Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 April 2
2007 April 4 >

3 April 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Placeblogger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I created a fully referenced article on Placeblogger, the foremost directory of local blogs and hyperlocal sites, because they are of significance to those on the interface of media and politics, particularly us planners. I have been publishing a number of entries relating to planning, and this is just one of those many entries. I am in no way connected to Placeblogger, and my intention for the article was not meant as advertising.

The least I would expect is a discussion about why my article was considered to be spam, and how I may have improved it. I reviewed the "How not to be a spammer" policy and concluded I came out squeaky clean.

I am disappointed that there is no transparency with whoever the adminitrator was that deleted the article. They even deleted the history of the article so I don't even know who it was. Could I have some support here please to at least go through an open and transparent process that communicates why it is invalid to have a Placeblogger entry, and what a valid entry would look like?A.J.Chesswas 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:AleMoon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted out of process. The issue had been raised on AN where an editor doubted the accuracy/truthfulness of the license given by the uploader (which was "GFDL_self". No substantive reasons for the doubt were expressed, IMO. I put the image on WP:PUI. After a little more discussion on AN, and long before the PUI time had run, it was delted with the comment "Invalis license" DES (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose that the deletion be overturned and the image be relisted on PUI or WP:IFD. DES (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore all rules and keep deleted. Uploader has only a couple of edits including the uploading of another image that should probably be deleted as well (Image:Rosiemarc31an.jpg). If the user ever comes back, then they can claim they had the correct license, but unless they do, the highly specious license they submitted should be taken as a false license, and the image should remain deleted. To undelete the image just to go through a kangaroo court that would be IfD (no possible way it would be kept) seems absurd and counterproductive. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the idea of an anonymous professional photographer pseudonymously uploading their photos of celebrities for the good of Wikipedia is attractive, it is also rather naive. The only other edits of Cutebunny121 (talk · contribs) were to link the disputed image in an infobox which explicitly requires a free image, and to upload File:Image:Rosiemarc31an.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with {{No license from license selector|Somewebsite}} as the license tag. Sadly Mary Poppins is no longer at home, so I deleted the image as an almost certain copyvio. Sure, we could list it on IfD and wait five days before deleting it, but deletion is the way it was going, and honestly I couldn't see any reason to waste further time and effort. Needless to say this review has done just that, but there you go. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I am missing something. Why are you so convinced that this is a copyvio and the uploader is lying? I didn't see any obvious signs of this. The picture is not bad, but does not have the look of an obvious commercial or promotional shot to me. If the subject is a famous person, i didn't recognize her. No one has cited anything beyond the limited editing history of the user and the fact that this seesm to eb a well-taken photo (but nothing that looks to me as obviously beyond a good point&shoot camera). Whatever happened to WP:AGF? What am I missing that has you all so convinced that this is a vopyvio disguised by a lie? If thsi is in fact a copyvio it should obviously go at once. But I was wary of what looked like a rush to judgement based on nothing more than suspicion. Am I overlooking obvious indicators of a copyvio? DES (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the image was of Alessandra Ambrosio --pgk 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Point noted, attempted use tends to confirm. Nomination withdrawn. It would have been helpful if someone had said that when this came up at AN. Please close. DES (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File talk:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png (edit | file | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This may be a distasteful picture, but deleting the image talk out of process without any explination in the deletion log isn't the answer. Note that while the image does show a redlink for some reason, it does indeed exist on commons, and is used in Pearl necklace (sexuality) 69.142.111.235 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to judge whether the content was worthy of existing, he deleted it as a G8 and it was an invalid G8, because the image exists on commons. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one: 02:59, 28 March 2007 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image talk:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png" --69.142.111.235 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What exactly are we supposed to do with talk pages of images uploaded to Commons? And the technical point notwithstanding, I'm still curious about what exactly is so precious about that talk page that deserves a DRV rather than a simple talk page message to the deleting admin. Pascal.Tesson 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave them, like talk pages of images present here? DRV is the standard procedure when a page is incorrectly deleted. It's not even that much more work than just an informal message, and gets more eyes on the problems. I don't think this apparent snobbishness (as if this page is unworthy of being placed on DRV) helps. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting admin didn't specify G8 so maybe that was, maybe that wasn't the reasoning. Irrespective wikipedia is not a bureacracy if the page contained irrelevant junk we shouldn't be blindly restoring it for the sake of it. --pgk 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually you're right, in which case it should be a speedy restore as no deletion reason specified. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment wikipedia is not a bureacracy --pgk 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is true, we shouldn't blindly be bureaucrats, but when there's a dispute, Process is important. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is a pretty fundamental policy, process is important doesn't quite have the same sitting in the scheme of things. In the context of your comment, the admin didn't put a reason is pretty much a text book example of not a bureacracy, not dotting the I's and crossing the T's isn't a reason to invalidate the action. When there is a dispute, we should probably discuss hence why it is here, merely pointing to the "rules" doesn't help resolve a dispute. --pgk 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snobishness? Was that a comment intended for me? Certainly anyone asking for deletion review believes that there is something worth keeping in that talk page, I'm just wondering what this is. If the talk page consisted of a single "I think this image is distateful", I'm wondering why we have to bother with bureaucratic process. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted page contains discussion on the appropraiteness of the image, and whether it should be delted or improved, and if so how. This seems like a textbook example of the kind of content that is normally left on a talk page in such cases. Overturn. DES (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because in my opinion the appropriateness of this image does indeed need to be discussed, & here is not the place. Though another could be started, the record of the discussion should be preserved--and it might even be relevant to why it was deleted. DGG 22:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've got a weird feeling that this is a stupid question but why not move the talk page to Commons? Similar comment: how is the discussion of the tastefulness of the image be of any interest here now that the image itself has been deleted? I mean it's just going to float here in neverland while the debate (maybe) continues on Commons. Pascal.Tesson 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the talk page. I've also made pointers there to both Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality) and the image's talk page on commons. Mangojuicetalk 17:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The CfD discussion was closed by Radiant. It's not an unreasonable call but I want to argue this should have been closed as no consensus and in any case that it's a mistake to delete this category. The strict vote count is 11-4 in favor of deletion. However, I believe that a lot of reasons given for deletion were flat-out incorrect and that the arguments made in favor of keeping the category were never adressed. We have a category Category:Education in the European Union and it seems particularly relevant to have the university cat as a subcategory here since the sole involvement of the EU in education is in higher education. Through the Bologna process, the EU has pushed for increased uniformity among EU universities, leading to significant changes in many curriculums. The EU also provides significant research funding for universities and programs such as ERASMUS and SOCRATES. All these issues affect solely universities in the EU which I believe makes the category meaningful for browsing. The nominator's rationale was that The EU is just a regional body, and it does not run the university and college systems of its member states. This, of course, is entirely true yet of little relevance. Canada, the United States and many other federal countries do not run their universities, yet grouping the provincial or state categories makes perfect sense because of the common issues run at a federal level that affect the individual universities. A number of deletion supporters argued that the existence of this category is part of a Europhile conspiracy to overstate the role of the EU [1] [2]. These arguments are pretty much meaningless and don't participate in a constructive debate about whether the category is a useful categorization tool or not. Many other comments had a strong political undertone and, as I did in the CfD debate, I'd like to add I'm Canadian, have no stake in the EU and am saddened to see that the debate turned out to be about the EU's importance in education. I should add that the category doesn't create any category clutter since it is solely a supercat for invidual country categories. Pascal.Tesson 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to be that it should be relisted on CfD in the hope of a broader discussion. DGG 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's note: I have no objection to more discussion. The CfD was pretty clear-cut imho, but Pascal brings up some good new arguments here. I suppose it depends whether the cat is supposed to hold college articles, or cats of college articles, et cetera. >Radiant< 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category was used solely as a supercat for categories of the form Universities in EU country X. Pascal.Tesson 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
under the rationale "Unneeded userpage for an indefinitely blocked user"

Over the past month or so, Pathoschild has deleted literally hundreds of userpages of blocked users out-of-process. His deletion summaries cite WP:DENY, but that is just an essay and is specifically NOT a policy or guideline. It's important that every indefinitely blocked user have a userpage that contains a template showing why they were blocked or banned. That has always been Wikipedia practice and it should continue. Block log patrol 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. If a user is indefinitely blocked and they have a userpage, generally we replace it with {{indefblock}}. That template places the page into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, where you'll find the instructions are to delete them periodically as they serve no useful purpose once enough time has passed. User talk pages are where block notices and explanations of blocks go, and user talk pages should never be deleted. User pages of indefblocked users can be deleted pretty much at will. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One exception to your observation about not deleting user talk pages: I've deleted talkpages of users where the account was a harassment account and the username itself reflects the harassment (e.g. incorporates the real name of the person being harassed). Newyorkbrad 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the policy on creating userpages saying indef blocked in the first place? Since your whole raison d'etre appears to be that and it isn't based in policy I guess you'll be stopping? --pgk 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might also like to read wikipedia is not a bureacracy. The project is to build a free npov encyclopedia, not to catalogue each and every idiot who arrives here. --pgk 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notified the deleting admin, since the nominator doesn't appear to have discussed nor informed the admin concerning this issue. --pgk 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion In general, there aren't too many reasons to leave user pages lying around from indef-blocked users. If there are any specific instances where this was not the case (for example, user pages that contain information relevant to current arbitration cases), please list those seperately so that each can be considered on its own merits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions, standard procedure unless there's something that needs to be kept on a particular page. --Coredesat 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (As the deleting administrator:) User pages belonging to sockpuppets, banned users, users blocked following arbitration cases, and sockpuppeteers are not deleted. The only pages deleted are those belonging to run-of-the-mill vandals, whose block and reason is recorded in the block log. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:54:42, 04 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletions, rationale above is sound. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above, and note that I have blocked the nominating single purpose account because the account name violates the username policy. >Radiant< 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; no point in keeping those pages. Tizio 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions, keeping those user pages would be pointless. VegaDark 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, no need to keep a userpage when the block log will suffice. Naconkantari 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zeotrope Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It's not that the close was improper per se, but: the author of the article (User:Definate33) makes the argument that, since the nominator lives in the town where the theater is located, his ability to judge the the importance of the theater beyond the immediate local area is clouded. (Normally this would probably militate in favor of keeping the article, but the converse is also possible.) If the nominator is recused, we don't really have a quorum, nor are any really strong arguments made. I am making this post at the behest of User:Definate33. Herostratus 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Reading the nominator's comments, it is clear to me that if anything the nominator was reluctant to nominate it because of the local connection. Rather than considering the nominator's judgment clouded, it appears to me that the nominator deserves credit for rising above parochial concerns and making a clear and policy-based nomination. Neither the article, the deletion discussion nor this review have uncovered any evidence to suggest that this theater met Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there is no such thing as quorum on AFD. >Radiant< 12:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bigger issue here is that when this original article was posted and voted for deletion, it was written in an unencyclopedic tonem biasedly in favor of supporters of this theater. After further research on the requirements outlined on wikipedia, the author (yours truly) rewrote the article with a more encyclopedic nature and an unbiased tone. Unfortunately, when it was reposted, the article was deleted for being a "repost" even though it was not a repost. In fact, I believe the repost had the title "Zeotrope Theatre" rather than "Zeotrope Theater" and was posted only 1-2 days ago. It is not fair to make a judgement based on the old version. That said, I plan to rewrite and repost the article with an emphasis on relating it to more regional, national, and international subjects to solidify its relevance for you. I am only trying to help Wikipedia. Lastly, the closing of this theater was extremely controversial in town, and it is likely that regardless of the nominator's claim of sadness, he/she was amongst those in favor of its closing. In conclusion, when I repost this, the article will be different in nature and will clearly show the significance of the theater and also easily meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Please judge the repost based on its REVISED content rather than its original content. Thank you, and have a nice day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Definate33 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. An attempt to overturn a valid AfD decision on a "technicality" by noting that the nominator may have in some way been influenced by the fact he lives near the theater in question is a case of Wikilawyering gone bad. It was a good faith nomination, and if the nom is in good faith then how "clouded" the nominator's judgement may have been is irrelevant to to the discussion. If the original author feels that an encyclopedic article can be written on the subject, there is nothing to prevent that from being done - the name is not protected and there is nothing preventing re-creation, so long as the content was substantially different. Perhaps a better suggestion is to write it in userspace and then seek comment as to whether or not it should be moved to namespace. In any case, the AfD was clean and consensus was clear. No reason to overturn. Arkyan • (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Frivolous nomination. I can't find evidence of a G4 deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reposted content and the G4 deletion were at the title Zeotrope theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (variant spelling and capitalization). While not word-for-word identical with the AFD-deleted version, the changes were minor - primarily corrections to tone, not changes to content. No sources were offered in the revised version. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, we're discussing the AfD decision here. Fixed your link to give the deletion history. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In ANY case, all I'm asking at this point is that when I repost the article within 1-2 weeks, you will reread the content rather than immediately dismiss it as a "repost." I will have a new article with an emphasis on the significance of the theatre locally, regionally, nationally and maybe even internationally. I will have legitimate sources to back up the information, and the article will be quite encyclopedic in nature. I will post it under the exact title: "Zeotrope Theatre" (capitalization difference). Please judge the new one as an entirely new article. It will be posted by my username. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your opinion of my new article. definate33
          • Are you withdrawing the DRV request? No one here can guarantee that no admin will perceive it as a repost, if that happens and after discussing with the deleting admin to try and resolve it, that's when DRV can review it. --pgk 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsevalid AfD, the article was written in conversational, not encyclopaedic tone, contained hyperbole and did not contain evidence of notability. If reposted without non-trivial independent sources then it may be deleted again as WP:CSD#A7, or WP:CSD#G4 i fit is substantially similar. I recommend that rather than keep reposting it, as he evidently intends, the author work a new article up in user space and bring that here. Repeatedly re-creating deleted articles is a bad idea. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kelvin Kwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Decision to delete rested on two votes made before the article was improved, and two more votes which discounted the Chinese sources on the grounds that the voters could not read them.[3] Lack of English-language sources is not a valid reason for article deletion; plenty of notable things are only written about peripherally in English (for example, Japan's highest-ranking Korean WWII general). The only policy statement in this regard is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in_languages other than English, which merely recommends that English sources be used rather than foreign language sources where English sources of equal quality are available. In this case, they are not; the policy requirement is for multiple sources, not for multiple English sources.

The article established notability by means of citations from six Chinese newspaper articles (Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Sina.com Taiwan version, as well as a mainland newspaper) which covered the subject non-trivially; almost all content was WP:ATT to those sources. An English-language citation from China Central Television was also provided pointing out that his duet with Alan Tam was ranked as 4th most popular duet in China; this proved that the subject of the article met WP:MUSIC criteria #1, "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." cab 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added information: Some pointers to more discussions on the topic of non-English references. General consensus seems to change every time.

Thanks, cab 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Closer's comment) Endorse Deletion. I said the following to User:CaliforniaAliBaba on his talkpage:
    I closed it as delete as the lack of multiple English sources for the article. While I do not discredit the existing sources, they are not available to our English speakers (which, this being the English wikipedia, make up the majority of us). You are more than welcome to take this to Deletion Review, but as it stands right now, I'm standing by my decision. ^demon[omg plz] 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see relevent Google searches for 關楚耀 (the Chinese name of the subject): Google News [4], Google [5] (77k GHits). cab 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to make a centralized decision on whether or not foreign language sources are enough. Many people seem to think they aren't. -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Languages other than English are perfectly valid sources, specially when there are no English sources available. The decission is made long ago, you can reopen the discussion if you wish but while this policy exists, you should abide to it. Anyhow "foreign languages" is POV: English is the international language of our time and hence it may be a "foreign language" to many en.wikipedia editors, as it's my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugaar (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn sourced article, no consensus to delete. English language sources are preferred but by no means mandated. We have enough Mandarin speakers to check the veracity of the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that every article must be functionally verifiable by the average reader who has an interest in following up on the topic. In situations like this, I generally defer to the expertise of the Wikipedia project in the native language. Editors of that project have both knowledge and access to sources to determine whether a verifiable article can be written and sustained on the subject. In this case, the Chinese Wikipedia has an article on this person but it's a one-line stub. (A BabelFish translation of that stub turns up no real supporting evidence one way or the other.) That's not really enough to base an article upon and doesn't successfully verify the claims that were made in the english version. Since I as a reader can't verify the content by trusting my Chinese Wikipedian counterparts, I have to find some way to verify the content myself. For pop-culture topics when the only sources available are foreign-language sources and when we are unable to independently confirm the translations (as appears to be the case here), then the sources are not functionally verifiable by the future reader of the english article. My recommendation is that you work on the Chinese Wikipedia article. If you can convince editors of that project that the subject is notable and that the coverage is fully verifiable, then bring a translation of the stable version of that article back here. Rossami (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, we don't require every reader to be able to verify immediately. We allow articles based on paper-only sources, or pay-only journals. Anyone can learn chinese or find a chinese translator and check the chinese-language sources, just like anyone can pay for a lexis-nexis subscription or head to their local library to verify some other obscure article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, the idea of developing the article over on zhwiki and then porting it over to enwiki in one fell swoop to me seems even less transparent and verifiable. At least if an article citing foreign language sources is built up organically on enwiki, you can see and understand the past contributions of the editors to the article, to tell whether they're reliable Wikipedians or just a bunch of POV warriors. But if you can't read Chinese, you really can't do the same kind of vetting of the zhwiki editors. cab 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the version of this article on Chinese WP is very small is not justification or critiera to delete. Many articles on Chinese WP are very under-developed, and more importantly, English WP has more than 10 times the number of articles than Chinese WP. The reverse action would seem to be logical - that the Chinese version of this article needs expansion and referencing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see where WP:V mentions "functionally verifiable". They do mention a preference for English sources when available but that's it. As for translating the zh-article, I don't quite see how this helps in making the article verifiable by your standards. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, was deleted due to a lack of notability, as demonstrated by a lack of multiple independent sources. This reasoning is patently false as these sources do exist. WP:ATT states: "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found". You can't just ignore most of the world when they decide to write about things in languages other than English. - Bobet 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal but benefit of the doubt. I feel comfortable where the identified in-depth sources are non-English as long as there's some sort of toehold to confirm notability without translation. Getting towards NPOV in a spectrum of subjects often needs using a mix of language sources. This subject at least has a song in a "best recent songs" compilation CD that's described briefly in English[6]. It's not 100% clear just from that this new artist is notable, but I'd lean towards benefit of the doubt. Expansion of the article needs reliable translations as sources, and Rossami's right with one suggestion. VSerrata 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or overturn. I've always been under the impression that foreign-language sources are okay if English-language sources cannot be found, and it appears that the policy backs that up. This was marginal and could have gone either way, but I personally don't see enough discussion there to warrant a delete close; I personally would have {{relist}}ed it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I have not been involved in discussions about using non-English sources, but I would say the idea that the subject of an article must be notable specifically in the English-speaking world is a great example of WP:BIAS. Plus, I'm not aware of any policies which state this as a criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humm. Situations like this are problematic in that by and large the editors who are reviewing an article up for deletion are unable to determine whether or not a source is actually applicable. There ought to be some recourse to take, such as asking for comment from some of our users who do speak the language as to whether the source has anything to do with the subject or not - but the editors cannot be expected to accept a source without at least some verification of it. It's important to WP:AGF and assume people aren't going to put improper sources in an article, but when the issue is contentious and the factual nature of the encyclopedia is called in to question I think the need to verify trumps that assumption. I suggest relisting this on AfD and seeking input from users who can verify whether or not the articles in question are indeed applicable. Arkyan • (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input. In fact, I think we already have an ad-hoc mechanism to request verification from editors who speak the language in question --- Deletion sorting. In this case, it seems to have worked precisely as what you're requesting: I added sources to the article and delsorted the AfD debate; later, HongQiGong (a WikiProject HK member) came along, presumably also read the sources, and voted "Keep" too. cab 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is good to know. Perhaps for future reference, when an editor reviews an article for deletion and deems it worthy of a keep, and in part of that process they are reading sources in a language that the rest of us cannot get to, it might be helpful to the rest of the editors involved (as well as the closing admin) to disclose the fact that they are a speaker of the language in question and have read the sources of the article and can verify them, rather than simply assert notability. This way when I see someone say "Keep, I speak this language and read the articles and I can verify that they establish notability for the subject" it is far more useful to the discussion than "Keep, subject is notable and referenced". Arkyan • (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benefit of the doubt overturn The fact is that Verifiable does not necessarily mean verifiable by anyone who speaks basic English. For instance, many math-heavy articles are based on sources that are in books that most Wikipedia readers do not have access to and in any case are too technical to be understood by the average reader even though they're in English. This of course is not a problem because a significant part of the readership for these articles actually have the background necessary to assess the validity of the sources. I trust it that we have a significant enough portion of Chinese-speaking readers to verify the validity of the sources and if they are satisfied with these sources, I'm more than happy to take their word for it. It's also reasonable to assume that a significant portion of readers of an article about Kelvin Kwan will know enough Chinese to check the sources. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from the comments of other AfD voters and the closing admin, I think they felt that the failure was more in WP:N ("No English coverage = non-notable") rather than WP:V (the article didn't make any particularly contentious claims, and the broad outline of the article --- that he's a Hong Kong singer who did a hit duet with Alan Tam --- was in fact referenced to an English source, the China Central Television article mentioned). Cheers, cab 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn as against policy. Personally, I think there is a good reason for he policy, for a summary of chinese language sources for english language readers can be very helpful. (It is usual to summairze briefly what they say or translate the key passages). There are a large number of eds. at en WP who also read Chinese, and this would be sufficient in case of doubt. The problem adffecs not just pop culture but history and other topics. DGG 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, ofcourse non-english sources are perfectly acceptable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion was unjustified, there's no mandate for english language sources. WilyD 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Suicide_City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted over one year ago because considered not-noteworthy. Evidence included low google-count and artist not being listed at AllMusic. Today google-count is higher and artist is listed at AllMusic. Therefore undeletion should be considered. Tornfalk 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Google hits are news stories from Metal Hammer and BlabberMouth. Their CD is available from Amazon and has been reviewed in the paper version of Metal Edge. They have been a feature in the paper version of Kerrang. JPEGs of the paper articles are available at the band website. Tornfalk 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted unless you can present multiple non-trivial sources. AllMusic is only one source of questionable non-triviality, you need to provide more. --Coredesat 05:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources presented above. Please comment. Tornfalk 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does the above sources qualify as "reliable independent non-trivial" or not? Among them are major publications within their genre. Tornfalk 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

He is a successful recording artist who recently put out an EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, and even though he has explicit lyrics, many other artists on Wikipedia [that aren't deleted/protected] have lyrics that are even more explicit. The fact that his current gender is disregarded and that he is most definitely a transvestite shouldn't stop him from having a Wikipedia page. His fans support his music and how beautiful a mannequin he is. 76.202.163.82 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_3&oldid=1136460769"