Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 1

Rob Honeycutt – Restored and sent to AfD. Sam Blacketer 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC) – Sam Blacketer 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article in question was listed as a speedy delete. The hold on tag was placed and comments were made. In a few minute I had added references, external links and the proper categories. The subject is the founder of Timbuk2 and passes the google test --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Halomark went and recreated the page. --evrik ^(talk) 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my deletion. I don't see wide-spread notability. However, since I have now twice speedy-deleted this page (once in a much more bare-bones version than now exists) I will recuse myself from a further deletion. - Philippe | Talk 04:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bare claim of notability in the deleted versions so overturn speedy-deletion and send it to AFD (though I don't think it has much hope of surviving as an independent article unless there are substantially better references than have been provided so far). Rossami (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

chessGames.com – Userfied by me to User:Potato dude/ChessGames.com. Recreation with sources is permitted. – Chick Bowen 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The reasons give for deletion of this article were advertising, lack of independent sources discussing the website, the fact that it isn't widespread, and the comparatively small size of the database. There wasn't any advertising on the page, which even pointed out deficiencies in the site. Chessgames.com can be found on various online sources independent of the site, as can be easily seen by use of a google search. In addition, Daniel Freeman, one of the co-founders of the site, gave an interview about chessgames.com to GM Mikhail Golubev that was published in the Chess Today newspaper, Issue CT-305(2185) on November 1, 2006. The accusation that the site isn't widespread fails to recognize that chessgames.com is the largest online chess community. Other online chess communities with noticably fewer members have wikipedia articles, such as the Internet Chess Club. Lastly, the reason for the database of about 400,000 games instead of millions is the site's focus on learning. Instead of just blindly archiving every game like most database sites, it requires games to have either a certain measure of quality or historical importance. Potato dude 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation - there is no way, based on the discussion, that the admin could have closed this as anything other than a delete. However, this is an important site in the chess community. As an indication, in all articles on Wikipedia on chess players their games are linked from this site in the same way that Soccerbase is used for stats for footballers. The problem with assessing notability for chess sites is that they are not covered by the mainstream media. Therefore we need a somewhat different metric for their importance. There are two I would suggest. The first is the number of members. If, as claimed above, this exceeds ICC, which is incontrovertibly notable, then that is significant. Naturally, this claim needs sourcing. The other metric is its use by titled players. There is a wide range of resources for titled players to use so if a number choose a particular option then that is also significant. In addition to those listed in the article, a quick search shows that the highly notable Susan Polgar quotes its analysis on her own site here. Having reflected, I agree that immediate restoration is not possible. However, I would suggest that the article be userfied to Potato dude to enable him to work on the notability, along these lines, with my assistance and permit subsequent recreation. BlueValour 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, permit recreation per Blue, to whose perfect, detailed summary of the associated procedural and substantive issues I couldn't possibly add. Joe 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation as per BlueValour. Clearly the article was inappropriate as it read too much like an advert and the result of the AfD was fairly clear. I feel that notability has been established by this discussion and there is no reason the site should not have an article. --carelesshx _talk 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what y'all think of Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Today#Chessgames.com (or, alternatively, Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-12-04#Chessgames.com based on the date). If someone who is familiar withthe previous article could accept or decline this submission. The Evil Spartan 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They measure their "active users" by "someone who has logged in within the last 90 days" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.210.198 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? - I think this discussion would be easier if specific sources that could be used to recreate the article were provided. Some third party independent sources would be a good start. I wouldn't be happy to see this recreated until these had been provided but thereafter would concur with recreation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

World of KungFu – Speedy endorse deletion; in addition to being a proper A7 and G11 speedy, the article was a copyright infringement, which are never restored. —Cryptic 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This post was about a 3D online game called World of KungFu. It was deleted because it was an online game. I am a little confused about this. World of Warcraft is a similar game that has a wikipedia page. This game is an up-and-coming 3d game like WOW and already has 1,000 users. As more users join, a wikipedia article will be more appropriate. Lilcoons1995 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg – Image speed restored; deletion clearly in error. When Wikipedia has an entire article on an image, the image is necessary under any thoughtful reading of the NFCC. – Xoloz 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This iconic image of a unique historic event, for which no free alternative is available, adds greatly to understanding of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. Unfortunately, it wasn't tagged with a proper fair-use rationale. I will fix this soon after it is restored. (Closing admin is retired, hence DRV) <eleland/talkedits> 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - iconic event, should have been brought to IFD. Certainly not i7, unless it was only used as the main image on someone's biography. The Evil Spartan 09:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have access to the deleted image but there is a cached version here. Could an admin indicate whether this corresponds to the version under discussion, please? Could the nominator please indicate the revised fair-use wording they are proposing? BlueValour 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is exactly the same, as is the contents of the page itself (save for the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} which led to deletion). Splash - tk 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Iconic image that is essentially the subject of an entire article, if any fair use is to be allowed this is one of the situations where it has to be. Appears to have committed the sin of not mentioning the article it was being used in, although it clearly implied what that article was if anyone had read the rationale... of course the tagger/deleter couldn't be bothered to spend 2 seconds fixing this minor issue. --W.marsh 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Exactly the sort of image for which fair use is intended to be authorized. (As opposed to logos, book covers, etc.) An editor in good standing is willing to do what it takes to fix the problems with our insane NFCC criteria. GRBerry 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.