Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 31

Cade Gaspar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was surfing through my old contributions and noticed that this one had ended up as a delete. At the very least, this should have been a "no consensus". The nominator's argument was that the Minor League player's article failed WP:BIO. WP:BIO states "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". There are three kinds of professionality in sports - amateur, semi-pro and professional. All teams within the official Minor League Baseball organization are fully professional and operate within a fully professional league. Therefore, all players who play MiLB are players in a fully professional league. Meeting a notability criteria doesn't come anymore straightforward than that. The only delete reasons were either the nominator or "per nom" or not based in policy. In addition, this page had essentially the same arguments (by the same people and on the same day, no less) as Juan M. Gonzalez, but with a different result. Smashville 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, most of the delete votes were based upon the incorrect belief that Gaspar did not play in a fully professional league and thus failed WP:BIO. --Stormie 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion again minor leaguers who didn't reach past Double A aren't notable, it failed WP:SPORTS (which failed itself because of inactivity), but it wasn't failed by the community. Jbeach ^sup 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument made in the AfD is that it failed WP:BIO. It did not fail WP:BIO. The debate was misinterpreted, this is not another AfD. WP:SPORT was not even mentioned in the AfD and is a failed guideline. With the completely wrong argument that this failed WP:BIO, at the very least, the debate should have been closed as no consensus. Smashville 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me reiterate that I'm not claiming that he is notable...I'm saying that at the very least, this is a no consensus close, as the subject inarguably passes WP:BIO...at the very least, this needs to go back to AfD where someone can prove a lack of notability. Smashville 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (my own) deletion. Consensus to delete was clear at the AfD. Despite the fact that they meet the letter of WP:BIO minor league baseball players are routinely deleted at AfD. People citing a guideline inaccurately shouldn't be enough to overturn where it's based on a misapprehension of the guideline rather than of the facts of the case. My interpretation of the AfD is that people believed that WP:BIO calls for the deletion of minor league baseball players (as it should, IMO) rather than that they thought Gaspar never played professionally. Eluchil404 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People citing a guideling inaccurately was the only argument made. The argument made was "fails WP:BIO" which it clearly does not. You even admit it meets it "to the letter". So how does that make sense? Smashville 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still baffled as to how this would be a "clear" consensus when the only delete argument is based on the exact opposite meaning of the policy. Smashville 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BIO was not the only argument made. Three people (DrunkenSmurf, Jaranda, and MisfitToys) called for deletion on the explicit argument that minor leaguers are not notable without reference to any guideline or policy. Only the nominator used the flawed rationale of calling for deletion per the guideline. I believe that their arguments were more persuasive than those simply asserting that he met WP:BIO without explaining why that conferred notability in this case. More generally, I believe that the text WP:BIO is simply wrong in this area. There is no community consensus to keep minor league (at least below triple A which is what distinguishes the Gonzalez AfD) though in most sports the line is drawn with full professionalism. Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I follow what I believe to be the actual community consensus on this issue rather than the literal text of the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying it's a bureaucracy and I'm not saying it to do it for the sake of the process. I'm saying there is clearly no consensus. There is a huge difference. The keep arguments were based in policy while the deletes were not. There is no way that there was a consensus to delete from that AfD. You also say that "in most sports the line is drawn with full professionalism". So - why delete favoring the arguments based on opinion instead of the arguments based on policy? Smashville 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Ignoring the contributions of Miamite and Truest blue who are no longer here because of Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random, the delete reasons were weak since they failed to address any of the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Did the text of the article include enough information to explain why the person was notable? Was the person the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and was that coverage enough? Neither of these questions were address in the AfD. A look at the deleted article shows that the article include enough information to explain why the person was notable. The importance/significance of Cade Gaspar was laid out in the article and no one at the AfD disagreed with this. Instead of then addressing the published secondary sources issue, the discussion went off on a tangent under the false assumption that a player in the minor leagues would not receive enough coverage in published secondary sources for a Wikipedia article. Also, no one in the AfD addressed whether published secondary sources would have wrote about Cade Gaspar for reasons other than his baseball playing. The weak discussion contained no mention of any of Wikipedia's four article standards (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, Biographies of living persons). No consensus seemed the appropriate close. -- Jreferee t/c 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hoyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in September 2006, at which point in time Hoyte was a youth football player for Arsenal nowhere near the first team. Since then he has signed a full professional contract, [1] played for England U17s at the FIFA U-17 World Cup,[2] and been given a first-team squad number at Arsenal. [3]. He has been named on the substitute's bench for three matches (FA Cup v. Blackburn Rovers [4], Football League Cup v. Newcastle United [5] and Sheffield United [6]) but has not played. He has also been profiled extensively on Arsenal's and The Football Association's websites [7] [8] both of which are significant coverage in my view.

While he has not played a competitive match yet for Arsenal, the result of discussion in recent AfDs such as Giannoulis Fakinos, Davide Facchin (et al) and Paul Rodgers (footballer) is that professional players that have been officially named in a first-team squad for a major club are considered notable. I supported the article's deletion a year ago, but all of the above mean I have now changed my mind, and I believe he is now notable enough for inclusion. Therefore I request the decision be overturned. Qwghlm 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support undeletion(s) per nom. ArtVandelay13 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support undeletion per nom. GiantSnowman 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse recreation; speedy close revised per below. Comment - I don't think we should reward Hoyte with a Wikipedia article for being so important. However, if there is enough reliable source material to create the article, then there sees to be no reason not to do that. Write up an article using the relaible source material, post it, then ask an admin to undelete the history. -- Jreferee t/c 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I had a sandbox article all set up for the purpose of restoring - see User:Qwghlm/Gavin Hoyte. Qwghlm 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. It overcomes the reason for deletion. Someone just needs to move your draft to Gavin Hoyte then restore the history. -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now moved & sandbox page deleted. Qwghlm 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support undeletion per nom. Sebisthlm 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BookFinder.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article BookFinder.com refers to a California-based company that runs a popular vertical search engine for books. The article first went online in 2003, and overwhelmingly survived an AfD discussion in 2006. It was speedily deleted without public discussion on October 28 by editor JzG, citing CSD:A7 (no indication of importance/significance). I believe this judgment was made in error, as the article's subject is clearly notable under both the criteria for companies and websites; there's a list of 950+ media mentions here, including coverage in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Newsweek, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, CBC, NPR, etc.

I made a good faith effort to discuss the speedy deletion with JzG. He suggested restoring the article, which I did, adding more references to help establish notability (e.g. cites for two New York Times profiles of the website) to respond to his concerns about CSD:A7. He speedily deleted the article again, on October 30. (You can read the transcript of our discussion here; it contains more details.) I'd like to see the article restored, either the first version that was speedily deleted on October 28 (restoring the history as well, if possible), or the improved second version with added cites and copyedits which was deleted on October 30. If the article still seems fundamentally flawed, I suggest restoring it and proposing deletion, rather than endorsing a unilateral speedy deletion decision.

I appreciate your time. Thanks. - Anirvan 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, undelete and AfD at editorial discretion. Article didn't look like a speedy to me (at least in its last version, didn't look at the earlier ones) and things which have survived AfDs shouldn't generally be speedied anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn'. Articles that have been kept after an AfD should never be speedied. Smashville 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Undelete. An AfD would be appropriate in this case, since the article had survived a previous AfD and was actively undergoing improvement. I have no opinion on whether the improvements were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:NOTE, but that's for the AfD to determine. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Knowing that the article has had a prior AFD with an outcome other than delete is sufficient reason to overturn an A7 deletion. Such a deletion violates the terms of A7. The 1998 New York Times Book Review reference has non-trivial content, and is enough for me to think that keeping the article at AFD is clearly correct, without even looking at the other sources. Having since looked at them, no AFD in its right mind would delete this article, so don't bother listing. GRBerry 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn if nothing else, being purchased by a notable company is a claim of importance. But considering there was a previous AFD, this should have automatically gone to AFD again if anyone wanted it deleted. The second deletion was especially spacey... sometimes I think the wording in WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is" needs to be in 72-point font for some people to get it. --W.marsh 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - CSD A7 applies at anytime. "over 125 million volumes available for sale" and "one of the earliest vertical search engines for books online" are an assertion of importance/significance to get past CSD A7 (but not by much). BookFinder.com lists all of its media mentions going back to 1998, see Mentions], which make it clear that the topic meets WP:N as was the consensus of the AfD. It's name has been in a few headlines: (1) The Times (San Francisco Bay Area), Avid Reader Turns Passion Into Start-up. A Love of Books and a Search for Doonesbury Titles Led Former Cal Student to Launch BookFinder.com (May 11, 2002); (2) New Media Age (United Kingdom), Case Study: BookFinder.com (October 3, 2002); (3) David Needle. www.internetnews.com (November 7, 2005) Abebooks.com buys comparison shopping site Bookfinder.com. (4) San Francisco Business Times, Berkeley's BookFinder starts two sites in Europe (September 27, 2006) (5) The Times (London) (United Kingdom), bookfinder.com ;The click;Wednesday (March 28, 2007) -- Jreferee t/c 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|DRV)

Circumvention of prior deletion decision, circumvention of image deletion process, deletion based on administrator's refusal to provide basis of speedy deletion from WP and information to support that claim, refusal to seek consensus regarding issue after prior Deletion Review was overturned →Lwalt ^♦ talk 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Larry Craig

The image in question was improperly deleted a second time by circumventing process for removal and/or deletion of images, against consensus in working collaborating with other editors of the article, and against findings in a prior decision and consensus in a prior Deletion Review posted on September 16 and closed on September 24, 2007. The image of the booking photo in question was released by the State of Minnesota as public data under Minnesota statute 13.82, subd. 26(b) (language of statute located near the end of the page). I had once posted a message for another administrator, who I thought would be knowledgeable about the proper use and classification of the image on Wikipedia (i.e., Wikipedia Commons vs. fair use), but the person never responded to my query.

The image was included in the article because of its significance, which was also the object of coverage in the article itself, for use as a secondary photo on the page to support content in its section. In addition, the use of the image also meets the Criterion #8 under Acceptable Images. The image was clearly marked in its caption to provide information about the nature of the booking photo, which was used as a secondary image to support content regarding a recent event. The same administrator mentioned that a "free" image was available (the subject's "official" U.S. Senate photograph, which is the primary image), discounting the fact that the booking photograph was taken in connection with a specific incident of significance on a specific date. Coverage of the incident was stated as reported by various news sources without analysis to maintain neutrality.

I posted a request for the administrator to seek consensus about concerns, as can be seen in the message on that person's User Talk page, with that person's responses included here and here. The administrator has since deleted these responses. The ongoing discussion (and request for information claimed by user and responses regarding the request for this information) can be found on the article talk page. According to this administrator, his claim for justification to remove or delete the image was in essence "Jimbo said so." The administrator has declined through inaction to provide proof of the basis for this deletion, and wants us to take that as the final decision without verification.

The nature of this second deletion clearly and purposefully circumvented process, and this deletion occurred one day after I provided a link to the prior Deletion Review discussion to point out the actions of the deleting administrator. Another editor for the article also mentioned that the concerns about the deleting administrator, who continued to show contempt in the unwillingness to work with editors. To get around disagreements of this administrator's point of view, the administrator simply deleted the image without further discussion on the article talk page, even though an editor asked a second to provide information claimed by the administrator. Both editors and administrators also pointed out the improper handling of the image during the first Deletion Review, with one actually mentioning that this same administrator is displaying the same contemptuous behavior in that case as has been witnessed in this case.

To my knowledge, no new discussions have occurred outside each of these forums about deleting or keeping the image through the Image for Deletion process. The image history includes a full rationale (including licensing and basis for the license) to support of the image's use in the article. I have not come across a speedy deletion request for the image.

For your convenience, I'm providing links to other discussions related to issues regarding the booking photo, which can be found here, here, here, in addition to a message on the talk page for the image.

-- →Lwalt ^♦ talk 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was included under a claim of fair use, but we already have a free image for this article (and one which does not carry prurient or pejorative overtones). The image does not belong in the article, per WP:BLP, because there is no evidence that the image is in and of itself significant (cf. the Hugh Grant booking photo, which was in every newspaper in the UK and many around the world). Its inclusion serves no purpose other than to inflate still further the size and prominence of the section on the subject's arrest, which is already around a third of the article, well in excess of what will I think turn out to be its final historical importance. We do not use fair use images where a proper free image exists, and we certainly don't use them to illustrate the mere fact of having been booked. This is not a picture of the events in question, the arrest, a trial, or anything else, it's just a routine booking photograph, which adds precisely nothign of encyclopaedic merit to the article. Lwalt seems very keen on the principle of being able to include this, but has failed to make, so far as I can see, any credible argument as to why we would want to include a booking photo on an article that already has a recent and perfectly good free image which adequately identifies the subject. I am not the only one who thinks this. I do not like hypocritical queer-bashing politicians either, but I've seen enough OTRS complaints to realise that sometimes righteous indignation is counterproductive in the context of an article. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad faith insinuation removed. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to agree with Guy's view. The image itself is simply not encyclopedic enough to outweigh the WP:BLP concerns it presents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, Keep out of article - WP:CSD#I5 doesn't apply since the image was not tagged with a template that placed it in a dated subcategory of Category:Orphaned fairuse images for more than seven days. The image has not received any other deletion tags that would start any image deletion clock. Deletion notice of the image was give to the uploader on 5 September 2007. After that, the BLP issue was raised on 16 September 2007 at DRV and DRV restored this image (see 2007 September 16 DRV). The present deletion of the image is not based on Wikipedia process, thus overturn. Image in article - Although WP:BLP is not a basis to delete this image from Wikipedia's databases, the image does not belong in the Larry Craig article, per Guy's discussion above of WP:BLP and per WP:POV. A photo of Craig's bathroom actions would be relevant as an issue. The booking photo is not relevant as an issue. Thus, keep the image out of the Larry Craig article. Licensing - Minnesota "public data" (compare Minnesota "private data", "nonpublic data", and "not public data") means data available to the public in a reasonable manner (see Minnesota statute 13.82, subd. 16. It does not mean Wikipedia free use. Minnesota statute 13.82 itself is public data, but right at the top of the Minnesota statute 13.82 page is a copyright notice. If Minnesota considered "public data" to mean Wikipedia free use, then a victim could not have a right to request withholding of certain public data under Minnesota statute 611A.021. The "public data" bit mislead others in the last DRV into believing the image was Wikipedia free use. Hopefully, that won't happen in this DRV. How to proceed- Overturn, tag the image with {{Non-free mugshot}}, and, for those interested, follow the image deletion process such as giving 48 hour deletion notice to the uploader per NFCC enforcement or placing a seven day tag on the article per WP:CSD#I5. Note to closer - Please remark on the consensus in this discussion regarding whether the image belongs in the Larry Craig article. The matter has been batted around too long and we need some closure on this issue. -- Jreferee t/c 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I'm inclined to agree with JzG at this point. FCYTravis 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per WP:BLP we have no use for this image. Text is more than adequate to cover the incident; I've understood it quite well from text only media that I've encountered elsewhere. Adding a mugshot has the sole purpose of attacking the subject, and is not acceptable. GRBerry 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn playing around with deletion rules to skirt consensus and get ones own way. By someone with a conflict of interest. Consensus to remove the image should have been established on the article talk page. --W.marsh 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd endorse any of JzG's decisions, and I don't see any difference here. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know whether this decision is consistent with other mugshots or not, so I won't comment on it directly. I will comment on this: JzG says that the arrest is "a third of the article, well in excess of what will I think turn out to be its final historical importance". An awful lot of smart people, including many writing in very reliable sources, would disagree. Larry Craig was a completely unremarkable conservative Republican from a state with virtually no national political clout until this incident made him a national figure. History is much more likely to remember him for this than for the handful of insignificant legislative votes in which he played a role. Forgive me for saying so (I'm a huge JzG fan), but I'm not sure the political irrelevance of Idaho's U.S. senators might be readily apparent to a citizen of a smaller country with a parliamentary system. . . If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me off roundly. Chick Bowen 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the state from which a Senator hails is relatively tangential to his clout (among other things, Craig is a former chairman of two committees, and the 14th most senior Republican Senator), and since the design of the Senate explicitly and deliberately gives smaller states outsized power equal to that of Texas or California, I'm not sure you're calculating his importance correctly. Regardless, the incident is what he'll be remembered for, but I don't think that WP:NPOV#Undue weight allows it to bloat to 1/3 of the article. He spent 26 years in Congress, after all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, of course, and this is a debate for another day and another forum, but just to make my point clear--it's not Idaho's size that makes it's senators irrelevant, it's its political outlier status. At any rate, I've said before that I am not comfortable with our dependence on mugshots, and a copyright debate is worth having. But a BLP issue? I don't see it. Chick Bowen 05:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The mug shot does not illustrate his bathroom activities and does not illustrate the contradiction between his anti-gay stance and his bathroom activities. The mug shot does convey Craig's brush with the law, but the crime (infraction?) was minor and not a main topic of the article. The unwritten desire to use the mug shot in the article is so that the mug shot's stigmatizing effect will attack Craig's image because of Craig's contradictory beliefs/actions. BLP violation pure and simple. -- Jreferee t/c 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, keep out of article. I guess it's ineligible for Commons. But it doesn't really serve any purpose in the article. I do think process was subverted with this one, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore BLP concerns? It's properly sourced, he was convicted - even pleaded guilty. Whether it goes in Craig's bio or a separate article about the conviction and its repercussions in US politics is for editorial discretion. Am I alone in thinking that politicians have a very small BLP protection, i.e., what is contentious to the private Joe is part of the rough & tumble risk of running for office and feeding at the public trough. Carlossuarez46 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV decision, overturn unilateral speedy deletion Blatant misuse of admin tools to push an editorial viewpoint. The image has been restored by prior DRV, so any speedy deletion is clearly out of process. If you can't live with the fact that controversial decisions are made by community consensus, feel free to leave the project, Chapman. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The copyright notice at the top of Minnesota statutes refers to the image and codification of the statutes on the Revisor's web page, not to the data which are the subject of Chapter 13. Section 13.03, Subd. 1.[9] provides that All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute . . . Section 13.82, subd. 26[10] provides that booking data, including arrest photographs, are public. This is not a fair use case. As to the other issues, I take no position. Kablammo 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note: Section 611A.021[11] mentioned above refers to the right of a victim to keep data private; it gives no rights to an accused. While there are certain exceptions to release of data (e.g., protecting an ongoing investigation,13.82, subd. 26, protecting identities of victims, confidential informants, etc., 13.82, subd. 17) they do not apply here. Kablammo 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per JzG, he spoke my mind. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The booking photo is really only necessary if the photo itself is of importance. Nobody needs to see it in order to understand that he was arrested. A clear violation of WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of data which are public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Much of the discussion above assumes that the image is not free, on the assumption that there is no explicit licensing. This is turn assumes that the image is subject to copyright-- you don't look for exceptions to use non-free content if the content is free and therefore not subject to copyright. The data in question here are however free and are not subject to copyright. This is because data which are public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act are not copyrighted. As stated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration (who administers the Data Practices Act):

. . . a fundamental principle of the M[innesota] G[overnment] D[ata] P[ractices] A[ct] is that anyone may use public data, for any purpose.

. . . unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data.[12]

Unless the legislature were to specify that booking photos are subject to copyright (it has not), they are public and can be used by anyone for any purpose. There may be reasons not to use the photo in question, but copyright law is not one of them. Kablammo 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I thought we had gotten rid of User:JzG and ended his long and unfortunate pattern of abusing his administrative privileges. Such is not the case. As with his previous speedy deletion of this image, JzG has demonstrated a persistent disrespect for other editors and for the process of obtaining and building consensus from anyone other than himself. After his previous abuse was overturned by consensus, it appeared the issue had been settled. Rather than respect this consensus, JzG has for a second time abused his administrative powers to delete the image, using an utterly nonviable approach that hadn't even crossed his mind as an excuse during the last go around. It's high time that the administrative mop be removed from someone who seems utterly unable to understand how to use it. The first step in this process is to overturn this arbitrary deletion and to have the image placed under the WP:IFD process, assuming that there is a legitimate case to be made there. IFD will allow a demonstration of actual consensus of Wikipedia users on this issue, not just what one self-appointed judge, jury and executioner has decided. Alansohn 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Sources, Greater Notability. Sources of notability:

• http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-6510105-12907&KPLT=2
• http://mashable.com/2007/08/21/yuniti
• http://www.killerstartups.com/Social-Networking/yuniti--A-combination-of-MySpace-and-Facebook
• http://www.bizreport.com/2007/09/social_network_allows_for_user_validation.html

Also, notable feature/document being used on the internet, ability for users to hide their age, providing greater safety for younger users:

• http://www.yuniti.com/parents_guide_to_social_networking.php

Please see DRAFT: User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft) -- Marquinho 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Endorse close - The AfD close was a few days ago. My read of the close was that the article did not and would not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability in view of the behaviour of those interested in the article. Even though the topic might meet Wikipedia:Notability, the article still needs to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy or at least have a reasonable chance to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The best (and quickest) way to overcome this is to use material from the relaible sources provided and write a draft article in your user space, such as at User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft). When that is done, come back to WP:DRV and request that Yuniti be recreated using your draft article as the next edit to the article. -- Jreferee t/c 01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Page complete. Input/editing/criticism welcome. User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft) -Marquinho 02:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) *Thanks for the info, will do. Could I have you do some reviewing and editing once I'm complete? Thanks! -Marquinho 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]