Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 9

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

9 October 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page below.

The consensus is clearly that these articles should be undeleted, and that any problems with them should be dealt with individually through other processes, for example cleanup, merging, or AfD.

There is clearly further debate to be had on user:Improv's actions and interpreation of policy. Deletion review is not the place for this discussion.

If anyone objects to this closure, please bring it up on my talk page in the first instance. Thryduulf 14:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Food products deleted under G11

Curly Wurly, Nilla Wafers, Pepperidge Farm, Famous Amos, Taxi (candy), List of Nestlé brands, Arnott's Biscuits Holdings, Passion Pop, Dynamic Images Whippet cookie, Wagon Wheels (biscuit), Toll House, Tiny Teddy, Tim Tam, Teddy Grahams, Tagalongs, Taxi (chocolate), Penguin biscuit, Nutter Butter, Milano (cookie), Image:Teddygrahams.jpg, Image:Tiny Teddy.JPG, Nilla, Maryland Cookies, Magic middles, Iced Vovo, Hydrox, HobNob, Hello Panda, Dunk-a-roos, Duberry cookies, Chips Deluxe, Chips Ahoy!, Choco Leibniz, Brussels cookies, Image:Brusselscookies1.jpg, Breakaway (food), Anna's Swedish Thins, Pirouline, Image:Iced vovos.jpg

The above were all speedied by User:Improv under the new G11 speedy deletion criteria. None of these, of course, were actually adverts, but rather articles on highly notable products. They should all be overturned and restored. Feel free to break this nomination apart if the group nomination is a bad idea, but please don't remove ones that may have been recreated, a definitive answer would be beneficial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. I believe that the discussion on the foundation-l mailing list that led to the creation of the new criteria makes it clear why these are inappropriate. Despite being common household items, there's nothing about these that makes them noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia - to the contrary, they're included purely as a product listing. --Improv 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• KD I completely agree. This is not a place for every brand name product under the sun. Eusebeus 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So why have WP:CORP? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I've had a look at some of these (I haven't time at the moment to check all), but in the ones I've seen there has not been a single one that I would delete as spam. None I saw were just a product listing or advertising - some were poor articles and required cleanup, but that is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question Is there a difference between articles about products, and articles about companies? I just noticed that Pepperidge Farm in particular is about a company, and should thus be evaluated in terms of WP:CORP, if I'm not mistaken. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, WP:CORP would be the standard, if only because I don't know of a more specific one. All of these would easily meet that standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD. There is clearly an encyclopedic purpose for retaining these articles. They do not seem to be advertising, and there is certainly no reason to speedy delete these articles. If you feel that they should be deleted, send the articles in question to AFD. If deletions of this nature persist, clearly CSD:G11 will need to be rescinded. It is only meant to be used in cases where there is clearly no encyclopedic value in retaining the content - in this case that does not appear to be true. --71.36.251.182 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• A blanket vote for all of this is inappropriate, because I think articles such as Famous Amos or Pepperidge Farm should be separated out as clearly not speedy deletable, as these included a history of the company and are about a product line or company rather than a specific product. At the other end, and justifiably deleted under G11 in my opinion, are articles such as "Passion Pop" or "Nutter Butter", which at their last edit had no more content than a basic product description: "Nutter Butter cookies are a product of Nabisco. They consist of two wheat-based, peanut-shaped cookies with a peanut butter-flavored creme center." Nothing you couldn't learn from seeing the product in the store, and so really no more informative than an advertisement would be. Maybe individual products should just be redirected to the article on their parent company or product line, but if it's nothing more than a basic physical description and/or ingredient list, I say delete away. But I guess if I must vote simply, overturn and send to AFD for individual article-by-article consideration (no group listing). Postdlf 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, per GTBacchus, all company articles should just be restored; all product articles restored and sent to AFD for individual consideration. Postdlf 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Generally this went too far, but probably some of these should remain deleted. Others should be merged, e.g. Milano and Brussels can just be mentioned in the Pepperidge Farm article. (They wouldn't even need a redirect, just a link on the related DAB page.) However, some of the topics, like Pepperidge Farm, definitely have enough material to support an article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD per above, too many of these were deleted in appropriately. I think they should be listed seperatly in AfD and their merits judged there. Pepperidge Farm ... I mean come on, its obviously notable, when was the last time you managed to avoid buying those tasty cookies ... *drools* ... no but its obvious this blanket attempt stirred trouble and should be reconsidered on an individual basis. --NuclearZer0 18:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The cookies may be tasty, but is there anything encyclopedic to say about them? If not, then at most we'll ever have a dressed-up product listing about them. I believe this to be the intent of G11 - to prevent that kind of stuff. --Improv 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • EBSCOhost gives a few hundred results, same for LexisNexis. Even presuming that most of these are trivial there is very likely a good base for an article. It could possibly do without the complete list of brands, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD - The real issue is that G11 was apparently so unclear as to lead a respected member of the admin community to implement a deletion sequence that does not appear to serve the best interests of the project. The contention being shown here is clear indication that CSD is not applicable to these specific issues, and a seperate effort to improve the wording of the G11 criteria is underway. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and individually AfD. Some were clearly notable products, others probably merited deletion. All of them will require individual consideration. --tjstrf 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and possibly list some to AfD I don't know how anybody can think that Chips Ahoy! has no encyclopedic potential. (As for the value of the article, well it's hard to tell since the article has been deleted.) I don't think he actually did but Andy Warhol could very well have painted Chips Ahoy! instead of Campbell soups. This is clearly a notable if somewhat trivial subject. Now I won't argue that these articles tend to be on the spammish side but then the {{advert}} tag will do. I happen to think that G11 is an important CSD criterion to have. But it seems that all the worries of those who saw it as a criterion likely to be abused were right. It also very much bothers me to see Improv justify his actions by invoking a mailing list debate that most of the community did not see. This is an unfortunate case of an admin abusing his powers. Did you really, really, in all honesty think that the deletion of Chips Ahoy! was an uncontroversial one? Pascal.Tesson 20:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I don't think this is an abuse situation, I just think it's a poorly written CSD criteria. I'm certain Improve is acting in good faith, my hope is that we can undelete the content _and_ fix the wording of the relevant policy to help avoid something like this from happening again. Abuse is a strong word to throw around, I urge levelheadedness and assumption of good faith here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well ok, I may be overreacting and you're right that I should assume good faith. So apologies to Improv if I was out of line. So let me restate my point without the agression: this is a very unfortunate case in which the new criterion is being used carelessly. I think even most editors would consider it unreasonnable to apply a PROD tag to articles about things like Chips Ahoy! or Pepperidge Farm because everyone who has been around AfD instinctively knows that, no matter what the result would be, such a deletion would not be uncontroversial. CSD should be used for things even less controversial than PROD and I'm sure everyone agrees with that. Admins like Improv should know better, especially when using a brand new criterion that many see as being somewhat suspect and a bit too deletionist-friendly. The result is that this debate will now appear in deletion review, a page that pretty much no one visits and people going to the Chips Ahoy! page will just see an empty page notice and no link to this debate where they could give their input. Pascal.Tesson 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Overturn all What in the world? There's a lot of notable stuff in here! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. These require more detailed consideration. A lot should be merged and redirected to articles on foo brands - you won't convince me that the Curly Wurly article stood much chance of expansion beyond a para or two, and that's one I know pretty well, Cadbury-Schweppes is notable, its products have a degree of cultural significance, but very few confectionery products meet the exalted status of the Mars bar, used as an economic benchmark. By hob-nob is a British slang term and an event of cataclysmic importance has recently been announced: the dropping of the plain chocolate hobnob, the ultimate blend of oaty goodness and dark chocolate indulgence. Oh, did I get carried away there? Anyway; these need to be considered on a case by case basis. Guy 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've speedy-undeleted everything that is clearly (to me) a notable topic. This should not be taken as exhaustive, but it's a start. Phil Sandifer 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all and if any have major problems they can be AfDed individually. Spam is a huge problem, yes, but the vast majority of actual wikispam relates to websites and such. I highly doubt companies like Nabisco are trying to use Wikipedia to sell cookies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I went ahead and speedy-undeleted Hello Panda due to the clear fact that it wasn't spam, had been around since 2004 and the original editor has a rich and varied contribution history. Likely most (all?) of the rest are similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletions and consider individually. The ones I've spot-checked do not appear to have been created with commercial intent. Rossami (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete all and send to AFD as needed. This is ridiculous. WP never fails to amaze me. Turnstep 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kendal mint cake with chocolate coating

• Overturn all, undelete all. Beyond the fact that most (if not all) of these appear to have been created in good faith by those with no intention of creating spam for the individual product, there's something that I don't think has been considered here yet: This is a worldwide encyclopedia, and people from one part of the world regularly come here looking for information on some strange product from another part of the world. A person in the United States may notice an article about Nutter Butters and think, "Oh, this is just silly", but do they make Nutter Butters in India? Maybe someone in Sweden saw a reference to Nutter Butters in an American magazine and came to Wikipedia to try to find out just what the hell they are. (A classic example of this sort of cultural divide came in the early '80s when Men at Work hit it big with their song "Down Under". When Colin Hay sang the line "He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich," untold millions of Americans were left asking, "Vege-what? What is he saying?" If Wikipedia had existed then, most people could have gotten an answer in seconds.) In fact, I think we have too few of these sorts of articles on Wikipedia. Many of you here can probably quote much of the Young Ones episode "Bambi" by heart. I certainly can; I first saw it in 1984, and have watched it dozens of times since. You know when I first learned that the name "Kendal Mintcake" is taken from the name of an actual product]? Somewhere around 2004 while reading something online. And not something on Wikipedia, because there was no Kendal Mint Cake article yet (though there's now a small section on the Kendal page (see Kendal#Kendal_mint_cake), and it took me forever to find). Pop culture is still culture! Bring on the food! ---Aaron 00:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, google can be used for stuff like this. We shouldn't be trying to be a product directory, nor to replace the entire web -- we're an encyclopedia, nothing more. --Improv 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I find this to be a very disconcerting discourse for an admin. Whatever happened to your responsibility of reflecting consensus? You're imposing your vision of Wikipedia on editors who trust you to respect the choices made by the community. Your reaction should not be "I was right all the way". Pascal.Tesson 02:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding of the role of admins. Our primary role is to uphold the policies of the project, not to reflect community consensus. Wikipedia is only consensus-driven to the extent that it makes sense for the project, and if consensus points one way and core project goals/policy point the other, we must go with the project goals/policy - any admin who does otherwise is neglecting their duty to the project. --Improv 05:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're clouding the issue - you haven't attempted to demonstrate how your actions were upholding core goals/policy. You chose to interpret a guideline very broadly, and used the most extreme method to deal with what you perceived as problems with the articles without discussion. Many of these articles have been around for a long time, and most of these products have cultural significance - please show some respect for the community (and the encyclopaedia) and discuss your intentions in future. Natgoo 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

These articles have been there forever. Did you ever send them to AfD and made your case that these articles were detrimental to the project? No. Then G11 comes along and you go on a deletion rampage. Look at this debate: do you really think that the avalanche of undelete opinions are coming from people who misunderstand the core goals and policy? Yet you seem unphased and still justify your actions by a mailing list discussion. If you are not ready to recognize your mistakes and if you believe that you somehow have a better understanding of the core goals and policies of the project than everybody else then maybe it's time for you to step down as an admin. Pascal.Tesson 10:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not send them to AfD because AfD is a bit broken. It's not unprecedented for new deletion policy to come through CSD, especially when it's something for the good of the project but bound to be unpopular initially. The CSD for inflammatory/divisive userboxen came through this way. G11 was intended to allow for precisely this kind of thing, as Danny illustrated, and the mailing list of the Wikimedia foundation can be used to illustrate this. Again, I don't feel that I've made a mistake (and you've failed to convince me otherwise so far), and as I've been on the project since 2002, working with and discussing policy for much of that time and I actually follow foundation lists (like Danny and several others), and many of the people here have been on it, like yourself, for just a few months, I would suggest that it gives me extra perspective on these things. I'm not trying to invoke seniority, I'm just saying that I've had a *lot* more time to think about these things and am probably better informed than most people in this discussion about what policy and goals of the project are. Policy is not simply a poll of what a bunch of people, mostly new folk, think it is. As is repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and more than that, it's an encyclopedia before it is a community. Sometimes rules come down from above, and sometimes the community (especially new members) takes some time to understand why. I didn't make G11 - it came from discussions on foundation-l, and I am interpreting it in the way that I think it was meant to be interpreted. If you think I'm interpreting it incorrectly, you can go look to see where it came from and we'll discuss that - you might even convince me. Assertions that I'm "obviously wrong", especially when they're based on disagreeing with what you think, are not helpful. Remember as well that it's nothing personal - I expect and hope to be interacting in a more pleasant way once all this is over. Take care. --Improv 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Improv, I'm an admin too, and my read on the G11 discussion is markedly different from yours. Community and admin consensus does not support your interpretation of the rule. What steps are required to attain your understanding of this? Shall we discuss this on AN/I? If so, will you accept admin consensus there? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Improv, note that you are invoking seniority or, even worse, superiority of understanding and dedication to Wikipedia. Again, this is unacceptable conduct for an admin. Almost all people involved in this debate have been active Wikipedians for over a year (I'm the exception rather than the rule here) and are routinely in what you call the "broken process" of AfD, in the construction of content guidelines and policies, even in the discussion which involved the creation of G11. Pascal.Tesson 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The type of seniority I'm not trying to invoke here is the simple "I've been around here longer and I expect to get my way purely for that reason". Instead, I think people should pay attention to my reasoning because as stated, I've had more time to think about policy and I have been reading the relevant list that inspired this CSD. Look at what Danny has written in the CSD for fleshlight - I'm not standing alone on this matter. I don't think that that counts as seniority (any more than listening to an older, more experienced friend's hopefully good advice is) Taking stands that one believes is right for the project, even if they're unpopular, is what we should expect of any admin or longtime community member. Admins who would never do this are neglecting their duty to the project. You can call it unacceptable, but I simply disagree. I haven't seen any arguments as to why I'm wrong, nor even the indication that people have even read the mailing list conversation that led to the new CSD. A good argument could possibly convince me otherwise - go make it! I again stress that I'm not pissed at anyone over this, nor am I taking names. I'm a bit disappointed at the direction of this conversation, but I expect once all this is over, we'll all return to productive editing and hopefully not bear any grudges. --Improv 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Improv, can you please furnish us all with a link to this foundation-l discussion you are continually citing? I was pretty sure I've read it, but given your vastly different interpretation I have no idea if we're reading the same thing! I'd also like to see, if possible, examples of any other admins (other than Danny) enacting G11 as you have. From what I've seen, there has been pretty overwhelming reaction against your mass deletion on various AfDs, the Village Pump (policy), WP:CSD, Deletion Review and your talk page from "new folk", admins and veterans alike. I've also seen plenty of good arguments against what you've done, which you have simply dismissed out of hand. People, I don't think this discussion is appropriate for WP:DR any more - most of the articles/images have been restored, and this is becoming a discussion about one editor's actions. --Canley 13:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Me? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not! I thought it was clear I was replying once again to Improv, sorry if I misled you to think otherwise. I've fixed the indent and added a word in the hopes of avoiding future ambiguity. Pascal.Tesson 13:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By "AfD is broken" in this case, do you mean that you knew full well that there's no chance they'd actually be deleted, thus the need for a CSD end-around? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. There's always a chance that the community will interpret things in a good way, but it's not a sure thing, and decisions from above occasionally come down through CSD. This is not unprecedented, and has been used in the past to get people used to unpopular but right-for-the-encyclopedia cleanups. Jimbo's initial addition of the userbox CSD was an example of this.

"Google can be used" to find 80% of the stuff on Wikipedia. --Aaron 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Restore all and cleanup/AfD/prod. I came across this situation when Tim Tam appeared on AfD after being restored from speedy deletion, and in my opinion Improv, with good intentions I'm sure, has gone way too far by speedy deleting so many product articles. My main objection to these actions is that there seems to be no consensus involved - the articles are being deleted under G11 with no chance of discussion or improvement - not even to tag them for G11 and allow another admin to review the case and agree/disagree. Improv, you seem to be saying above that people who disagree with your actions disagree with the principle of G11 and the foundation-l discussion which spawned it, or citing nitpicky technicalities to slow down the process - that's not the case, I certainly agree G11 is needed, but I think your interpretation of it is flawed, borderline disruptive, fails to take into account regional, historical and cultural significance, and fails to take into account the number of amendments and editors who have worked on the article. You've even protected articles like Wagon Wheel (biscuit) as if creation or re-creation of such an article is some kind of heinous vandalism. I agree with the deletion of some of the articles via appropriate processes (such as prod or AfD) and, but to speedy delete them without discussion is wrong. There are thousands of more deserving, clearly spam articles created with obvious commercial intent on WP:WWF which I don't think anyone would miss, and they are what we should be focusing our energies on, and what I'm sure G11 was intended to apply to - not poorly-referenced product descriptions which can be tagged as needing references or merged (some of the articles restored are now quite well referenced, or could be merged into company pages). --Canley 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• AfD please. These decisions require consensus. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Afd some Speedy Restore some (looks like already inprogress). Note, I've stuck Image:Tinyteddy.jpg, as there was no such file here, and speedy restored Image:Teddygrahams.jpg as the pd-self license appears valid, WP:IFD it if destired. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That was my error, I transposed the wrong one. I've replaced it with Image:Tiny Teddy.JPG. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Restore all. It would be blatant advertising if these articles were full of praiseful language and flowery terms, but every one I've looked at had simple descriptions of already popular products. They could use some sourcing and cleanup, but they're hardly spam or ads. This needs a consensus to decided what to do, whether to leave them, merge them into lists of a company's products, or to delete them altogether. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Restore all. Many if not most of these products are notable and require discussion on AfD before deletion should be considered. Yamaguchi先生 07:04, 10 October 2006
• Restore all, and what Canley said. Wholesale speedy deletion without discussion was totally inappropriate in these cases, and indicates an ugly lack of understanding of the needs of the community for an admin. Natgoo 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Laura Bennett, Kayne Gillaspie, Uli Herzner

The three above people are all contestants on Project Runway season 3. On August 28, the articles for Bennett and Gillaspie were put on AfD; Bennett's was kept ("vote", inc. nominator, was 10/3- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura_Bennett) and Gillaspie's was a no consensus ("vote" of 7/4 in favor of keep, inc. nominator's "vote"- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayne Gillaspie). These discussions were closed on September 6 and September 8, respectively, by two different closers. On October 6, User:Alkivar deleted all three articles, citing failure of WP:BIO. I feel that this is an error, especially for the former two articles (Herzner's article was never AfD'd, but as she is one of the final four competitors on a talent-based reality show, there's obviously some claims to notability). I propose restoring all three, leaving Bennett's and Gillaspie's kept as is, and putting Herzner's on AfD to gather a consensus. -- Kicking222 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn all three and restore. We should not be deleting articles speedily that have survived AfD, period. That means that two of them were grossly mishandled. The third should go to AfD as a challenged A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • None of them were validly kept... the first was closed by a non admin who didnt take any account for sockpuppetry (which was obvious) or editors with only 1 edit. The second was kept by no consensus... not a keep, that does not mean it cannot be speedied! These people dont pass even the slightest bit of WP:BIO. They belong in an article on Project Runway sure... but they dont deserve their own articles.  ALKIVAR™ 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's about arguments not vote counts, and if it survives an AfD, it really shouldn't be speedied, it would have been then. No consensus to delete doesn't mean "delete anyway." --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Being a participant, hell being a final 4 finisher on a reality show does not make you a notable person. ANYONE, I repeat, ANYONE can make it on a reality tv show. Not all of them are notable. Do we have articles on EVERY SINGLE PARTICIPANT in American Idol... nope... Making the Band... nope...

To make you happy i'll address them all individually:

Kayne didnt make the final 4, the only claims the Kayne article put forth towards notability were "In December, 2005, he dressed the entire top five teens and the winner and first runner up in the Miss Oklahoma U.S.A. pageant." and the fact that he won an award presented by the design school he was attending... sorry there just wasnt anything there to make him pass our Biography guidelines. Look at it this way... in 2 months will people remember him, sure... in 2 years will people remember him, doubt it.

Uli didnt make a single claim to notability in her article... which I might add was exactly 4 sentances long.

1. "Ulrike "Uli" Herzner (born 23 April 1971) is a German fashion designer, currently living in Miami, Florida."
2. "She is a contestant on the third season of the Bravo network reality television series Project Runway."
3. "Trained as a physical therapist, Herzner eventually decided that she wanted to enter the world of fashion. "
4. "She cites designers Kenzo and Roberto Cavalli as her inspirations."

Please point to me where ANY OF THAT matters? Nothing there even remotely passes the sniff test for WP:BIO.

Laura also didnt make a single claim to notability in her article... hell one entire paragraph was dedicated to her husband basically. Her struggles as a housewife dont make her notable... that was another paragraph. The fact she went to multiple schools and achieved degrees there doesnt make her notable either... not every person with a graudate degree in architecture passes the WP:BIO standard (so scratch paragraph 3). The only thing even remotely close to claiming notability is that she showed during Olympus fashion week... this year alone there were 140 designers presented and not all of them are notable EITHER!

None, I repeat NONE, of these articles made even the briefest attempt at satisfying WP:BIO. They were all valid speedy deletions.  ALKIVAR™ 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your rationale; however, especially in the case of Bennett, you still went against a community consensus that had emerged one month prior. In addition, for Laura and Uli, while you believe that showing their lines at Bryant Park during Fashion Week is not a claim of notability, I disagree on this idea. Of course, like the rest of this discussion, the strength of that claim should be for the entire community, not just you and/or me, to decide. -- Kicking222 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per Alkivar. Eusebeus 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm sick of having this conversation over and over again with each new series of each new "reality" TV programme. The jury is in: these people are absolutely not independently notable without some other claim to fame. And frankly most of them don't even have thisclaim to fame, since after their fifteen minutes are up nobody but their mother remembers them. Guy 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Additional comment From WP:N: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: (first bullet point) Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers." I think I've found enough stories in reliable sources to show that Kayne Gillaspie qualifies under WP:BIO. here is an interview with Entertainment Weekly, here is an interview with Out (magazine), [1] this is an interview from Logo (TV channel) with Kayne and Robert Best, here is a story from The Oklahoman, and I found many other articles from prominent publications tailored to the homosexual community. If nothing else, Kayne has become notable among that (quite large) group of people. I have to leave right now, but I'll try to find some articles pertaining to the other designers sometime soon. -- Kicking222 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn all three - plenty of contrary examples where we have articles on reality stars. Absent an actual consensus to delete or a general consensus against reality stars, deletion is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion and immediately list all three to AFD. Failing to meet the criteria at WP:BIO is grounds for deletion but not for speedy-deletion. The prior discussions, even though they were inconclusive, were sufficient to establish that these are not obvious cases and were not eligible for speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A prior AFD does not mean something cannot be speedied as CSD:A7 "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I can now see at least SOME reason Kayne was a bad judgement call based on Kicking222's post above... but I still have yet to see anything provided for Uli or Laura based on their former article content that shows notability.  ALKIVAR™ 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. I get the idea that few of the above people are at all familiar with the show and understand what it is about, or know what exposure its contestants receive. However, the easiest solution would be to just redirect them to Project Runway (season 3). All of the contestants are already mentioned in that article, and they have no independent notability. None of the deleted articles were so large that they could not be absorbed into that article. Far too many deletion debates are pointless where the real issue is not whether someone or something is notable, but whether it's independently substantial enough to be given independent treatment of its notable parent topic. Postdlf 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn all per Phil Sandifer. This !vote should be taken as evidence that WP:BIO is broken, and I for one am tired of getting into contentious arguments about non-notable goofballs just because they had fifteen minutes of "fame", a two-line blurb in Us Weekly, and a horde of teenyboppers who don't want their latest idol's article deleted (and then who don't even notice when you get the article nuked via a speedy tag 90 days later, since by that point they've moved on to some other idiot). Until we make WP:BIO policy or at least institute some sort of consensus so that temporal notability != permanent notability, we might as well let Wikipedia clog up with articles on every goofball who's ever uploaded one of their home videos to YouTube. --Aaron 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn all, as speedy was clearly inappropriate here. Turnstep 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn all, send to AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletions and list on AfD, the validity of the actions are contested and should be discussed there. Yamaguchi先生 06:53, 10 October 2006

Quasimoto Interactive

Quasimoto Interactive was marked for speedy deletion, yet met none of the requirements for such deletion. I have messaged the administrator in charge of deletion requesting a review. I've heard nothing back from the 16 year old admin. Please review this decision, and I will make whatever changes need to be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphanich (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Tphanich (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.

Comment Deletion log [2]] shows it was deleted under Proposed Deletion after five days, which is not speedy deletion. The deletion tag could have been removed any time in that five days. Note to Tphanich: User:Nishkid64's age is not relevant. More relevant is the fact that you left him a note twelve hours ago and he has not been on in that time. Admins are not necessarily on line 24-hours a day. Fan-1967 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion' and close this debate. This substub is the work of a single purpose account; if this was not self-evidently promotional in intent I'd suggest that rather than wasting time arguing over a single unreferenced pararaph the requestor went and made a proper article, but I don't want to encourage spam. Guy 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, close debate per Guy. Are SPAs even supposed to be participating in DRV? --Aaron 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wouldn't be the first time. . Not even the first time today (see #Z Games below). Based on the fact that this user uploaded the logo that went with the deleted article, it's the same SPA that created the article in the first place. Fan-1967 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ooh, I almost forgot to use my new {{artcreator}} template on this! --Aaron 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Nishkid should know that per WP:PROD, a contested-after-the-fact prod needs to be undeleted and sent to AfD. I am not recommending that, however, b/c I trust Guy who seems to hold it was speedyable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, I apologize for my failure to follow the procedure in this case. I guess I might have missed that, but I will definitely read up on Wikipedia deletion policy to keep my memory fresh. For this article, I deleted the prod after checking the company out on Google, and seeing the "what links here". There were no real links to the article, and I only got a few hundred G-hits, which is why I deleted the article. I acted a bit too hasty in redeleting the article per CSD G4 because I forgot that it only applies to recreation of articles that were deleted by AfD. However, if not per G4, it does probably fall under CSD G11, which is about blatant advertising. Nishkid64 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Google Sightseeing

Page was deleted on September 30th (I think without an Afd?) but has since been re-rewritten with poorer copy at Google Sightseeing. Original grounds for deletion were failing WP:WEB, however website has been well covered in the press (as detailed on the site's own Press Page) and has a high Alexa rank. Please consider for un-deletion. (Shreddies 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

..and deleted again as recreation of speedy deleted content. The site is a blog... period. Its not even a particularly famous one like Drudge Report, Boing Boing, or DailyKOS. Their sole claim to fame is they point out things that Google did... sorry riding google's famous coattails does not make you famous. Keep deleted  ALKIVAR™ 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Send to AfD - failing WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Actually it is now part of CSD:A7. "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The article as deleted made no real claim to its notability.  ALKIVAR™ 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  Endorse outcome but not deletion summary, I strongly recommend mentioning CSD criteria when speedy deleting. CSD A7 is a policy about failing to assert notability, WP:WEB is a set of guidelines about what make a notabile website notable. It is possible to spectacularly fail WP:WEB while not coming under the speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  I dont see how an article on a website can fail WP:WEB, a notability checklist basically, and then still qualify as "asserting notability" as per CSD:A7.  ALKIVAR™ 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  This can happen in a few situations, e.g.

  • The article asserts things that aren't relevant to WP:WEB - e.g. "highest traffic website based in San Marino", "only website about greyhounds in Arabic". These need investigating to see whether they are notable enough - if there are no reliable English-language sources the second might get deleted as unverifiable.
  • by asserting things that are not true
  • the claim isn't as notable as it seems - e.g. if a website claimed it "won four national newspaper 'best website' awards", it would not be A7 speediable, but if it turned out that these awards were a daily feature in the Western Mail then the claim would be true but would fail WP:WEB. Thryduulf 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • To nitpick, I doubt there is only one website about greyhounds in Arabic, and the largest of them would probably be pretty large (if not encyclopaedically notable). Coursing is very popular in Pakistan, and consequently a significant proportion of coursers in the UK are Asian. (Admittedly the main language of Pakistan is Urdu rather than Arabic, but still.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Those were just off the top of my head hypothetical examples. I didn't know about coursing in Pakistan, so thank you for an educational nitpick! Thryduulf 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Speedy Deletion and keep deleted per A7. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, per both A7 and WP:VSCA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion because, frankly, we don't need this junk. Guy 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy A7 per above, and I mean, like, now. Hell, it really ought to get the shiny new G11 Award. --Aaron 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

X Is Loaded

I have written two articles (the first in pained detail) on the band X Is Loaded (called either X Is Loaded or Xisloaded), user name Miffsey, and have found that they have been deleted for no apparent or given reason - I tried carefully to follow your policy. Could you please review this deletion for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miffsey (talk • contribs)

Deletion log: [3]

13:58, 9 October 2006 NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) deleted "X Is Loaded" (a7 content was: 'X Is Loaded*X Is Loaded are a 4-piece rock band from Bath, England.*They consist of:Jake 'Phoenix' Robertson - Lead Vocals, Backing Guitar,...' (and the only contributor was 'Miffsey'))

• Send to afd - the article contained an assertion of notability: "They have released a total of 5 singles, and had one album release, called 'Raw Nerve', on the Music For Nations label." Although it wasn't linked (the article was not wikified), the Music for Nations label, does have an article. Ideally for them to have an article, the singles should have charted etc, but this deserves and AfD hearing. Thryduulf 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD, band articles that assert notability (verifiable or not) don't fall under A7. --Coredesat 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Z Games

The Z Games article was originally deleted due to Z Games not being considered a "notable company." Z Games is, however, quite a popular company, and their products have been downloaded many thousands of times. Here are some reasons of why Z Games is a notable company:

• Z Games has all of its titles either pending or currently featured on Cnet's Download.com and Windows Marketplace.
• Z Games products have been downloaded over 60,000 times. Here is the Z Games company page on Cnet's Download.com: Z Games on Download.com. Please note that 7 of the games are currently considered popular by Cnet.
• The Z Games downloadable "console", PURGAMENTUM, won 2nd prize in the Game Maker Dev contest, which is held by a popular resource site for users of Game Maker. Here is a posting on http://gamemaker-dev.com that lists the winners of the contest: Game Maker Dev Forums.
• Z Games products are highly popular in certain cities where the company has promoted its games.
• Please check the news section of the official Z Games website, http://zgames.sitesled.com, for a more detailed listing of the history and accomplishments of the Z Games company.

There was also concern that the Z Games article was possibly being used as a means of advertising. I do not believe that the article was promotional, but I am willing to adjust it to make the article meet Wikipedia's standards.

Any problems involving advertisement or notability in the past were probably caused by miscommunication or misunderstanding by me. Please consider un-deleteing the Z Games article, and I will work with you to make the article satisfactory.

Thanks. ZGames

• AFD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Games Delete 4 July 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Games (2nd nomination) Speedy Delete csd g4 18 July 2006

• Keep deleted.
  • Being listed on Cnet doesn't mean anything about notability. If Wikipedia listed every Cnet product and software company, Wikipedia's article count would double.
  • A few years ago, I uploaded a few games, programs, and files for a calculator to a far less popular site than Cnet. Since then, my files have been downloaded 31,000 times. 60,000 downloads on Cnet shouldn't be hard for a software company which creates games commercially to achieve (or, I should at least hope not, for your sake!)

-- Renesis (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, for obvious reasons, starting with the username and contribs of the requester. Guy 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Zgames (the same user as ZGames) was banned for blatant vandalism. This user is also the webmaster for the company Z Games and the only editor of the article being discussed. The article, talk pages, and deletion discussions have never listed a non-trivial published work of a reliable or reputable source, or a well known award. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Arichnad, process was followed in both AfDs. Some of the claims are still unverifiable. 60,000 downloads on CNet does not notability make. Even if these concerns weren't still valid, I'd be very wary of restoring the article based on the nom's username and edit history. --Coredesat 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

United States military nuclear incident terminology

User:Shell Kinney deleted United States military nuclear incident terminology with only the explanation "a5, transwikied to another project", leaving several broken links that need to be cleaned up. CSD A5 says:

Transwikied articles. Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded.

I asked the deleting administrator what the reason for deletion was, and the response was, "Since the page was a list of definitions and not an encylopedia article, each definition was moved to Wiktionary - when this was completed, the article was deleted." I have two issues with this deletion, according to this policy. I had not seen the page prior to its deletion, but according to Wikipedia mirrors its content seems to suit an encyclopedia better than a dictionary. I wouldn't even say that it is strictly a "list of definitions" but rather an article about a set of terminology (similar to many articles on Wikipedia). Second, the transwikification does not seem to have been properly performed:

• There doesn't seem to be any discussion at Articles for Deletion (or anywhere else)
• Several of the definitions do not appear on Wiktionary at all (I could only find one out of several that I tried)
• It seems no effort was made to clean up references to this article.

Overall, this seems to me to be a sloppy deletion that has left somewhat of a mess and a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of a huge topic. This either needs to be simply undeleted and improved, or the content needs to be moved elsewhere, but it certainly isn't worthy of deletion without discussion. -- Renesis (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• In what way is this not a copy of a primary source? Guy 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What primary source? I didn't think that had anything to do with it. -- Renesis (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - list at afd I don't think these terms belong at Wikitionary and the speedy delete seems out of line with the CSD criteria asks that the issue should have been discussed at afd first. The article needs fleshing out, but there is much more to be said in the article. These are not simple dictionary definition terms, just like Air Force One and DEFCON etc. I wouldn't like each term to have its own article, but all in one article seems fine Bwithh 00:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was a mere list of codewords and their meanings with no reasonable possibility of expansion. Allow a temporary undeletion in order to transwiki any definitions which were missed or to transwiki the entire list to a Wiktionary Appendix (my preferred solution). The existing articles can be repointed to the Wiktionary appendix. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)