Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:30, 2 June 2007

< May 31	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 2 >

1 June 2007

Autoanalingus

It does exist on the web, and not only that, it logically exists because of the existence of analingus. Finally, it was actually listed on the "requested articles" page. Besides, autofellatio already exists... Lilac Soul 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Meets no speedy criterion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Completely silly, and if you had any reliable sources, you could post them here. The way, the truth, and the light 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't speedy delete due to lack of sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CSD G1, just like Autosodomy. Given the AfD for that article, and for the one below, it's not hard to know what one on this would get. The way, the truth, and the light 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is it nonsense? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no evidence that this could ever be more than a dicdef. Without sources fails WP:V. TerriersFan 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither are speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it "exists on the web", do you have references? Of course, from the context, I don't think many would want to check them, however.--Rayc 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can't we call this an effective recreation of the properly deleted article. Autocunnilingus? I admit that it's not exactly the same, but I think it's pretty darn close. Frankly, I'm having a really hard time deciding whether I'm more upset by the abuse of admin privileges involved in many recent speedies (esp. A7 and BLP) or the policy wanking that goes on to try to overturn even the most absurd instances. I suggest a hearty round of trout-slapping for everyone involved! :) Xtifr _tälk 02:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus

The autoanalingus page was requested on the "requested articles" page, and this is a natural follow-up. Besides, autofellatio already exists. Lilac Soul 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Apparently, a lot of it had to do with the belief that it wasn't real. That may not be true. A number of foriegn language sources come up as well, so I think there's plenty of information to give this a better look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Completely silly, and if you had any reliable sources, you could post them here. The way, the truth, and the light 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Already did. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's only an anecdote. Anyway, this article was deleted pursuant to an AfD that resulted in delete. The way, the truth, and the light 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no evidence that this could ever be more than a dicdef. Without sources fails WP:V. TerriersFan 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: I see no procedural problems with the AfD, nor has any compelling new evidence been offered. This is not AfD round two! Xtifr _tälk 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arooj Aftab

Arooj Aftab is the pioneer of music education in Pakistan.she has won Berklee College of Music's first Steve Vai online scholarship.she has set up the revolutionary idea of acquire music education in a backward country like pakistan.fighting all hurdles of the closed up society,she became the first female musician from Pakistan to pursue formal education in music.she holds great importance in this regard.i therefore request to have the page undeleted. Maaz.pk 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - trainee musician and the article fails to assert any real notability. Nominator has not provided additional sources. If she goes on to make a name for herself then I should be delighted to support an article. TerriersFan 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium

I strongly disagree that this is a WP:BLP violation, even if the subject thinks it is. Almost all sources are either WP:RS or clearly from the subject of the article, except his real identity. If we excise all information about the person himself, it's a notable Internet meme, which would make it an acceptable article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy undelete and list at AfD. In fact, the AfD is possibly running right now, so undelete it, speedy close this, and hash it out there so we can be done with it. I saw the article - it wasn't unsourced, it wasn't poorly sourced, but it may not have been appropriate. That's not for one person to decide, or another to wheel war over, for that matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this does not come under BLP. This is another example of people who deliberate campaign in the most effective ways to make themselves publicly known within a certain circle, and then object to an objective article describing what they have done--conceivably as a way to increase the publicity. A highly visible fight with WP over the article has that effect--it amounts to gaming. As an editing concern, the details of his personal life are not necessary, and soime other sections may be over-detailed. There are true BLP problems in WP, but this is not one of them. DGG 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before people go too far overboard here, there actually is an AfD in progress: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination). I suggest that we simply let that AfD run without the article being restored, because this is effectively what would happen if the matter gets settled in DRV, as has been happening lately. Mango juice^talk 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely difficult to run an AfD without knowing what people are working with, and without the ability to fix any problems that might come up. Thus the need for it to be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. But surely (1) the debate shouldn't be taking place in two separate locations, (2) there are also some non-dismissable reasons for the article to be deleted during the debate, and (3) at least at AfD people will focus on the product and not the process. Mango juice^talk 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't take place in two forums. And, really, the deleted state is due to wheel-warring - even the original deleting administrator brought it to AfD. And really, at the AfD, it's hard to focus on the product if the product is nonexistent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. There's already an AfD going on, and although I have always thought this article should be deleted, it's clear that others don't given that it survived two AfD's already. The way, the truth, and the light 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted This man is completely non-notable and the entry was utterly non-encyclopaedic. If anybody bothers to ask themselves what he is supposed to be notable for, the case could not be clearer. According to the opening of the entry itself, he was a guy who made some posts to the internet and said that the universe is a single plutonium atom. This does not establish notability, and there is absolutely nothing else he is notable for. His supposed "theories" had no adherents, nor any publications. The entry existed only for those who thought it amusing to discuss the life and ideas of a person who to all appearances simply suffered from a mental illness. Furthermore, the subject on more than one occasion stated he wished to have the entry deleted. When he edited the entry or commented on the talk page, he was mocked if not abused. None of this was necessary, because there is no reason for this article to exist. It, and the talk page, should be consigned to the wastebin for the good of everybody and Wikipedia.

I suggested a couple of ways forward with this, one is to run an AfD with the article deleted (i.e. discuss the sources), another is to have the history behind an AfD notice and a very short stub, another is to userfy and rework. But a biography, identifying by name and date of birth a man of questionable mental state who is known exclusively for being derided on Usenet, sourced from student newspapers and Usenet posts, is such an absurdly bad idea that leaving the whole gory thing there while we stare intently at our navels for a week did not seem terribly sensible to me. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first instinct was correct: summarily delete. I don't see anybody attempting to actually establish notability and encyclopaedic-ness for the article. There is a reason for that: there is none. Including a stubbed version is simply an invitation to further problems later on, and, as has been said, there is nothing to say in a stubbed version. Furthermore, the equally dire talk page would remain. FNMF 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its at AFD What's the point of this discussion then? If there are questions about the outcome, then that is the right time to bring this back here. forked discussions are unhelpful. Go argue at the AFD please folks.Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought that the proper response to an out-of-process (and, IMHO, improper) deletion was DRV, rather than a new AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The trouble with that is that we could end up with different outcomes at different fora and then we have to have an argument about which one to apply. Alternatively, the AFD gets suspended because of the DRV and the DRV decided to relist at AFD. Better to keep to one at a time and save on the time and energy - its not like we don't already have other concerns right now. I'm really not sure what is correct but we stand a risk of making complete fools of ourselves over a process. Lets close this and revisit once the AFD has been completed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Wikipedia (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does not want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Wikipedia should be proud of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ElinorD (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sigh ... Daniel Brandt? The way, the truth, and the light 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per ElinorD. I'm afraid this process wonking is at the point of being disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - this horrific stuff is long past its sell-by-date. --Doc^g 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "let consensus form on an article that has been here for years" process wonking? An AfD is now in progress. It has less than 5 dfays to run. Let it run. If the consensus is to delete, and nothing unusual is done in the AfD, I may disagree, but i won't try to overturn it, and I rather doubt that anyoen else will either. Why the huge rush here? What is to fear from a normal AfD process, one that is already ongoing, where you and thsoe who agree with you are in a better position to make your arguments on why this should he deleted? DES ^(talk) 00:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, too, think think the article in it's form is not enough to survive AfD. However, letting an AfD run without the article in question keeps the editors from actively improving the article to the point of satisfying actional concerns. In fact, it survived it's last AfD in just such a manner. Holding a AfD without the article (minus liable concerns, of course) is a bad thing. Plus, it just gives some people a valid argument as to why "another" DRV on this article should be held. --Rayc 01:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undelete with the content in the history (which google doesn't search) so that people discussing at the ongoing AfD can see what they are discussing, and then close this DRV, to allow consensus to form at the AfD. If that decides to delete, so be it. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undelete so that the people at the AfD can actually see what they are debating. You think they're would be a rule that you can't have both the AfD and the DRV open at the same time.... Or have an AfD while the article is deleted. And whats up with all these inappropriate bio-speedies lately? If something is crud, AfD will take care of it.--Rayc 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion and stop with the process wonking. The speedy delete was correct. This was a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are usually wrong. Could be not this time I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete this page and get rid of BLP before it destroys Wikipedia. Enough. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Zero Configuration (closed)

Afraid of Monsters (closed)

Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution (book) (closed)

Soulja Boy

He is VERY notable, as he has garnered many fans, performed at shows nationwide and internationally, and gained many rivals nationwide. He is even signed to ColliPark Music, the label run by super-producer Mr. ColliPark, best known for his work with the Ying Yang Twins. *Undelete, or at least Unprotect Tom Danson 07:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you point us to some Independant reliable sources to help us assess his notability as a musician? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete/Unprotect - allow an AFD. Appears to have notability, at least by quick ghits method. If something's been deleted this many times, it's quite possible that consensus is to allow such an article. At least give people a chance to review it at AFD. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is demonstrated. No, being persistent about recreating your vanity bio does not mean it merits an AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk)
List at AfD. Enoguh notability being asserted by the nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the last recreation was a joke bio on one Kadeem Roper and other than the guy being a 16 year old rapper I can glean nothing encyclopaedic from the other recreations. It is the responsibility of the creator to source notability and he/she hasn't. I have found nothing in the Ghits to indicate compliance with WP:MUSIC. The deleting admin acted properly and if the appellant wants the article undeleted then he must provide sources. I am against listing at AfD as a fishing trip. TerriersFan 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the nom asserts notability, but this is DRV: he will need to prove it with reliable sources. --Core desat 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No assertion of notability in any of the 5 most recent version that I could see. If the nom would like to create an article on the subject, do it in your userspace and then ask a friendly admin to move it pover for you when you think it is ready - I will do it if you want (If I am happy with it - referenced etc) Viridae ^Talk 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no sources offered. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No sign of the sources I asked for. Article can't therefore pass WP:V. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, under current notability guidelines, is it the act of signing with a major label or recording a song with a major label that asserts notability? Rayc 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 *'''endorse deletion''' and stop with the process wonking. The speedy delete was correct. This was a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are usually wrong. Could be not this time I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Undelete this page''' and get rid of BLP before it destroys Wikipedia. Enough. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[Wireless Zero Configuration]] (closed)====