Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 27

Seth_Sieunarine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just realized that you deleted the page "Seth Sieunarine". Though Seth has not done much acting anymore, he did in fact appear on two episodes of "Family Matters" when he was younger, and he continues to advertise for his country of Trinidad and Tobago. I understand that he has not done a whole lot in the acting career but I ask that you please not delete his page from wikipedia as he continues to be a model and icon for his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Thank you! 65.95.76.52 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Regardless of how the folks in T&T respect this fellow, his role as a television actor was trivial, and fails notability criteria. Shalom ^Hello 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Still no sources. Valid AFD that was closed 2 days ago. Wickethewok 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion subject isn't notable enough for inclusion. Plus, the only participants at the AFD supported deletion. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Colemak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article on a new and increasingly popular keyboard layout, an alternative to QWERTY and Dvorak, was deleted in November 2006 on grounds of non-notability and subsequently salted after being re-created without further discussion. Since then it has recently been added for inclusion in forthcoming versions of X11[1] and Ubuntu[2]. Usage figures are hard to verify but it has an active user forum with just under 200 members[3] which is pretty popular as far as alternative keyboard layouts go. Qwfpg 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation The concerns raised in the deletion discussion were lack of notability because the software was very new at the time. A year has passed, and the nominator has brought multiple references to demonstrate that notability has arrived in the last year. Shalom ^Hello 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It seems to me that Colemak's claim to notability rests almost entirely on its inclusion in Ubuntu and X11: practically all other references to it that I can find are personal blogs and self-published articles that do not meet WP:RS. This may be sufficient however (I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt), though others may think that more coverage is necessary for it to conform to WP:N. Usage statistics are not generally a factor for consideration in deletion discussions. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Any secondary sources? Whatsoever? That it will have an xkeyboard configuration distributed with X11's reference implementation would be pretty underwhelming even if an independent third party had noticed that and written about it so we didn't have to resort to a bug report of all things. And the forum participation is meaningless; even way back when this was a criteria for inclusion via WP:WEB, we required 5000 members. —Cryptic 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Colemak website has some links to various "media coverage" items[4] though three of them are in Japanese and I have no idea what to make of them since I don't read Japanese. The others don't look too promising though: Slashdot, Barrapunto (the Spanish version of Slashdot) and Metafilter. There is also a research paper by a bloke called David Piepgrass, although this looks like some kind of undergraduate dissertation and I have no idea whether it has ever been published anywhere other than his personal website. The most notable person to mention it has been Matz of Ruby fame, though again I've no idea whether he is actually using it (which would mean a Colemak article could potentially have a "Notable users" section like the Dvorak article) or just mentioned it in passing. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that this be allowed for re-creation, and see what the requester can do with the article. Worst case, it has to go through articles for deletion. As this is a keyboard format, the inclusion of it into several high profile linux items is notable (in my eyes), and I'm sure that if someone searched the ubuntu formuns and developer lists, one might run across more sorces as to why its notable. (someone had to convince the ubuntu people to include it. Worst case is the article has to be re-deleted, no biggie. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• • How difficult is it to get something like this accepted by Ubuntu or other open source projects? I would have thought that it would be fairly easy -- any competent developer could submit a patch to the issue tracker, and provided it doesn't break anything and they can see it has at least some kind of a following and it is GPL compatible, my guess is that they would simply say "Why not?" rather than marking it as wontfix. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That you are correct, but my main point here is that this article won't promote any company or person, nobody really stands to gain much of anything. I feel as an encyclopaedia it is worth while to let this person make a new article (its a year since last deletion) and if its still not up to spec we can re-delete it. I see from the google search of this there is about 70,000 hits or so, not all that impressive, but a few of those hits look like they at least describe what this is. I view this topic is similar to some obscure file format, we probably have an article on what the format is, even though nobody uses it, and it helps someone. (of course this thought process really should not count for much here, but in short I would say allow recreation, and see where it goes). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until they add, oh, about four 0's to the number of interested people. Wikipedia is not the place to boost some Great New Thing, it's the place to document things that are already and provably significant as defined by independent external sources. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That you are correct, but going by what I saw with several major linux programs adopting it I thought that it might have reached that threshold, and thus was worth letting someone recreate it and stating their case in an article. Worst case is we have to re-delete it. In any case it is very borderline, and I can definitely understand the argument to wait longer. (You should also note that the deletion was done approx. 1 year ago, this is a request to recreate an article that was deleted a long time ago, not an argument to contest a deletion). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD for this article was over a year ago and since that time Tourettes Guy has died in an automobile accident, a petition (which can not be linked here because of spam blocks) with over 11,000 signitures agree that Tourettes Guy is notable to be on Wikipedia. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for over a year now and I would compare TG with other internet personalities such as Numa Numa, Maddox, Ask a Ninja, Leeroy Jenkins. The tourettesguy.com web site consistently gets over 300,000 unique visitors a month and although this is not a significat amount of hits that is not what is being claimed as his notability, his notablity comes from the thousands of viral video downloads on various different websites. If all that isn't TG was quoted on Conan O'Brien, and was featured in a commercial on MTV. Furthermore I would like to add that according to Alexa.com here the tourrets guy's web page is listed in the top 100,000 web pages on the interent. With all things considered there are plenty of references for TG and he is obviously an internet phenomena. Please take the time to review this issue and not take it lightly, a petition with over 11 thousand signitures is more than enough to at the very least unprotect the article for recreation. --Joebengo 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given the age of the deletion debate, there certainly may be new sources by which to write an article. What I would suggest, however, is rather than point to Alexa statistics (which aren't really usable as an indicator of notability) or claims of internet petitions (which aren't usable to establish notability, either) is that you create a referenced version in your userspace for review, and if it is up to snuff, it can be moved into namespace. You haven't really provided any good reasons for overturning the deletion, however, so at this point my recommendation is to endorse deletion and leave protected for the time being. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion until reliable sources, not Alexa rankings, are presented to fulfill notability standards. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salted unless sources are provided. I don't really see very many good reasons for overturning in the nomination since it appears to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No coverage (in other words, more than a one-line reference) in reliable sources, no article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - No reliable sources on which to base an encyclopedic article on. Wickethewok 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep deleted We need reliable sources, not Alexa rankings. I'd be willing to change my opinion if reliable sources can be presented. JoshuaZ 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not notable in life and not likely to be notable in death or likely that new sources will emerge. Noting all incarnations:
• Tourette's Guy
• Tourette's guy
• TourettesGuy.com
• Tourettes Guy
• Tourettes guy
• Turrets guy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes guy

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per every one of the many other debates, which were usually unanimous or nearly so. STILL no reliable sources, just like every other time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, still no new information, still no sources. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion "internet phenomenon" is an arbitrary and meaningless term and it's difficult to imagine a version of this article that wouldn't qualify for WP:CSD#G10 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cher in hell on wheels.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, two objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was--I believe it's more than safe to say--no consensus to delete. In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani Badagnani 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (as deletor). DCGeist brought this to my attention on my talk page before listing this here, and here's a mildly reworded version of what I said there: The image was nominated for deletion for failing NFCC #8. There were "keep" comments that referenced various aspects of the images, but no comments that gave any clear reasoning of why anything shown in the image was (a) important in the article, and (b) depicting information that could not be portrayed by words alone. Several comments defended the use of screenshots in general, and I think a video screenshot could pass NFCC #8 in this article, but the screenshot chosen does not. (Nothing in this screenshot was mentioned in the article.) Of the comments made that adequately considered NFCC #8, none argued in favor of keeping the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse I understand the complaint that editorial usefulness is in the eyes of the beholder, but it seems from the discussion that the relevant article can manage without this NFCC item. Shalom ^Hello 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse There is no sourced critical commentary on the image included in the article or real discussion of the screenshot, which causes the image to fail NFCC #8 for lack of significance to the article. The NFCC policy does trump the deletion guidelines. -Nv8200p talk 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Point of fact This review is based not on the question of deletion guidelines, but on a contravention of deletion instructions. Something different.—DCGeist 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Look at the article history. There are only a few contributors and an insignificant amount of discussion on the page. That page does not have enough weight to circumvent the NFCC policy. -Nv8200p talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per my explanation in the August 25 review where this came up, I did look at the instructions' edit history. Even more significantly, I looked at the prominent manner in which the primary IfD page links to the instructions:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Instructions_for_administrators. Not so feeble.—DCGeist 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators were poorly derived from a guideline. The reason to delete was based on policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OverturnI'm really disturbed to see that contributions to debates in the Image Deletion process may not be taken seriusly. I believe the policy is that an image is not to be deleted unless there's no objection to its deletion or unless there's a consensus to delete based on contributors' judgments as expressed in the debate. That policy seems to have been contradicted here. Pretty clear-cut, I think.DocKino 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This may just be my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the "no objections" thing refers more to free images, whose retention is solely reliant on editorial discretion. Non-free images have to meet WP:NFCC in addition to this. The deleting admin made a good policy-based call. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bjlata1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

This is a similar case to that above, but even more significant. I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, many objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was clearly no consensus to delete. In addition, deleting admin had participated in the discussion and entered a vote; deletion thus contravened the basic deletion guideline: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

In deleting, only a personal opinion about the content of the debate was offered as rationale--"Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone." Deleting on that basis obviously values an administrator's personal opinion about a subjective matter over the clear language of the instruction (and, obviously, over the opinion of most of those involved in the debate). In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines and actually voted him/herself in the debate, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (as deletor) - This wasn't an easy decision, but here is my reasoning. Of the people who stated that the image should be deleted, all gave the same reason: the image doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 (i.e. it doesn't give important encyclopedic information beyond what can be portrayed through text alone). Five people stated this, including four who are have dealt extensively with our non-free content policy for at least the last six months. The fifth was a new-ish user who has !voted "keep" on nearly every other image deletion debate he participated in, but stated "I am in favour of interpreting WP:NFCC#8 generously, but I can't stretch it enough to cover this example." Of those who argued that the image should not be deleted, different reasons were proffered. Charcorath said that the way he looked then is different from the way he looks now, and that this is notable. (In response, it was noted that there was no sourced commentary on this difference in appearance in the article.) Cricket, the uploader, explicitly disagreed with the previous "keep" reason, but advocated keeping the image because it showed the subject at a notable concert. Two other users seemed to agree with Cricket in this. (Several users countered that nothing in the image indicates what particular concert was shown.) One user seemed to advocate keeping the image merely because it was used in a featured article, which I deemed irrelevant. Among those advocating "keep", all were relative newcomers to our policy, and had not dealt extensively with these issues for more than a week or two at most. This doesn't invalidate their opinions at all, but I think it's reasonable to put more weight on comments from those who have shown a long-standing interest in, and understanding of, our policy. In the end, it was a borderline case, but I believe I made the right call. It wasn't my "personal opinion" that the image doesn't show encyclopedic information beyond what can be conveyed by text; it was that no "keep" advocate offered any explanation of what encyclopedic information this picture shows that couldn't be conveyed by words alone. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Having actively participated in the discussion and, indeed, cast a vote to delete, why did you not recuse yourself from closing the discussion and deleting the page, as guidelines clearly suggest?—DCGeist 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because there's a backlog, and there are very few admins willing to do the thankless task of processing ifd deletions. Having a closer who didn't vote is ideal, certainly, but it's just a suggestion, not a requirement. If I'd nominated it, or if I felt I couldn't analyze the discussion dispassionately, I wouldn't have closed it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The wording of the text starts out with "As a general rule. . ." Quadell does not make a habit of deleting images in which he has been involved in the discussion. Leeway has to be granted at times to clear out backlogs when other admins fail to act, in order to keep "the wheels of progress moving forward." -Nv8200p talk 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't get carried away and try to close this DR yourself (and please don't canvass any of your friends, either, which I've seen before on more than one occasion). We must adhere to our own rules. Your total lack of contrition in your response above for this very bad deviation from our own rules is disturbing at best. Thanks. Badagnani 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I won't close this DR, and I haven't canvassed anyone (and won't). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and let somebody else close. Once one has particpated in a dispute, there is no way to ensure the best of us can always be objective in judging the result. That's why we have the rule, and with 1200 admins, there is no reason to ever have any exceptions. Relist, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is a minimal difference between "voting then closing" and simply "closing". Unconsciously or not, you are inserting your own judgment into the decision (i.e. if it's a close call between "no consensus" and "delete" - which it wasn't in this case, incidentally - someone who would have voted "delete" in the argument will be more likely to delete, and vice versa). Quadell was not highly invested in this argument (he made only 1 comment, the vote to delete), which is what the rule was meant to stop (an admin closing a debate in which he was heavily involved - not the case here). The debate looked relatively straightforward to me, and therefore while this decision might be more "controversial", it wasn't a "wrong" decision. And finally, this looks like a case of sour grapes on the part of the nominator - would he have been so keen to point out this technical policy violation had Quadell closed the debate with "no consensus"? ugen64 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Howzat? "Sour grapes"? Sweet! Great job making this debate personal, Ugenny ol' sport! I took this to deletion review because (a) I believe the image serves/served a valuable purpose on Wikipedia and (b) I believe it was improperly deleted per our rules. If I believed only (a), I would not have brought this matter here because I would be flouting the clearly stated rules of this review process. If I believed only (b), I would not have brought this matter here because I would be flouting the spirit of WP:POINT. Clear enough for ya there, buddy? Great.

Now, as for your other observations: You've focused on the guideline, when the primary issue here is the clear and emphatic language of the administrators' instruction. Next: If you're going to tote up the deleting admin's contribution to the argument to make a point, please do take the effort to make a correct count--there was not "only 1" such "investment", but 2: [5] and [6]. (Yes, I know the admin forgot to sign the second one--but then I didn't try to score points off the number of his comments. That's your game.) Moving on: As you examined this debate that looked so "straightforward" to you, did it or did it not look very straightforward to you that there were multiple objections to deletion and no consensus to delete? Finally: "Technical policy violation"? Ahhhh. As opposed to what other sort of "policy violation"? How about a "substantive policy violation"? That's what I'd call this one. But I gather you don't believe any policy violations are substantive, just li'l ol' technical hiccups. God forgive you if you ever dare quote policy to anyone when it happens to suit you, chuckles.—DCGeist 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's keep this friendly as long as possible, please. I have no doubt that this DRV request was made in good faith, and I think this would all go smoother if we don't take these comments personally. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The DRV nominator is placing a guideline over policy. -Nv8200p talk 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OverturnAgain, how to interpret this policy of image value is open to interpretation. That's why we have a debate on it. And that's why we don't delete unless there's a consensus to delete. if the admin's opinion was all that counted, we wouldn't need a process at all.DocKino 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This may just be my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the "no objections" thing refers more to free images, whose retention is solely reliant on editorial discretion. Non-free images have to meet WP:NFCC in addition to this. The deleting admin made a good policy-based call in regards to NFCC#1 and #8; I don't see any problem in his having commented in the discussion. His opinion on the image would presumably have been the same whether or not he had commented on the image prior to deciding in favor of its deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation makes no sense. There has to be consensus whether non-free image meets NFCC or not. It is not up to you to decide it.SuperElephant 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Quadell's analysis of the given arguments is convincing, and I am reassured that, though he participated in the debate, he was able to critically analyze the debate. I may or may not disagree with his decision, but I do not think it would be appropriate to overturn. --Iamunknown 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - this is part of a pattern of behaviour on Quadell's to delete images after participating in the discussion. Guettarda 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide links to several other IFD discussions that Quadell has participated in and closed to support your statement of a pattern. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I (perhaps naively) didn't think it would be controversial for me to close this debate, despite having participated in it, since I didn't voice a particularly strong opinion and didn't have anything invested in the outcome. I see now that several users have seen it as inappropriate, and I won't close deletion nominations in the future that are at all controversial if I have participated in the discussion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RSC Equipment Rental (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to correct it Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic deleted the article suggesting it was "blatant advertising". This was not my intent. I've not been able to reach Cryptic, and I'd at least like the chance to update the content to steer it away from an "advertising" feel. Thanks, Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation and possibly provide the previous article to the requester above as the starting point for a rewrite. RSC is a large player in the equipment rental industry, with more than 500 outlets in North America; it's listed on the NYSE (had an IPO earlier this year) and had revenues of upwards of $1.6 billion last year. I'm fairly sure it's notable enough for an article. I can't see the previous version, but it sounds like this may have been deleted quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Any company on the NYSE is notable; certainly this one (NYSE code: RRR). Here's the proof. Shalom ^Hello 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This deletion was done back in october 2006. Of course if you can write a better article you are more then allowed to do so, you are encouraged! I will undelete the page to your subspace if you would like to have it. The article will need some verifiable/reliable secondary sources, and a bit of a rewrite to make it a proper encyclopaedia article, and I wish Areesssea luck with this. The page has been moved to User:Areesssea/RSC_Equipment_Rental. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)