Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 29

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2007 May 28
2007 May 30 >

29 May 2007

edit
  • uSwitch – Overturn deletion. Does not appear to be spam however the current version does resemble an advertisement. Participants of this discussion are requested to help improve the article. Also OwenBlacker is reminded to adhere to WP:COI while editing this article. --Srikeit 07:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
USwitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page speedy-deleted for invalid reason: page was listed as db-spam, yet was not unencyclopædic OwenBlacker 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as a violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #5, on the theory this is a non free press photo of a living person. However, that guideline also states "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g., a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in related articles." This image depicts the Zimbabwean opposition leader brutally beaten for political reasons. The image appeared in the relevant article. It is therefore a newsworthy photo not just being used to show what a living person looks like and proper fair use. -N 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initially quoted articles to give the historical context. However if you look closely you will see that I listed many article that later on in the discussion that did have the photo. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The image wasn't deleted "on the theory this is a non free press photo of a living person". It was deleted because it was a non-iconic unfree picture of an important event used to illustrate that event, in direct market replacement of the original purpose this image has to it's copyright holder (a news agency that makes a living out of licensing images like this for, among other things, websites like this). --Abu badali (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete this photo to begin with. Additionally the photo itself was newsworthy was iconic.. The picture is of Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the MDC (the opposition movement in Zimbabwe), showing his appalling injuries after he was tortured very badly by the Zimbabwean government. This obviously is not reproducible at any later point. The issue is a big one both politically and in the human rights community. The government there often denies doing this kind of thing and this photo is one of the few times that it can be proven wrong. This has caused a big international uproar. Here is the original photo or similar image used in context around the world: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], Here is an article and under the caption reads "Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world" - see here [14], [15], [[16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Thus it is very notable and qualifies under fair use. Please, before you judge this, learn about the recent History of Zimbabwe. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I showed many articles with the exact same image. The point was to show that the image of his injuries was a big deal. The BBC article had a different picture of those same injuries, but the tagline saying they that pics of his injuries went around the world implies that any pic of his injuries at the time was notable. It was a big deal politically. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the problems here is that this photo is too recent -- it's just from two months ago and it hasn't had the time to make a similar cultural impact with the ones I listed above. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - we absolutely cannot use news media photos. Press agencies make their money licensing those photos. If we use them without paying license fees, that's a huge potential liability when we get sued. --BigDT 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Custodiet ipsos custodes makes a good case for fair use justification within policy, as far as that policy appears to be explained—it does not appear to be true that "we absolutely cannot use newsmedia photos" according to WP:NONFREE. A free content alternative is simply not available, and that image seems to be of iconic import to recent Zimbabwe politics. Is the scope of that importance notable? WP:CSB. —pfahlstrom 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - We can use news media photos to illustrate articles (or sections) about the news media photos themselves. But we absolutely cannot use news media photos to illustrate the articles (or sections) about the news events they depict, which is the case here. --Abu badali (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments only for now. First, I don't know what the hell "iconic" means in contexts such as this; I suspect it's just "very well known" but amn't sure. If it means "very well known", let's say so; if it means something else, let's say so. Secondly, whether or not WP can use news media photos, it does use them. Here's an example. (NB I am not putting forward the use of this photo as a reason to use the photo under deletion review, merely remarking on WP as I see it.) -- Hoary 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll define iconic as "well-known enough to be recognized by a large number of casual readers". Maybe it's systemic bias to say that a photo from Zimbabwe just doesn't have the same reach as the photos I listed above (which with the exception of the Reichstag flag were all widely circulated in the U.S.), but until there is literature about the image itself (for example, the book Flags of Our Fathers is specifically about the photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but we don't need to have an entire book) then it's a non-notable picture about a notable event. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy. As far as I can tell it meets all ten points of this policy which incidentally mention significance rather than iconicity. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy can't override the law. Think about it - if Encyclopedia Brittanica decided to use news media photos without permission, what would happen? They would get sued. As a non-commercial entity, we may be able to get away with some things they can't, but we do have downstream uses. We absolutely cannot use news media photos - it's just asking for legal troubles and they should be deleted on sight. --BigDT 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it can, but you appear to disapprove of any form of fair use alltogether even if both policy and law allow it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it fails to meet "2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - by using the image on an article about the beating, we are basically competing with news media outlets who might use the image commercially for the same purpose. Megapixie 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original market value was to be used as news. The news cycle is very quick and after 24 hours it starts getting old. After weeks and months have passed its primary market is not damaged. It does have a secondary market, however this is something the courts have given much more leeway on. Let me quote from a recent court of appeals opinion:[22] and [23] 'Were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder.' Additionally Wikipedia is a non-profit and an educational forum. Fair use really does work here. As I have tried to stress many times before, each case is individual and it is erroneous to assume a blanket legal rule against one type. I have actually spent many many hours researching this. At this point I could write a long sourced article about it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So in essence, you're more arguing against the policy itself, not in its application, right? The non-free content policy here is intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. copyright law allows because its primary aim is not to keep us from getting sued, but freedom instead -- the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with the content. Every piece of non-free content is a hindrance to that goal. Now we are not going to go the German route and ban all non-free content, but we can limit its usage to only what's necessary. You might find other examples of improper usage of non-free images, but that doesn't mean we allow more. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I was addressing the issue of those who said it was a straight out copy violation. However I understand the Wikipedia policy allows fair use on some limited occasions. This implies some degree of commercial loss by "secondary use". Otherwise we would never be allowed to use a copyrighted image in Wikipedia (i.e. even a magazine cover in reduced pixel form could be licensed by the copyright holder, yet Wikipedia sometimes allows it). So for the same reasons as above, one must logically interpret the rule to apply to primary and not secondary loss of commercial use. Thus even according to the Wikipedia policy this image is permitted. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But look at the court case you are quoting from. The issue there was the use of an event poster where there was historical significance of the poster itself, not merely the fact that it happened to depict people from the band. In this case, any photo from the period would do just fine - there's nothing historically significant about this photo itself. Further, whereas the primary purpose of the poster was to promote the band (a purpose not infringed by using it without paying royalties), the primary purpose of this photo is to sell it and collect royalties. --BigDT 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are mistaken to say that the photo is not historically significant. The images of Morgan Tsvangirai after he was beaten up caused an international uproar. The point of the photo was to show his injuries after the government literally tried to beat him to death (not any photo would do; only one having him with his injuries next to the hospital.) Secondly I disagree with you about the primary purpose of the photo. The news agency photos are taken primarily to illustrate current events. The overwhelming majority of photos are used and printed within 48 hours of being taken. After that they are considered 'old' news. A tiny proportion are used later on are sold afterwards for other uses. Thus that later use is secondary. --Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I grant that in the case of the aforementioned poster - there was only one poster and it had significance in of itself. Here, there are a very limited number of photographs. The event they portray is important. However the image of a badly beaten man itself is iconic so the few alternatives are each iconic. Perhaps like the multiple shots of Iwo Jima. Each of them is iconic. Secondly there are no alternatives. There were only a few photographs taken of Morgan Tsvangirai while he was exiting the hospital for treatment/convelessing. Given also that Zimbabwe is one of the poorest countries in the world and that its economy is in ruins, cameras are very scarce and thus it is virtually certain that no new free shots in the future will become available. Accordingly the images are very rare and iconic. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On top of that, we can use a low-resolution version if market value is an issue. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think the arguments on both sides that are being raised here were already raised in the debate. I trust that Howcheng would have been open to an argument he felt was convincing. I see nothing wrong with the closure. Mangojuicetalk 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John P. Kelly (Philadelphia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author not notified (i.e. there was insufficient notice given), nor was there a real consensus. The standard used was rather arbitrary. evrik (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How was the standard used "arbitrary"? The nom asserted this man is a non-notable politician and the discussion participants agreed. --Iamunknown 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (These should be combined, I'm just duplicating text)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the supposedly "arbitrary standard" cited at AfD was WP:BIO, a widely accepted standard which is hardly arbitrary. The arguments to keep, on the other hand.... Xtifr tälk 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No notice is required, so the notice given met all our requirements. That standard seems fine. --pgk 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion on the basis that there certainly was a real consensus. At the end of 5 d, there were 2 deletes in addition to the nom, & 1 keep on the basis that a member of a city council for a large city was automatically notable--which is not the practice. The AfD was, properly, continued an extra 5 days, and there were 6 additional deletes & no other comments. That's consensus. If he does become notable, then it will be time to re-create an article. DGG 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This was rushed and there wasn't enough consensus to justify closing deleting. I agree with Evrik that more notice should have been given. Also, I think the debate was hastily closed. --South Philly 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Juan F. Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author not notified (i.e. there was insufficient notice given), nor was there a real consensus. The standard used was rather arbitrary. evrik (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Activated_Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was about a charity, though related to The Family International is an actual 501(c)(3) with a presence in California. The article also listed detailed information about their officers and directors which is important for folks to know about. I've been trying to document more 501(c)(3)'s on Wikipedia and this is an article I've been working on to raise general public awareness. Etcher 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the closing administrator said, "If they [references] can be found, then the article can always be recreated", he or she left editorial discretion for recreation. Why not just recreate with the help of Smee (talk · contribs) (the editor who said he or she could find citations)? --Iamunknown 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, 501(c) (3)'s are not inherantly notable since anybody can create one. I know people who have created 501's for their kid's education, for tax purposes. This is not a valid reason for deletion review. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that even a valid reason for deleting it then? Shouldn't we do away with all articles regarding foundations? This charity has been cited in news media as well. I wouldn't put it in the same category as one created for their kid's eduction and tax purposes. - Etcher 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer - one of the only 2 "keep"s was based on the "20 or so" citations, but none were forthcoming. I did indeed point out that a recreation if those citations were provided would not be a problem. I have no idea why this has come to DRV. Neil (►) 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because isn't it better to rework the current work then start from scratch? I get your point and references was something I was gleaning for the article. In any case I will respectfully withdraw my request for Deletion Review and try and start work on the article again once I have references and sources squared away. - Etcher 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:Administration_Abuse (edit | [[Talk:WP:Administration_Abuse|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason for deletion "Trolling in the wrong name-space" invalid explanation. This article was not trolling, and it was done in the correct name-space WP. It's a Meta article, not a Wiki article. (DRV initiated by User:Wjhonson at 17:57, May 29, 2007)

  • On a technical note, "WP" is a pseudo-namespace; if it was to be a project-space essay, the prefix "WP" should be replaced with "Wikipedia". --Iamunknown 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page will not make Wikipedia a better place. Endorse. – Steel 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, The content of this is a duplication of content found elsewhere on the project, and the title is just trolling. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to the proper mainspace. Does not appear to be trolling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Jeff, I would accept a restoral with a move to the proper name-space. I was not aware that Wikipedia and WP were different name-spaces, I thought one was simply a short-cut of the other. Wjhonson 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese deletion - we have existing procedures and instructions. This reads like it was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder. AKRadecki 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you endorse and then say "we have existing procedures and instructions" in the same sentence? This deletion was a textbook violation of "existing procedures and instructions." --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. An essay of this nature might best be developed in userspace rather than in Wikipedia/WP space. I acknowledge a conflict of interest as a potential target of the essay, per the creator's comments on another pending DRV. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Newyorkbrad (minus the COI, as I am not an admin ;)). --Iamunknown 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I can't see what the content was, but I'm assuming that it's not some sort of blatant attack piece, since nobody has said that. So, from the evidence presented, I'm not seeing a good reason for speedy deletion. -Amarkov moo! 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - blatant trolling.--Docg 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dubious about an essay that characterizes summoning an uninvolved administrator as 'meatpuppetry'. Let him create in his userspace if he likes, but it's neither appropriate for the article namespace (where it was accidentally created) nor the project namespace (its intended location). Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Swatjester. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't stay in the mainspace, but if the user would like for it to be userfied or moved to Wikipedia: space, I see no reason not to speedilly grant that request without prejudice. --BigDT 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, WP:POINT page. All this material is already better covered in policy pages. >Radiant< 08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone abuses their admin priviliges, you report them to arbcom. The page throws all administrators in the same pile and the abuses described are no different than the abuses regular editors commit. There's no point in writing an inflammatory essay about it that singles out administrators. - Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The point of the essay is to have a central place where editors (not admins) can comprehend *how* to complain about abusive admins. As it stands the process is so deep and confusing that virtually no person can understand it. I have been here for years and still do not understand how to do it. That is one reason why I started it this essay. And also collect to a central place, examples of the types of abuse and how to handle each type. This material is not covered in any central location and so loosely on policy that it's incomprehensible to the average person. Wjhonson 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:ANI:

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include mediation and requests for comment.

- Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Post-autonomous_art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I recently went to reference this article, which I've referred to in the past, and was surprised to find it deleted as nonsense. There is nothing non-sensical about the subject matter if one is schooled in contemporary visual art practices, and in fact this page is / was linked to from a number of respected academic sites. Unfortunately it was the most concisely-presented, and clearly stated source for background on this particular art movement available on the web. Its deletion was a disservice to serious discourse on contemporary art. BTW, I am in no way affiliated with the author, nor do I know him/her, I am simply an artist and critic who is engaged in this topic and find it rather insulting that it would be so summarily dismissed without any discussion whatsoever, which would have quickly brought to light the shortsightedness of the deletion Greenearrings 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow re-creation. This appears to be a recognized concept in the art world, which is not to say that I can make head or tail of it. The article as it existed didn't say much, and creation of a new article might be the best approach, although the earlier version could be reinstated for a short time as a starting point. Newyorkbrad 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deleted as nonsense even while external sources call the article a good start. I have my doubts this was actually nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn . Unfamilarity is not nonsense; when confronted with an apparently incomprehensible article in a field one doesn't know, one should leave it for someone who is more able to tell if it's nonsense. There's a good tag: {{expert}} . One ed. who didn't understand, and a usually careful admin, whose own better judgment was to mark it OR, but deferred to the original ed. who placed the tag, which defeats the purpose for having a 2nd person check.DGG 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to correct this: the ed. who placed the tag does edit regularly in the general field, so it is understandable why the admin. deferred to that eds. view. DGG 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Only 43 ghits for this term, and the link provided by badlydrawnjeff is to a blog. Corvus cornix 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Mainly because the original deletion was a speedy but the article was worthy of deletion review. But note:
-- RHaworth 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm new, but please don't hold that against me. In fact it was this issue that spurred me to become official user, due to irony that the deleted subject is exactly in line w. wiki philosophy, namely, collaborating and ceding some level of control or authorship. I'm very impressed by the careful consideration and discourse I'm seeing here, so consider me not only new, but a convert to further engagement. Greenearrings 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (possibly relist). The current version by Postautonomy is not an article but rather a lecture which was rightfully deleted. However, earlier versions were significantly dissimilar. This should be restored to the more article-like version from December 1, 2006. The number of Google hits shouldn't matter, the quality should. If even one of these hits is the home page of a respected art critic, it's worth having an article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AnkhSVN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not sure why this was deleted as "blatant advertising". The article was short, but it depicts a valid software item which has been around for at least 2-1/2 years and is referenced by several articles. StuffOfInterest 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The_Universal – Deletion endorsed. The AfD seems valid, and nobody has presented a reason why the result was incorrect. As in most cases, no prejudice against recreation if multiple reliable sources are found, but any article without them will just be redirected back to the current target. -Amarkov moo! 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC) – Amarkov moo! 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Universal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 217.195.82.2 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The_Universal - the article about a online computer game. It was deleted for some reason, and all such links now point to a song title. Disambiguation was also deleted apparently. There are many places that linked to the game, now link to the song. For example, List_of_MMORPGs (under letter T), also List of free MMOGs has a link and a description of the game. The link is now broken. Why remove the game article but not remove all the links? And why all other free online games are not removed? I found out about the game from wikipedia, it was a very good article. It's a shame the article is removed now.[reply]

  • Shame it might be, but we multiple, non-trivial, independent sources (for which read: sources which are considered authoritative - staff reviews, not user reviews - and which are not mere directory listings). Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. One reference is the official game site: www.theuniversal.net. Another reference (not on the net) is the PC Gamer magazine, Christmas 2004 issue. Is that not enough?
    Well the first clearly fails the "independent" part of the requirement. And one doesn't tend to be considered "multiple", so I guess not --pgk 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Most of the refs originally offered were to directory listings, but the ref. to a listing in the christmas issue is said in the AfD to be substantial (2 pages). Considering the subject I thinks it might be sufficient. Personally, I think number of registered accounts (the ed. says 13,000) can be used as factor N, just as circulation is used as a factor for newspapers. I'm just commenting because i know mine is still not the accepted view. DGG 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Patrick De Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Very few comments on deletion, and none after a detailed response for keeping the article according to WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists. - Curious GregorTALK 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject-specific guidelines do not override the need for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The only keep was from an majority contributor to the article. From the information given and the people involved, it would have clearley ended in a deletion, even if a few more people had contributed to the afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - As the admin who closed the AfD, I endorse deletion. The claim to notability it quite tenuous, and without much in the way of citations. He is claimed to have played in two notabile bands, Technotronic and T99. In Technotronic, his participation is listed under the "Trivia" heading (guested on on album, not a regular part of the band). T99's first 3 albums were De Meyer's solo works, so the article about T99 is essentially about De Meyer. It seems rather pointless to have two articles about the same artist just because he recorded under different names. At most, I could see a redirect to T99. AKRadecki 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there's no such thing as quorum on AFD. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Undeletion' Patrick De Meyer was one of the composers for technotronic, as well as playing the syntheiszers. Hence, the page for him alone. T99 when it became famous was him and Olivier Abbeloos and so cannot claim to be an article solely for Patrick de Mayer. The WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists suggests that he is notable enough as he he fulfils rule 1

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.

because if we look at his page on all music guide in the composed section we see he has written songs for Technotronic, Daisy Dee and 2 Unlimited, as well as | T99. Technotronic, T99 and 2 Unlimited have all had chart hits. Thereby qualifying him as notable on this count. He has also been a music producer on a number of albums, this is not covered by wikipedia notability rules, however, the producer is often influential on the sound of an album/band (see for example Wall of Sound). The references for the article were All Music Guide & Discogs, | this and IMDB film score credit (independent film, little known - doesn't add much to notablility) can also be seen as showing his work, as he has no official website that I know of. The article had been expanded and modified from the previously deleted stub, which was little more than a list of his pseudonyms, so that it contained more details about him. - - Curious GregorTALK 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_29&oldid=1083191624"