Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
A Nobody (talk | contribs)
53,000 edits
→‎Alien and Predator timeline: yes, I heard you the first time. No, I don't agree with you.
Line 150: Line 150:
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted - or redelete now). While this was a closer call than many, I find no process problems in the deletion discussion or in the closure. Closers are supposed to weight the opinions offered in accordance with their alignment with established policy. I would have appreciated a lengthier explanation in the close itself, but the closer has explained his/her decision clearly here. (The GFDL issue will require more investigation, though. Still working through the histories to see if the content was actually copied from another page first, which could make the GFDL impact on this page moot.) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
* '''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted - or redelete now). While this was a closer call than many, I find no process problems in the deletion discussion or in the closure. Closers are supposed to weight the opinions offered in accordance with their alignment with established policy. I would have appreciated a lengthier explanation in the close itself, but the closer has explained his/her decision clearly here. (The GFDL issue will require more investigation, though. Still working through the histories to see if the content was actually copied from another page first, which could make the GFDL impact on this page moot.) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
**The process problem lies in the AfD lacking an actual consensus. Sometimes even if a closer means well and explains themselves, their decision can still be incorrect, especially in the light of additional evidence and sources as presented above, such as secondary source reviews that directly mention dates and primary sources that also directly mention dates (even down to the months and days). Some of the deletion concerns were actually over primary sources and at least two scenes in ''Aliens'' do indeed include text that shows years and mention when the events occuring occur relative to those years. And doing a quick search of reviews does turn up some other citable material. A five day AfD is not the definitive end to an article. When new sources appear, we should restore the article and add those sources and then if someone later wants to try again at AfD, so be it. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
**The process problem lies in the AfD lacking an actual consensus. Sometimes even if a closer means well and explains themselves, their decision can still be incorrect, especially in the light of additional evidence and sources as presented above, such as secondary source reviews that directly mention dates and primary sources that also directly mention dates (even down to the months and days). Some of the deletion concerns were actually over primary sources and at least two scenes in ''Aliens'' do indeed include text that shows years and mention when the events occuring occur relative to those years. And doing a quick search of reviews does turn up some other citable material. A five day AfD is not the definitive end to an article. When new sources appear, we should restore the article and add those sources and then if someone later wants to try again at AfD, so be it. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
*** Le Grand, you have made your opinion quite clear. Please trust that the rest of us are smart enough and conscientious enough to have read the comments above - and that even after having read your comments, we can in good faith disagree with you. Responding to every post and repeating the same arguments over and over detracts from your credibility. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


====[[:Queen of Bollywood]]====
====[[:Queen of Bollywood]]====

Revision as of 06:15, 16 June 2008

< June 13 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 15 >

14 June 2008

Alien and Predator timeline

Alien and Predator timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)

Clearly no consensus reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination); all deletion rationales effectively challenged. Suggest relisting or reclosing as "no consensus." Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I was the closer - this is a summary of what I wrote on GRDC's talkpage regarding why I believed the Keep !votes didn't stand up -
    • User:Colonel Warden - "no pressing reason to delete" (personal opinion)
    • User:Firefly322 - "It's verifiable" (not from secondary sources it isn't)
    • User:Tj999 - WP:USEFUL.
    • User:DGG - "Appropriate alternative way to present the material" (well fine, but I'm still not seeing secondary sources, and it's still duplicating information in other articles)
    • User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I don't understand your vote. You rail against "cruft" repeatedly throughout your reply, but the nominator didn't mention the word cruft at all. You say it's verifiable, but don't put forward any secondary sources. You say "The real world context is obvious", and then fail to explain what real-world context there actually is. You say "Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.", which is plainly taking 1P to mean what you believe it means. "(Wikipedia) is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three." - no, it doesn't mean that at all. I'm sorry but you really need to think about these !votes a little more.
    • User:Fordmadoxfraud - WP:USEFUL.
    • User:Myheartinchile - WP:ITSSOURCED. No, it isn't. Black Kite 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Closing admin is giving no weight to keep !votes. This approach violates the good faith that a closing admin should show towards the reasoning of all keep !votes. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would I give any weight to !votes that cite no reasonable policy-based reason to keep the article? Because practically none of the Keep !votes do that, as I've pointed out above. Meanwhile, almost all the Delete votes point out the failure of the article to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT; and that is good reason to delete. Black Kite 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there is plenty of policy that provides reasonable grounds to keep the article. Five pilliars especially. Moreover, the delete !votes like the closing argument suffer from a confusion between guidelines, policy, and "proof by intimidation." --Firefly322 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Practically none" is not the same as none. The delete (it is a discussion not a vote) most repeat each other and claim that it doesn't meet verifiability (anyone can see the movies or read reviews of them to verify the information), reliable sources (the films are reliable primary sources, the reviews of the film that discuss the overall continuity are reliable secondary sources), and also it is consistent with What Wikipedia is, all of which mean editors have raised concerns on both sides and there is significant enough disagreement, that while I will grant that it is not a "keep," it is at least a weak "no consensus", but not compelling enough for an unambiguous deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but I can't weigh the issue on the basis of who shouts the loudest. In the end, it has to be policy that decides the issue. Policy says - no verifiability, no reliable secondary sources, mostly plot summary. All of these are deletion-worthy failures. Closing as "no consensus" would be the easy option, but it'd also be the wrong one. Black Kite 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we weighed it on who shouts the loudest, then it would be a delete. If we weighed it on policy then we have a serious disagreement. Closing as "no consensus" would be the right choice as the article concerns a notable topic that is verifiable within any reasonable standards and that a significant amount of editors were both working to improve upon and argued in defense of in two AfDs. Just because a handful of editors don't want others to improve the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to or that we can't. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't accept that by repeating your '5 pillars' argument, you can justify keeping any article, no matter how serious the original research problems. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought sgeureka was highlighting somewhere different policies for lists, which is what this is, in effect. It is a pity the only two sources are blogs or personal websites of some sort though. However, though not stricly RS it does invalidate arguments of OR. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not going to indent-reply to GRDC's second set of comments, because sadly they are not worthy of reply. Merely saying that something has been "refuted" without explaining why and how it has been refuted is (and I'm trying to AGF very hard here) really, really, unhelpful and insulting to a large number of people. I'm going to log out for the night now, before I say or do something I later regret. Black Kite 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is BK, like me and Neil, for that matter, you have a well-known opinion on these sorts of articles, so closing them will result in scrutiny by the 'other side'. Your opinion is such you should have voted rather than closed (even though the article does want for sourcing) if you find such questioning unwelcome. I should add that if I do close I fully expect my actions to be scrutinized and I have no problem with that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse as fair reading of a contested AfD, applying cold weightings to !votes based on strengths of arguments. However, maybe starting to see evidence that the closer cares too much, therefore is not necessarily impartial, and maybe should've left this one for someone else. A no consensus close would've been possible. Had I !voted, I might have tried to find a suitable redirect. I don't like seeing deletion of attempts to organise existing content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closed on the basis of the admin own personal reading of policy. He should rather have joined the discussion. He seems to think that such an article needs secondary sources, though he's probably wrong about that. right or wrong, that does not in any event give him the right to throw out the views of those people who disagree with him. The only discretion an admin ought to have at a disputed afd closing is to discard the votes of those with no basis in policy whatsoever, not to pick which[policy he proposes to support in a disputed closing. Admins do not make policy, and their views on what is the correct policy have no more weight than anyone else's. DGG (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per preceding. couldn't have said it better myself.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request temporary undeletion. Can we please have the article temporarily undeleted. The issue of whether !votes were properly discarded assumes a familiarity of the article in question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The close did not follow WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. There was obviously no consensus for deletion and so the guideline When in doubt, don't delete applied. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, someone just restore the fucking thing. There's clearly absolutely no point in actually having a process if we're going to have DRVs that are based on who closed the AfD, rather than their actual rationale for doing so. Well done. You win. I give up. Black Kite 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing admin followed WP:DGFA#Rough consensus which states that "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." (emphasis added). Verifiability can only come through reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I can certainly sympathize with the closer's rationale here, but I do believe this is a case where the closing admin has crossed the line between interpreting consensus and imposing their own rationale upon the discussion. It was a close call to be sure, but I really can't see calling this one a consensus to delete. Shereth 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article lacks primary, not secondary sources. While in general I do find arguments that fictional timeline articles only need sources from the works themselves valid, the problem is that not a single primary source that verifies stuff written here was pointed out during the debate. I fail to see from which source all the exact years come from. This is one of the rare cases where a fiction article seems to fail Verifiability. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer correctly based decision on policy based rationale, not personal opinion. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were not. Policy trumps opinion. When you say "there are sources", you have to actually prove it rather than just say it. Sources that discuss reception are clearly unsuitable to back up content for a timeline. Please don't respond...I've seen the regurgitation of people's comments and I don't want to be prodded about my choice of endorse. I have made my mind up by examining the debates and will not change my mind unless ACTUAL sources are brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. Otherwise I'm seeing something that is original research, unverified by tertiary reliable sources and therefore has no notability established. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, policy does trump opinion and if we go by policy then we would keep the article. I have shown that sources do exist. Sources that do more than just discuss reception, but also mention the timeline coupled with commentary on DVDs are clearly suitable to back up content for a timeline. Actual sources have been brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. It is not original research and is verified by reliable sources and therefore notability has been established. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closer correctly assessed the consensus at hand that was based on policy, and discredited the parts of the opposition that were backed by personal opinion. Nothing has been shown that the article passes WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy based consensus would have been to keep then as it passed what Wikipedia is, is unoriginal research, is verifiable, and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not true because you haven't provided sources to back up the information in the article, and you haven't provided any evidence that the article is notable. All of your assertions here are fluff and have no credibility if there isn't something concrete behind them. Actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research changes arguments, not mere statements that it is so without tangible evidence. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read the whole discussion, you will see that I have presented sources to back up the information in the article. Saying the article is not notable is like saying an apple is a bannana. All of your assertions here are fluff an dhave no credibility as actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research has been presented. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Correct closure, WP:SYN creation without honest verifiability. Delete rationales were not rebutted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correct closure based on arguments, not numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If based on numbers in the one particular AfD, then it would be a delete, but if based on arguments, it would be a "no consensus." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyway, by refuted I mean looking at the AfD and seeing where the various participants challenged the delete rationales. I think some of those who argued there did in fact make good faith and reasonable claims, which is why I am not saying you should have closed as keep, but rather as "no consensus" or to relist to see if we could get some new ideas presented in the discussion. After all Judgesurreal777, Peace NT, and sgeureka, for example, are editors who appear on my list of nice Wikipedians (as do you) and so are editors whom I respect and esteem, even if we disagree here and there. My main concern is that I do not believe the delete rationales were so overwhelming in the face of the keeps made across two AfDs as well as the unheard voices of those who created and worked on the article as well as the many readers who come to Wikipedia for the article that it was a clear cut deletion. When there are fairly strong calls to keep and for a variety of reasons and from multiple editors, I would have to say, barring a copyright concern, libel, or hoax issues, we really should close as "no consensus." If the main criticism is that it's original research, well, we're talking about a major movie series seen by millions of people world wide in theaters, on DVD, on VHS, on television, etc. These films include dates and mention how many years since any given event has occurred. These films have been covered in published magazines. It's not information being presented that one person found in an archive and is reporting to us and we're taking his word for it. Millions of people can verify the timeline. Yes, I know we have a verifiability page, but there's also just being reasonable and it is unreasonable to use a term like verifiability and say it doesn't apply to something that millions of people can verify with relative ease. It's not original research as well, because it is not an essay, doesn't have a thesis, is not some experiment one person conducted and is reporting his findings on, and nor is it an article that only one person originally worked on. Multiple editors with different motivations are hardly original researchers. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts (yes, I know, this was before I wised up and realized "per nom" is week) is original research and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India is what I would consider an unacceptable future "timeline" of sorts. But take such reviews as this, which says things like "This film takes the two popular xenomorphs and sets them in the present. As a result the film slots into the chronology after the two Predator films but before the Alien series." and "Set on Earth in the year 2004..." (such reviews and such comments mentioning specific dates and sequence of events exist for all of the films and events listed on the now deleted article and I would have been better able to add these to the article if it didn't seem necessary to go back and forth with some in the AfD). The dates and chronology and sequences of events are mentioned specifically and discussed critically in secondary source reviews of the films. So, again, I have nothing personal against you or many of those in the discussion and nor do I doubt that many acted in good faith or that every rationale presented to delete was totally baseless. I do however contend that the concerns were responded to and that if the discussion itself had ended as a no consensus then I and others would be able to use these kinds of reviews like the one I cite above to in fact improve the article in a manner that would effectively address their concerns. It is simply hard to do that and debate editors at the same time. Best,--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of refutations asserted, but unless they are successful they do not rebut the rationale put forward. Simply responding to the concerns does not refute them. None of the keep arguments satisfactorily overcome the policy-based deletion arguments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While reading through the arguements, consensus did weave back and forth a little, and no consensus did seem a perfectly valid close. Right up until the end, when PeaceNT made another statement that the films do not actually verify the dates in the timeline. I just checked Alien (own a VHS copy), and this seems to be the case. If the content can't even be verified from primary sources, it can be safely assumed that the content is original research. Given this, the keep arguements are all clearly weaker. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, no consensus would be the correct close. The content can be verified from primary secondary sources, which is why the delete arguments are clearly weaker. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda' saying that quite a bit that is supposedly sourced from primary sources can't actually be. For instance, dates aren't explicitly mentioned in Alien. Nor are they in Aliens (though it does take place 57 years later; again, I own a VHS copy). The dates appear to be WP:OR. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason my DVD disc is skipping, but anyway my DVD of the Aliens Special Edition includes a scene in which Ripley is handed a photograph of her daughter. The photograph includes the deceased daughter's "DB" and "DECEASED" dates (years, months, days). The dialogue says that the daughter died 2 years prior to the events in which the scene takes place and the DVD description text says Aliens takes place 57 years after Alien. Also, if you watch the next scene in which Ripley is talking with all of the company types and look at the screen with green letters, you will see dates included in that text as well. I'll have to watch all the movies again to see if there are other such inclusion of dates as well and again would have to check again if they match the article's dates, but in any event, there are at least two scenes in the special edition of Aliens that do in fact satisfy that aspect of the primary source element by displaying specific dates down to the days and months even. Sincerely,--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check again To the right of each date is a film where the date originated. Checking the wikipedia article Alien (film)#Plot, one finds that 2122 A.D. is that year in which the events take place. Thus, this date is not WP:OR. This procedure can be done for the other dates. Secondary sources are sometimes needed and these have already been used in the articles on the films themselves--as shown. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that infobox shows is when the films were released, not the fictional dates of the stories the films portray. This list is about the fictional dates, and is synthesis based on extrapolating (ie. guesswork) from the films themselves. The only source cited that is not based on such speculation is the Behind the scenes commentary on AvP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Le Grand and LifeBaka. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Me and Le Grand Roi disagree here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the arguments were given appropriate weight. "Hasn't got any secondary sources" and "consists of original research" are strong arguments. --Hut 8.5 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: The deleting admin has done the right thing and restored the article as requested. Kudos to him and thus this discussion seems no longer necessary as the reason for filing the DRV has been responded to satisfactorily. Thank you, Black Kite. I should also note that due to a merge mentioned above, we cannot re-delete the article for legal reasons per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Finally, if the article is unprotected and will add citations accordingly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My restoring of the article should not be taken as a change of opinion, and it should still be deleted if the result of this DRV is Endorse. There is no GFDL issue; the information shouldn't have been merged whilst under AfD anyway, and regardless the history will still exist at that article. However, it should be removed from that article, as the result of the AfD was not Merge. Black Kite 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is unprotected, then I would be able to add the citations that any reasonable person would see meets our standards. Someone other than one of the participants here merged the material, which is okay, after all we're trying to build an encyclopedia and therefore because of that we do at least need to keep as a redirect per the GFDL. I suggest perhaps contacting the user who merged and notifying him or her of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - that would set a really poor precedent. We don't need to keep a redirect because that editor merged the information whilst the AfD was running. If we do this, people are just going to start copying material from any article at AfD to another one, calling it a "merge", and then saying "look, you can't delete it at AFD now because of the GFDL". The original editor might've done it innocently, but that really isn't the point. Black Kite 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that would be a bad thing. After all, we do encourage editors to be "bold." And if the information is considered valuable enough by editors to merge in good faith, then it shouldn't be a problem. Now if an editor merged something libelous or that was a copyright violation, okay sure, but in this case when a number of editors also agree that there is some value in keeping the information somewhere, one AfD shouldn't be the end all of the mtter. After all, we allow editors to keep renominating articles for deletion even if previous AfDs closed as keep. So, if someone thinks the material can be merged and others agree regardless of one five day AfD concerning information for an article that has been around for several months and which a number of editors have worked on, we should allow those editors to do the best they can with the material in question so that they can better develop our comprehensive general/special encyclopedia/almanac. It would be unacademic to think that certain articles can never be improved. We already know that this article is a legitimate search term and as seen above, there is a substantial split regarding its value to our project. If we keep it in some capacity, then those like myself who own the Quadilogy four disc set (which means sooner or later I can get around to watching the special features and commentary for any comments on timeline) and those who have subscriptions to magazines or books (I have an Alien novel lying about somewhere that I can check when I get a chance for any mention of dates) can look for interviews with the filmmakers as to when they films are set. I know the films do have some coverage in books and so I would be shocked if there isn't some kind of coverage and discussion of the films' setting that could allow for a beter referenced actual timeline and maybe even a reception section as well. I do not think this is a clear case of something that has no Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I strongly believe that we can reasonably improve the article further and that we should be able to do so as if we succeed, we will only improve our project, but whereas we don't really gain anything by just deleting an article that a number of editors (I'm not alone on this one) also believe has value. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion'. By what possible rationale can this mess of original research and unreliable sources be kept? Corvus cornixtalk 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE GFDL Issue. There is an issue, as deleted content from Alien and Predator timeline exists in Alien vs. Predator without complete attribution. The obvious solutions are (1) restore Alien and Predator timeline as a redirect to Alien vs. Predator, or (2) remove the content from Alien vs. Predator. Arguably, an alternative case for DRV might be that the merge option, while mentioned in AfD2, was obscured by excessive verbiage, not given enough attention, and was actually a good idea. Thus, given that I thing the close was harsh but fair, the question now should be whether the material should be allowed to stay in Alien vs. Predator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted - or redelete now). While this was a closer call than many, I find no process problems in the deletion discussion or in the closure. Closers are supposed to weight the opinions offered in accordance with their alignment with established policy. I would have appreciated a lengthier explanation in the close itself, but the closer has explained his/her decision clearly here. (The GFDL issue will require more investigation, though. Still working through the histories to see if the content was actually copied from another page first, which could make the GFDL impact on this page moot.) Rossami (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The process problem lies in the AfD lacking an actual consensus. Sometimes even if a closer means well and explains themselves, their decision can still be incorrect, especially in the light of additional evidence and sources as presented above, such as secondary source reviews that directly mention dates and primary sources that also directly mention dates (even down to the months and days). Some of the deletion concerns were actually over primary sources and at least two scenes in Aliens do indeed include text that shows years and mention when the events occuring occur relative to those years. And doing a quick search of reviews does turn up some other citable material. A five day AfD is not the definitive end to an article. When new sources appear, we should restore the article and add those sources and then if someone later wants to try again at AfD, so be it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Le Grand, you have made your opinion quite clear. Please trust that the rest of us are smart enough and conscientious enough to have read the comments above - and that even after having read your comments, we can in good faith disagree with you. Responding to every post and repeating the same arguments over and over detracts from your credibility. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Bollywood

Queen of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Disambiguation page was improperly speedily redirected as "total nonsense, unreferenced, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as blatant POV and false," yet this was the title reported in each case by international news organizations as the BBC, CBC, Time, Newsweek, and The Hindu. Dab pages don't cite articles, they cannot be written "fanzine-style" as it is a list of articles with a common characteristic, and attempts to add the cited terms to the appropriate articles [1],[2],[3] have been quickly reverted by a particular fervent editor who subsequently threatened a block for 3RR. Dab pages cannot be POV if they merely contain lists of people who have been reported in the international press as having that sobriquet. The fact that reliable sources, namely news organizations, have reported people as being dubbed with that name, clearly show that A) the term is not nonsense and B) either a dab page or a stand-alone article is needed here. The dab page itself was prompted by a WP:RfD discussion of The Queen of Bollywood, which itself is a redirect to an article that was mentioned on the dab page. B.Wind (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It's full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a beauty pageant newcomer who is not even considered a talented actress. All of the mentioned sites are, though reliable, often written in a magazine style. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine.
    Just a good aside note,
    ( The list was in addition to being redundant, was full of blatant POV and bias. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, why it's clearly isn't the case. Your list for example did not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity, especially considering they are also described this way, but you - either overlooked or didn't notice, which can happen quite often in this case. And that's only my simple list; someone can come tomorrow and wonder why another actress is not there. ).
    Coming back to the matter, another important note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that?
    It's by all means nonsense. I ould say, assuming good faith, that you have to familiarise yourself with some policies. This list, dab or whatever is clearly in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's check a few of the above assertions here. As stated below, omission is not a reason for the deletion of a disambiguation page - all you have to do is add the missing entries. A dab page listing the articles for actresses and singers that have been reported by international news organizations (not fan sites) is NPOV as long as the entries all meet a common criterion. Third, I urge the editors to revisit the Wikipedia definition of WP:NONSENSE - this clearly falls short of this. Using cited reference from reliable sources refutes any accusation of OR, and a one-sentence mention of such a cited, objective statement by the BBC, and so forth, is hardly undue weight. From this end, it looks more like a turf battle instead of an actual, valid, justification for a speedy deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's your problem, you read only my last paragraph, ignoring the other. It is nonsense - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or some sleazy magazine. Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disapproval of the page - "Queen of Bollywood" is merely a loose title occasionally used by the media to glorify an actress in a discussion. For an encyclopedia any "Queen of Bollywood" is likely to be subject to POV of the actress involved and it certianly should not be linked, if mentioned at all in an encyclopedia. I wonder how many actresses could be called a Queen. There are several, whether its Rekha, Hema Malini, or modern day Aishawarya Rai or Preity Zinta, Ther eis only one "Queen" so a dab page is highly inappropriate and not what this encyclopedia is about. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but not for any of the reasons the deleting admin cited. None of the pages on that dab use the word "queen" anywhere in the body text and all should've been removed. This would've left a blank article which could be deleted under A3. So deletion overall is a good thing. However, the reasons cited are nearly all bunk, with the exception of nonsense, which the cached version at least wasn't. The deleting admin and the tagging editor need to note this to avoid mistakes in the future, but in this case the end result is proper. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTES. 1) I brought this to DRV in an attempt for a wider discussion than the three or four people who actually saw it before it was hastily deleted. It would be nice, if not appropriate, to let the rest of the Wikipedia community actually see the disambiguation page that lasted less than three hours. The wider review is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. 2) None of the pages currently have the cited phrase as one of the editors above was particularly fervent in reverting without even looking at either the statement or the sources such as Newsweek, Time, the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, CBS News... and that's just a handful of reliable sources. Thus the reverting was clearly in bad faith, and rather than aim for WP:LAME, particular after a WP:THREAT regarding WP:3RR from the same fervent editor, it was more prudent to take the issue here. 3) Dab pages don't have citations; furthermore, they are rarely complete - omissions are reasons for editing, not deletion. 4) Regarding the comment about CSD#R3: good-faith edits cannot be vandalism (per WP:VANDAL), and the creation of a dab page is clearly a good faith edit; therefore CSD R3 cannot apply here. 5) Regarding Lifebaka's comments, the "nonsense" point is itself nonsense, as reported by international news agencies, as stated above. 6) As I pointed out in my discussions with both User:Shshshsh and the deleting admin, the fact that so many international news organizations globally have used the term in stating to that phrase having been applied to various Bollywood actresses and singers necessitates either a dab page to the various article of the people addressed by the reliable sources only or a stand-alone article covering the term Queen of Bollywood. 7) Denying both possibilities is also counter to Wikipedia policies - as to POV and bias, Shshshsh must be reminded of the difference between the POV of stating that someone is "Queen of Bollywood" in the form of a personal opinion and stating that a reliable news source has applied the sobriquet to her or has factually stated that it had been applied. For the time being, I urge a temporary undeletion so that the rest of the Wikipedia community can view the dab page in question so they can have an informed input into this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haven't entirely worked out what's going on here, but cannot see why Queen of Bollywood is neither a redirect nor a dab page. It's a term in existance, has lots of google hits, including reliable sources, and it should not be a redlink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you also create an article for Hollywood? I repeat, it's just a way to praise popular actresses - and you can praise evewhere: newspapers, fansites. Every possible actress who saw success has been described the Queen.
      It's POV and I can explain wby. Examples only:
      A) That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example Hema Malini, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case.
      B) It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but did not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the user who created the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress or just did not notice. Both cases show that such pages are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.
      As for reliable sources - it's still fangush. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
      BTW, if that's so important, would you find a source describing the term itself? Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, before the big brouhahah, I had, in fact found 28 citations from reliable sources stating that various women were dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" (and one as "Queen of Bollywood music") - about 10-11 in the three diffs above. Of course, the arguments immediately above this post are but a obfuscation of the purpose of deletion review, which is stated atop the WP:DRV page to be used to review the process of the deletion. We still do not have an explanation of the CSD criterion being used for its speedy deletion anywhere - the rationale by the deleting admin was a (disputed) rationale for deletion under RfD, not CSD. Of course, as hinted by the posts by Shshshsh/Shalid and User:SmokeyJoe above, should someone wish to write a NPOV article about the widely-used and -reported term Queen of Bollywood instead of the dab page, I would have no such objection and would be more than willing to withdraw my application for review upon the composition and delivery of such an adequately-sourced article. Of course, if someone wishes even to block that article, even if it's written with a worldwide view, it would be clear that he/she/it would be more interested in denying good faith by the other editors that are involved here, in which case there's a deeper problem than just the improper deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't realize this discussion was already underway when I found the page. The page at time of deletion did not qualify for speedy-deletion under any of our existing criteria. In particular, it was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way that we use the term here. I assumed that it was a good-faith oversight on the part of the deleting admin and, since out-of-process speedies are to be immediately restored and sent to XfD for community discussion, I did that. Then I backed out my creation of the AfD nomination in favor of some notes on history on the disambig's Talk page. I do not have strong feelings on the content of the article one way or the other but this detailed discussion of the relative merits of the page belongs on AfD. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sons of Eilaboun

The Sons of Eilaboun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

horrible amount of sock-puppetering/meat-puppetering, however, please look at the merits of the film itself Huldra (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yuck, that's a mess. And it really pains me to think that I have to !vote overturn to no consensus here, when the closing admin had such a hard job. I'm guessing he ignored the !votes of all the SPAs in there, but some of them had actual good arguements (namely, User:JFCK and User:87.175.1.42), which is enough to tip the balance off of delete. Not nearly enough to swing all the way to keep, but enough for no consensus. I'd personally suggest giving the article some time to be worked on before nominating it again, but mostly likely another AfD should happen in a few months to check if a consensus has formed, if people still want it deleted. It'd also be nice to get a few established editors who know Arabic in to check sources and such in the meantime. Also, you probably should've discussed this with the closing admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I still haven't seen any evidence that the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria. WP:COI also a problem, as evidenced in the AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. FYI to Lifebaka, I allowed for a couple of the meatpuppeters making decent points but still interpreted overall consensus for the AFD was "delete". —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – We aren't here to debate the merits of the film itself, only whether it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Right now, it doesn't. Perhaps after it's released we'll see some reviews or other coverage that would show how it's a notable film but, until then, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist. I think that in all of the meatpuppetry, some refutations of the delete arguments were lost (such as DGG's "Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film.") Other editors may have been discouraged from contributing due to the socks. MrPrada (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_14&oldid=219646002"