Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 12

Alan Roger Currie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't understand at all why the article for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie was deleted. This article has been in existence since early 2007, and has always been maintained despite challenges for deletion prior. To suggest that Currie is not notable within the field of dating and relationships as well as attraction and seduction is virtually laughable. Currie's talk radio show is about to be mentioned in the African-American business magazine, Black Enterprise.

I think the decision to delete Currie's page should be re-reviewed and overturned. If the current decision stands, it would be my most strong opinion that agents of the infamous Seduction Community were behind this, and this was to a degree a 'personal' decision. Currie is the #1 voice against the manipulative tactics of the Seduction Community 'experts' and 'gurus.' Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - It was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie. Looking at the AFD, it looks like process was followed correctly. There is nothing to justify overturning the decision. --B (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Claiming bias among the folks who opined at the deletion discussion is not a really good case for the article. If you feel the deletion was incorrect, you need to back it up by showing that there are, in fact, good reliable sources beyond the ones rejected in the AfD. My search, as I noted in my weak delete, turned up very minimal coverage outside of press releases and trivial mentions. Endorse Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I don't see how you can categorize an appearance on national television [[1]] and an appearance in Essence (magazine) and Black Enterprise as "trivial." Whether or not Alan Roger Currie is validly 'notable' really depends on who you're comparing him to. Compared to Brad Pitt, Barack Obama, Lance Armstrong or Jamie Foxx? Probably not. But if you ask anyone who is familiar with dating and relationship authors, seduction gurus, dating coaches and those in similar fields, I doubt if anyone would attempt to challenge the 'notability' of Book Author Alan Roger Currie. If I were comparing him to others who have entries on Wikipedia, he is just as notable if not more notable than Tariq Nasheed, Ross Jeffries, Zan Perrion, Juggler and David DeAngelo. If the aforementioned didn't have entries, I would just let this issue die. But if editors are allowing these guys to maintain articles and entries, but choosing to delete Mr. Currie's entry is like having entries for Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Dirk Nowitzki, but not having a page for Dwight Howard, Pau Gasol or Brandon Roy Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i explained to you at least 4 separate times what WP:N means and why it's not the same as the common usage of the word notable, and you ignored me every time. this is why we can't have nice things. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - Generally speaking Theserialcomma, you have been more objective than one or two of the other editors have been in the past, and for that, I applaud you; However, this is what I just don't get: When I first published this article in Spring 2007, Mr. Currie had virtually no credentials on his page. No TV appearance, no newspaper citations, no magazine citations, nothing. At least three or four editors examined his page, and said it was FINE. I even consulted with a couple of them, and they said the page looked fine. Then, a few months later, I had a deletion challenge. Nothing came of it. They just suggested that I didn't "sing his praises" so much, so I did some editing. Then, last Fall, the editor Davidwiz wanted it deleted. There was a big debate, but the final mediator said the same thing. That the page was worth being kept, but it just needed some editing to diminish the "press release" or "advertising" feel of the page. I deleted some more stuff. Now, when Mr. Currie is probably at his heighest degree of popularity since I first published his page, it's decided that it should be deleted. Using my NBA analogies again, it would be like me publishing a page of LeBron James when he's a Junior or Senior in high school, and the editors saying, "that's fine." Then, during his 2nd or 3rd year in the NBA, I get a challenge from editors saying he might not be notable enough. Then, after he's made numerous all-star appearances and an appearance in the NBA Finals, all of the sudden, I'm told that LeBron's page should be deleted. Would that make sense to you? This is pretty much how I feel about Mr. Currie's page being deleted. He has more citations and credentials than he's ever had since I published his page 30-33 months ago, and now all of the sudden, he's deleted. This might make sense to many of the Wikipedia editors, but I guarantee you, to Mr. Currie's fans, book readers, radio show listeners and others who are familiar with him, it makes no sense. It makes Wikipedia seem backwards, inconsistent and like the criteria for remaining on here is very subjective. Chicago Smooth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Looks like the closing admin looked at the strength of arguments rather then counted heads as they~are supposed to and reached a consensus based on policy rather then assertion. Good close. Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can confirm that they did not. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment / request - I beg of all of the editors to please reconsider this decision. If the content needs to be severely edited, I'm willing to adhere to that. But please don't let this deletion stand. Comparing fans of the Attraction & Seduction Community to U.S. politics, deleting Mr. Currie's article would be like letting a lot of Liberal Democractic voices be heard, but deleting notable Republicans, or vice versa. Currie is the "Un-Cola" so-to-speak to the Seduction Community's "Cola". Mr. Currie should definitely have a presence on Wikipedia, even if most of the content is basic. I'm pleading with Nja247!!! Chicago Smooth (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensous the SPA issues were distracting, but it looks like there are at least two news articles purely about the subject (no long on-line, but the bit that is certainly looks like he's the main topic). One could object to them as "local" but in fact no one did and no one addressed the articles at all that I noticed. Put that with the the other somewhat trivial mentions and I don't see an argument strong enough to merit deletion. All that said, it was a close call and the articles aren't available in full making us have to guess about their content. But any reasonable guess says the coverage is going to be plenty. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but looking over the closure again, there is little question in my mind that it's a delete and allowing a SPA to bypass proper procedures so that their article is reinstated is simply a ridiculous proposition. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - When you say, "bypass proper procedures," what do you specifically mean by that? Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like to add that GRuban's comments below say much better what I was trying for. So keep per GRuban should be appended to my !vote. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I was thinking of nominating this for review myself, but not for the reason given by Chicago Smooth. I think this should be redone because Chicago Smooth and the single purpose accounts shot themselves in the foot by drowning the nomination in arguments not based on our policies, and most contributors didn't actually read the real reasons the article should be kept. The article should be kept because there are four non-trivial articles from Wikipedia:Reliable sources covering Currie: From the Post-Tribune [2] [3] and the San Francisco Examiner [4] [5]. That clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. All the other arguments are just getting in the way. There is no grand conspiracy from "the seduction community" here, and begging and pleading isn't necessary. (Wouldn't that be Mode 3 or something anyway?) :-) --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these don't strike me as widespread or significant coverage. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - you Wikipedia editors (some, anyway) have a very good sense of humor. I might be starting to like you guys (re: GRuban's witty "Mode 3" comment). I don't know if Mr. Currie's mention in the Northwest Indiana TIMES or Post-Tribune would represent "widespread" coverage, but I think it at least makes him credible and notable. I do think the Examiner.com coverage is both "widespread" and "significant." I think Mr. Currie's most notable credential was his national TV talk show appearance on the "Relationship 101" segment of The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. That show was known for only inviting credible relationship authors and experts for that particular segment of their show. Secondly, would be Mr. Currie's brief quote / blurb in Essence (magazine). That magazine is not necessarily a 'top tier' magazine, but among African-Americans, and particularly African-American women, that magazine is very widespread and significant. Finally, if "Google Hits" count for anything (and realistically, they probably don't compared to general Wikipedia notability criteria), but if you look at Mr. Currie's hits compared to a few others on Wikipedia, he comes out with very respectable numbers (example, when you enter the the author/expert's name, Mr. Currie had approximately 497,000 hits; Same criteria used for other dating and relationship authors, experts and gurus: Tariq Nasheed - 66,300 hits; Zan Perrion - 79,000; David DeAngelo - 413,000; Ross Jeffries - 212,000 hits Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomma: The Examiner is a newspaper in California, the Post-Tribune is in Indiana, that's pretty widespread. Two articles per newspaper, devoted completely to Currie, that's pretty significant. Chicago Smooth: thank you for starting to relax a bit, and type less, but please go even more, please; if it looks like you're posting as much as everyone else put together, this will go the same way as the AFD did. --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. Proper admin closure when you look past the baseless pleas by the single-purpose accounts. MuZemike 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be calling me a single purpose account? --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. However, I thought you were in the minority. MuZemike 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see the points GRuban and Hobit are making, but I also have some sympathy for Nja, who should not be criticised for deleting in accordance with the consensus. I think we may have another situation like Category:Senior Wranglers, where the closer correctly implemented the consensus, but the consensus was simply wrong. There are actually tolerable sources for this article, a fact which was obfuscated by a debate that was characteristic of an article without good sources.

  I'm going to go with the somewhat unusual recommendation of endorse and relist. I would like to endorse Nja's accurate reading of the consensus, but I would also like to see the debate relisted on the grounds that it gave the wrong outcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree pretty much across the board. I do think we _can_ be AfD2 when needed but think relisting might be a reasonable way forward. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, and try for a less confused debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse two local articles for someone claimed to be of nationwide significance is not significant coverage. We got it right the first name. I'll mention I have been lobbied to change my vote on this, but I think, if anything, we need to apply the criteria here with some degree of skepticism. (I will say, though, that the lobbying did give me reason to look at his entertaining but repetitive blog, which at least does make it clear that he thinks he's notable.) DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hate to badger, but did you mean "four articles in two widely separated states ... is not significant coverage?" --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for Review of new, modified article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie - SmokeyJoe, GRuban, Hobit, SMarshall and others: Let me know what you think of the new proposed article I created for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie -> User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a much improved article. Since this discussion is so close, I would hope that this would be an acceptable compromise. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the close looks solid and while the debate was confused by argueing SPAs, disruption of process shouldn't be a way of circumventing it. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review Discussion about NEW article - The second, more improved article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie was NOT "identical" to the original article; The second article was written with significantly more citations and references, and had content supported by news articles; The criteria for a "G4" deletion reads as follows: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, articles that address the reasons for which the material was deleted, and Content moved to user space for explicit improvement. Material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not excluded). This also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

editor Theserialcomma recommending that I write a new, more improved article with significantly more citations and references

between the editor Theserialcomma and myself regarding the new article

more improved article (with significantly more citations) about Book Author Alan Roger Currie

Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Usrnme h8er is referring to the new article. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I mistakenly formatted it my earlier response inappropriately; I have since modified it. Thank you. Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The new version is improved enough to move to mainspace and relist. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored cleaned-up version and relisted per DGG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diop Kamau (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Possible reason for unjustified deletion of 4-month-old article: Misunderstanding...a vandal apparently re-arranged the article, Accounting4Taste was appalled at the result and deleted the entire article without closely examining Page History. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the hoops to jump through and templates to fill out and include, I'll just include the discussion at Acccounting4Taste's Userpage, and I think anyone with common sense can figure out what the problem is. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

You deleted Diop Kamau = Police Complaint Center supposedly because it was an "attack Page"?! Here is the google-cached copy of the article which you eliminated.

1. 21:14, 5 August 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Diop Kamau" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP (CSD G10))
2. 21:07, 5 August 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Diop Kamau" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP (CSD G10))

-- and yet nothing in the article was disparaging of Diop Kamau or the Police Complaint Center. And you did so without any discussion or consensus. It seems you deleted the page because you are disparaging of the subject of the article. If not, how about explaining one single thing in the article that was negative and or unsourced, or which constituted an attack of the articles' subject? 70.246.244.4 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel. Since I work in the legal profession, perhaps you'll accept that I know potentially libellous statements when I encounter them. To quote from the relevant policy page, found at WP:BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I believe I've followed that policy, and that I haven't been unduly insistent upon the provision of high quality references. However, if you feel this material should somehow be returned to Wikipedia, I recommend WP:Deletion review. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying to my note. I honestly don't know to what you're referring when you wrote: "I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel...." --but you're not referring to this article you removed, because it has no mention of any of that or any of that kind of stuff in it. What are you talking about, then? The article was reviewed and approved by Diop Kamau before it was published, to ensure that it was accurate and not libelous. He's involved in the legal profession too. He may be curious too...what are you talking about when you wrote: "I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel...." Of course, several people "feel this material should somehow be returned to Wikipedia," and it should be submitted to WP:Deletion review* in lieu of you restoring it ASAP. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

Seeing that you have not speedily replied (even though you speedily removed the article without consulting with anyone), I figure it is because you have not reviewed my reply to you here on this page. So I have moved it "up the page" (downward literally) to try and ensure that you see my reply and respond ASAP. I would prefer you explain yourself as quickly as you completely erased an article which was fully documented about a notable person and organization. I would prefer you not evade the issue, or express weird convoluted unsubstantiated claims, and that you restore the article ASAP. Something's fishy about this: You removed an article about a controversial human rights/civil rights advocate, made bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the article and the person(s) described in the article...and then when you are asked about it, you make more unsubstantiated and bizarre claims and then don't respond to a request that you explain why the information was completely erased. Tell me, what do you think of Diop Kamau and the Police Complaint Center? Are you irritated that he is an African-American? Annoyed that he and his organization oppose and expose violations of civil rights? You didn't drag your feet when you erased the information about the Police Complaint Center...why are you dragging your feet about restoring it? 70.246.244.4 (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have your response above. If you still disagree with the deletion decision, you are welcome to request a review at WP:DRV at this time. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 06:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I received "my" response above too, but for reasons I carefully explained, I don't find the response rational nor satisfactory. Seeing as you are are evidently satisfied with a garbled and evasive non-answer, I'm deciding it is a waste of time to ask Diop Kamau's detractor to explain himself. I'll take this to WP:DRV now...let's see if they are any more rational than you and Accounting4Taste. By the way, what do you think of African-American civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Diop Kamau? Do you dislike them? Willing to censor them? I'm just curious, no problem if you don't feel like responding. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that this page has been restored by User:Decltype with the inappropriate revisions removed. I think that Accounting4Taste was right to act quickly and remove the article when he saw them, but the matter has come to the right result, through whatever means, so I think this discussion can be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Decltype and also Accounting4Taste did the right thing, considering the volatile and confusing circumstances. I expressed a mea culpa at Accounting4Taste's Userpage. You can close this case and archive this baby as far as I'm concerned, I'm pleased with the outcome, with Accounting4Taste and Decltype...and with Wikipedia. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]