Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 11

24 Hour Knowledge Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Sources are Reliable and Reason for Delete was Frivolous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs) I would like the page "24 Hour Knowledge Factory" to be reopened. The reasons for its deletion were nothing more than a handful of wikipedians marking it as spam, 'akin to a Dilbert cartoon', or 'created by a pair of single-use accounts'. Below is a copy of the deletion 'conversation':

This is blatant spam created by a pair of single purpose accounts ConfuciusOrnis 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - without prejudice to recreation. Spammy article that sounds like it comes from a Dilbert cartoon Part Deux 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as it's spam. Acalamari 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. Lemonsawdust 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment - this isn't anything to spam. At best it's a concept that's written like a business paper, and it mgiht actually be worthy of inclusion, but I have to do more research first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Noted. Can you hit my talk page if you find something? I'll change my mind if you can. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to "offshoring" - although it would be a shame to lose an article that's had so much written on it, it boils down to saying "people in different time zones are awake at different times" in 10000 words - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Part Deux. obvious spam. ffm ✎talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reviewers have stated that there is nothing to spam, with another agreeing if anything else could be found. Another has said that it boils down to saying ""people in different time zones are awake at different times" in 10000 words", attesting to their and others' lack of reading the sources and understanding the concept behind this article. Does this mean that just because a few contributors do not 'get' the article, that it can be deleted at their leisure?

One reviewer posted twice that it is spam, and others have said so with what looks like no review at all. Does garnishing extra support by one's buddies to label something as spam without any review whatsoever really allow for deletion?

It took me a substantial amount of time to write this article, and the entire thing was done in good faith, with extremely reliable sources, that apparantly people have not taken the time to read. The bias is easily seen in the comments above: the idea is being made fun of, and others are professing their criterion for deletion to be based on what they think is laughable about the article. This is completely unprofessional and a waste of this author's time. I would sincerely appreciate that the views of those who are 'single purpose users' are looked at with the same amount of respect as those who are constantly using wikipedia, as I feel as though I have been blindsided just because I am not a consistent user.

I understand that it was already deleted, but being a novice, I did not create a back-up of the page, and would enjoy to have my information returned. Additionally, I do not understand where the contention of 'unreliable sources' comes from, as 100% of the work comes from academic papers published by scientists. What is unreliable? Has anyone read any of the papers and/or sources? If these are unreliable, what is reliable? They are posted on SSRN, one of the world's leading sources of academic papers. And, the information provided in the link above is documented by a well respected news source. What is unreliable?

I implore you to please check the Social Science Research Network for this global work paradigm and read over some of the many papers that deal with this new framework. Many companies including IBM have adopted and are in the trial stages of testing the efficacy of this paradigm. A link to one of the most recent research grants given to [Dr. Amar Gupta], the creator of this paradigm, is here:

http://www.eller.arizona.edu/news/2007/01/09_IBM_honors_MIS_and_Entrepreneurship_professor_Amar_Gupta.aspx

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion, every edit seems... problematic. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? How can you endorse a deletion without giving any substantive reason for doing so other than "...problematic"? Please give some constructive criticism, or, if something is so problematic, then be a wikipedian and edit it yourself! But don't endorse someone's hard work for reasons that you cannot put into words! --Yuu.david 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, I am unable to find any versions which are compliant with policy and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Not spam, but this has been through AfD already, and I've added the proper link above. I tried to rescue this when I found it on CSD and couldn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have just said that it is not spam, so the reason for it initially being deleted - that it was spam - is essentially refuted by your statements here. How can it be that my article is deleted for being spam, but then cannot be brought back even though you state now that it is 'not spam'? You are endorsing this for deletion on the fact that it is administratively unjust to bring back an article that has already been deleted through AfD? Then what is the point of this deletion review? Please explain this to me. --Yuu.david 04:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, DRV nomination does not provide new reasons to refute consensus at the AfD. Corvus cornix 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, however my above contention is that the so-called 'consensus' is nonsense, as no substantial reasons were given in the first place. The article is not spam, and this was the only reason given! How can this be endorsed as delete-able on the grounds for deletion that it is spam when it is not spam at all?! I would sincerely appreciate at least one person explaining to me why this post that I spent hours creating is considered spam. Please, someone contribute to this page and let me know why, because this does not seem fair at all. --Yuu.david 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctantly endorse deletion I can userfy if someone wants to add independent sources to the article and make it more encyclopedic. Research by endowed chair faculty at top universities should get a bit more consideration than the commenters in the AfD have provided, but in the end it's the editors burden to provide evidence that the article matches our guidelines and provides evidence that the research has created an echo in the academic or business community. All sources I checked link back to Gupta himself, so they don't count as independent. ~ trialsanderrors 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As the paradigm is an idea-in-testing, and as it i being developed solely by GUpta and his team, other sources do not exist at this point. Is there any way that I could create a nwe article similar to the Globally Integrated Enterprise article, limiting the references to Gupta's work to one single link to his comprehensive website, and providing as many articles in the news referencing his idea? --Yuu.david 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case it probably won't survive an AfD. It seems to me an article Gupta himself is the better way to go, as long as he's better known than your average prof, and the article itself is not too spammy. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion I second Trialanderrors request to userify for the sake of a work template. Sleep On It 08:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Tea Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Content Review Ssignature 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I request that you reopen the review into the page "Sweet Tea Queens", first of all, as the primary author, I was never notifed that the article was even under review. As to the lack of verifiable links, here is one: http://search.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020317/NEWS/203170368&SearchID=73280748848788 , a link to the full page article that appeared in the Spartanburg Herald Journal. Here is another from the Hendersonville, NC Times News. http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/EXTRAS07/608310318&SearchID=73280750027663 Belle Magazine does not keep online archives, nor does the Asheville Citizen, but here is a link to the scanned page that appears on the Sweet Tea Queens' website: http://www.sweetteaqueens.com/events/Belle/index.htm[reply]

South Carolina Magazine, does not have archives either, but, again, here is a scan of the actual article: http://www.sweetteaqueens.com/events/scmag/scmag.htm

For any other proof of media coverage that you would like, please contact me. The Sweet Tea Queens, while a chapter of the Sweet Potato Queens, are the most active chapter, in terms of media events and appearances and are something of local celebrities. Thanks for your consideration- user Ssignature

• Relist with these references per the closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• relist Only 3 opinions expressed and there was some ambivilance if the sources could be linked to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. New information provided. --Wafulz 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above, these seem to work. --Coredesat 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have temporarily restored and protected the page to facilitate the DRV discussion. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist though I think I will not support the article even as improved, we should discuss it there. DGG 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to contest permanent deletion of the Hollywood Undead entry on Wikipedia for the following reasons: Hollywood Undead is a viral phenomenon, and achieved media attention due to their cult-like following. They have been the focus of several articles and were named one of the top 5 "Bands You Discovered on MySpace" by AP music magazine. They broke several traffic records on MySpace and as a result were the first band signed to the newly created Interscope/MySpace Records label and were included in a MySpace Records compliation, titled "MySpace Records: Vol 1" http://www.amazon.com/Myspace-Records-Vol-Various-Artists/dp/B000BLI406

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace_records

Their new record (Interscope/MySpace Records) is slated for release in the first/second quarter of 2007

Notable media attention: New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/fashion/sundaystyles/28MYSPACE.html?ex=1178942400&en=979d84b9df1414e4&ei=5070 (see second page of article)

USA TODAY: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-02-12-myspace-usat_x.htm

Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/coldplay/articles/story/8748875/foos_weezer_try_myspace

BusinessWire magazine: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-11153801.html

Slate Magazine: http://alacarte.lexisnexis.com/partners/int/google/landingpage.asp?id=12892177&mtid=1&ws=9j0hDk1UboE=&ws_pub=Slate%20Magazine&ws_date=April%2011,%202006&ws_len=1228&ws_lni=4JPB-MKK0-TX6T-R1TD-00000-00&ws_title=Tila%20Tequila%20for%20President&ws_refer=http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22hollywood+undead%22

Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/31/business/teensite.php

The Guardian (UK): http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,16373,1639138,00.html

San Jose Mercury News: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-11130008.html

Billboard: http://alacarte.lexisnexis.com/partners/int/google/landingpage.asp?id=13304474&mtid=1&ws=9j0hDk1UboE=&ws_pub=Billboard&ws_date=April%2022,%202006&ws_len=1439&ws_lni=4JS2-45H0-TX2X-D1RM-00000-00&ws_title=MAPPING%20PUT%20CAREERS&ws_refer=http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22hollywood+undead%22&um=1&sa=N&start=10

Thank you for any help you might be able to provide me. Feel free to contact me at my user page or murraya@usc.edu.--UCLA2002 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. They're mentioned way too often to not reconsider it here. I think there's enough to sustain an article, but that's for an AfD to decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. This is weird - the article has been deleted nine times; the list of deleting admins looks like a who's-who of Wikipedia admins. The article also has 144 edits. This band is clearly notable - those links above check out - so we should IAR and restore the article. I don't even know as it should be relisted, but whatever. But I will say why didn't you put those links in the article' and save us all this trouble. And if nobody wants to make the effort to put in the links... meh. Restore. Herostratus 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and create a new article. This article was last deleted in October. It's no longer salted, and you have plenty of sources, so just make a new one. The speedied versions were spam. --Coredesat 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What Coredesat said. Deleted version is out of date and not much use anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What Coredesat and JzG said. I've removed the article from the list of protected pages and it can be recreated now. FCYTravis 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But I will say why didn't you put those links in the article"

Block quote