Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 9

{{drvlinks|pg=Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades|ns=User}}) (DRV)

I am listing this DRV on behalf of User:Westcoastbiker. After deleting it, I userfied this article at the request of the user. See the recent dialogue between us on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerry&oldid=244248120#User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades my talk page]. After I did some flamethrowering on it, and he added some content he feels it is now ready for review for purposes of determining if it would be appropriate to cross-namespace move this to the article namespace. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See also:

• {{la|Bettertrades}}
• {{la|BetterTrades}}

• No. It looks promotional. It lacks independent secondary references; those provided are paid advertisements. Encyclopedias are not for new things. Wait and see what reactions/results it produces, and then write an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not sure if DRV is the right forum for this discussion, but the userfied article looks very weak in terms of establishing notability, either under WP:N or WP:ORG. I very much doubt it would survive an AfD. The first reference given[http://pr-canada.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37977&Itemid=65] is a paid site for self-published paid advertisements, certainly not an independent source. The second (non online) reference is given without any kind of quote and it is very unclear what it says and to what extent, if any, it covers the company. The third reference[http://www.optionsxpress.com/xpo/better_trades.aspx] is from some conference where the company apparently was one of the sponsors (again, not exactly independent). The only independent source given that actually contains coverage of the company is the last ref[http://www.gwinnettbizjournal.com/content.cfm?WikiID=7124]. This one is OK, but there is not much there and overall a far cry from passing either WP:N or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the company is apparently a division of "Long Term - Short Term Corporation". It might make more sense to try an article on the main company instead--there is likely to be more material. DGG (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Don't restore; the links are not from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Don't restore - The only things I could find were {{cite news|first=Chuck|last=Jaffe|title=Stupid Investment of the Week|work=MarketWatch|page=|date=April 15, 2005|accessdate=2008-10-10|quote=|url=http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B279461C0%2D83A1%2D4C79%2DBCDD%2D6DD3013B7EF5%7D&siteid=mktw}}, which has a tone of "The problem with BetterTrades lies more in what was not said than in the actual sales pitch," and that Erica Shaffer did an infomercial for BetterTrades in 2007. Not much for an article, but the source could be used to add information about BetterTrades in something related to trading strategy. -- Suntag ☼ 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:*Off topic - And you can comment here on the linking of the above accessdate parameter in the cite news. -- Suntag ☼ 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{drvlinks|pg=Calpernia Addams}}|AfD 2)

I'm not sure how to approach this since the article has been up for deletion twice. I was not aware of the debate or the active attempt to delete or I would have liked to participate. Editors voted to keep it on the basis that Calpernia is a public figure , that she keeps a public website and that she represents as a spokeswoman PFLAG , a public organizations. I agree that what has been made public of her image, by her or her agents is fair use information, however, attempts to source her original male name and or photo's fall under malicious intent and violate wiki's "Do No Harm" rule. The editors do it ( I believe ) knowing that they are challenging Ms Addams current identity and inflicting emotional and possibly personal financial or physical harm. Whether they are aware or unaware of this possible damage is no excuse as I doubt that wiki was intended to be used as a gossip column . It's a sticky wicket for moderators I'm sure but unless there is some relevance beyond curiosity that part of a transsexuals previously non-public life should be and must be off limit's. As a public TS myself every argument I make is prefaced by the other person throwing out my old male name, purposely misgendering me and punctuating every other sentence with "freak" so as you can guess I have a rather high tolerance for verbal abuse and I'm more than aware of this issue . I would like the moderators to please discuss a "transgender policy" in regards to these privacy concerns . I also believe that people or verified agents of those people have the right to delete the entire body of an article if even one part crosses the line of privacy invasion. The responsibility should be on wiki to produce and collect accurate and informative sourced material and not the individual to have to police articles written about them by religious or prejudice individual through wiki ( yes I have had people throw religious terms like "sin" at me among the editors ). DarlieB (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Moved to correct day's logs. lifebaka++ 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Both of the AFD discussions were obvious keeps, and the article has been edited twice in the last couple of months. This request has nothing in it challenging the closing rationale, so endorse the keep. This is probably the wrong forum for this kind of claim anyhow, and I'd recommend a speedy close of the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I read through the article and the AfD discussions and I find no violation of process. I struggled to try to understand the subject's BLP concerns, but I'm not sure what it is in the article that is causing the problem. I think that neither AfD nor DRV is the correct forum to address these issues. Whether it's WP:BLPN or OTRS, these issues should be addressed by those who can address the specific issues within an article that should be retained per consensus. Alansohn (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Personally I feel that wikipedia should be far more restrictive on biographies of living people, but WP:BLP is a sensible compromise. Anyone, inclusing the subject, concerned by the content of the article, would be better advised to stop reading it, ignore it, and stop doing things to draw attention to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral but do not speedy close. We should always take BLP issues seriously. Given the subject's consternation over this article an occasional review, both to make sure we still want to keep and to make sure it is neutral and balanced, will not hurt us. Chick Bowen 05:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse - there is no question whatsoever that the closing admins in both AFDs correctly interpreted the overwhelming consensus to keep the article and DRV is not AFD round two (or three). This is not the appropriate forum to discuss developing a "transgender policy". I have already suggested either Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Village pump, and another editor suggested stopping by WP:LGBT. Regarding Ms. Addams in particular, I agree that it is the responsibility of editors to create articles that consist only of reliably sourced information. That is already stated flat out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states in relevant part: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). I have done quite a bit of work on this article and I have taken great pains to ensure that the material I've included meets this policy standard. I could not disagree more strongly that anything in this article is "challenging" Ms. Addams' current identity. Note that even in material that discusses her life prior to transitioning, appropriate personal pronouns are used. No one to the best of my knowledge is attempting to source her original male name, and if such information were ever added to the article then the edits that added it would be removed and oversighted. Otto4711 (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the result of the AFD which was correct. This posting should be on WP:BLPN, if anywhere at all. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a clear policy-based consensus in the AfD for keep. Notability here is for from marginal and the information given is properly sourced. After reading through both AfDs and the article itself, I don't see BLP violations here, but if there are concerns, they should be taken to WP:BLPN. Nsk92 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - A request that the article be BLP deleted because of unsourced attempts to add her original male name (birthname) and/or male photo would be best addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (3rd nomination). Information about anyone's previously non-public life is off limit's since, by definition of non-public, there is no reliable source material from which to add such information to a Wikipedia article. In the present case, the material can be oversighted. You can start a discussion of a "transgender policy" at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. You can start a proposal in your userspace and use the {{tl|Proposed}} to draw people to it. I suggest starting an essay on the topic. Since a transsexuals' "non-public life should be and must be off limit's" likely represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors, you may want to post your essay to Wikipedia project space. Also, a review of WP:AGF wouldn't hurt. -- Suntag ☼ 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• endorse close clear consensus. No new information. No compelling reason to think that anything has changed. Specific BLP issues can be dealt with on the page. The specific personal feelings of public figures has not much weight when the information information is reliably sourced and can be found through easy googling. I feel very sorry for Calpernia and obviously fate has dealt Calpernia a difficult hand to play but it isn't our job to make it easier for her anymore than it is to remove pictures of Muhammad to make some Muslims feel more comfortable. Once someone becomes a willing public figure the ability to pick and choose your coverage is not viable. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

{{drvlinks|pg=Cell (Dragon Ball)|ns=Article}} (AfD2)

Less than 5 days for a contested deletion which was basically a submarine nom in the first place and people only started to comment on after several days while we waited in good faith for the merge consensus that was started by the AfD nominators. I was adding more sources, and I just convinced bsimmons to change his view. Much discussion was still to come, so the close before 5 days is insane. If anything we should holding this open a few days extra because of the bad faith in not notifying the merge discussion that the nominators were abanonding the discussion. If it goes down in a few days, fine, but this is premature and frankly wrong. I will add that the mood was actually 8-5 in favour of merging at this time, because TTN is currently under review, and is going to be banned from what I can tell for (shock) improper merges without consultation JJJ999 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Four day discussion, pretty clear consensus, proper notification followed, external mediation activities have no bearing on AFD. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:*Yes, there were 8 people (and one editor who is under review to be banned as we speak for harming wikipedia and ignoring consultation) in favour and 5 opposed for merge at this time, but many good reasons and sources were being added on both sides, and the outcome could easily have changed if a correct amount of time was given to discuss this further. In this light closure after 4 days is totally unreasonable.JJJ999 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse – consensus is crystal clear. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:*I don't think it's appropriate for a mod involved in these proceedings, and the mediation underway, to be commenting here seripoth.JJJ999 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::*I can participate in the DRV, just as I am free to participate in the AfD. It is a community venue that does not bar anyone. Check your bad faith assumptions at the door. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::*DGG seems to give alot of good faith, and even he thinks the claim that there is clear consensus is absurd. It is. I don't understand how someone would come to that conclusion in good faith.JJJ999 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::::*The notion that the close was wrong is absurd. The only purpose of DRV is to ascertain whether the close properly represented the consensus present. If you want to count the !votes, there are ten "merge" !votes and five "keep" !votes. None of the "keep" !votes address the problem raised in the nomination, which is the lack of notability asserted. Nothing that you brought up asserts notability, it is all trivial references that do not qualify as the significant coverage required by WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a week, and relist if still necessary. If anyone thinks that consensus is "crystal clear" on anything to do with this or related articles, they may not have been carefully following the discussion. I say this without regard to the merits of the actual decision, for in the course of this I have been willing to support anything that that would reach an agreed solution; preferring a keep, but accepting a suitable merge with preservation of content. The lack of a good procedure for handling these is by now obvious to anyone with the patience to follow all the turns. But the early close--even a one day early close--for something where there was no apparent consensus was not a good idea. It never is a good idea to do an early close in circumstances like that, only when the consensus is clear and obvious. Otherwise it just comes here. I would support reiteration of policy that early closes are not generally acceptable, except under limited circumstances. Perhaps it should be explictly said that the objection of one established editor in good faith is sufficient to prevent an early close. DGG (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Expanding I certainly think the close was in good faith; it was just too early. What was absurd was not the close necessarily (though if the situation had been the same at the end of the 5 days I would have closed as "keep: discuss merge on the talk page") what was absurd was thinking there was enough consensus to close early--that requires total agreement.. Many of these discussions change drastically on he final day when people find sources. The time needs to be allowed; that's why we have procedural rules. 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- Collectonian put the deletion on the log at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_5&diff=prev&oldid=243197771 15:42, 5 October 2008] and the AfD notice was placed on the article at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cell_(Dragon_Ball)&diff=next&oldid=242551293 16:17, 5 October 2008]. Collectonian even took the extra step of notifying WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga at 15:46, 5 October 2008. How can you claim that this was "a submarine nom" and there was "bad faith in not notifying the merge discussion?" -- Suntag ☼ 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• For the fairly obvious reason that while he remembered to notify the anime group (after being told off last time for not doing so), he intentionally did not notify the people posting at the merge discussion, which was not on Cell's talk page, but was on the talk page for the List of DBZ characters. This means that people did not obviously see what he was doing whenever they posted on the Cell merger discussion, because it was not happening on Cell's talk page. This is bad form because he started the merger discussion and there was alot of input there. He then closed a number of discussions with no consensus. He was in turn told by independent admins that there had been no consensus, and the closures were without foundation, and merge discussions should continue. People then returned to the merge discussion as the appropriate forum, and posted their views, waiting in good faith for Collectonian and the others to participate in the merge discussions for Cell, Tien, Goten, etc, not realising Collectonian had waited a few days, decided he was going to lose, and nominated them for deletion, abandoning the merge discussion he started, and which numerous editors were waiting for him to return to. Most of those involved were simply not checking the talk pages for these characters because we'd already resolved the facts about the page, and the discussion had moved to the merge page. People like myself, Lord Orepth and others are understandably angry about this. I suspect with a few more days we'll be hearing from other people who are angry about it. To close an AfD a day early in circumstances like this, where frankly there was still considerable dispute, is totally against the spirit of reaching consensusJJJ999 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The result of an AFD is either delete or not-delete. This one couldn't have been closed as delete; any decisions on merging can be discussed, and consensus changed if needed, on the talk pages. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - you may have valid objections about the behaviour of some people involved, but the consensus on this AfD seems extremely strongly in favour of a merge. I see no problems at all with the close here, and an AfD "merge" decision does not stop you forming a new consensus to split it out again on the talk page. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)