Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 17

17 September 2009

Mishavonna Henson

Mishavonna Henson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason The article was deleted when the voting was four to three to keep it. The votation was in favour of the article and it was deleted anyway. Facha93 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I didn't read that article, nor the AFD. But please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You did not vote, you discussed. You need a better rationale to uphold this deletion review. Cheers. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Like Skomorokh, I'm not seeing the reliable sources that would justify an article here. Myspace and imdb don't cut it, I'm afraid. The key to success in this DRV, Facha93, is citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Relist The deletion was right given the discussion, but the discussion was horrible. There are reliable sources out there. [1] lists quite a few. I don't think any of them are on-topic enough for the article to be kept, but the discussion never touched on that. The deletion arguments were all about the article's current state, not about the topic and they should have been ignored. The keep votes were all forms of ILIKEIT and so also should have been ignored. So no consensus or relist is all there is... Hobit (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Joker poster

Barack Obama Joker poster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Userspace copy

Despite a heated debate, the article was deleted under the rationale "The keep votes are significantly weaker that those requesting deletion", and the administrator has been unwilling to reopen it. I believe this conclusion is not in line with Wikipedia policy, and would like to outline why.

The original rationale for deletion was that the topic is "wholly unworthy of a standalone article" (in other words, not notable.) WP:N states that "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". These is no doubt that such coverage exists: see eg. [2] (Telegraph), [3] (LA Times), [4] (Chicago Tribune), [5] (Washington Post), etc etc, all of which treat the poster as their primary, substantive topic and easily qualify as WP:RS. The presumption of notability is thus satisfied.

Now, to overturn this presumption, it must be demonstrated that the topic is otherwise not suitable for inclusion. The primary arguments of the "Delete" camp have been WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.

• WP:ONEEVENT can be dismissed immediately, since this policy is about people famous for one event, while the article in question is about an artwork with multiple creators and interpreters. The essay WP:WI1E goes further to define an event as "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end"; while the original plastering of the image around LA would qualify, entirely different uses of the image are still being widely reported and there is nothing like a "defined end" in sight.

• Which brings me to WP:NOTNEWS, or essentially, the argument that this poster is a meaningless flash in the pan. Not so; in the words of User:Smontg2, "this image has legs". A cursory look at Google News indicates 700+ mainstream media references to the image within the last few days, nearly two months after the poster originally hit the headlines. Pundits referenced in the article have described it as (I quote) "a turning of the tide of public opinion", and the poster has been widely adopted by opponents of Obama, most notably the Tea Party protest movement, with the Las Vegas Sun calling it the movement's "signature logo".

In summary, the image is notable, and in the same way that the Barack Obama "Hope" poster captured last year's pro-Obama zeitgeist, this image has been eagerly adopted by the anti-Obama camp. It's highly unlikely that this image will go away before Obama himself does, and we are doing future readers of Wikipedia a disservice by not recording what this was all about. Jpatokal (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• At first glance, I'm tempted to say there's some mileage in this complaint. That debate certainly looked like a "no consensus" to me.

  Having said that, I certainly agree with Backslash Forwardslash that Wikipedia doesn't need this content. If I'd participated in the debate, I'd have !voted "trim very heavily and merge" to one of the "public image of Barack Obama" family of articles.

  But I can't see how to get from that debate to that closure without a very large amount of admin discretion. Too much, perhaps. I'd like to see Backslash Forwardslash explain in more detail which !votes he disregarded and on what grounds.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• (later) After further thought: Actually I think what we have here is a defective debate and a defective closure. On the one hand, the debate failed to give proper weight to WP:UNDUE. But on the other hand, if admins had that much discretion to disregard !votes, then there would be no point in having debates in the first place; we might as well decide that deletion is down to individual admin discretion and dispense with AfD entirely.

  I've decided that there is no explanation that would satisfy me in this matter and the only proper outcome is to overturn the defective closure to "no consensus" and then immediately relist the defective debate, so that the article can be deleted after full and proper consideration.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - The Wikipedia moved away from the "VfD" (Votes for Deletion) format several years ago. This isn't a tally or a numbers game, it is a careful weighing of arguments, points, and supporting evidence to back them up. There is a disturbing trend lately of "Subject X is in a reliable source, therefore an article must be created", which is resulting in some of the worst, ephemeral crap being created across the project. There needs to be a wider understanding that an over-saturated, tabloid-ish 24/7 media covers EVERYTHING if it has the slightest whiff of connection to a celebrity figure, and a bit of a deeper understanding as to WP:NOTNEWS actually means. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note See Tarc's talk page. This user has engaged in pro-Obama editing. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Interesting; we get to "flag" other editors for their perceived beliefs or ideologies, as if to provide some sort of cautionary warning to others? I've been called everything from a "pinko Marxist" to a "spokesman for Hezbollah" over the years, so this "OMG Obama!" labeling is fairly milquetoast in comparison. Hopefully you will arrive at a point of common sense and strike this "warning", but if not, I won't lose sleep over it. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:COI, WP:CIVILITY. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 18:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and Keep - (copy & paste from closing admin's talk page) It's notable because of the initial international news coverage, the free speech controversy that led to Flickr changing its takedown policy, and the image becoming a standard protest sign. Also, the first four paragraphs in this Los Angles Times article clearly states why the artist is notable. WP:NOTNEWS, which btw I do understand, is not a valid reason to delete this article. If the initial news coverage was the only aspect, then WP:NOTNEWS would apply. But as I've mentioned, that's not the case. APK say that you love me 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn The topic meets all of our guidelines and consensus by !vote was to keep. That may well say more bad things about our guidelines than about the topic, but I don't see how to reach a delete outcome. Unlike S. Marshall I don't see a flaw in the debate and I don't think WP:UNDUE can be relevant to a standalone article giving undue weight to the topic itself. So I don't see any need for a relist. And the DrV nom does a good job explaining why NOTNEWS isn't relevant here. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again; Number of Votes Are Not the Decider. I was recently reminded of another idiot fad; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy's final tally ran roughly 40-30 keep-to-delete and it was still, rightly, deleted. Sources do not directly correlate to notability. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that you chose an MZMcBride deletion from February 2009 to illustrate your point is a masterpiece of unintentional irony.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but who the closing admin was doesn't mean a thing to me, I guess I'm just not in the "in" crowd. Addressing the actual point would've been more helpful. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Explanation: MZMcBride's deletion track record needs to be seen to be believed. His deletions against consensus early in 2009 were controversial, and on 1 March 2009 Arbcom accepted a case about him, which ended with Arbcom ordering him to follow deletion policy more closely. (He resigned the sysop bit during the Arbcom case, and has only just been re-elected as an administrator).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • To respond to Tarc, if there is no policy-based reason to delete, but a vast majority argues to do so, we generally delete. In this case, no valid policy-based reason was given that wasn't successfully refuted in the discussion. Even if that were true and 90% wanted to delete, we invoke WP:IAR and move along. But here we have a deletion with no reason grounded in policy (again as I read the debate) and with a majority wanting to keep. Thus no policy, including IAR applies so we keep. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Keep. The deletion discussion ended up being no consensus, bordering on keep. A clear majority of !votes favored keeping the material, and a plurality favored keeping as a standalone article. Many of the keep !votes offered a simple, accurate rationale: that the article subject met the GNG because of the extensive press coverage, accurately cited in the article. The keep !voters, mercifully, did not elaborate on this point at great length. The delete !votes were not "stronger," just sccompanied by longer/more verbose explanations. No one argues that the keep !votes were not grounded in policy. While a discussion closer has discretion in weighting arguments to the extent they may or may not reflect policy, the closer does not have the discretion to enforce his/her interpretation of policy when editors have reasonable and good faith differences over the ways it applies to particular articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - although I voted against keeping this article and still disagree that it is suitable content for a standalone article, the debate clearly reached no such consensus, and the "keep" votes were not unreasonable. This is at best a borderline case, and not appropriate for a decision by fiat. I am agnostic whether it should be "overturn and keep" or "overturn and re-list", but at the very least the conclusion should be overturned. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus I voted delete, and I still want to see that article be placed in a bucket and sent to hell. But while I (and others too) want that, you also have to recognize that there's a substantial amount of people who want that article to be kept, and their arguments are more than simply "I LIKE IT!". I was very surprised to see that deletion closed as delete; the debate is polarized, and no side comes out as the clear winner. Thus no consensus. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Keep: The suggestion that the keep votes were significantly weaker than the delete votes is just simply not true. Both sides have some badly written arguments. However, the only arguements consistently used for delete were WP:ONEEVENT, WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:N is not a valid reason for deletion because of all the sources available as seen on the userfied article and it's talk page. The strongest point against WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is it's adoption by critics of Obama seeing as they use it at almost every protest and news coverage which means there is nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that could possibly cover the article. The poster is regularly mentioned in article's just about it [6][7], as well as being mentioned in other articles about critics of Obama. [8] (There was also a really good video link in the original talk page which I'll see if I can find.) _Met^ty 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. Long-held policies like WP:BLP are not supposed to be overridden by whoever happens to show up at AFD one day or another. Historical precedent shows that we generally delete "meme" articles that reflect poorly on living people. This is a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. A brief mention in some other article might be justified, but this is just too much. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. This will sound like a textbook example of WP:OTHERCRAP, but WP:NPOV states:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

And this article clearly meets significant views published by reliable sources. And the poster it is still being used as a flag by opponents of the Obama administration. Why would we have a Barack Obama "Hope" poster article and not this one? Plus, many of the delete !votes sounded like paraphrasing of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I personally debunked 3 delete !votes of those "strong" rationales. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn: I wasn't even notified of this even though I've moved it, declined a prod, and copyedited it into a short but well-worded aritcle. It's also on the right line of the uneducated opinions of Obama we have to cover. It's of enough weight and not instantly wrong to allow coverage on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep; I can't see a consensus to delete there, all there was was a closer's supervote. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn & Keep this article which satisfied all three of Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP: NOR). This deletionism is a travesty, and the deleting admin overstepped when he closed a heated and non-concensus debate. - Draeco (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• overturn and keep Consensus for keeping is clear. Has gained long-term international coverage. Croatulus's argument about BLP holds no water since a) the only BLP issue is that someone made a dumb poster about Obama b) we have far more negative accusations about him that we think are fine c) as a matter of do-no-harm, the notion that harm will come to Obama because of a well-sourced article about this topic is absurd. BLP is not an excuse to override AfDs when it is clear that the community consensus is that there's no BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ConceptDraw PROJECT

ConceptDraw PROJECT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The page was deleted by G11 criterion, while there were just:

• a short definition (ConceptDraw PROJECT is a project management software tool from Computer Systems Odessa. It presents project data as a Gantt Chart.)
• Mentioning that the software is cross-platform (Mac and Win), and this is not a promotion but a useful fact for lots of Mac-switchers.
• Mentioning that the software is a part of ConceptDraw Office. Just a fact without any estimations and adverticements.
• List of versions
• File formats
• Alternatives
• External link to the official site

And that's all. I even deleted the text about the distinctive feature of creating reports as mind maps, while it was just a statement of fact which might be very interesting for all mindmappers which are trying to find useful information about mind maps usage.

Could you please tell me what part of the ConceptDraw PROJECT article mentioned above you see as an advertisement?

For example you can see the OpenProj article which was admitted as correct with its Popularity paragraph and Comparison with MS Project ("Users of the one software should be broadly comfortable using the other.", "intended as a complete desktop replacement for Microsoft Project"). Is it not a promotion?

I don't want to mention the MS Project article which is far more promotional.

• Overturn speedy, send to AfD G11 it ain't. I'm not sure it asserted any kind of notability so it might have been a speedy candidate, but at this point I'd rather see an AfD rather than finding a different criteria to do the same thing... Hobit (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse my own closure. It will be deleted at AfD, so going through the process for sake of process is pointless. The entire article was one big marketing piece, and pointing out that other stuff exists isn't a good way to argue for keeping it. If those other articles have issues, they should be tagged as having issues and be dealt with individually. It was previously twice speedy deleted on September 11 by NawlinWiki and Hut 8.5 as well. I've notified them of this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• I maintain that the version I deleted ("an effective tool for new and experienced users with a fine balance of usability and powerful functionality") was spam. However the third version was considerably better. Hut 8.5 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While the latest revision may not have been spam, it did not assert that this software was notable, so I agree with Nihonjoe. Note that the version I deleted read, in its entirety, "Project management software designed to efficiently plan and implement single or multiple projects in one comprehensive view." NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• A7 would have been defensible, but G11 is not.

  Bad speedies are pernicious, and DRV needs to send a very clear message to the effect that if you're going to speedy something, you need to get it right. Overturn speedy and list at AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn the final version was a purely descriptive article not promotional at all. There's no G7 for products, so it fits no speedy category. If nawlinwiki wants a G7 for products, he can try to get that into policy, not invent it here--his argument will do fine for AfD, but does not apply to a speedy. (nor is it likely to be accepted as a new category--its hard to rule out that a product might be notable on the face of the article without letting the community have a chance to source it). Nihon Joe needs to understand that speedy is not for "whatever article I=he thinks will not stand at AfD. If the speedy criteria mean anything, the articles that don't fit speedy have to be sent elsewhere, and if individual admins ignore that, this is the place to do it. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• The version showing in the Google cache is not the final one deleted; Based on NawlinWiki's description I believe the cached version is the one that Hut 8.5 deleted. I can't see the third version deleted by Nihon Joe and don't have enough data here to form an opinion. Sometimes, the best solution to a persistent article creator is discussion with them by the deleting admin or recent change patroller. I don't see any of that, just templating. Nor do I see it by Nihon Joe when he was specifically asked "I describe why this page hasn't to be deleted on the talk page of ConceptDraw PROJECT article. Do you disagree with my arguments? Why? What was "unambiguous promotion" there?". Volunteers can't be required to do anything, but educational communication by a deleting admin can sometimes avoid the need for us all to be here. GRBerry 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)