Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 2

2 October 2006

Pro Wrestling Unplugged

I'm so confused about this process & I don't know if I'm doing this correctly. Pro Wrestling Unplugged was deleted when a group of fans of a rival company placed a deletion request. I've gone through Wikipedia & found SEVERAL DOZEN articles on professional wrestling. Wikipedia has a variety of topics & because it was a vendetta against Pro Wrestling Unplugged from some people, it was deleted. When I attempted to recreate, using points to show it's importance & uniqueness in the wrestling industry, it was deleted again. I am concerned that the attempt to make it a legitimate article made it just flatly disregarded. This article is no different than a television show or another company, as this is a professional business in an field of industry with over 150 years of history behind it. User:Psphenom 23:42, 2 October 2006

• Restore
• Endorse deletion, the claim of votestacking is not legit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Unplugged. Daniel.Bryant 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AFD was done in process. And Psphenom, assuming that the editors who were following Wikipedia guidelines and process on this article were doing it because they had a "vendetta" against PWU is uncalled for. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Crackin' Good Snacks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crackin' Good Snacks

The reason for deletion given by the nominator was "Non-notable product; no chance of satisfying WP:CORP", but in the course of the AfD discussion, I believe I demonstrated how it does indeed easily pass WP:CORP, by being a "house brand" of Winn-Dixie stores and sold in all their supermarkets, just as similar products like Chek are. There was practically no discussion of my points raised and evidence brought. After the nominator, there were only two delete votes and all either had to say was "non-notable". This should have defaulted as "no consensus" if nothing else. wikipediatrix 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorse close, allow re-creation as a redirect to Winn-Dixie and have a section in there on house brands. Guy 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion There was actually the nom and 3 delete !votes; anyway, vote-counting isn't the problem here. I'll ignore two of the delete !votes for not actually adding anything to the discussion (because they repeated opinions already shown), but the claims of WP:OR and unverifiability are enough grounds for deletion if shown (WP:N isn't by itself enough grounds for deletion, but if there are enough reliable sources to make something verifiable they nearly always also make it notable). If you create a reasonably lengthy, reliably sourced (I'm not sure how sourced the deleted article was because I'm not an admin), userspace version, then allow recreation if it's longer than a stub, but otherwise this is going to stay deleted. If there's only stub-sized material a merge to Winn-Dixie would be appropriate. --ais523 07:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn appears sufficiently notable. Could be merged with Winn-Dixie. --71.36.251.182 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, virtual ink spilled on case for keeping exceeds actual content in article by factor of 3. Article has no interesting information that wouldn't be better placed in an article of larger scope, per Guy. Having a separate article is crispcruft. No compelling reason to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2

user:Gold-Horn requested a temporary undeletion of this page under the terms of the Content review section above. His/her goal is to transwiki this "and other related LTA pages [to] a private installation of MediaWiki that I've got running. That's it in a nutshell! It's outside of the Wikimedia projects." The page was originally deleted in keeping with the principles of WP:DENY. Allowing the page to be restored even if outside of WikiMedia would seem to circumvent the intent of the practice.

This question is more complex than the Content Review proces is really supposed to handle. I am escalating the request here and request community discussion on whether this request should be granted. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• The wiki can't be accessed by the vandal, it's only on 127.0.0.1 - so WP:DENY isn't violated. --Gold-Horn 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  Note the requesting user is a sockpuppet of User:TheM62Manchester, User:Sunholm etc. etc. a user with a large history of having a large number of other users "sharing" his IP and engaging in large amounts of vandalism, including pagemove vandalism. --pgk 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  nah, he aint no sockpuppet. really. 69.50.208.4 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  Note User:69.50.208.4 is an open proxy. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk] 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Deleted, email if it's really important. Naconkantari 23:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted requesting user is a prolific vandal (including pagemove such as one of the many socks User:Mersey-guy), this isn't the first time a sock of this user has requested retrieval of this info, so keep delted per WP:DENY --pgk 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I would like for this page to be undeleted, along with all of the other long term abuse pages. They are important for newcomers to read.--B&W Anime Fan 13:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  This deletion review was trigered by a request for temporary recreation for transwiking by a known vandal, regardless of the outcome the page will not stay (since it would be removed after transiwiking if that were the outcome). Deletion review is not for reruning the MFD you haven't raised any questions on process failures of the MFD nor any new information which may put a different light on the reasoning of the MFD. --pgk 06:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Why are they important for new editors to read? They only encourage copy-cat vandalism. Vandalism is vandalism. Naconkantari 14:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:DENY. Willy on Wheels, as an example, probably never did his vandalism more than a few times, but after he got his own page, thousands of other people saw it, and some people figured they would imitate him. He created his own "standalone complex," a phenomenon consisting entirely of imitators and copycats. The Long Term Abuse pages did nothing to help combat vandals, and everything to create these complexes. Willy on Wheels is merely a page move vandal, and there is already enough information on those available to combat them without particularly mentioning Willy on Wheels as a particular vandal. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Donald M. Kendrick

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald M. Kendrick

This was kept with a 12 delete and 7 keep. The majority of keep votes were based on an article this person played Carengie Hall 11 years ago (at the time he was nearly 50 years old) . The paper claimed he was selected for that show because he was "inexpensive not distinguished." Moreover, as another user noted on the deletion that the promoter who hired Kendrick specializes in bringing out-of-town choirs to NY to sing there " - for a fee". Are the tours notable (we need a source)? Or did he simply hire a tour agent and spent his two week vacation in Europe? The closing Admin. did not explain what sources he based his "no consensus-keep-lean on" even though I asked.

The creator of the afd link article at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board and originally removed the afd notice. This probably skewed the voting. --Arbusto 07:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I closed as no consensus, but am more than open to having some community input on whether that was appropriate, especially since I do feel this was an iffy call. My reasoning? A good chunk of editors wanting to delete looked to be making brief, possibly superficial arguments. The guy appears more notable than a huge amount of the stuff I wind up deleting, and looks borderline for inclusion. I took several minutes trying to decide whether the discussion should be closed as delete or no consensus before realizing that my inability to peg down strong consensus should be taken as a hint. No particular disposition from me, I'm open to review. I'm just as fallible as anybody else here, and it's quite possible I made a mistake here. I look forward to seeing the community's input. Luna Santin 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This was a tough one, and while I would have recommended a delete if I were I contributor to the debate (I wasn't), deciding how I would have closed it is tougher. I suspect that I might have plumped for deletion, but it is a borderline decision and no-consensus is well within admin discretion. A "no consensus" outcome leaves the door open for another deletion debate quicker than would a "keep" closure, and if this DRV does not result in a relisting, then I suggest you take that option if the article is not improved after a few weeks. Thryduulf 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I argued on the AfD. The ensemble referred to as 'inexpensive not distinguished' has nothing to do with Kendrick. Peter Tiboris (the promoter) runs tours for out-of-town choirs who get the chance to come and sing at Carnegie Hall. As the promoter he provides the orchestral accompaniment. That's the 'inexpensive' one - NYC union musicians are not cheap. The choirs are usually community groups, school ensembles, and church choirs. See the repertory list I linked on the AfD discussion. If you click on the links for the conductors in that list, you'll find that most of them are actually the director of one of the choirs in that performance. That's what I suspect happened in Mr. Kendrick's case; his choir purchased one of these tours, and there were enough of them that he was given the opportunity to conduct the performance. I think the international tours were just what is suggested above; the choir took the opportunity to book a tour and arranged performances while they were there. Some tour agents arrange the whole thing including performance venues; other times you just buy the tour and book the venues through personal contacts. I don't think either the Carnegie performances or the international tours demonstrate notability by themselves. --Bpmullins 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've read more about the process and realize I should have kept my mouth shut. I was out of line to continue the argument. Apologies to all. --Bpmullins 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). I also would have leaned toward "delete" but this was within allowable discretion. Anyone may renominate the article for deletion if it remains unimproved after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn simply because closing admins need to do a better job fending off bullshit. If we had such a thing this article should hang in the Wikipedia Fluff Piece Hall of Fame. ~ trialsanderrors 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, nothing wrong with the process or result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, valid AFD. Naconkantari 14:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin_Nicholas

This page, created for author, blogger and adult industry worker Benjamin_Nicholas was online with Wikipedia for some time before User:Pilotguy decided to let his personal issues impede on his administrator ability and delete the page with protection status.

Other same-industry persons with Wikipages include Aaron_Lawrence, Perez_Hilton, Jason_Tyler and Michael_Brandon_Porn_Star. All of these mentioned are either sex/gossip bloggers, sex industry workers or porn entrepenuers. Why does User:Pilotguy find their pages acceptable when my page exhibited the SAME attributes? Like i had said in my earlier claim [1], I find this deletion/protection to be both discriminatory and flagrant.

I have worked very hard in both the blogging community, as well as the adult industry to secure myself as a 'known name.' My blog [2] get over 200,000 unique hits a week, making it one of the more popular blogs on the web, as well as me recently having signed a three-book deal with Regan Books. I would say that both of those facts make me a 'notable inclusion' into the ranks of Wikipedia.

This was an incident of personal judgement: While i found what user:pilotguy did to be off-the-cuff and discriminatory, i would much appreciate a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' mentality here. I don't think what i'm asking for is unfair in any term.

Regards, BenjaminNicholas 11:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)BenjaminNicholas (talk to me)

• Comment: WP:NOT for self-promotion nor for securing oneself as a known name. Also, under WP:AUTO, one generally shouldn't write an autobiographical article; if a person is notable by WP's standards, someone else will do it. No vote on whether the claims of blog hits or a book contract get Mr. Nicholas over the edge of verifiable notability, and no vote on whether the AfD closing was within policy. Barno 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Frankly I didn't get further than the rouge admin abuse nonsense in the first line. Top Tip: if you want to get your vanity article undeleted, don't start by abusing the admins and discussing other articles: "some other crap exists therefore this crap must exist" has never been a persuasive argument. I looked at it with a view to userfying, but it had too many spam links. Guy 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: So, what you're saying in essence is that to gain a fair-shake on Wikipedia, one must kiss the asses of the admins? I think not. This may be cyberspace, but it's still a form of reality. I proved my case as the offending admin asked, yet i'm still given half-hearted response.

Frankly, if Wikipedia can't correctly defend their own policies and stand without contradicting themselves, then maybe this site's functionality has really has become it's own worst enemy.

I still contest you allowing others to have similar pages, while this one was singled out. If i happen to care more about this situation, i'd think that a rampant sense of hyper-morality and homophobia runs rampant among some who have the power of the red pen.

BenjaminNicholas 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)BenjaminNicholas (talk to me)

• Keep Deleted until someone not named Benjamin Nicholas thinks that it's worth his/her time to write an article about Benjamin Nicholas. Danny Lilithborne 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, starting off by accusing a prominent Wikipedia administrator of conflict of interest wasn't great, then the rest was just per Danny above. Daniel.Bryant 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Danny and Daniel; even though the second deletion was a prod and therefore contestable, this appears to be clear self-promotion. If you want to nominate those other articles for deletion, feel free (though you may find the response a bit pointed). Otherwise, one of your 200,000 readers will probably recreate the article eventually. -- nae'blis 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment Have you read WP:PORN BIO? Can you put together a strong case to meeting it using reliable, third-party sources? If so write it up in your user space and let the people here evaluate it. Otherwise it stays deleted. Eluchil404 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per Dally Lilithborne. Naconkantari 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)