Goldsea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Applying the G4 Criterion for speedy deletion was improper in this case because this entry was substantially different and addressed the concerns cited in the original deletion decision.

An older version of the article, which I did not write, was deleted in 2009, apparently due to objections over its lack of supporting references or notability and some vague objections to its tone.

On October 28 I posted another Article under the title Goldsea. It was written painstakingly to avoid tonal controversies. It contained 31 references that supported every one of the material statements int he article. was improved upon by several others as well as myself. Today, it was deleted without warning on the ground that that the original had been deleted following discussion.

In short, there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision on what is essentially a completely different article.

This is particularly troubling in light of the thousands of Wikipedia articles are stubs that are not supported at all by outside references and are not written with nearly as much care, skill and useful information. For example, even within the category of Asian American Media, articles like Asianave, Asianweek, Little India, Koream Journal, Asianave fall far short of the standards used in writing the Goldsea entry.

Given that Goldsea is the longest running professionally written Asian American website, and given that it was founded by the publisher of the first national magazine for Asian Americans, I believe it easily meets the notability criterion. Therefore, I believe the article merits review by some objective editors who have not been involved in this process. And if the deletion decision stands, it should be supported not only by clear rationale, but some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected. AA Patrol (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) AA Patrol (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contained 31 "references". 29 of these were to Goldsea's own web site, and the other tow were links to web pages which do not even mention Goldsea. Thus the article gave no independent sources at all, and did not address the reasons for deletion. As for "there was no opportunity for anyone to review the deletion decision", a message was posted to AA Patrol's user page at 11:41, 7 August 2009 drawing attention to the earlier deletion discussion when the same user had reposted the article before. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per JamesBWatson. The original reason for deletion was no objective coverage in independant reliable sources. This version does nothing to address that. I count the same 29 to Goldsea itself, two to support other facts but make no mention of Goldsea. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Google News shows three of the most important news sources for the area (Asian Week, Malaysia Star, China Post)refer to its awards as being significant. [1].I think this sort of reference shows notability, but if people disagree, then it still deserves a full AfD discussion. Such questions are for AfD , not here--we are not afd2. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And the article didn't introduce any of those. Most were avaialble at the time of the original AFD, so those checking sources then presumably already did discount them. Indeed those opining delete refer to having done such. So the day at AFD to look to that has already been and gone. If the article had been rewritten to include better independant sourcing, it would have overcome the reasons for the original deletion and the CSD wouldn't have applied and we wouldn't be here. Of course an endorsement of the CSD here doesn't prohibit recreation as an article which actually does address the original reason for deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not get too tied up in the bureaucracy at this stage. The nominator asks reasonable questions that we can easily answer. Let's start with that.

  I think the most important question is for "some clear standard as to in what form it can be resurrected." When the nominator has got as far as this page without anyone having the decency to tell him that, it's pretty clear evidence that our procedures have failed. The other important question boils down to "why delete my article when there are others similar ones that weren't deleted?"

  I'm off out to Guy Fawkes Night celebrations now, so I don't have time, but I will answer those questions when I come back, if nobody else has in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, the way to write an article that Wikipedians will approve of is to start by writing a list of reliable sources. These sources must (a) be independent of the subject, (b) have a reputation for fact-checking, and (c) cover the subject in reasonable depth. (If there aren't any sources that meet those criteria, then you basically can't write about that subject on Wikipedia until a reliable source does write about it.) The preferred sources are academic publications, textbooks, other encyclopaedias, or reputable news agencies such as the BBC, and what those sources say should be given the greatest weight.

  Then you read what the sources say, and then summarise it in your own words. Don't breach copyright in the process. For each fact that is challenged, or might be challenged, provide an inline citation to a reliable source. If you're have any technical difficulties with issues like formatting the citations, put {{helpme}} on your talkpage and someone will come and help you.

  I think what you may have fallen foul of, with this version of the article, is the tendency of experienced Wikipedians to skip over the article's content and evaluate its sources first. (We do that because it's a fast, heuristic way of spotting material with potential issues.) In this case the sources weren't independent and Wikipedians objected.

  The other point, about why delete this article when others with similar issues have not yet been deleted, is an entirely fair one. You (quite reasonably) expect Wikipedia to be consistent, and our processes are moderately consistent, but we don't try to deal with every single article all at the same time--that would be impossible. We have to deal with them one by one, in the order that people raise them.

  In other words, if another article that only differed in the name of the site was brought through the AfD and DRV process, it would likely be treated in the same way, but not all articles have been through that yet, and there may well be quite a few older ones that have yet to be brought to our attention. Making sure all our older articles comply with our current rules is a herculean task, particularly when we have processes designed to ensure that everyone has their say about what should be done!

  What that means is that while we are reasonably consistent, there's such a huge backlog that in terms of content decisions, we can often appear to be totally inconsistent. I'm sorry about that and I assure you that we have absolutely no wish to be unfair to anyone.

  In the circumstances, I'm personally willing to help you resurrect (as you put it) this article. If you'd like me to help, please place a list of the independent, reliable sources you've found here on this page. You'll find that if the sources are satisfactory, then everything else related to deletion on Wikipedia can be overcome.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to thank the editors DGG and S Marshall for taking the time to address this in a way that suggests that there are fair-minded, caring minds behind Wikipedia's policies. I was feeling a bit beleagured by the swiftness with which my efforts had been rendered meaningless. I have to admit that there are no readily available major news stories about Goldsea, which is why I used the NY Times and LA times articles to lay the historical foundation about Kagy and his groundbreaking magazines, then linked his mission to the Goldsea site via the Goldsea 4-Part piece on Asian American Media History. I felt that Kagy's notability as a publisher, combined with the sheer number of cites that Goldsea has garnered on Wikipedia itself, not to mention other media stories, was sufficient to establish notability. However, I will try to come up with some mentions of Goldsea's Most Inspiring Asian Americans in articles of reputable news media like the ones cited by DGG. AA Patrol (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy of a non-offensive article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for User:S Marshall or incubate in preference to immediate listing is acceptable or preferable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the editors' suggestions, to show a few of the countless times Goldsea is cited as a reference in a wide variety of articles in media of all types, from newspapers to marketing trade journals to personality profiles, here are some examples I've garnered from an hour of browsing Google. I hope this is not too cumbersome, but it's the easiest way for me to show a sampling of the type of cites and the variety of media and subject areas for which Goldsea has been cited over the years:

Article on H Mart Shopping Center: "In an article on Asian shopping centers, the Asian-American online newspaper GoldSea.com said H Mart is "the place you take non-Asian friends when you want to impress them with just how modern and sophisticated Asians are."" http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/06/large_korean_grocery_coming/

Article on Branson Country Music Performer Shoji Tabuchi: "Tabuchi's unusual-for-country-music ethnicity, he felt, actually worked to his advantage. "Say person A and person B play just as good," he told an interviewer from the Goldsea Asian American Profiles website. "Who stands out, me or him?"" http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3443600070.html

Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "For this occasion, World Vision Taiwan recently invited acclaimed singer Wang Leehom — one of the most inspiring Asian Americans of all time according to the Goldsea Asian American Daily, and a longtime ambassador for the charity — to visit the Republic of Sierra Leone in West Africa and witness the improvement Taiwan's help had brought to people's livelihoods there." http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/int%27l--community/2009/06/07/211236/Wang-Leehom.htm

Article on Hong Kong Pop Star Leehom Wang: "Wang Leehom was one of the first torchbearers for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, and performed in the Olympics' closing ceremony in Beijing. Wang Leehom was listed among "The 100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time" by Goldsea Asian American Daily." http://www.suzhou-expat.com/news-mainmenu-87/272-2010-music-man-tour-in-changshu.html

Article on Actor B.D. Wong: "Awards: “100 Most Inspiring Asian Americans of All Time” Goldsea Asian American Daily; 2003", http://www.asianweek.com/2009/05/06/chinese-american-hero-bradley-darryl-wong/

I am having trouble saving all the entries. It keeps cutting me off. I will try adding the rest in a separate save. AA Patrol (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without burdening this page too much more, here are a few more examples of Goldsea being cited by other media:

Goldsea listed as one of the expert multicultural media resources. http://multiculturalmarketingresources.com/expertsshowcase.html

Article on Asian American Women in Business: "The Goldsea site is devoted to inspiring stories of attaining your dreams and ways to protect your business, and lists influential people as well as Asian heroes." http://www.asianamericanalliance.com/Asian-Women-in-the-Business-World.html

Article on Silicon Valley Businesses: "America's 100 Top Asian Entrepreneurs The GoldSea 100 annually honors the most successful Asian American entrepreneurs. It now includes six billionaires, including a 32-year-old who also happens to be the youngest entrepreneur ever to make the top 10." http://entrepreneurs.about.com/od/famousentrepreneur/

Article on an Advertising Campaign by Ford: "To reach China, Korea and Vietnam, Ford is also buying ad takeovers of sina.com and goldsea.com and has purchased air time on Asian TV networks." http://www.adotas.com/2006/12/ford-unleashing-major-cross-media-ad-blitz/

Listing of Asian American Media "Goldsea: Asian American Supersite Large full-featured magazine. See especially Media Watch: Monitoring Asian progress in American mass media" http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/resources/GenderMedia/asian.html

Discussion on a Japan Today Magazine site Forum: "I don't think it really matters how the world spells it as most of them are now used to Korea. However, if the country does change it officially to Corea, I think the world would follow. Some links: www.geocities.com/neue_strassenbahn/corea.html www.medeasin.com/coreaspelling.htm goldsea.com/Air/Issues/Corea/corea.html" http://forum.japantoday.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=907175 AA Patrol (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD. G4 not appropriate for article not substantially identical to previously deleted article. ^Bongo_matic 05:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No, please don't send it to AfD in its current state. Please userfy it to me instead, for the moment; I don't want to see it put into the mainspace til it's got inline references to independent, reliable sources. I'll collaborate with AA Patrol on a bit of a rewrite and then move it directly into the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy should be fine here. With some evidence of decent sourcing available, this has potential for future improvement but isn't mainspace ready yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, userfy, and close Probably not a good G4. Probably not worth sending to AfD at this point. Let the experienced editor fix it. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUDDY SOCIETY (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This letter is intended to request the undeletion of the Buddy Society Wikipedia page. The page existed for several months documenting the Los Angeles based fashion label. On October 16th, 2010 new information was added to the page regarding the history of shows hosted by Buddy Society. This resulted in an immediate deletion. Prior to this addition, the page had been approved by an editor and was a part of Wikipedia. The request for undeletion is an effort towards the return of Buddy Society's Wikipedia page in it's former state, prior to the addition of new information that was considered to violate Wikipedia's regulations. The editor that deleted the page was contacted in search for a resolution for this issue. S/he declared that the original page contained adjectives that did not adhere to the the site's neutral point of view policy. These adjectives are not necessary to provide factual information on Buddy Society and can be omitted from the page without changing the content. The purpose of the page is to document information about the label that has been published in other sources, and the intention was never one of advertisement. Another reason the editor used for deletion was that the article linked to various pages documenting other artists. These links existed because they were previously requested by another editor who found the links necessary for the Buddy Society page to exist. These links, as well as the above mentioned adjectives, may or may not be a part of Buddy Society's page without affecting the information provided by it. Please review this deletion and provide any information you may have on how Buddy Society can be a part of Wikipedia once more. Thank you! Crystalroseluv (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to AfD--but i strongly advise trying to get some more references from good fashion news sources. I certainly would not have deleted it as G11, for it is somewhat descriptive, not "exclusively promotional," which is the speedy G11 criterion. (I interpret "exclusively" as meaning wholly and unambiguous purely promotional--and it's not that I am unwilling to use it--I've speedy-deleted many thousands of articles for failing this criterion--there is an appalling amount that does fall in the category. In practice, admins (including myself) tend to use G11 more liberally if the article also is about s subject that appears non-notable--this leads to a very wide variation in what does or does not get deleted as G11--it is necessary, but still is a dangerous criterion, but we've tried unsuccessfully for years to find some practical way of clarifying it. ( But the article is not about a A7 no claim to notability company, for celebrities wearing their work could be considered a plausible claim to notability, enough to require an AfD discussion, not the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedurally I should think this could reasonably be sent to AfD; as DGG rightly says, there are arguable procedural grounds on which the speedy might be contested. But let's not rush to do that, because I don't think the text of the cached article would survive the AfD, and I wouldn't imagine that the nominator would be satisfied by a seven-day process that leaves the situation exactly as it was. I think it would be better to userfy the material and ask the nominator to add reliable sources. When that's been done the nominator could come back to DRV with the improved article, and provided the article accurately reflected good sources, we would approve it for return to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy of a non-offensive article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per all of the above; not unsalvageably promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is borderline; I would not have deleted this myself but don't feel that the decision to delete it was altogether unreasonable. Looking at the bigger picture, this article doesn't have a snowball's chance at AFD, so as S Marshall points out, at the end of the AFD we will be exactly where we are now, with nobody the better for it. So I'll ask whether the nominator supports userfication of the article and undertakes to improve it; if so I would userfy, and if not I would keep deleted. In the event that the article is undeleted, we should rename it so that it's not all-caps, as per standard naming conventions. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Could an administrator restore the article only for purposes of the deletion review? The Google cache no longer remains. --Bsherr (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This my second time putting this article through deletion review, the last time dating back to September. Since then, I have found a number of magazine publications and added them in my userpsace for subject: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. Here are the following links: [2] [3] [4]. Proving that her acting career has received some coverage. If this fails notability, I truly give up on trying to have this subject overturned. QuasyBoy 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question can you tell me which of the sources you've now listed provide the general notability guide level of non-trivial coverage. i.e. that address the subject directly, in detail, and aren't just passing mentions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now. Sorry, these are name-drops and a sentence or two, and really does not meet the WP:GNG which calls for "significant coverage". Tarc (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both your questions, yes the actress is strictly mentioned in short in the references I provided, but that is simply because she has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series. But as far as her recurring roles go, she has done ample projects to warrant notability according to the first rule in WP:ENT. But I am sure if the actress had starring or co-starring role in a television series not a recurring role, her career would've gotten more coverage and we wouldn't be having this argument. QuasyBoy 16:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT are secondary criteria and are meant to be indicative of those likely to meet the basic criteria, which is still requires non-trivial coverage. The whole point is to remove the subjective element from wikipedia editors to the world at large, do they believe that the person is of note. If so they will note them, by writing about them in such a way to demonstrate that. If they don't the chances are the world simply isn't interested in the detail of that person. This seems to be the case here. Ragarding what WP:ENT actually says is "Has had significant roles". i.e. it's not about having multiple recurring roles, it's about significant roles. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words rule 1 of WP:ENT does not apply to the subject at all, Simply because her recurring roles in notable television series do not count as significant roles. But let's also take into account the page was created more than five or so times, indicating her popularity obviously but that shall not pass because the subject was not profiled significantly in a independent reliable source. If that is the case, I rest my case once and for all. QuasyBoy 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the significance of the roles will also be determined by what the world outside wikipedia considers, so much the same standard if they are writing about the person in that role in the reliable sources then chances are the role is significant. The amount of times it's attempted to be created in wikipedia is again not an indication, it only takes one person to try and create an article, and they are anonymous, we can't tell if they have some conflict of interest in creating the article. (Wikipedia has the rather contradictory camps with those desparate to get an article about themselves and seeing it as a huge positive, and those desparately trying to make sure they don't have an article.). However I suggest you look to the discussions, what other people say here etc. to get a broader set of views (there can be plenty of disagreement on wikipedia as to what/what doesn't warrant inclusion), also things change, the person can start getting broader coverage or wikipedia's expectations can shift. The only thing to be careful of is that there are some articles where we seem to have one or two editors waiting for one more passing mention to be made to jump up and recreate certain articles, hoping this will be the one which pushes it over the line, this activity is rarely constructive, despite the attempts to be objective in inclusion standards, such "desparation" is rarely seen as a good thing and increases the overall level of scruitiny, probably quite unfairly making it harder to get agreement on inclusion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Tarc is right. Passing mentions won't do. The subject has to be covered directly, at least little bit. "she has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series" and "if the actress had starring or co-starring role in a television series not a recurring role, her career would've gotten more coverage and we wouldn't be having this argument" are clear statements countig against inclusion. The subject must already be demonstrated as notable using evidence from reliable sources. You are conceding that she isn't wikipedia-notable, but that she could've been, if only ... . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]