Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 2

Becky Altringer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Gmatsuda (talk · contribs) was recently caught using multiple IP addresses to stack votes on dozens of AfDs (mostly those that Gmatsuda had started)...I have attempted to locate the discussions that may have had a different outcome had there been no such activity.
In this case, remove the three separate suspicious IP votes and the AfD is at 1 weak keep & 1 merge after Gmatsuda's nom. I suggest restoring the article and relisting. — Scientizzle 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Temporarily undeleted so it can be examined. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist borderline, some non-sock views should be solicited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Don't know. Mildly notable? Pretty weak AfD. Delete and block User:Becky Altringer, this account impersonates a real person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn, that was a horrendous closure by me, socking or not. I must have been asleep. :( Stifle (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per closing admin. If someone wishes to relist it, that's fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

T. Love (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Gmatsuda (talk · contribs) was recently caught using multiple IP addresses to stack votes on dozens of AfDs (mostly those that Gmatsuda had started)...I have attempted to locate the discussions that may have had a different outcome had there been no such activity.
In this case, remove the three separate suspicious IP votes and the AfD has no input after Gmatsuda's nom. I suggest restoring the article and relisting. — Scientizzle 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Temporarily undeleted so it can be examined. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist seems borderline and more non-sock input would be helpful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist to get a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist for proper, unspammed, AfD discussion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Closing admin I was unaware of the sockpuppetry that had occured and took in good faith the IP comments, I agree this process should be restarted or voided. MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Johnson (Singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Gmatsuda (talk · contribs) was recently caught using multiple IP addresses to stack votes on dozens of AfDs (mostly those that Gmatsuda had started)...I have attempted to locate the discussions that may have had a different outcome had there been no such activity.
In this case, remove the two separate suspicious IP votes and it's 1 delete vs. 1 keep/userify after Gmatsuda's nom. I suggest restoring the article and relisting. — Scientizzle 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Temporarily undeleted so it can be examined. DGG (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the result, not the methodology - subject does not appear to pass relevant notability guidelines. Regardless of any vote-stacking no reliable sources were offered in support of notability. Regardless of any difficulty in sorting out Ghits, one would think that tours with several notable acts would lead to at least one hit in which both names appeared but that doesn't appear to be the case. Otto4711 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist borderline, some non-sock views should be solicited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist to get a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist. The deletion might be proper, but we need need the opinion of trustworthy editors to determine that. If all suspicious votes are discounted in this debate, the outcome should've been no consensus, so it should've been automatically relisted at the time. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Closing admin I was unaware of the sockpuppetry that had occured and took in good faith the IP comments, I agree this process should be restarted or voided. MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brad Friedman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(I sent the following to X!, the administrator who seems to have deleted the page. Hope I've created this deletion review thing correctly, as I don't know how to use Wiki very well, and didn't create the original page, now deleted, in question! - BF)

As I'm not a Wikipedian (or whatever the proper word is for those who know what they're doing at Wikipedia), I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Would have preferred to contact you via email, but looks like that's not an option?

I was notified by a bunch of readers over the weekend that the Wiki entry for myself (Brad Friedman of The BRAD BLOG) had been removed for some reason. In trying to figure out why, I was able to figure out that any such "deletion review" should begin with contacting whoever seemed to delete it, which seems to have been you. Hope I'm right (as mentioned, not a Wikepedian!)

Anyway, as they were flummoxed, so was I. In trying to figure out why that entry was deleted, I checked other colleagues of mine, who do similar work (Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Mike Malloy of The Mike Malloy Show, Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks Show, for example) and find them all still listed. So not clear why the article describing me had been removed.

As mentioned, I don't know much about Wiki or Wiki editing, etc., but I do know that a number of articles which concerned me, or stories that I either broke or was personally involved in, were among those that were edited by a number of the corporations and individuals found to have been gaming the Wikipedia a year or so ago. I'll hope that had nothing to do with whatever effort was taken to remove my entry, but I don't know.

There are many articles around Wiki which still link to "my" now-deleted page, as they refer to various stories that I was either personally involved in, broke in the media (on a blog, in a magazine, on TV or radio etc.), and yet the entry is now deleted for some reason.

If you are able to either explain the reasons for that, or walk me through/towards the "deletion review" process which, as I read it, is supposed to start with you first, I'd very much appreciate it.

All easier for me via email, if you're able, at Brad@BradBlog.com. If not, I can try to come back here to see if I can make heads and/or tails of things.

Appreciate your help and/or consideration (if only so that I can answer all the email I now seem to be getting about the entry where I was listed having been deleted for whatever reason. I'm sure it's no conspiracy, I'm just not sure why or what to tell folks about it, particulary, as I said, since it seems that many of my fellow colleagues -- journalists, media folks, etc. -- remain listed.) For the record, my own personal brief "bio" and testimonials from many well known media folks and public officials, if that's useful, is at http://www.bradblog.com/bio, and should, I think, speak well enough for my credentials.

Thanks again for your help here! Brad F.

P.S. I don't whether its appropriate for a person who is the subject of an article, to ask about such things him/herself but, well, see above. Hope it is!

• Comment To find out why an entry got deleted, the easiest answer is to check Special:Log/Delete which would tell you it was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist: This wasn't clear by any stretch of the imagination. Additional references were provided after the nominator and one other person commented and the anon who posted afterwards said "Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article." Focusing on one potential negative without providing any evidence they actually tried to find good references. This would benefit from a wide discussion and based on the [Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article. listing at Brad's own site] which includes links such as this and this. A specific effort should be made to check those for potential sources and the addition after the last comment of an established user in the AFD also warrant a closer look. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If we're going to bite new users about terminology then this is the English Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Or you can just slap on a pic of Wikipe-tan scolding (not as bitey IMO) new users not to abbreviate as Wiki (for usability reasons, I am just providing the link and not posting the image). The image is also in different languages. MuZemike 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist Inadequate discussion, and should not have been closed, but continued. DGG (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Afd has no quorum requirement and it appears that the comments by the participants were unanimous and correct - well within the closer's discretion to not wait for Godot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's just my point, I don't think the commenters were well-informed. The commenters commented on the article being unverified rather than unverifiable and they did not have the chance to cosider the additional information. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - nothing out of process here; a clear delete per WP:BIO, not to mention the COI and PUFF issues raised in the original nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist for further discussion and a concerted effort to find sources - which does not appear to have been done. It's hard to find sources about the subject mostly because the prolific content by the subject clouds up the google search. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Relist: Although I agree there is nothing out of the ordinary about this deletion, it does appear to have not reached many viewers. Can't see the harm in relisting it, to draw in a bigger consensus, but I'm not prepared to fight tooth n nail over it. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)