Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 8

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

Article for a massively popular song/video/meme on YouTube. It was first deleted at AfD due to a lack of reliable sources. That was perfectly fine, because there were none. It was then recreated many times and speedy-deleted by Starblind and other administrators. These speedy deletions were mostly of the exact same content and rightly deleted as CSD G4 (repost). A newer version was posted, and again speedily deleted, a decision that was upheld on DRV (which I closed), once again citing a lack of reliable sources. In the two weeks following the DRV, quite a number of reliable sources have come out on the topic of the song. I decided to write an entirely new and well referenced draft in my userspace that I felt met the criteria for WP:MUSIC and/or WP:WEB. I inquired on WP:AN if anyone obejected to my unprotection of the article and creation of a new version of the article. I waited 7 hours and there were no objections, so I was bold and moved the article into the mainspace. This was deleted within minutes by Starblind as CSD G4 and re-salted by Deskana. This is despite the fact that CSD G4 applies only to instances where "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted". I also feel as though my draft passes notability criteria with multiple, non-trivial, and reliable sources as well as covers by notable musicians. Most of the references I cited in the new draft were not available during the last DRV. Consensus and notability may change, and new reliable sources may emerge. I am asking for an overturn and allow recreation of this article (per the draft that myself and Wikidemo have worked on). IronGargoyle 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I endorse the original deletion. I do not think Chocolate Rain is notable at all, either. --Deskana (banana) 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original deletion. Can you elaborate on how the most recent draft does not pass WP:MUSIC or how the speedy deletion per CSD G4 is defensible? IronGargoyle 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Deskana, this isn't AFD. The user is asking for permission for a substantially different and sourced version of the deleted article to be created. That's fine. If you subsequently think that should be deleted, then you can submit that article for AFD. Neil ╦ 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation The userspace draft is sourced. Vadder 22:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Not being able to look at deleted articles, I cannot confirm whether or not they are substantially the same, as far as the G4 deletion goes. However, secondary reliable sources about the subject have come available since the AfD. I see no reason why the draft article should be disallowed. -Chunky Rice 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation, obviously. Not making any judgment on any of the deletions, nor do we need to. Friday (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 of 8 August 2007 (and only that one). Experienced admins should remember that G4 only applies to substantially identical content. This always requires actually comparing both versions. The new version includes multiple traditional media reliable sources, the AFD deleted article contained (debatably) one. This is a significant difference, even if the wording were identical. G4 clearly does not apply. GRBerry 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4, allow recreation. Deletion under CSD G4 only applies if the new article could be deleted for the same reason that the old one was. As the primary concern in the AfD here was that this wasn't a notable video; given that it's now been written about by a number of reputable news sources which are cited in the article, this is no longer the case. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 surprising that this particular admin made this call... misuse of G4 to just perpetually deny any article ever be created, no matter how much sourcing has improved, is problematic. --W.marsh 23:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4. Textbook example of what G4 is not intended for. Restore article and take through other deletion channels if anyone still wants to delete the new article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 Versions differed significantly, old deletion reasons do not apply. Until(1 == 2) 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• **I move away from the mic to overturn the G4 - good work ;) Will ^(talk) 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation Chocolate rain has become insanely popular with millions of views, and has much mainstream media exposure such as a performance on Jimmy Kimmel. The singer also won VH1's Best Week ever. With all this notability now, there is no excuse for the page to be protected from being created. Edward4321 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 of 8 August 2007 (and only that one). G4 did not apply - new article seems sourced enaugh to establish notability. Agathoclea 06:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• What a kerfuffle! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Unsalt and allow the new article to be posted already. Catchpole 09:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Better bureaucracy than wheelwaring Agathoclea 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreationWallak^Talk 10:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. I happened to see the original; this copy is nothing like it and is backed up by multiple sources... Of course even more sources will emerge because this topic has garnered so much press attention. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Chocolate rain, references let it exist again." Allow recreation. Deleting this under G4 was completely wrong - article is substantially different. Suggest we do this premptorially,few seem to disagree. Neil ╦ 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn most recent G4 speedy The version most recently deleted (and also the currently live version) is significantly longer, contains significantly different content, and is significantly better sourced than the version deleted by AfD, which must be the benchmark for any G$ deletion. It might be argued whether this now passes WP:MUSIC or WP:N (although i think it does, as long as we include extensive coverage on popular music as notable) but that would be a matter for a new AfD. This would also not qualify for speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7, nor under any other CSD that I can see. This ism in effect, a different article about the same topic, and G4 is only for a recreation of essentially the same article (although trivial changes won't make not "the same" for G4 purposes). I think some admins simply see previous deletions of an article at the same title, and assume that the article is a recreation. Admins should remember that they must check against the actual version deleted by the AfD. They should also remember that unless the tagger is also an admin, the tagger cannot have done that check, so the tagger's judgment can be relied on even less than in the case of other speedy criteria. There seems to be pretty wide agreement that this wasn't a proper G4 on the latest occasion, and I see that the article has already been restored. Perhaps this reveiw will be closed early. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds home run watch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe most voters underestimated the hysterical interest in detailed charts and lists related to Barry Bonds' home run accomplishment. Two detailed charts have been added in the Accomplishments section since he tied and broke the record. I have userfied the list at User:TonyTheTiger/Barry Bonds home run watch. I could use some eyes to clean up my list, but will probably miss the mania even if this DRV is successful. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I deleted this article twice, once a bit preemptively per WP:SNOW, then immediately restoring it to allow the AfD time to conclude, and then the second time after the AfD ran its course. Consensus was clearly in favor of deletion. In my opinion, the article strays too far into WP:NOT#INFO (both as a compliation of stats & as news) to keep. Caknuck 14:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per properly closed AfD discussion. Also, a comment -- hysterical interest in a subject does not automatically make it an appropriate article for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100^talk 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse decision appears sound. I would suggest to TonyTheTiger that I believe that you might want to contribute this to http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Baseball and link to it from Wikipedia. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AFD was closed properly, and per Ginkgo100's reasoning. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, either. --Coredesat 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I see no evidence that the AfD voters were unaware of Bonds' popularity. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Ginko100. The AfD consensus was clearly delete, so I see no reason for it to be recreated, as it will probably end up in AfD again. Arky^¡Hablar! 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The closure was fine. Is there any significant new information that has come to light? The nomination seems to suggest that there is immediate temporal importance related to this article. However, I believe that an encyclopedia should withstand the test of time, and something so grounded in current events seems less encyclopedic (also, hysterical interest is not part of our inclusion criteria). The suggestion to consider wikinews instead seems pertinent.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, DRV isn't AFD take two. – Chacor 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Caknuck; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate or trivial information. Also, the list wasn't encyclopedic, to begin with. Ksy92003(talk) 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Has made 16 appearances in the Football League [1], therefore passes WP:BIO. ArtVandelay13 12:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore without AfD prejudice. I think the speedy deletion was appropriate based on the article content, but it seems the author plans to make a claim to notability. --Ginkgo100^talk 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per Ginkgo100. — xDanielx^Talk 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment As the admin who deleted this article, I have no problem with its restoration. It is fair to say, I think, that the article did not mention football league appearances, and my decision was made on the basis that he was represented as a non-notable footballer playing in a minor league. If the article can be expanded to show notability, then that's fine. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Restore per Ginkgo100. Mathmo ^Talk 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per nom. A little work on the article to assert notability and it will be fine. --Malcolmxl5 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Feel free to create a new article that is sourced, and that clearly explains notability from the get go. I'm wary of recreating the stub in its former condition. If you have intentions of using that text and improving it by bringing it up to standards, all the better, but it may be just as good to start from scratch with a new article. Not much useful information in the deleted article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This pornstar was nominated for three 2007 AVN Awards [2] and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 10:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just ask the deleting admin to undelete for you, and cite that you did there. It did fail A7, but if you add that info then it doesn't Viridae^Talk 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good; I've restored the article. I'll insert your factoid right now so that it doesn't get deleted again. --Masamage ♫ 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

This was prodded for no claim of notability and having no sources, and deleted as "blatant advertising". I'm not so sure the artilce was advertising, and it certainly wasn't blatant. Even if it was, an {{advert}} tag would've been more appropriate. This gives the chance of improving the article about this notable and popular software. Having no references is not a reason to delete an article (how I wish it was!); for improving these problems, {{unreferenced}} or {{primarysources}} should've been used. Mikeblas 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article was deleted after being prodded for a couple minutes longer than four hours. The reason for deletopn was CSD G11, which says "an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well", and I don't see anything inappropriate in the deleted content. -- Mikeblas 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The deleted article wasn't blatant advertising... it had a few POV phrases but it also had encyclopedic information. I'd be inclined to undelete and let Mikeblas or others try to source this, but at a glance the deleted article didn't look like anything that would survive an AFD if not improved. --W.marsh 01:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to say Overturn based on Mikeblas's summary, but where did the AfD go? — xDanielx^Talk 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There wasn't an AfD. It was prodded and four hours later it was deleted; the deleting admin cited CSD G11 as the reason for deletion. -- Mikeblas 04:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I see -- thanks. — xDanielx^Talk 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I don't think it was an indefensible speedy, but it's a pretty broad application of G11. It gets some solid Spanish news results for notability, and Mikeblas seems willing to work on improving it.--Chaser - T 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn on the basis of the summaries of those who can see what it was. Mathmo ^Talk 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and optionally relist on AfD if the closer so desires. Without being able to see the article, I can't express my personal judgment on the G11 issue, but Mikeblas's comments suggest that it was at the very least a questionable violation, so it sounds like an AfD submission would have been more appropriate. WP:SD#G11 emphases blatant for a good reason - articles that aren't blatant advertising should be improved instead of deleted (unless they violate another policy, of course). — xDanielx^Talk 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn --Wallak 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn without prejudice regarding listing at AfD. There is no blatantly promotional language; the article does not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Therefore it does not meet criterion G11. --Ginkgo100^talk 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. As a non-admin, I can't see the original article so I can't comment on the content, but the deletion of the article now leaves FilZip as the only red link on the template {{Compression Software Implementations}} appearing on dozens of pages. If the article contains advertising, WP:SOFIXIT. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do non-admin users not see the cache link, above? Meanwhile, the reason that the {{Compression Software Implementations}} template has redlinks is that it links to the FilZip instead of Filzip. FilZip was a redirect to Filzip, which was also speedily deleted shortly after the Filzip article was dropped. Is another Deletion Review necessary to fix the FilZip redirect? -- Mikeblas 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but the google cache has nothing for me. FrozenPurpleCube 03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the Google cache was not showing anything for me. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How odd! Google Cache had a useful copy back when I made my above comment. -- Mikeblas 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored for non-admin viewing. Version prior to deletion is in page history.--Chaser - T 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn while the article was slightly promotional in tone, IMO it was not blatently so, and most of the contet appared to be strictly factual. Better sources would be needed at an AfD I should think, and a clearer establishment of notability, but that does not warrent a speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)