize if my criticsim of the nominating editor was taken as an attack but if you review the comments about the person I wrote about was also slammed by the editors referred to as a buffoon and an idiot. Is this fair? Mr. Ritzman you have been fair and helpful in this review and I truly thank you for that. The only request that I have is that the article is reviewed based on the merits I presented. The article was deleted based on the fact that there was no citations and no verifiable sources outside of the sportsbank. I provided many more citations, external links to multiple media outlets where the person has made appearences. Simply stated, what more do I need to to to establish notabilty? Can we please focus this review on the content and not poor wording choices on my part? I have not seen an arguement in favor of deletion based on the reasons the article was originally deleted. I provided citations and verifiable links, none of which are associated with the sportsbank. Can we please make the basis of resotration consideration start with the corrections I have made? All endorsement for deletions are being made on the basis of the orginal article, not the one I just created. As I am a sportwriter in Chicago and a stringer for the Washington Times, would any topic I write about in Chicago Sports or in D.C. politics present a conflict of interest? Thanks for any consideration you can provide and again. Sportsbank Sportsbank ( talk) 16:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note I've undone the edit to the original edit and replaced it with a strike through of the relevant part, please don't make such edits, it makes some of the other comments in this debate lose context. -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Hey, I never went anywhere... -- Endlessdan ( talk) 12:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (the original AFD nominator) reply

So how exactly is someone with a verifiable history of media coverage and notability suddenly deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia page? There were plenty of citations and references to Soxman outside of The Sports Bank which were wholly disregarded by the deleting party. It now seems this appeal has turned into an argument of semantics, instead of focusing of the real issue at hand (Soxman is deserving of an entry as a notable member of the Chicago White Sox fanbase, just as Ronnie Woo Woo does. Please address the proper concerns rather than worrying about the context of the comments in the debate. Anderspc ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I’m one of Soxman’s fans, a Chicago native and actually a Cub’s fan who reads his works for the commuter edition of the Chicago Tribune. I would gladly attempt to submit and article for him, but honestly the second submission is better than what I could write as it covers all elements that I would put in the submission, and links that I would consider verifiable. Even the first submission which appears to have existed challenge free for almost three years was well-written, but some content appeared to be based more on his lore than verifiable content. Funny, one of the links the writer submitted is to a superstation WGN piece of Ronnie Woo and Soxman. So how one can be considered “wiki worthy” and the other not, is somewhat confusing to me. I’d gladly re-write the article if someone can take the time to tell me how to improve the May submission beyond what’s there. Otherwise I vote to expediently restore the second submission. Worldofwikicraft ( talk) 20:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Spartaz closed the debate with a mere 'The result was "Keep"' without explicitly stating which articles to keep, as there were several in that debate. As there was only one real vote (and that was to delete) on this particular Wangtang, either an AFD for it needs to be opened or we duke it out here. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Its obviously keep all since there was no support for the deletion argument and your contention that the places didn't exist were contested. Frankly bulk nominating a bunch of places with the same name and expecting anyone to pull a decent consensus from it was misplaced. Perhaps I could have gone no consensus but I didn't read it that way. Endorse own close Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  My concern is obviously over this one article, and not the others, so can you not read? I was talking about the other articles to provide context. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  Clearly not. :-) but then I'm assuming good faith and not assuming that everyone is guilty until proven otherwise [1]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• I see discussion about all of the five villages/towns/whatever, and the only one that comes anywhere close to deletion is Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi. I see the discussion on it as no consensus, but it is well within administrative discretion to choose to keep it instead. Yes, Spartaz should have been clearer on exactly which articles were closed as what, but no, his close is not unreasonable. I don't see the point in doing anything here. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  Then you think the preferred course of action would be to nominate that one for a separate AFD? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  Sure, in a couple of months. I'll grant that consensus on this article wasn't strong in the AfD, but there still is no reason to rush into another AfD. lifebaka ++ 00:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is the latest in HXL49's personal vendetta against me, exemplified not only by the comments s/he made in the deletion, which no one bought, but continued harassment on my talkpage, [2], where her/his argument has now changed just to the articles' "quality". I see s/he is spewing further venom at this venue. This sort of crap should not be dignified nor rewarded. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  And neither should you be rewarded for creating such bullshit. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. No reason provided that justifies overturning the expressed/numerical consensus (or lack thereof). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  The purpose of this DRV is to review the AFD, which you seem to not have done; instead, you only said, perhaps as part of drive-by participation, "no reason provided". This is hogwash. Danaman5 found no sourcing to indicate that the one settlement of this discussion exists. That is my reasoning, and it alone suffices. Here is his quote: "Regardless, I can't find any Wangtang that matches the description of "northwest of Guilin", so I'm going to vote Delete on that article." If you really wish to see the lack of evidence, then wade through these lists of villages: Lingui County, and Longsheng County. You would probably find the same information on the county government websites, and do not dismiss it simply because you cannot read it. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The original AfD was about half a dozen articles, each of which contained nothing but the name (in Roman letters only, no original Chinese) and geographic location. Most of them were identified by a few editors who found them on Google Maps - although none of them was a city, they all were small villages (pop. 1,000 at most), and some were tens of kilometers away from where the articles claimed to be (with degree-min-sec precision, too!). This one, noone has been able to identify so far. Google Maps is pretty good at showing small villages, especially located along major roads (which, as experience has shown, are more likely to appear in GEONet database - they list some small villages if they happen to be road junctions), but there is definitely no Wangtang shown there at that location or anywhere that can be sensibly described as "NW of Guilin". There is the town of Wutong (五通) some 5 km to the west of the purported location (on Hwy G321), so if anything, the article can be renamed that way. -- Vmenkov ( talk) 01:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As Vmenkov said above, there is no evidence that the Wangtang referenced by this article even exists, which is why I voted to delete it in the original AFD. It may be that there were not enough participants to add their own deletion votes and thus create a "consensus", but that merits a relisting, not a keep. The other keep votes in the AFD were all related to different Wangtangs, which invalidates the arguments of "numerical consensus" made above. I guarantee that if others had weighed in on this particular Wangtang, they would have come to the same conclusion (for example, although Vmenkov didn't explicitly vote on the original AFD, you can see above that he agrees with me). Unless someone can find evidence that this village exists, on what grounds could it be kept?-- Danaman5 ( talk) 07:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete - article created since Jan 2008. No updates and references for over 3 years. Can't find credible information on google. -- Visik ( Chinwag Podium) 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• To all you people who're new to deletion review, welcome! The closer will probably disregard what you say because DRV isn't AfD round 2 and arguments that belong at AfD don't belong here. My own position is endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: the AfD is over, consensus was reached, and I'm not seeing any problem with the debate or any failure on the closer's part whatsoever. If you still feel the material should be deleted, wait a decent length of time and then nominate it at AfD again.— S Marshall T/ C 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Cough cough...decent length of time would be 7 days for me...I could well re-nominate it much sooner. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the warning. I've watchlisted it in case you're serious.— S Marshall T/ C 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oh...I have done something similar before, and I am not afraid to repeat. When confronted with certain users (neither you nor Hullaballoo, though), (sometimes brutal) persistence is called for. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The closing admin's result is in line with the consensus. I would also like to say to some of those above that this review is not another AfD - it is to discuss whether the closing admin closed the discussion in line with the discussion. In this case, to close as 'delete' would clearly have been wrong (incidentally, the lack of further reasoning by the closing admin seems to me to infer that it applies to all of the listed articles. I can't help thinking that if the result had been a simple statement saying 'delete', the nominator would not be here to complain that the closing admin had not explicitly said in their closing rationale that the delete referred to all of the articles!). The only other possible consensus would have been 'no consensus', but that would also have defaulted to keep. Again, it would have referred to all the articles. The only time in a mass-nomination that the closing admin needs to say which articles the closure results refers to would have been if some had been deleted and some kept PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• In light of what I have learned, with this particular village, what the closing admin should have done was to relist it, as there was only one substantial vote, and not write "no consensus". I cannot see why it is not clear that I am only complaining about this one entry and not the whole batch. And regarding the "delete all" point...that would not be likely anyway given that in applicable XFDs, I have never seen anything other than "delete all" if that was the result. I consider not writing "all", be it delete or keep, to be sloppy and bad practise. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - First, it seems that a number of commentators are not understanding the nature of the discussion that took place. All of the keep votes given at the AFD were for other villages of the same name, not the one in question here. On this village, no consensus had yet been reached when the AFD was closed. There was one delete vote (my own), and nothing else. Second, I think that the accusations that I or others are just rehashing the AFD here are ill founded. When so few people have weighed in on a particular item up for AFD, the proper procedure is to relist it. It is completely right and proper to discuss at DRV whether or not the closing admin followed proper procedure, which is what we are doing here. The fact that others are now weighing in with AFD-style delete votes just shows that the AFD on this particular village did not get enough comments while it was running, and should be relisted.-- Danaman5 ( talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes, Danaman. And also, to Visik and Vmenkov...in the (possibly likely) event I would need to discuss this village at a new AFD, be prepared to copy your own arguments, as I cannot do that for you without your explicit consents. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sustain the close, as either keep or non-consensus and if desired, nominate this village individually at a new AfD. This is not the place to discuss the underlying merits of the case. The close was correct--there was no way of being sure of delete from the material presented in the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

User:Pampi1010/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deleting admin is not active according to another admin. I have substantially edited the article. It has become a separate article for the University seal. I believe a separate article is necessary to represent the seal of the university which itself has a significant and colorful history. College insignias are also substantially edited to inform/educate the readers the 400 years-rich tradition of the university. I'll be changing the images into the valid ones as soon as this article is undeleted. Planning to change the title to University of Santo Tomas insignias. Pampi1010 ( talk) 03:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems, the article was deleted in 2009 as a non-notable gallery of non-free images. If you intend to replace every instance of File:Example.png with a fair use image, this portion of the problem has hardly been rectified. Chester Markel ( talk) 06:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Yes, I'm willing to do so. Am I going to change it right now? (But I think, it's not allowed right now) Or later if it gets undeleted. Thanks! Pampi1010 ( talk) 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• No, articles shouldn't contain extremely large galleries of non-free images, per WP:FU. Chester Markel ( talk) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Just focusing on the issues above - there seem to be two issues,
  1. Whether the seal merits an article. Pampi1010 says it does and I have no issue with him working on an article, or requesting a copy of any previous deleted text to develop it further.
  2. The non-free image issue. It really cannot contain a gallery of these, or list of minor variants. It can contain a (minimal) number of selected important or non-free examples if reasonably necessary and unavoiudable. I am sure Pampi1010 understands a sizable non-free gallery would be a problem. Would he be willing to immediately remove or comment out any included non-free images and then consult if the final article is proposed to use more than a couple of non-free images?

That might solve it. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 00:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, Chester Markel and FT2.

I just hate the fact that my article cannot contain that portion. But! I'm not stubborn :) I just have a few more concerns:

1. I still have images that are not yet in Wikipedia (sorry for not knowing the right Wikipedia term), so if I'll upload them, I'll have the ?copyright? of the images, right? Will the pictures still be valid in the article?
2. What if I make an individual article for every seal/logo, sans the aspect of their importance, would that make my article a hub, thus becoming an acceptable form of a gallery?
3. I'm wondering, what did this article do to exist. Gallery of French coats of arms
4. What if I put this article in Commons (heck, I don't even know what exactly Commons is for, haha), can it be link from a Wikipedia article?

FT2, I'm willing to remove everything that's not allowed. Thanks again! ( talk) 02:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

# No, copyright lies with the person/entity who created those emblems/seals.

# No, galleries of non-free (copyrighted) images are forbidden.

# Those emblems are hunderds of years old, so copyright is not an issue.

# Wikicommons does not allow non-free images, so they would be deleted. Yoenit ( talk) 12:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• My question: # I'm wondering, what did this article do to exist. Gallery of French coats of arms

An answer: # Those emblems are hunderds of years old, so copyright is not an issue.

What if I change the template of the images, so no copyright will be violated? The creator of the logos has passed away a couple of years ago. Pampi1010 ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The template is a document of the copyright status, changing the template doesn't change that status. If the status shown on the templates are wrong, then yes they should be fixed, however (1) you can't assume just because the creator is now dead that the copyright is void - it doesn't work like that, many countries have copyright extending beyond the death of the author (2) it's up to you to demonstrate your changing of the copyright status on the images is correct, mere assumption (and I suspect from your question here you don't really understand too much about copyright) is not allowed and if seen as being you trying to get around the issue by showing false information could lead to sanctions. -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• New changes. So you see, the article has two parts: University seal and College insignias. The College insignias contains the section being disputed, so I have removed it. The University seal part is a new one (new from the 2009 article). And it will contain images that were created from 1619 to 1868. The copyright of this new images would not be a problem like Yoenit said previously, right? Thanks! I hope I have settled the issue. Thanks admin! Pampi1010 ( talk) 07:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• No offense, but how come no admin is replying? Newer discussions have gotten the final decisions... Not that I'm demanding anything, I just wanna see some replies, so Id know what to do. Pampi1010 ( talk) 06:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply