Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 5

Arch Coal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a request to have deleted edits in the above article restored. For those unfamiliar with the Arch Coal controversy, it was an article written by a PR firm, albeit a short, reasonable neutral one. This was deleted by Jimbo and then upped onto DRV here. During the course of the DRV, the article evolved and was endorsed.

A few days ago, User:JzG deleted the original version of the article, claiming that he had written the article from scratch, with nothing based on the original. This is unlikely, you can compare the versions here and here. This deletion is a violation of the GFDL, indeed, if MyWikiBiz hadn't written the original article, I doubt we'd have one here at all.

Although I took part in the original DRV, I only came across this by fluke on Jimbo's talk page. This is being discussed off-wiki on a forum I am unfamiliar with - http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=386#Post386. On there you'll see JzG's adamant claim that he created the article from scratch slowly water down to "I can't remember in that much detail". In that case, why was the original reversion deleted? After 18 months? Why dig this up? Of what possible benefit was the deletion? If you're unsure, would it not be wise to err on the side of caution and keep the GFDL intact? This should be a simple restore and closure, and this issue will disappear. - hahnchen 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that this discussion should appear under January 6. I'm unfamiliar with the date switching protocol at DRV. - hahnchen 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well I see one sentence which is common between the two: "Arch Mineral Corporation was founded 1969 as a partnership between Ashland Oil (now Ashland, Inc.) and the Hunt family of Dallas, Texas". Which is in itself a fairly bald statement of facts. Is that what you were referring to by "This deletion is a violation of the GFDL"? Or is there something else? --Stormie (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused. How can a deletion violate GFDL? Corvus cornix_talk 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ballet Fantastique (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Ballet Fantastique page I was working on was deleted due to notability, but in the notability guidelines for small non-commercial orgs; there is nothing in that section that indicates a requirement for 'state-wide' coverage. The page is currently protected from being recreated and the reason given is "deprecating protected titles." I am new to Wikipedia and did do some things the wrong way, but I am learning, and want to work with administrators to get this page posted. The page I wish to post can be viewed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smooshette/Ballet_Fantastique. If you have comments about the quality of the page, please be specific in your reasons you would not want it to exist. There was not significant discussion about the page before it was deleted. --Smooshette (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked the deleting and protecting admins why they did it, before coming here? Corvus cornix_talk 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed at Editor Assistance; I recommended that a rewrite be brought here for discussion. I'm still a little iffy on the notability of the subject myself, but not enough to be more than neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unsalt and allow recreation. Looking at the proposed version, I can't see any reasons why it would be immediately deleted or why we shouldn't have an article on the subject. It needs copyediting for style, and I am also a bit iffy on the notability issue, but I can't see that there is consensus that the subject lacks notability. Citations for the existing references would be nice, but that shouldn't be that difficult to fix.
  Note: I can't tell why the page was protected from the logs, so that information may change my mind. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unsalt and allow recreation. It's a notable company, being the most significant chamber ballet between Portland and northern California; Eugene-Springfield is a large area and it's received coverage in the major media outlets in the vicinity. This one isn't really even borderline. Cultural institutions of this level of local significance need articles. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation originally speedy deleted three times. two of them dubious, and once altogether incorrect. once as spam, when it was still just a stub one hour after creation. A second time again as spam; borderline, but it contained a core of usable material. The third time as A7, despite clear assertions of notability--and good references. A persistent attempt to write a decent article, hampered by unreasonable use of speedy.DGG (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Unsalt and permit recreation - per above. Anchoress (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So, it seems like the admin reply is that I can recreate the article. What citations should I add and what style issues are there? If you could suggest changes to this page before I make them, that would be great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smooshette/Ballet_Fantastique. Thank you for your help support, and I will check back for your advice. --71.193.221.117 (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Zayda Peña (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV)

Jose Luis Aquino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I remember when this was in the news. I decided to check out the wiki article. I found that there was none, only an ugly afd in which an admin, User:Tijuana Brass, went against consensus and deleted the article anyway. According to the deleting admin:

...the subject's individual notability is based on two things: his band (in which case, they should have an article) and his death (which is part of a greater issue that may very well merit an article itself). Content on Aquino would fit well into articles on either, but alone, he does not appear to be of sufficient encyclopedic importance.

Maybe he himself is not notable, but maybe he is, depending on the success of the band. In any case, the subject's death should certainly be documented, as it drove fear into the hearts of singers who have nothing to do with the narcos, thinking that even they can get killed. The main cause for deletion was that it looked too much like a memorial. According to User:WhisperToMe, who seems to be a respectable admin, it wasn't. Another case seems to be the fact that User:Kitia, an indef-blocked user, created the page and had a suspected sock votestack. Even though, according to Kitia, that was just someone who used his computer, so Kitia's indef block on the regard may not be valid. Also, some people think that this falls in the limits of WP:BIO1E. That specifically says:

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.

Notice my highlighting. This was not some "relatively unimportant crime" it was a crime that, as I said before, drove fear into the hearts of singers who have nothing to do with the narcos, thinking that even they can get killed. But then again, it goes on to say:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

It did only cover Pena after her death, but the sources I found told info about her before her death. Granted, most of that only covers her role in her band of which there is no article. So, to satisfy the closing admin, we could undelete this article and redirect it to the band. There would be cleanup in hand, that's a given, but I would undertake that personally myself if others won't. In any case, Wikipedia is lacking without the info.

I am also nominating

• Jose Luis Aquino

for exactly the same reason.

Editorofthewiki (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Nothing has changed and no new evidence has been presented since the last time this was considered for deletion review (here). Rossami (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't notice that one. :) Anyway, I suggested that we undelete the article and turn it into one on the band, which was suggested there. Tijuana Brass did go against consensus, and mostly only the delete voters participated in that one. Including you. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions as before, serial DRVs are often seen as disruptive. The bringer of this one apparently didn't know about the prior one; now he or she does, I expect him or her to withdraw this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, in that one it was stated that we could create one on the band, of which nothing happened. I suggest we recreate the article, redirect to the band, and clean up. Please, before making up your mind, see my reasoning. Editorofthewiki (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I recommend creating an article on the band, in which case the articles can be restored and redirected to the band article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh... that was my idea in the first place. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yet you haven't bothered to attempt to create an article on the band. You are stretching our ability to assume good faith. I must also note that given the sockpuppetry concerns that were exposed the last time this came up, your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and of technical tricks like the transclusions on your userpage are remarkably sophisticated for an editor whose very first edit was only 6 days ago. Rossami (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • [post-closure comment] "Uh... that was my idea in the first place." ← {{sofixit}}. DRV is certainly not the place to demand that other articles be written to replace to ones deleted. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Winecoff Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted because article had copyvio; new article wirhout copyvio has replaced it.  –radiojon (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This isn't as much of a deletion review as much as it is a clarification. The reason given for deletion was consensus is that notability has not been established by enough significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm having a hard time understanding the wording. The sources given were reliable, and the coverage I think was significant enough. Also there were other reasons for the site's notability than just how many third-party sources have written about it, such as the high recognition it has received from both Harmonix and Neversoft and the custom song scene. I don't care that the article isn't there (it would be nice though), but I'm confused with specifically why it isn't. Could someone, preferrably Davewild, state why the reasons for notability aren't significant, one by one? Thanks in advance. Machchunk | make some noise at me 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you link to some of these sources? Nobody bothered to bring any of them up in the AfD discussion; posting them there could've swayed the discussion as a keep if they were acceptable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They're in the cache and the talk page, from what I can see.--Machchunk | make some noise at me 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at them and quite frankly, I wish could say they acceptable; all of the non-video sources are reliable, but none of them have ScoreHero as the main subject of the article, which is what is defines "significant coverage". The sources closest to being signifcant coverage are the Gamespot and Kotaku articles about Harmonix donating money to the site, and those focus more on what Harmonix did than who they donated to. The remaining sources either make a mere mention of the site or don't mention them at all. Is there a published article or piece that goes into some more detail about the site, it's history and significance to the Guitar Hero fanbase? For now, though, I'm going to have to endorse the deletion, although if you can come up with a source with significant coverage, I would be willing to change my opinion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion nothing close to significant coverage in reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me what makes the sources non reliable? Plerrius (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that all of the sources are unreliable; the problem is that the coverage they give Score Hero isn't significant. Scorehero doesn't get more than a single mention in any of them. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per NCX. We need non-trivial reliable sources for a reason: what's in the sources needs to actually support the whole content of the article. If there's nothing in the sources to support an article, there's no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)