Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 19

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

19 October 2006

HeartattaCk

Overturn deletion, declare no consensus, default keep. Here is the AfD I'm requesting a review of. The closing admin declared a delete. While AfD is not a vote, the number of editors calling for keep was equal to those calling for delete. This zine was an important and influential publication in the DIY hardcore and punk scene. When sources were asked for, many editors pitched in and provided verifiability. I believe that was ignored by the closing admin. I have notified every editor who participated at the AfD about this review. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, valid interpretation of the debate. No evidence that I can see in that debate of this being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore we can't create a verifiably neutral article. Guy 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides sources that were cited within the debate page, there's also eveidence and assertions of notability in the article, which you can't now review because the article has been deleted. Maybe the article can be put back up while this review is occurring? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. According to the Google cache of the page, the magazine is a cancelled work that intentionally reviewed only non-notable bands, and the AfD interpetation is correct. --tjstrf 17:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Although I voted keep, I think the closing admin made the right call. There really is a WP:RS issue here. I think it belongs on the 'pedia, but until someone can find a secondary source to support that we should let it go. On the other hand... there sure are a lot of articles whose sources are in a much worse state than that of HeartattaCk. If this is to be a precident I think we could start deleting articles on periodicals right and left. I've written an article on the folk rag Sing Out!, and if pressed I know where to look for articles in the Boston Globe, the All Music Guide, and other places describing SO!'s influence on music. But most media are not covered by other media and many articles don't have gaurdians ready for the rescue. PT asked me to give input on this based on my participation in the AfD. -MrFizyx 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunate endorse closure. I'm with PT, this is incredibly frustrating, but it's the same with the internet meme issue - until Wikipedia's policies catch up with the rest of the world in terms of notability and verifiability, this will happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion - What if we started a new article called Kent McClard, had the HeartattaCk and Ebullition Records information all there, and have those be re-directs to the Kent McClard article? There is enough information and sources for those projects and the work that McClard has done to make him a notable person, and none of the information would be lost. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose like any other new article it would need to stand on it's own merits. One can not say up-front whether a hypothetical article will or will not demonstrate notability, verifiability, etc., but you can give it a try. Just keep in mind lessons learned here (i.e. I wouldn't suggest you use the exact same sources and just give the article a new name and look). -MrFizyx 19:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made a request for content review. If the last version of the article is placed in my userspace so I can work on a new article about McClard, I will respectfully withdraw my Deletion Review request and not protest the closure. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure As per MrFizyx, I don't see any RS supporting the assertions of notability. I am not convinced the 'zine is non-notable, I just havn't seen the sort of evidence required to sway me one way or the other and the lack is troubling. As per Guy, I think the closing admin did an unusually good job of parsing the discussion. Such critical reading of the discussion may be unusual for AfD but is how !voting ought to be closed, IMHO. I would have liked the opposite result to emerge, it would have been great to have this zine's impact on bands and scene well documented, that it didn't happen might be due to the 'zine's subject matter, covering marginal and non-notable bands that are nontheless an integral part of a notable subcultural movement. I'm not opposed to the material re-appearing in a Kent McClard article, but suspect that notability of that article would soon be tested via AfD. PT asked me to give input on this based on my participation in the AfD, I think him for the notice. His decision to take this to DR is understandable, I can see why he's frustrated, but I think the right decision was made under the circumstances. Pete.Hurd 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Numerical counts are really irrelevant when compared to the arguments made. The closing admin made a judgement call and I don't see any evidence of mishandling the closure of the AfD. Really, there is no valid reason to overturn the admin's decision. the article can always be recreated in the future if reliable sources are found.--Isotope23 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Clarifying because I almost got confused. We had a deletion review on this article earlier this month, but that review was of a speedy deletion and led to the AFD. It was not a review of the AFD, so I don't think it is relevant now. GRBerry 19:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm just going to give Pars a copy of this in his userspace, since it's all he wants. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• No need to pile on here, but props to Samir for not falling into the "equal numbers = no consensus" trap. I'm keenly aware of the problem with poor sourcing of articles (I just noticed that 924 Gilman Street is wholly unsourced) but an argument of "other articles are also unsourced" is not an argument for keeping the one under AfD. Thanks to PT for the heads-up on this DRV too. ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• PT is happy!!! :) Withdraw review request. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dangerbox

relist

The ariticle was deleted because the club was considered "non-notable". The administrator could not find links about us on google. Please search for dangerbox improv and you will find many links from a variety of sources.

I disagree strongly with this assertion on non-notability for the following reasons:

1. This group was selected as the BEST college comedy group in the country and therefore was the headliner at the college portion at the Chicago Improv Festival, which is the most prestigious improv festival in the country. See [[1]] for headliner info. Similarly, Dangerbox has performed at the two other major improv festivals in the United States: The Del Close Martathon, at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre [[2]], and The Dirty South Improv Festival. [[3]]. A constant presence at these three festivals in improv makes a group surely notable.
2. Dangerbox has performed several times at the two biggest improv theaters in NYC, The UCB Theater, and the Peoples Improv Theater. For example, see [[4]]. They also perform around NYC in theaters, bars and comedy venues. [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]
3. Dangerbox members have performed on MTVu, a television station run by NYU.
4. Dangerbox alumni have worked/are currently working at The Onion, David Letterman, The UCB Theater, and one is a writer for NBC's 30 Rock.
5. Dangerbox is a professional improv group in that it is paid to perform at local high schools, most recently at the Brearley School in NYC [[8]].
6. Dangerbox's members have trained at the best improv schools in the country, with Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre, Magnet and Peoples Improv Theater schools in NYC, Second City in Chicago, and ComedySportz in multiple cities around the US.

In its 4 years of existence, Dangerbox has become the leader in college improv comedy in the United States, and I respectfully request the reposting of this page. I apologize for not including this information in the original posting, and if given a chance, I will do so.

• Comment You may want to review Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. In searching through the google results I see schedule listings (such as the ones you provided above). Frankly, appearing at a festival with dozens of other acts is not, in itself, notable. I see comments in blogs and forums, and sites like xanga, geocities and myspace. What I don't see is a single review or commentary about the group from any independent news source. Perhaps I missed something? Fan-1967 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted. However, improv is unique in that notoriety does not mean major newspaper reports. Selection for a festival is similar to selection for something like the Sundance Festival if you are in film. It may not make you the best film maker in the world, but it is surely notable since Sundance is a top festival. And repeated selction, year after year, shows that the work is well respected. My links above show our selection for these festivals. My claim is not that we are world famous, but rather that we are as well known as any college group, better represented in the improv community than many, many professional improv ensembles and sureley at the very least "notable". Reviews in the NYU paper can be seen here [[9]], but I realize that this is not a major news publication.

Sundance may not be the best example to use to make your case, because in fact there are quite a few indie films that are given a chance there, don't generate any buzz, and are pretty much never heard of again. If you look through the schedules of past Sundance festivals, most of the entries that were shown are ones you haven't heard anything about. Fan-1967 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Original AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerbox. That led to deletion in March 2006. The article was recreated and deleted four times on 16 October before the ground was salted. GRBerry 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Allie Sin

aka Naughty Nati
real name Stephanie Draheim

• Whereas the first nomination for deletion was defeated by a vote of 7-4 for keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naughty_Nati
• Whereas the second nomination for deletion was only held for only 4 days, with only 6 members contributing to the discussion (compared to 18 users contributing to the first nomination for deletion) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allie_Sin
• Whereas the Allie Sin talk page (Talk:Allie_Sin) is gathering people who wish for reinstatement.
• Whereas Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is a place of reference of people of notoriety. Following this logic, if we are to include the adult entertainment performers who have gained notoriety, Allie Sin should be included, as I believe she has indeed reached this level.
• Whereas an example of notoriety can be given by this [[10]] page unrelated to Allie Sin herself. On this biography of Jenna Haze, Jenna is compared to "other young female porn-stars, like Gauge, Allie Sin, Aurora Snow and Taylor Rain". Jenna Haze, Gauge, Aurora Snow and Taylor Rain are all 'notable', and all have their respective wikipedia pages, so if Allie Sin is to be grouped together with these other women, to be used to illustrate their similarities, it stands to reason that they are all of equal notoriety.
• Whereas I concede that the "Google test" is not an accepted method, it should nonetheless be noted that "Allie Sin" yields 97,500 hits and "Naughty Nati" yields 191,000 hits.
• Whereas the talk page for Allie Sin has yielded an interesting news story [[11]] about her life to date.

I therefore ask that reinstatement of this article be put to a discussion and vote. Also, I apologize for any errors in the Deletion Review procedures I may have made. This is the first such process I have undertaken. JeffyP 07:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn - I'll start off by voicing my 2 cents saying I think it's definately worthy of having an article. I came to wikipedia in search of information on Allie Sin. If I did so, I assume others have as well. I didn't come in search of trivial information on a trivial performer, she's done a lot of movies. Just because most of them were direct-to-internet, and therefore will not be found at iafd.com, doesn't preclude them from being notable. JeffyP 07:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - I concur. Aside from my general contention that Ms. Draheim is at least as notable in her own genre of film as certain extremely mainstream performers who nonetheless merit their own pages (e.g.: Kelly Vitz), she has gained enough notoriety for the industry press to compare her to others who have Wikipedia entries, she has been mentioned in the mainstream press, and there exist reliable sources of information for her biographical details. LWSchurtz 07:48 19 Oct 2006
• Endorse deletion. Pseudo-legal language and a single arguably non-trivial mention do not persuade me. There are so very many porn stars with such a vast cruft multiple that you really do have to have some genuine and substantive reason to be considered notable. Guy 13:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per above, no opposition to a relist although I'm not sure of the necessity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Again Note that this deletion was endorsed at AFD earlier this month. See the prior review at [12]. Reiterating my conclusion during the last review: "If you believe an article can be written that adheres to our core policies and that addresses the concerns in the AFD, in particular not meeting WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO (either of which should be evidenced from independent reliable sources, write it in your user space and then propose that article version for consideration here." GRBerry 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse been here before like GRBerry said it just got DRVed a month ago. Whispering 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wherein the undersigned Endorses the decision and Lauds the ad ministrant for he Withstood the temptation to cast hasty judgment and awaited from Day the Nineteenth to Day the Four-and-Twentieth so as to Please the Codex, and when Confronted with dire paucity of consideration properly divined the Will of the populace. Praise be Upon the Beelzebub of the epistles. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)