Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 23: Difference between revisions
→Bishop Brigante: cmt |
m [t. 1] fix font tags linter errors |
||
(22 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{| width = "100%" |
{| width = "100%" |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! width=20% align=left | < |
! width=20% align=left | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 September 22|September 22]] |
||
! width=60% align=center | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September|2008 September]] |
! width=60% align=center | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September|2008 September]] |
||
! width=20% align=right | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 September 24|September 24]] < |
! width=20% align=right | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 September 24|September 24]] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
</div></noinclude> |
</div></noinclude> |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGENAME|ns=NAMESPACE of page (optional)|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGENAME|ns=NAMESPACE of page (optional)|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
||
⚫ | |||
====[[Essjay controversy]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
||
Line 34: | Line 33: | ||
*'''Endorse''' Proper closure. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' Proper closure. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*The list of AFDs in that AFD is itself incomplete; the first AFD is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay]], but it was interruupted by the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/Essjay|first DRV]] due to an early closure as delete when no consensus for deletion existed. I'd say that this closure was sound. Even given the chance to try again here, you didn't bother to actually expand on your reasons for deletion or give us a first one with a shred of credibility. This AFD had no chance of success. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*The list of AFDs in that AFD is itself incomplete; the first AFD is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay]], but it was interruupted by the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5/Essjay|first DRV]] due to an early closure as delete when no consensus for deletion existed. I'd say that this closure was sound. Even given the chance to try again here, you didn't bother to actually expand on your reasons for deletion or give us a first one with a shred of credibility. This AFD had no chance of success. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse and speedy close''' The AfD 24 September 2008 (5th nomination) did not set out any Wikipedia policy reasons for the deltion. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big>< |
*'''Endorse and speedy close''' The AfD 24 September 2008 (5th nomination) did not set out any Wikipedia policy reasons for the deltion. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><span style="color:#FF8C00;">☼</span></big></b>]] 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse'''. There are, quite simply, no grounds for the article to be deleted (and no reasonable objection to that fact in the original nomination). The discussion would have undoubtedly been closed as keep, thus making any discussion unnecessary. The close was appropriate, and I will say that, per above, this review remaining open for days on end is also a waste of our time. [[user:j|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"> user:j </span>]][[user talk:j|<span style="background: #fff; color: #222;"><small> (aka justen) </small></span>]] 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse'''. There are, quite simply, no grounds for the article to be deleted (and no reasonable objection to that fact in the original nomination). The discussion would have undoubtedly been closed as keep, thus making any discussion unnecessary. The close was appropriate, and I will say that, per above, this review remaining open for days on end is also a waste of our time. [[user:j|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"> user:j </span>]][[user talk:j|<span style="background: #fff; color: #222;"><small> (aka justen) </small></span>]] 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Ok. I accept this. [[User:Segragate account|Segragate account]] ([[User talk:Segragate account|talk]]) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
Ok. I accept this. [[User:Segragate account|Segragate account]] ([[User talk:Segragate account|talk]]) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and relist''' 2 hours and 4 minutes and 3 participants is not sufficient for speedy close, particularly when one participant opined to that effect, and it was pointed-out that for a good portion of that time it was not even on the log yet. The closing summary seems to indicate that the speedy close was used to suppress the voice of a requester of questionable suffrage in the venue. No attempt was made to voir dire the requester as to their interest in the article or process. The statement that the article causes harm and has no global (eg: outside of wikipedia) notability was not adequately discussed to provide an understanding of the context in which the requester made the request. If we do not understand the request, we can't really answer to it very well. This should have been allowed to run for 24 hours and at least 5 participants. Since consensus can change, and new information can become available, we need to be careful not to misuse the speedy close option. < |
*'''Overturn and relist''' 2 hours and 4 minutes and 3 participants is not sufficient for speedy close, particularly when one participant opined to that effect, and it was pointed-out that for a good portion of that time it was not even on the log yet. The closing summary seems to indicate that the speedy close was used to suppress the voice of a requester of questionable suffrage in the venue. No attempt was made to voir dire the requester as to their interest in the article or process. The statement that the article causes harm and has no global (eg: outside of wikipedia) notability was not adequately discussed to provide an understanding of the context in which the requester made the request. If we do not understand the request, we can't really answer to it very well. This should have been allowed to run for 24 hours and at least 5 participants. Since consensus can change, and new information can become available, we need to be careful not to misuse the speedy close option. <span style="font-family:century gothic;">'''[[User:Jerry|<span style="color:#eeff00;">Jerry</span>]]''' </span><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤ [[User:Jerry/Count|kangaroo]]</small> 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*:Actually, no, consensus cannot override policy— that includes the deletion policy. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*:Actually, no, consensus cannot override policy— that includes the deletion policy. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::What part of the deletion policy says we can not discuss deletion of articles? I missed that bit. < |
::What part of the deletion policy says we can not discuss deletion of articles? I missed that bit. <span style="font-family:century gothic;">'''[[User:Jerry|<span style="color:#eeff00;">Jerry</span>]]''' </span><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤ [[User:Jerry/Count|kangaroo]]</small> 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse.''' '''[[User:Synergy|< |
*'''Endorse.''' '''[[User:Synergy|<span style="color:#222222; font-family:Times New Roman;">Syn</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<span style="color:#222222; font-family:Times New Roman;">ergy</span>]] 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Reopen AfD''', which should always be what we do with these when people object. A speedy close assumes it's either uncontroversial (which it isn't if people complain, like here) or a nomination made in bad faith ([[WP:AFG|which isn't obvious in this case]]). So, while I cannot fault the closing admin anywhere, an objection after the fact should result in reopening the AfD. Cheers. < |
*'''Reopen AfD''', which should always be what we do with these when people object. A speedy close assumes it's either uncontroversial (which it isn't if people complain, like here) or a nomination made in bad faith ([[WP:AFG|which isn't obvious in this case]]). So, while I cannot fault the closing admin anywhere, an objection after the fact should result in reopening the AfD. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' WP:SNOW applies. Does anyone here think that the article will be deleted? Ever? Hell no. IF not, then why would we bother opening an AfD again and letting it run 5 days. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' WP:SNOW applies. Does anyone here think that the article will be deleted? Ever? Hell no. IF not, then why would we bother opening an AfD again and letting it run 5 days. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' speedy close. Reopening it so that another two dozen people can vote keep is process wonkery. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' speedy close. Reopening it so that another two dozen people can vote keep is process wonkery. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 49: | Line 48: | ||
*<s>'''overturn'''/list new AfD per Rividian. We lose nothing by having a new AfD. It will almost certainly be a strong keep and then we won't need to think about this hopefully forever, mmkay? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</s> '''endorse close''' Thinking about this more, the result is clear. It is very clear that this meets our notability criteria and it is very clear that the consensus is just that. We shouldn't have to go over this again. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*<s>'''overturn'''/list new AfD per Rividian. We lose nothing by having a new AfD. It will almost certainly be a strong keep and then we won't need to think about this hopefully forever, mmkay? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</s> '''endorse close''' Thinking about this more, the result is clear. It is very clear that this meets our notability criteria and it is very clear that the consensus is just that. We shouldn't have to go over this again. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*:How much stronger than AfD 4 (50 keeps, 3 merges to 5 delete) do you feel this needs to get before we stop bothering trying repeatedly to delete the article <s>against</s> unsupported by policy, exactly? |
*:How much stronger than AfD 4 (50 keeps, 3 merges to 5 delete) do you feel this needs to get before we stop bothering trying repeatedly to delete the article <s>against</s> unsupported by policy, exactly? |
||
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Coren|Coren]] ([[User talk:Coren|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Coren|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
{{Unsigned|Coren}} |
|||
::Possibly the user was not saying that we should repeatedly attempt to delete against policy, but rather we should put in a good faith review upon request to determine if deletion per policy is warranted. Circumstances can change, articles can change, new information can become available and consensus as to whether it is per policy or not can chabge. Oh, and policies can change, too. < |
::Possibly the user was not saying that we should repeatedly attempt to delete against policy, but rather we should put in a good faith review upon request to determine if deletion per policy is warranted. Circumstances can change, articles can change, new information can become available and consensus as to whether it is per policy or not can chabge. Oh, and policies can change, too. <span style="font-family:century gothic;">'''[[User:Jerry|<span style="color:#eeff00;">Jerry</span>]]''' </span><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤ [[User:Jerry/Count|kangaroo]]</small> 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Honest question here. How would policy change to delete an article with 50 footnotes (most of which to secondary sources that cover the subject) that has been promoted to a good article? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::Honest question here. How would policy change to delete an article with 50 footnotes (most of which to secondary sources that cover the subject) that has been promoted to a good article? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
** More or less yes. But I've already changed my mind. The probability seems sufficiently low at this point that I'm not inclined to really want another AfD at this time. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
** More or less yes. But I've already changed my mind. The probability seems sufficiently low at this point that I'm not inclined to really want another AfD at this time. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 61: | Line 60: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
====[[:Category:Coastal and port cities and towns]]==== |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Category:Coastal and port cities and towns]]''' – Consensus is that neither the status quo nor the status before the CfD is ideal. Those arguing against the close also argue that CfD is not the best place to discuss these issues, so I see little point to simply reopening the previous CfD. Here's my directive: all parties are requested to conduct a (civil and respectful) discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization]] (or a subpage if necessary) in which they arrive at a consensus about the best names for these categories, keeping in mind the issues dicussed in this debate, including consistency between categories and proper subcategorization. If some of those names turn out to be the same as some of the old ones, that will not be considered a [[WP:CSD#G4|G4 recreation]]. If actual category-page content is needed, it can be undeleted by any admin by request. But the original close is still considered valid in that "cities" should not be used for places that aren't cities. Might I also humbly suggest that the word "municipality" is a pleasantly international term. Good luck. – [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{drvlinks|pg=Coastal and port cities and towns|ns=Category}} |
{{drvlinks|pg=Coastal and port cities and towns|ns=Category}} |
||
Line 154: | Line 160: | ||
::::::::I agree with your comments above, Matilda. Just to be clear, I personally am in favour of notifying WikiProjects in CfDs of this type, and would find it courteous and helpful if nominators did so. However, it's currently not mandatory (nor would I support it being so), so it's difficult for me to see how we can fault the nominator for not doing it in this instance. I'm not "wikilawyering", as someone else has accused me of, I'm just trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::I agree with your comments above, Matilda. Just to be clear, I personally am in favour of notifying WikiProjects in CfDs of this type, and would find it courteous and helpful if nominators did so. However, it's currently not mandatory (nor would I support it being so), so it's difficult for me to see how we can fault the nominator for not doing it in this instance. I'm not "wikilawyering", as someone else has accused me of, I'm just trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::I withdraw the wikilawyering comment and apologise. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::::I withdraw the wikilawyering comment and apologise. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - the cfd has ended up with a rename that screws up all the related category trees - eg [[:Category:Port cities in Canada]] was correctly a subcat of [[:Category:Cities in Canada]] whereas the renamed [[:Category:Port settlements in Canada]] is not (as a settlement is not nec a city). So I would say that there was a consensus, the close was in line, but the result is chaotic. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 00:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I'm not going to do anything but endorse the close, but I have a couple of comments regarding this debate. There's a fundamental lack of good faith in all parties going on here. This was seen to be a wider issue, people did try and drum up more interest in them, but no-one seemed interested. People closing debates can only close what is in front of them, and screaming blue murder because of that helps no-one. What would be more beneficial is if all sides got together and worked out the best way to name these categories, rather than arguing about the result. Consensus can and is allowed to change, and for the record, G4 was initiated only to apply to article space, I've trawled the archives on this and I'm confident on that assertion. However, the fact that it is a general rather than an article space clause conflicts with that fact. The issue of G4 and how it applies to category space and the fact that consensus can change needs a complete review to avoid these deletion reviews which may cause and foster bad blood. Also, there's currently a bot in trial which will notify wikiprojects of xfd debates on project tagged categories, see [[User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts]]. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
==== [[:Hip Hop Is Dead Movement]] ==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Hip Hop Is Dead Movement]]''' – Deletion endorsed – [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 02:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{drvlinks|pg=Hip Hop Is Dead Movement|ns=article}} |
{{drvlinks|pg=Hip Hop Is Dead Movement|ns=article}} |
||
1 Del, 1 weak Del, 1 presumable Del by nom. |
1 Del, 1 weak Del, 1 presumable Del by nom. |
||
Line 170: | Line 189: | ||
** Thanks, TF; i'm pretty sure that reflects a policy change in the last 4-5 years, but i haven't been looking for such changes in AfD, so you're presumably right. <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC) <small>& correct placement error, 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</small> <br> |
** Thanks, TF; i'm pretty sure that reflects a policy change in the last 4-5 years, but i haven't been looking for such changes in AfD, so you're presumably right. <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC) <small>& correct placement error, 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</small> <br> |
||
*All three opinions on that article stated that it was [[WP:OR|original research]] that was the problem with the article; with no dissenting views or arguments, that's a valid deletion. '''Endorse''' [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
*All three opinions on that article stated that it was [[WP:OR|original research]] that was the problem with the article; with no dissenting views or arguments, that's a valid deletion. '''Endorse''' [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*Okay, if that had been closed as anything other than delete, it would've been so blatantly wrong. A unanimous delete opinion of the participants is pretty well always consensus. Besides, without someone actually providing sources for the quotes (which I'll admit I have not searched for) there's no reason to overturn. Searching for sources for it is suggested, but has never been ''mandatory''. So, '''endorse''' the closure. Cheers. < |
*Okay, if that had been closed as anything other than delete, it would've been so blatantly wrong. A unanimous delete opinion of the participants is pretty well always consensus. Besides, without someone actually providing sources for the quotes (which I'll admit I have not searched for) there's no reason to overturn. Searching for sources for it is suggested, but has never been ''mandatory''. So, '''endorse''' the closure. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used '''where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'''. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used '''where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'''. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
* '''Endorse deletion''', it's not clear why this request was even made since the article was an unsourced essay about a one-man neologism with no dissenting opinions at AfD; create a new sourced version if you like but this fails policy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
* '''Endorse deletion''', it's not clear why this request was even made since the article was an unsourced essay about a one-man neologism with no dissenting opinions at AfD; create a new sourced version if you like but this fails policy. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per AfD and WP:NOR. Would this be suitable for wikiquote? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per AfD and WP:NOR. Would this be suitable for wikiquote? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
====[[:Pakpassion]]==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Pakpassion]]''' – Deletion Endorsed, but recreation allowed if independent, reliable sources are provided, as usual. – [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 02:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{drvlinks|pg=Pakpassion|ns=article}} |
{{drvlinks|pg=Pakpassion|ns=article}} |
||
Line 191: | Line 221: | ||
:Thanks |
:Thanks |
||
:Regards Wazeeri [[User:JIP|< |
:Regards Wazeeri [[User:JIP|<span style="color:#CC0000;">J</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">I</span><span style="color:#0000CC;">P</span>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn''' most recent G11 deletion. The spam issues could've been taken care of by removing some text instead of deleting the entire article. As for the notability issue, it seems like there are enough sources on the most recently deleted version to maybe make [[WP:N|the general notability guideline]], so I'd like to see another AfD for it. Cheers, everyone. < |
*'''Overturn''' most recent G11 deletion. The spam issues could've been taken care of by removing some text instead of deleting the entire article. As for the notability issue, it seems like there are enough sources on the most recently deleted version to maybe make [[WP:N|the general notability guideline]], so I'd like to see another AfD for it. Cheers, everyone. [[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' This was deleted at an AFD in 2006 over sourcing and decent sourcing that discusses the site rather then quoting fans that use it has not been provided. There are clear COI issues and the article reads like spam to me. I have no objection to a userfied version being worked on and presented here for review but I can't really see the point of overturning a G11 speedy if the sourcing issues have not yet been sorted out. I'm willing to review if more detailed sources are provided [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' This was deleted at an AFD in 2006 over sourcing and decent sourcing that discusses the site rather then quoting fans that use it has not been provided. There are clear COI issues and the article reads like spam to me. I have no objection to a userfied version being worked on and presented here for review but I can't really see the point of overturning a G11 speedy if the sourcing issues have not yet been sorted out. I'm willing to review if more detailed sources are provided [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used '''where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'''. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used '''where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'''. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' the original deletion, unless proof that a proper article will be created instead of advertising spam. If the result of this discussion allows the article to be re-created, it must be eligible for another AfD in the future if it turns out to be unencyclopedic. Incidentally, the original deleting admin in 2006 is no longer active on Wikipedia. '''[[User:JRawle|< |
*'''Endorse''' the original deletion, unless proof that a proper article will be created instead of advertising spam. If the result of this discussion allows the article to be re-created, it must be eligible for another AfD in the future if it turns out to be unencyclopedic. Incidentally, the original deleting admin in 2006 is no longer active on Wikipedia. '''[[User:JRawle|<span style="color:blue;">J</span><span style="color:navy;">Rawle</span>]]''' ([[User talk:JRawle|Talk]]) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' G11 is a criterion without really workable demarcation lines, as compared to the others. I'm surprised more of the deletions under it are not brought here. I have no opinion on this one, except we should let them keep trying. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' G11 is a criterion without really workable demarcation lines, as compared to the others. I'm surprised more of the deletions under it are not brought here. I have no opinion on this one, except we should let them keep trying. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' - spam, non-notable. --[[User:Orangemike|< |
*'''Endorse''' - spam, non-notable. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:darkorange;">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. No evidence of notability as per WP:N or WP:WEB. It is unlikely that a forum would be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion'''. No evidence of notability as per WP:N or WP:WEB. It is unlikely that a forum would be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
====[[:Dan Burisch]]==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Dan Burisch]]''' – Prior deletion endorsed but sourced recreation explicitly allowed and encouraged. – [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 22:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{drvlinks|pg=Dan Burisch|ns=Article}} |
{{drvlinks|pg=Dan Burisch|ns=Article}} |
||
Line 208: | Line 249: | ||
*'''Overturn''' Given the flippant nominator's rationale given at the AfD, and the A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") speedy deletion reason I agree that this could be undeleted. If Waitak and others then aren't able to make a keepable article using the 29,000+ Google hits, then we can delete it again. Alternatively, copy to user space and await recreation when Waitak has improved it sufficiently there (drawback being that he would have to do that alone, as others might see fit to contribute if the article existed in main article space). __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''' Given the flippant nominator's rationale given at the AfD, and the A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") speedy deletion reason I agree that this could be undeleted. If Waitak and others then aren't able to make a keepable article using the 29,000+ Google hits, then we can delete it again. Alternatively, copy to user space and await recreation when Waitak has improved it sufficiently there (drawback being that he would have to do that alone, as others might see fit to contribute if the article existed in main article space). __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - There is some info at [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dan%20Burisch&sa=N&tab=ps scholar.google.com]. There is a mention in [http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/psychic-vibrations.html July 2004] Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Per the [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2783072/Tunguska-1-Roswell-0-Psychic.html November 2004] Skeptical Inquirer article, Burisch real name is [[Dan Grain]], so reliable source material might be found under that name as well. I don't know if undeleting the article will overcome the A7 deletion. How about get a draft article into keepable shape then undelete the article? -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big>< |
*'''Comment''' - There is some info at [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dan%20Burisch&sa=N&tab=ps scholar.google.com]. There is a mention in [http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/psychic-vibrations.html July 2004] Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Per the [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2783072/Tunguska-1-Roswell-0-Psychic.html November 2004] Skeptical Inquirer article, Burisch real name is [[Dan Grain]], so reliable source material might be found under that name as well. I don't know if undeleting the article will overcome the A7 deletion. How about get a draft article into keepable shape then undelete the article? -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><span style="color:#FF8C00;">☼</span></big></b>]] 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*Um... the article when it was deleted, was, to put it in a word, crap. There are no sources. It's a few sentences. That's it. If someone feels that it's recreatable and can meet guidelines, then please do put a draft together in userspace, and come back here for discussion. '''Endorse''' the A7 deletion way back when. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
*Um... the article when it was deleted, was, to put it in a word, crap. There are no sources. It's a few sentences. That's it. If someone feels that it's recreatable and can meet guidelines, then please do put a draft together in userspace, and come back here for discussion. '''Endorse''' the A7 deletion way back when. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse original deletion''' - raw googlehits are not a meaningful metric. --[[User:Orangemike|< |
*'''Endorse original deletion''' - raw googlehits are not a meaningful metric. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:darkorange;">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - I can't comment on the original article, obviously, because I've never seen it. What's policy? Is recreating it kosher? If the article as it stood was unworthy of WP (hey, it happens!) then it seems to me that starting from there is better than starting completely from scratch... If the article's ''that'' bad, maybe somebody wouldn't mind emailing it to me so that I'm not commenting in the dark...? Re: Google hits: I agree, but note that the reason I came here for this in the first place is that I've read about the guy in several other places, and wanted to see what WP had to say. [[User:Waitak|Waitak]] ([[User talk:Waitak|talk]]) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' - I can't comment on the original article, obviously, because I've never seen it. What's policy? Is recreating it kosher? If the article as it stood was unworthy of WP (hey, it happens!) then it seems to me that starting from there is better than starting completely from scratch... If the article's ''that'' bad, maybe somebody wouldn't mind emailing it to me so that I'm not commenting in the dark...? Re: Google hits: I agree, but note that the reason I came here for this in the first place is that I've read about the guy in several other places, and wanted to see what WP had to say. [[User:Waitak|Waitak]] ([[User talk:Waitak|talk]]) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:*I'd be glad to do that but you don't have e-mail enabled. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
:*I'd be glad to do that but you don't have e-mail enabled. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 224: | Line 265: | ||
*'''Allow recreation''', with care. Clearly a notable subject. Be very careful to stick with reliable sources and [[WP:NPOV]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Allow recreation''', with care. Clearly a notable subject. Be very careful to stick with reliable sources and [[WP:NPOV]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
====[[Bishop Brigante]]==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[Bishop Brigante]]''' – Deletion endorsed. The standard in a case like this is whether there is evidence that the changes to the article were likely to have caused AfD participants to change their minds. Given that the sources added, while moving in the right direction, were not editorially independent as described at [[WP:reliable sources]], that does not appear likely to be the case. As for his anticipated album, this can certainly be reconsidered after it comes out. As always, a well-sourced userspace version is recommended. – [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{drvlinks|pg=Bishop Brigante|ns=Article}} |
{{drvlinks|pg=Bishop Brigante|ns=Article}} |
||
Line 230: | Line 282: | ||
The AfD for this article started off with four delete votes when the article was in bad shape. After I improved it and voted keep, two keep votes followed that had better reasoning behind them than the delete votes. I confronted the admin who closed the AfD, but he does not want to un-delete the article, so I have no choice but to come here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz#Bishop_Brigante_AfD][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&diff=240246776&oldid=240242476] The article should not have been deleted, as the subject meets notability guidelines, and the sourcing is adequate. --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
The AfD for this article started off with four delete votes when the article was in bad shape. After I improved it and voted keep, two keep votes followed that had better reasoning behind them than the delete votes. I confronted the admin who closed the AfD, but he does not want to un-delete the article, so I have no choice but to come here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz#Bishop_Brigante_AfD][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&diff=240246776&oldid=240242476] The article should not have been deleted, as the subject meets notability guidelines, and the sourcing is adequate. --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''History undelete''' please so we can review the deleted article. Thanks. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big>< |
*'''History undelete''' please so we can review the deleted article. Thanks. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><span style="color:#FF8C00;">☼</span></big></b>]] 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:*{{done}}. Cheers. < |
:*{{done}}. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*I could really go for an '''overturn and relist''' here. Nearly all the delete comments revolve around the lack of sources, which was fixed later. So we need to get a wider consensus on the new version. Cheers. < |
*I could really go for an '''overturn and relist''' here. Nearly all the delete comments revolve around the lack of sources, which was fixed later. So we need to get a wider consensus on the new version. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' - The deletion focused on the lack of reliable sources, not the absence of any sources. AfD closer MBisanz subsequently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=240248439&oldid=240246776 wrote]: <blockquote>"Even after you added sources, people still indicated that I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article., as that was the same viewpoint taken prior to the content changes you made, people still felt the sourcing was of too low a quality to keep the article."</blockquote> Seem like properly exercised discretion was used in the close. No restriction on recreating if close reasoning is overcome. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big>< |
*'''Endorse''' - The deletion focused on the lack of reliable sources, not the absence of any sources. AfD closer MBisanz subsequently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMBisanz&diff=240248439&oldid=240246776 wrote]: <blockquote>"Even after you added sources, people still indicated that I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article., as that was the same viewpoint taken prior to the content changes you made, people still felt the sourcing was of too low a quality to keep the article."</blockquote> Seem like properly exercised discretion was used in the close. No restriction on recreating if close reasoning is overcome. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><span style="color:#FF8C00;">☼</span></big></b>]] 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
**And I brought up that only ONE person said that, and his point of view went directly against the notability guidelines.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&diff=240249178&oldid=240248439] MBisanz has even told me that he is a "rampaging deletionist".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pwnage8&diff=183105461&oldid=183104920] --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
**And I brought up that only ONE person said that, and his point of view went directly against the notability guidelines.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz&diff=240249178&oldid=240248439] MBisanz has even told me that he is a "rampaging deletionist".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pwnage8&diff=183105461&oldid=183104920] --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
***Erm, that link is over 9 months old, so I forgot to use a <code><sarcasm></code> tag all that time ago? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
***Erm, that link is over 9 months old, so I forgot to use a <code><sarcasm></code> tag all that time ago? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 240: | Line 292: | ||
***Looks like we disagree on that. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
***Looks like we disagree on that. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn'''. Bishop Brigante is a multi-talented [[hip hop music|hip hop]] musician and actor. Not only did he release a single on [[iTunes]] Canada, but he also made a significant appearance in the movie ''[[Narc (film)|Narc]]''. He acted in two hip hop-based TV series, ''[[Platinum (TV series)|Platinum]]'' and ''[[Drop the Beat]]''. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1068700/] He has Peruvian ancestry, and collaborates with local [[reggaeton]] artist [[Fito Blanko]]. Recently, he's been getting significant exposure on the popular website worldstarhiphop.com [http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/]. Lastly, he's releasing his debut album entitled ''The Poker Face'' soon, and his hip hop group, known as S.L.U.G., is also releasing a double CD very soon. He's definitely notable. [http://www.hiphopcanada.com/_site/entertainment/interviews/ent_int474.php] [[User:Blackjays1|Blackjays1]] ([[User talk:Blackjays1|talk]]) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn'''. Bishop Brigante is a multi-talented [[hip hop music|hip hop]] musician and actor. Not only did he release a single on [[iTunes]] Canada, but he also made a significant appearance in the movie ''[[Narc (film)|Narc]]''. He acted in two hip hop-based TV series, ''[[Platinum (TV series)|Platinum]]'' and ''[[Drop the Beat]]''. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1068700/] He has Peruvian ancestry, and collaborates with local [[reggaeton]] artist [[Fito Blanko]]. Recently, he's been getting significant exposure on the popular website worldstarhiphop.com [http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/]. Lastly, he's releasing his debut album entitled ''The Poker Face'' soon, and his hip hop group, known as S.L.U.G., is also releasing a double CD very soon. He's definitely notable. [http://www.hiphopcanada.com/_site/entertainment/interviews/ent_int474.php] [[User:Blackjays1|Blackjays1]] ([[User talk:Blackjays1|talk]]) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' deletion. Proper AfD. Attempt a recreation in userspace before coming back here. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''<s>Endorse</s>''' deletion. Proper AfD. Attempt a recreation in userspace before coming back here. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
**Could you explain why you think the AfD was so "proper"? --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
**Could you explain why you think the AfD was so "proper"? --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
***OK. I re-read your comments here and at AfD. The early run of "delete"s has a strong effect, but you say the article (referencing) changed substantially. Your comments were not answered substantially. The closing admin didn't address your points and was excessively brief. '''Overturn'''. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*With respect to BlackJays1 the deleted article does not contain any substantial independent reliable sources and by our usual measure of notability this bloke is not there yet for a wikipedia article and some of your comments suggest that SRYSTAL is an issue. The discussion has a clear outcome and two/three keeps after improvement does not mean a base close if the article still lacks decent sourcing. I'm not seeing any meaningful argument that the merits of the sourcing were not considered at the article or any thorough rebuttal of the lack of sourcing. As such I '''endorse''' the close but am very open to discuss further sourcing. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
====[[:Kent Walls]]==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Kent Walls]]''' – Overturned and listed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Walls]]. – [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
{{drvlinks|pg=Kent Walls|ns=}} |
{{drvlinks|pg=Kent Walls|ns=}} |
||
Line 251: | Line 316: | ||
:''Completing DRV nom for {{user|Kai.robertson}}. Article has been deleted twice: once an expired prod and once as A7. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)'' |
:''Completing DRV nom for {{user|Kai.robertson}}. Article has been deleted twice: once an expired prod and once as A7. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)'' |
||
*'''List at AfD''' - [http://www.chroniclet.com/2008/09/20/amherst-native-covers-tailgating-side-of-college-football_122/ Amherst native covers tailgating side of college football] has some bio info that can be used in the article. It might not be enough, but AfD can decide that. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big>< |
*'''List at AfD''' - [http://www.chroniclet.com/2008/09/20/amherst-native-covers-tailgating-side-of-college-football_122/ Amherst native covers tailgating side of college football] has some bio info that can be used in the article. It might not be enough, but AfD can decide that. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><span style="color:#FF8C00;">☼</span></big></b>]] 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - it was a three-paragraph autobiography, and claimed he was on some sub-sub-sub-channel of Fox. Does that constitute notability in an era of 1000+ "networks"? --[[User:Orangemike|< |
*'''Comment''' - it was a three-paragraph autobiography, and claimed he was on some sub-sub-sub-channel of Fox. Does that constitute notability in an era of 1000+ "networks"? --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:darkorange;">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:*It might meet [[WP:A7]] important or significant. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big>< |
:*It might meet [[WP:A7]] important or significant. -- [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] [[User talk:Suntag|<b><big><span style="color:#FF8C00;">☼</span></big></b>]] 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn most recent deletion and list at AfD'''. Recreation of the article == contesting the PROD, so the next step is to take it to AfD. However, I do ''highly'' suggest the nominator have sources ready ''before'' the AfD starts, or it will probably be deleted again. Cheers. < |
*'''Overturn most recent deletion and list at AfD'''. Recreation of the article == contesting the PROD, so the next step is to take it to AfD. However, I do ''highly'' suggest the nominator have sources ready ''before'' the AfD starts, or it will probably be deleted again. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>]][[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used '''where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'''. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
*On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used '''where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'''. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*:WP procedure tends to confuse people. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Endorse deletion''' by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''List at AfD''', as is appropriate for any resonably contested speedie. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
Latest revision as of 22:19, 19 February 2023
23 September 2008[edit]
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Essjay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)(AfD 2 March 2007)(DRV 5 March 2007)(AfD 7 March 2007)(AfD 12 March 2007)(AfD 1 May 2007)(AfD 24 September 2008) I don't know how to do this, but if you click the afd button, it takes you to the first, the AFD i'm talking about is this one Essjay controversy (5th nomination). Closing administrator did not allow me to respond to discussion, expand on rationale, and called me a troll. -- Segragate account (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I accept this. Segragate account (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Coastal and port cities and towns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) (Can't figure out how to link it - CfD was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14#Coastal_and_port_cities_and_towns Decision should be set aside as invalid and a community discussion initiated. There is no evidence of anybody having been consulted or this CfD having been notified to any of the projects affected, and its implications have caused severe disruption on the Australian project and doubtless on others. The push for standardisation to the extent that nonsensical categories (eg "Port settlements in ___") are created because some country somewhere on earth doesn't use the term "city" or "town" while another does, is not so important that we cannot move forward in a more sensible and considered way with these things and not make a mockery of ourselves to our readers, or be chained by the opinions of five individuals. (As an aside, this discussion suggests the outcome would have been very different had it been notified - already six users have indicated they disagree with the opinions raised.) Orderinchaos 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Finally, fair warning to all. I consider creating an RfC to seek further comment on the result of the CfD and DRV and the actions of the participants involved is warranted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It's now 8 am in Europe, and since I went to bed at 1 am a monumental debate has been developing. Since other editors have raised meta-issues here, I'm gonna do the same before joining the discussion as it currently stands. The issue is that people will tend to stay away from a debate if they perceive it to be well under way already, i.e. people don't want to miss the beginning of the show. Obviously, the above has taken place during prime time for Australian editors and I'm sure, just as the Australians missed the original CfR (Categories for Renaming) discussion, most of the world has probably missed the start of the present discussion. Perhaps some sort of a summary box at the top of some voluminous discussions might be a useful implement? __meco (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hip Hop Is Dead Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) 1 Del, 1 weak Del, 1 presumable Del by nom. There was unanimous agreement that NOR applied, but the weak Del-discussant said in part
which is the closest the discussion came to addressing the core question,
and no one acknowledged the mandatory role (before a Del finding in this case) of some research to evaluate whether the "quotes" offer hope for verifiable content.
--Jerzy•t 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Pakpassion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Pakistani cricket forum deleted as non-notable. Author then contacted me to question the deletion. Because this article went through the full AfD discussion process, rather than being simply speedied or prodded, the matter must be discussed here first. I have no vote either to keep deleted or undelete. Author's original comment:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dan Burisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) When I bump into mentions of prominent people in fringe areas (UFO's and aliens, in this particular case) out there on the interwebs, I usually pop over to WP for an overview. If I don't find one, sometimes I'll contribute one. In this case, there once was an article on him, but it's been deleted, which precludes contributing. Seems likely to me that he's notable enough to merit an article (>29,000 hits on Google, for example). Perhaps we could temporarily undelete it and get the article into keepable shape? Granted that much of what he has to say is, at best, questionable, but WP has plenty of solid policies that allow it to talk about questionable claims (and counter-claims) without appearing to endorse them. What sayeth the community? Waitak (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Bishop Brigante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) The AfD for this article started off with four delete votes when the article was in bad shape. After I improved it and voted keep, two keep votes followed that had better reasoning behind them than the delete votes. I confronted the admin who closed the AfD, but he does not want to un-delete the article, so I have no choice but to come here.[7][8] The article should not have been deleted, as the subject meets notability guidelines, and the sourcing is adequate. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kent Walls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This is for the deletion of "Kent Walls" He's hosting a show on Fox Sports. I just watched him today on FSN. Why is he not listed on Wikipedia? Fox College Sports to premier the 2008 FCS Tailgate Tour.
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |