Gabriel Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2|DRV1|DRV2|DRV3|DRV4|AfD3)

The article "Gabriel Murphy" has been nominated for deletion on 3 occassions. The links and results are listed below:

1st Nomination on September 25, 2007 - Result was keep

2nd Nomination on February 12, 2008 - Result was delete

3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 - Result was delete, though I believe the closing administrator errored in the closure of this AfD, as there were as many keeps as deletes.

Every time the article is nominated for deletion, it is revised and improved- hence the time delay between the three nominations. The latest version of the article that caused the 3rd nomination was actually completely re-written in a userfied space with the assistance of several administrators during the deletion review process. The very same "Gabriel Murphy" article went through Deletion Review on June 28 and it was voted 3-0 to move into mainspace, but just 1 day after it was moved into the mainspace, on July 5, the same user (Wolfkeeper) who had nominated the article for deletion the first time re-nominated it for speedy deletion. If you review the 3rd nomination deletion log, you will see about an equal number of keeps versus deletes. The main argument put forth by the deletes was non-notability. Per Wikipedia, notability is defined as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". I think anyone objectively reading the article will find:

1. Significant Coverage - there are 30+ references to news stores about the subject, hence the coverage is significant;

2. Reliable Sources - the sources include Cornell University, The Kansas City Business Journal, The Kansas City Star, and The Web Hosting Industry Review, which is the largest trade magazine within the web hosting sector.

3. Independent of the Subject - all of the sources above have no ties to the subject, none of the references are blogs or other sources that have anything to do with the subject.

I believe, as did many others in the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008, that even though there are 30+ references within the article, the following 5 references alone establish notablity:

Reference #1: http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24

Reference #3: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10520700_ITM

Reference #5: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2002/04/08/focus1.html?t=printable

Reference #35: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/06/25/daily31.html?t=printable

Reference #38: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_July_2/ai_76137330

I strongly believe the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 should have resulted in a neutral closure, or even perhaps keep as there were equal votes to keep and delete, and my understanding of consensus policy is that if no concensus is reached, the article remains and is not deleted. Additionally, consensus says that "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons". I think if you review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 log, you will see sound arguments put forth to keep. While a few editors who voted delete argue that it is a resume, most of the arguments are that:

1. The sources are not reliable;

2. That the Kansas City Business Journal is not reliable (though it "is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 41 papers across the country reaching more than 500,000 subscribers each week", according to their website).

3. It is an advertisement (no one would specifically point-out what part of it is an advertisement);

4. It is an orphan article so it is not notable;

5. It does not have many page views so it is not notable;

6. There is a conflict of interest by my account and so it should be deleted.

What I am asking for is first, for an administrator to review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 dialogue to determine if the closing administrator did error in closing it with the concensus to delete. If this was an error, then I ask that the article be restored and no other action would be required. Otherwise, I am asking for the community to review the latest version of the article via Google cache (since it was wrongfully deleted today) and vote keep and protect as it will undoubatly be re-nominated for deletion by Wolfkeeper again when it is restored. Alternatively, I would ask to have the article userfied yet again so I may improve it based on logical feedback from the community. I think this article clearly meets the notability threashold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you. LakeBoater (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Administrators How can people comment/vote or otherwise provide feedback on this article without any way to see the article? Can an administrator please restore the last version of the "Gabriel Murphy" article to some userfied space on my account and post the link so everyone has the benefit of reviewing the article please? Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article presented a laundry list of verifiable facts, but if I remember correctly failed to say why any of them were notable. There are millions of small businesses and awards. Multiple non-notable facts do add up to notability. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks much Caerwine for your input and your comments on my talk page. I really appreciate you sharing with me your perspective. Regarding what facts are notable in the article, I would contend that this individual winning the Ernst & Young "Entrepreneur of the Year" award is notable as this award is a very prestigous award as far as entrepreneurship goes. Details of the award are covered in Wikipedia under Ernst & Young. I would also contend that his business winning the KC Chamber's Small Business of the Year is also notable. There are other, smaller awards (Deloitte & Touche Fast 50, KC Star Tech 50, Ingram's 40 Under 40). I would think the E&Y award or the sum of all of these would establish notability. My understanding of the notability threashold as defined by Wikipedia is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". I argue above that these 3 criteria have been meet and therefore the subject is notable. Thus, notability = significant coverage + reliable sources + independent sources from subject. I do not see where the coverage has to be of notable events or such. Again, just trying to help each of us better understand where the disconnect lies on the article. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree about the importance of that "Entrepreneur of the Year" award as he was only a regional winner and even for the national winners, it does not appear to be a significant enough award to be mentioned in their articles. It's worth mentioning in the Ernst & Young article as it is one of their major publicity efforts. Focus on what was noteworthy enough for him to win the award, and then the award could be used to show that others have recognized that noteworthiness. Simply stating he won some promotional awards given out by business services companies doesn't really convey anything by itself. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the "cache" link above takes you to an article on Aplus.net. Presumably the most recent version of the Gabriel Murphy article was a redirect? Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An older version of the Murphy article was redir'ed to Aplus.net (which was also deleted), because the Murphy article was indistinguishable from Aplus.net. I !voted in the last AFD, so I'm obviously biased towards endorse deletion. You may be able to find a google cache of LakeBoater's userspace, which was when the article overturned at the last DRV (this is the second DRV). The Murphy article is also now creation-protected (on my own request, seeing seven creation and deletions in a fairly short period of time). If overturned, it'll need to be userfied and brought up for discussion either here or at WP:RPP Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The latest version of "Gabriel Murphy" was not a redirect but was its own article. At some point in the past it was a redirect to aplus. Can an administrator userfy the last version of "Gabriel Murphy" on my account so everyone can see the article? Yngvarr, if you can give me some feedback on what would need to improve in the article I would appreciate it. I want to work with you (and everyone else) who has concerns about the article not being worthy of Wikipedia. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. First, LakeBoater has omitted a major contention that I had brought up - Wikipedia is not a resume service, but that is really neither here nor there at deletion review as DRV's purpose is not to continue the argument that was (at times) belabored at AfD, but a review of the process that led to the deletion. The discussion went six days, longer than the customary five for an AfD; the admin made a hard call after weighing all the points made from both sides (one would have liked a bit more about the decision, but in light of what's given in the discussion, discounting all not dealing with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's understandable). Conflict of interest must be considered when there appears to be a direct connection between an editor who wrote the bulk of the article (that, I repeat, looked much more like a resume than an actual encyclopedic article), one of the two editors who together tried to own the discussion (in my viewpoint, more is less: one who tries to bury the "opposition" in AfD and DRV tends to have less heard than one who makes surgically precise, persuasive points). The deletion of the companion article Aplus.net, on which much of Mr. Murphy's ability to meet WP:BIO hinged, made it harder to clear that bar. But the admin made the hard call that was needed - AfD is not an election or a vote - and deletion decisions are made based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When an administrator gets a chance, can they please userfy the latest version of the article so I may improve it based on some of the feedback given? There is additional information that can be added to the article. This will also be needed to help others vote and provide feedback on the article. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to All CLICK HERE for the "Gabriel Murphy" article that is subject to the deletion review discussion. I found it via Google cache. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive my odd bulleting, I'm at a loss for formatting. I know that DRV is not supposed to be a discussion beyond the actual deletion, but this issue is getting bigger than it needs to be. More than seven deletions under multiple names, two DRVs, three AFDs. The primary contributor is accused of COI, since the majority of contribs are from that user, and these disputes are coming from that same user. The user has been accused (and contribs will back this) of forum-shopping. There is something wrong here. This is not a controversial issue in the usual sense of that term, but a user who's pushing an agenda. The time and effort involved in attempting to reinstate this article is bringing serious question as to the neutrality of it all. I'm not the first, and probably not the last, to note this. I'm not wearing kid-gloves anymore, and AGF is shortly going out the window. The community has decided, multiple times, to delete this.
• I've suggested in the last AFD that the creator of this article compare this to two other successful and notable persons, namely Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I chose those two as deliberate examples of people who are highly notable for their respective companies, but who are also notable of themselves. While there is company information on those articles, there is no real mistaking that the articles are talking about people, not the company which that person (founded / co-founded / works for / etc).
• The google cache is now posted above, and the user can place that into userspace; there is nothing preventing that. Then it'll be up to the user to find an appropriate place to post for even wider scrutiny, since the AFDs are apparently not enough. As for which notice board, I don't know, because I'm not the one who has a stake in the article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Yngvarr for your input. This article has only been subject to an AfD 3 times, as I have posted the links to all 3 AfDs. First was keep, second was delete, and third was delete- though I believe the third delete was an error based on the dialogue of the AfD. Each time the article has been substantially re-written. The article went to Deletion Review once, and it was voted to keep (move into mainspace). I really do appreciate your feedback on how to improve the article- this will help me out and I do intend on incorporating your suggestions into a userfied version. I do not agree that I have been forum-shopping. I believe I have actually followed the proper protocol all along, starting with the userfied article in June. This article was voted to move to mainspace, then it was AfDed and voted delete, now I have been told by the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents that this issue does belong here. So I am not forum shopping, I am following the advice on the administrators who told me to post my issue here.

I want to work with you on your suggestions. I will userfy the article and post it for your feedback. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the consensus may have been to delete, but that is because of the Wikipedia bias that does not recognize the notability of businesspeople to the same extent as athletes and entertainers-- not a wholly irrational bias, for the indications of distinctions for businesspeople are less distinct, and the sources less obvious for most of us. DGG (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The deletion had it correct in observing that the 44 (!) references largely were press releases ("purely advertising"). There seem to be some Wikipedia reliable sources listed in this DRV, but until someone demonstrates an ability to use sufficient Wikipedia reliable sources for this topic, there is no reason to allow recreation. GregManninLB (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details (edit | [[Talk:MediaWiki:Watchlist-details|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Discussion was closed as snow keep, even though only 54 minutes had elapsed, and there were a variety of different views expressed. Had the discussion continued, it very well might not have ended in "no action". Jehochman ^Talk 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stick with the decision - seems reasonable; the majority said "keep" or "limit" and I don't believe another consensus could possibly have developed. A lot of nastiness could, though. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer - textbook example. I doubt it would've been deleted (even if it can). MFD can't really force limits either. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stick with the decision - No need to split the discussion across another page. In addition there is zero chance of the page actually being deleted. It is better to take the time to discuss it and come up with some guidelines. Mikemill (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It's a MediaWiki system message. Disabling this feature does not require deletion; this is basically a content dispute. — Edokter • Talk • 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Closed It's possible that it could be argued that it was closed a little quick, but there was never going to be consensus to delete. As to other options, there's already a discussion on the talk page. All that re-opening would do is mean that now there was a separate fork of that discussion. Let the discussion continue in the proper place.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close From a DRV perspective, there are two possible outcomes to an XfD: 1) somebody uses the "Delete" button and 2) nobody uses the "Delete" button. No feasible outcome of that discussion would involve someone using the "Delete" button. Since this is DRV, we shouldn't snow close this, but there really is no chance of an overturn to use the delete button. I suggest the nominator withdraws his proposal. GRBerry 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I am satisfied with that explanation. It would have been nice for that to have been clarified in the first place. Feel free to close this. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Town Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article on an English football (soccer) club was deleted via PROD on the grounds that the team did not play in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, which the WP:FOOTBALL project recognises as the general cut-off point for notability. However the club has now been promoted into a level 10 league for the coming season, namely the West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division, and will play its first match at this level on 9 August 2008 (see the Football Association website) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jolson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See my Talk; 16 images marked for deletion without any reason beyond admin's unexplained discretion even after asking for reasons; there are countless hours invested in obtaining, uploading, describing and placing images on an article and, even assuming good faith, it seems improper to see those hours casually erased in this manner Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So all you have to do to get an image deleted is say it "fails some part of the non-free content criteria"? That's like being able to delete articles by saying "fails some part of deletion policy". If nothing else it should be explained what criteria exactly these images fail... and that template should never have been created if it's really used the way I'm thinking. --Rividian (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Read you talk page again, specifically User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Re: Requesting valid reasons for your tagging 16 images for deletion where the tagging editor already explained the problem to you. The problem is with WP:NFCC#1. alternatively, read the even earlier explanation you were given at User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Images. Wikipedia uses non-free material under very limited circumstances. If you attempt to use them too much, your fingers will get burned. Learn the rules before you put in more effort that is just going to end up on the cutting room floor. GRBerry 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the "non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in" tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

"If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding "hangon" tag to the top ..."

So I get 16 images of all types tagged with no specific details of what's wrong, even after repeated requests. I went through and added both and "hangon" tag and further fair-use information to all 16. Then, without warning, and apparently in violation of a grace period, they were deleted that same day! (some have been replaced for various reasons) Aren't admins required to act in a reasonable manner and not in what seems like wild abandon of protocol and a wreckless use of tagging scripts? (In this case the original tagger admitted her "mistake.")Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few minutes, it's also come to my attention that other admins had deleted the images that the original admin had tagged. For instance: File:With Calloway.jpg. I came across another one also. Therefore, even after getting involved in a disussion with the original admin, other admins begin permanently deleting the images tagged. And all had a "hangon" notice and added copyright details. And all likewise ignored any 48-hour grace period.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"12:54, 11 July 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Jazz Singer premier.jpg" ‎ (no license tag)

Whatsmore, it says there was "no license tag" which is untrue, as this image has been posted to this article for many months with a fully descriptive fair use license.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss this with Stifle before bringing this here? Corvus cornix_talk 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are 3 separate issues that I sent to User_talk:Stifle#Re: deleted Image:Salute scroll.jpg, one with visual proof of the erroneous deletion. And a few minutes ago I got this from the original tagger: "I didn't delete the images I tagged, someone else did, take the 48-hour thing up with them. user_talk:Melesse 22:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, nice to get some feedback - was starting to feel like I was writing a diary. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the top of Stifle's page says he's away until Sunday. That might explain why he hasn't responded - but it wouldn't explain how he deleted 3 (or more) images over the last few hours.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to communicate with the original tagger with this: "People watch TV and go to movies instead of reading books because they need and prefer images. This article is descriptive and benefits from images." So are you saying they're for variety and decoration? That's not a valid reason to keep them. Melesse (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I add this comment in case anyone still thinks I was a bit hasty in calling her "discourteous." Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not quite understand what this discussion is about. If it is about the article, then it must be a Keep. If it is about the images, I assume that the question is whether their use is a copyright violation. WP cannot safely engage in that, so that deletion is inevitable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the images only and what seems like improper mass deletions. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mojosurf and Snow Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deemed insignificant. I cannot understand why. This business is rapidly growing in Australia, and has had over 10,000 customers. People love the trips and recommend it to their friends. Please review this page, and undelete it! Thanks, from Mojosurf Mojosurfaustralia (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it shouldn't have been deleted under WP:CSD#A7, as the article claimed that the company is "one of Australia's premier surf lesson, surf trip, and snow trip companies". It should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as clear advertising. It would appear from your username that you have a relationship to the company, hence you need to read our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. If the article is ever to be recreated it should be written solely from independent and reliable sources (advertising and reprints of press releases are not independent sources). Good guidance on doing so is at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. If that produces an article, then a few small holes in it could be filled from company published sources, but such sources can never become the primary source for the article. GRBerry 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - classic corporate vanity, hence a valid speedy deletion as spam. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. MER-C 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the nominator please explain why he neither attempted to discuss the deletion with the deleting administrator nor notified him of the discussion here? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Never mind, NawlinWiki's talk page is semi-protected and Mojosurfaustralia isn't autoconfirmed. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion. While it should have been db-spammed, and not db-nocontexted, the deletion is still valid. And from the nominator's username, perhaps there are some problems with conflict-of-interest as well. S. Dean Jameson 09:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Not (necessarily) an A7 but definitely a G11 spam. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for help with creating articles about businesses. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Sorry my bad, I just saw the page did a quick google which didn’t come up with much, looked like the same old spam that comes up once in a while. Even though I wrongly tagged it I still think it should be deleted. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]