< 2010 March 9
Deletion review archives: 2010 March
2010 March 11 >

10 March 2010

  • BZPower – Deletion endorsed. Consensus below endorses the old AfD and also finds the proffered sources insufficient to support an article. – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

BZPower (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this deletion was in error; this survived "3" keep votes before this. Also, it qualifies under W:WEB, here are some articles by independent sources of BZP:

Lugnet cool site, April 27, 2003 (LUGNET has an article here)

Maori Cyberterrorism Vs. Lego

In addition, it has 5 million posts and is about 50 members short of 45,000. That is about as many members and about 2.5 million more posts than The Dugout, Veggieboards, and xkcd. I have a sandbox of it here. TN05 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse was last AFDed in 2006(!) and doesn't even come close to our present verifiability standards, which if anything are much stricter now than they were back then. I see your point about the other articles, but, well, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. The sources presented in the AfD were shown to be insufficient; the consensus to delete was clear. The new sources presented here would not seem to change that position. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Utterly non-notable fansite that has never throughout its long history shown anything in the way of third party references to pass WP:WEB, or even come close. Black Kite 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is a website with 5 million posts not notable? Is VeggieBoards notable? BS01, Bioniclepedia, Mask of Destiny, LUGNET, they all reference it, not to mention it was linked at Bionicle.com in 2004. TN05 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are useful third party references because they come from the same subject area. This isn't about the others you mention (although if you pushed me, I'd say that xkcd is definitely notable and the other two are marginal). Black Kite 20:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want then, a link from the Tranformers wikia? Seriously? It never says "anywhere" in the policy 'links must come from outside the subject area'. Also, MoD and B-pedia are not affiliated with BZPower; both are actually 'competitors' of BZPower and it's affiliate, BS01. And 'Scoop' is not a Lego/Bionicle website. TN05 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would need substantial coverage by reliable sources. And no, the Transformers wikia (or any wikia) is not a reliable source. Ideally, we're looking for coverage in things like books, magazines, or newspapers. For example, the article on 4chan admittedly isn't perfect, but it does have over 100 references, including BBC News, Time Magazine, and CNN. If the most notable thing one can say about BZPower is "it was linked at Bionicle.com in 2004", well, I just don't think it will ever be notable enough for an article. You can wish and hope all you like, but some things just aren't going to happen, ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why coming from the same subject area makes a reference unusable. That's where references would be expected to come from. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, DGG. A fansite being linked to from another fansite (which likely both share many of the same members) is not a reliable source, as you know perfectly well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. It doesn't make a reference unusuable as such, but it needs to be backed up by coverage from the wider world. Black Kite 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If fansite #1 is a reliable source (which I greatly doubt in this case, but I'd be willing to be convinced) then an article on it would count for WP:RS. As DGG says, there is no requirement that things be sourced from outside of their subject area. Most DSP topics, for example, are only referenced within their own topic. Same with baseball players. That said, I'm not seeing that this is a RS... Hobit (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ditto on that, never said it was a RS DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate article if you think it's notable now, because there's nothing barring that. DRV is about whether the closing admin judged consensus correctly, rather than being about the merits of the article itself. The arguments for notability were weak (relying on things like Alexa rankings and forums), while the arguments for deletion depended on such concepts as "it's been around long enough to have sources," which aren't exactly compelling either. I might have closed this as "no consensus," but a delete close was reasonable under the circumstances. It would take less time just to start fresh, and from what I'm reading here there may be sufficient sources now.--~TPW 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There was no consensus; Bonesiii put out just as good an argument as the others who voted delete did. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Although if you just recreate the same article, it will be deleted again per WP:CSD#G4. Black Kite 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. My sandbox is not a copy of the old article, as I never saw it, but I would take time to improve it, adding more citations and stuff. That is the only reason this page was deleted. TN05 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was just making it clear that if a recreated article doesn't rectify the issues that saw it originally deleted, then it too is liable to deletion whether via AFD or CSD. Black Kite 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't sufficient sources, or indeed any sources. A fansite linking to a fansite is not a source, and neither is a link from a "Transformers wiki". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clearly show the policy here:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
  • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

Both my sources meet the policy, as LUGNET and Scoop are independent of BZPower. They are sources. You are ignoring the policy. TN05 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is the sandbox article, it has one single valid source (Scoop) and that's about a DDOS attack from eight years ago (and actually, it's really about the response to that DDOS attack which was against another website). It certainly doesn't show multiple non-trivial independent works. Black Kite 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a work in progress; I will have more links soon. This is not the AfD, this about whether the decision made was in error, which it was. TN05 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the version that was deleted at that AfD had no independent sources whatsoever, just links to other forums and blogs, I fail to see how that decision could possibly have been in error. Black Kite 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those forums and blogs affiliated with BZPower? Nope, so your point fails. You are disregarding policy, and stating it to be what it is not. TN05 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you actually need to read the policy (WP:V) yourself. It doesn't matter whether they're affiliated or not - blogs and forums are not reliable independent sources. The policy quite clearly states that (WP:SPS). Thus the original AfD decision was completely correct. If you can recreate the article in a manner that solves these problems, then that's fine, but there's no doubt that a DRV will not achieve that. Black Kite 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...For the reason of vanity press. Also, the link to Lugnet is not on their forum; it is an award given out by them. TN05 —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
It is not purely for the reason of vanity press. Please just read the policy. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable". The only exception to this is certain circumstances where blogs are written by professional writers under the control of major media groups. Unless the subject can be shown to have independent multiple non-trivial coverage outside this area, it fails WP:V, as this article did. The LUGNET link is also user-generated content - it is reviews sent in by members of the site. Black Kite 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • O Acaso do Erro – No consensus to overturn, and closure endorsed by default. While the overturn !votes have a slight numerical majority (9-8), almost half of them were characterized as "weak" and many consider the close to be within reasonable admin discretion. Moreover, this is an album, not a BLP, and the concerns that arguably justified the close of the Jon CJ Graham DRV do not apply here. I recognize my discretion to relist the AfD for further discussion upon determining that there is no consensus here, but I have decided not to do so. While several noted the low participation in the AfD, something that normally would justify a relist, a good number of people here agreed that a redirect is appropriate, something that can occur without another AfD. As a result, I consider it inappropriate to force a new AfD at this stage. This, of course, does not preclude it from being listed at AfD if another editor wishes to do so, but I recommend the possiblity of a redirect be explored first before a second AfD takes place. – Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
O Acaso do Erro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Keep votes failed to address in any way how the article meets WP:SONGS. delete votes demonstrated a lack of significant third party coverage. discussion with closing admin did not seem to acknowledge this. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin - Consensus was not present in this debate. Arguments for retention were indeed weak; however, support of the nomination was not overwhelming enough to justify entirely discounting them. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn. Julian's close was certainly within the bounds of reasonable judgment in terms of evaluating the AFD, which makes overturning it at DRV shaky. I think describing the arguments for retention as "weak" gives them too much credit, though. FranklinG simply votes "keep" on all Fresno articles, saying "The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band."
Given that FranklinG created these articles, making the same (generally false) assertion about each and every one is too weak to count at all. Poltair's argument was refuted effectively by Ginsengbomb, so I would give it zero weight in the final analysis. I stay at "weak" overturn because I dislike using DRV as a second bite at the apple. As I said, Julian's analysis is not out of bounds.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A delete close was certainly on the cards here. The delete !votes outnumbered the keeps in numbers (barely) and strength of argument (fairly convincingly, as explained above). Having said that, DRV is about whether the close was reasonable (an objective test), not whether it was the best possible close (a subjective test that is inherently difficult to apply). Here, "no consensus" was also open to be made, having regard to the general thinness of the discussion and uncertainties about sources. A no consensus close in these cases is an appropriately conservative course of action; it allows for the article to be renominated in the not too distant future, where hopefully a consensus will be reached. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, got any sources for that article? Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were sources presented in the AfD (including in LibStar's delete !vote). I have no idea whether they amount to significant coverage in reliable sources; the debate didn't address the issue in detail, which is another reason the no consensus close is an appropriately conservative call. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, no-one presented any specific sources for consideration as RSs. Do you have or are we now accepting WP:GOOGLEHITS as evidence of notability these days? Spartaz Humbug! 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There no sources were provided so the policy based argument was delete. Closing as no-consensus fails to properly weigh the discussion against policy Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn, without implying anything really procedurally wrong with the close. I'm pretty sure I would have called that a consensus to delete, given the complete absence of any basis in policy for the keep votes. I can totally see where Juliancolton is coming from calling this no consensus, but there's definitely precedent for disregarding keep and delete votes that don't address the relevant policies - and this seems to me to be a case of where that probably should be done. ~ mazca talk 09:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There were two "keep" !votes, Franklin G's can be summarised as "It's notable" but doesn't give any evidence to back up the assertion and so can just be discounted. Poltair's is effectively "it gets a lot of google hits, so it is likely that at least some that meet Wikipedia criteria for giving notability", but Ginsengbomb and LibStar's comments refute this - the coverage in reliable sources that Poltair speculates exists doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a procedural error, though an understandable one. Alternatively relist for further discussion. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and delete, mostly per Kww's argument. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a completely reasonable close, given the small number of participants and the open question about sources. The article can be nominated again to generate more debate.--~TPW 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect to band article, as is normal in such AfDs. Black Kite 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). The Participants did not reach a consensus. Feel free to Merge and redirect to Fresno (band) without asking at DRV for permission. Discuss on the discussion page if necessary. In the AfD I see people !Voting to delete due to non-notability, but this is not a reason to delete if there is an obvious merge target. Verifiability is not an issue here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus and just bring another AfD in a week or so. I rarely see the point of trying to overturn a non-consensus close when one thinks it should have been delete, when there's such an easy way of dealing with it.
  • endorse not a clearly mistaken close. I would strongly support a redirect to the band though... Hobit (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also can someone tell me how WP:SONGS applies here? Should I assume the reference was suppose to be to WP:MUSIC? Hobit (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no consensus call was clearly accurate. And, per WP:OSE, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Albums by notable bands are an ideal example of where to apply this principle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My keep argument was indeed weak and doubtful, I think I made that clear. If the subject is not sufficiently notable, and is unlikely ever to be so, and there is some arbitrary guideline that makes it unwelcome at Wikipedia, then get rid of it. Poltair (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn, looks like a delete consensus after discounting the keeps per Kww. A redirect may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus close as within the bounds of admin discretion, but without prejudice if somebody decides to redirect it, as seems to be appropriate. RayTalk 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • John Kiriakou – Doubly moot. First, the article has never been deleted, merely redirected, and no DRV is necessary to revert a redirect. Second, the closing admin has agreed to recreation. No prejudice to a new AfD at editorial discretion when the article is recreated. – Tim Song (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Kiriakou (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't remember reading our original article on John Kiriakou, and didn't participate in the deletion discussion. I know his initial claim to fame was that he could verify that Abu Zubaydah broke within 35 seconds of being waterboarded. I do know he continued to be frequently used by news shows as an expert they could interview. I know his claim was subjected to increasing skepticism as further details of the CIA's waterboarding program became public. I know he appeared on the Colbert Report after his book was published. And I know that in his book, published earlier this year, he acknowledged that he wasn't present where Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded, and he had no idea how long it took to break him. I don't think there is any question that Kiriakou merits his own article now. (I didn't consult the closing admin first, because his or her User page says they have basically retired from the project.) I request full undeletion of the article, its full revision history, and talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeff Stein (2010-01-26). "CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2010-03-09. Well, it's official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn't know what he was talking about.
  • "Colbert: Waterboard Kiriakou, CIA Faker". Politifi. 2010-02-06. Archived from the original on 2010-03-01. John Kiriakou, the former CIA employee whose claims about Waterboarding became an oft-cited defense of the Torture practice, got the "Colbert Report" treatment this week.
  • John Kiriakou, Michael Ruby (2010). The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror. Random House. ISBN 9780553807370. Retrieved 2010-03-09.
  • Allow recreation. I believe this DRV is entirely unnecessary. The article was redirected, not deleted, so the full article history is available. Given that the AFD was over two years ago and all the sources cited by Geo Swan are more recent, it should be within the bounds of normal editing to undo the redirect and create a sourced article, without coming to DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as per RL0919. An AfD result of "Redirect" is not binding even in the short term, and surely not more than 2 years later. No need to worry about whether the AfD was technically correct or not (I think i would have closed it as "no consensus"), indeed this DRV can probably be speed closed as moot, because DRV's permission is not required to revert to the previous version of the article and then edit to add new sources. DES (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would've closed an AfD where only 2 of the 7 commenters opted for keep as "no consensus" (and thus default to keep)? Are you sure about that? Black Kite 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two "delete"s, two "keep"s, three "redirect"s, and one "merge" And since "redirect" when not "delete and redirect" does not delete the history it is arguably a form of "keep", not a form of "delete". And Scmdn's keep arguments were IMO the strongest in the discussion. IMO a close of "keep, with redirection at editorial discretion" would not have been out of line with the discussion. But the matter is really academic now. DES (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as closing admin - the original AfD wasn't contentious in the slightest, the article was a single line stub asserting no notability at all - if there's new information that makes him notable now, then no problem. Not something that should be at DRV, really. Black Kite 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation if there's new information not considered at the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow re-creation and see if anyone wants to challenge it with a new afd. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More