Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 12: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:47, 13 August 2007

< August 11	Deletion review archives: 2007 August	August 13 >

12 August 2007

Hawaii Nation, Hawaii nation, Nation of Hawaii, Nation of hawaii

DAY-UMN!! This article was nominated for deletion at 00:43 GMT, and deleted at 04:17; I wish I could have at least looked at it to see if it was truly THAT bad. The only place this was on in primetime was here in America (middle of the night in Europe). In the USA, a forum that goes on for less than 2 and a half hours (on a Saturday night, no less) is not much of a debate. I'm sure nobody in any other time zone was looking at it either. This is a little too quick on the trigger, I think. Mandsford 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Nation. Endorse snow deletion. -Nard 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not averse to re-opening this and re-listing; even a snowball can last more than 4 hours, when it's a geographically sensitive snowball. --Haemo 02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As closer, endorse snow deletion. I restored the history and the nominator of this deletion review is free to look at it. In addition, I think consensus was adequately reached, with unanimous support for deletion (other than the author). Singu larity 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Because 4 hours is not enough for everyone to respond. Corpx 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse snow deletion --JereKrischel 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist, I understand WP:SNOW can be applied from time to time, but 4 hours isn't long enough. --Core desat 08:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reasonable call given the high level of redundancy here. Redirecting is obviously the way to solve this. >Radiant< 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist Four hours is WAY too short enough for everyone to respond -- in fact I am even unclear what the article was specifically about. Arjuna 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was about Hawaii, which incidentally we already have an article on. >Radiant< 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually it was about Kingdom of Hawaii (all dates in article from this period) perhaps the Republic of Hawaii and most significantly the History of Hawaii, to the extent it was about anything that actually ever existed. It is pretty obvious that the article didn't belong in Wikipedia on a stand alone basis; the sourcing offered might merit a sentence somewhere. Keep deleted as the right decision was reached, but award the closer a trout for closing so early. GRBerry 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the trout. Singu larity 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse snow 4 hours or not, it clearly didn't have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving the AfD. More time wouldn't have changed the results. --Farix (Talk) 13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse the closure. It is fairly evident where this was headed, but I have to second GRBerry and say that the closer ought to be trout-slapped for the exceedingly quick closure. A little bit of patience helps to avert situations where these things are brought up on DRV, sent back to AfD and ultimately get deleted anyway. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Although the closure may have been too early, I can't see or imagine any arguments that could have kept this from deletion. --- RockMFR 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted. Quoting from Hawaii Nation "The Hawaii Nation (or Nation of Hawaii) is and always has been a sovereign and independent nation defined by a physical land mass in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with agreements, contracts, and treaties with other nations. This particular Wikipedia entry is NOT related to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement nor is it related to the State of Hawaii." and the massive POV continues from there. JoshuaZ 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking_Laces

Meets_notability Darbyrob 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia page for Breaking Laces was deleted by Core desat after a very short deletion review with only 5 other people. 1 person said keep. Two others gave no valid reason to delete, and not a single one of them mentioned anything about notability requirements. For band notability, this article states that a band must meet "any one" of 12 criteria. In the discussion page of the deletion review for Breaking Laces, I pointed out that the band meets five of those criteria:[reply]
1) Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
- Because you have a hard time obtaining the CMJ charts from a year ago and three years ago doesn't mean Breaking Laces doesn't fit the criteria. They charted the CMJ Top 200 National charts with two different albums, Sohcahtoa and Lemonade. Its a fact.
2) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
- Breaking Laces toured the UK in October 2005 and are now booking a second UK tour for Newyears/january of 2008. The folks at CMEAS.com organized the tour and can forward you reliable sources that reported the tour.
3) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
- Drummer Seth Masarsky toured as a member of Melissa_Ferrick's band. If she is not notable, then maybe you should remove her wiki as well.
4) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc...
- Breaking Laces just landed a spot on the soundtrack for a new documentary coming out titled "Waiting For Hockney". It may not be a major release, but will hit the indie film circuit. The song they are using is "This World" off of the album Lemonade.
5) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
- Breaking Laces have been in regular rotation on XMU (XM Channel 43) since 2003. Their first live set (of 2), and also songs from all their albums, have been played heavily on XMU since 2003. You can contact Tobi, who runs the station, directly at XMU to get confirmation of this.

Breaking Laces may not be on the tip of the 5 deletion reviewer's tongues, but they do meet at least the required one of the notability criteria. I kindly request reinstatement of their wikipedia page, otherwise I'll accept an explanation as to when and under what criteria they may be able to have a page. Thank you.
Darbyrob 08:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Seems like consensus was reached for deletion based on the available discussion there. However, no objections to Relisting AFD an an option. Navou ^banter 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure; from the looks of things, the article didn't give enough reasoning to be kept, and thus the closure of the properly run AFD looks legit. A rewrite wouldn't be amiss, however, as it does look like there's enough reliable sources to indicate the band has some semblance of notability. Ensure that the sources are available in the article this time, however - verification of the tours, media coverage (not gig lists), etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse the closure, but with no prejudice to restoring for some sourcing by the nominator of this deletion review. --Haemo 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is plain wikilawyering. Will ^(talk) 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (closed)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Deprecated and orphaned templates

This is a completely new deletion process, basically a prod for templates, started based on "consensus" of only a few editors. When I brought it up for deletion, the discussion was speedy closed. As noted on WP:DOT's talk page, "Mistakes have been made." Mistakes based on deleting templates outside the normal avenues. This is a non transparent process, known to only a few editors, operating completely outside the deletion policy, run by a few admins. Why is it that I cannot submit an out of policy page to the deletion process, but the page is allowed to operate outside the deletion process? -Nard 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:TFD has very few editors, period. I don't think this is particularly "out of policy"; it basically just lists deprecated templates for a period, then deletes them. In fact, it would be counterproductive in many respects to list them on WP:TFD, since that would (in general) lead to a much quicker deletion. However, this isn't really a WP:DRV issue here -- it's clear that people on WP:TFD have come to a consensus about how to handle articles of this type; if you object, I would suggest talking to them on the talk page, rather than just trying to delete this. This is, in my opinion, basically the "content dispute" equivalent on a policy-action page. --Haemo 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments when I speedy closed this, I neither support or oppose this process, but don't support using WP:MFD as the venue to determine the validity of that process, that is what project talk is for. The discussion area links in the deletion debate deal directly with the editors involved in these decisions, and should be sufficient to determine if this should be accepted or {{rejected}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is some precedent in using MFD to terminate (generally "esperanzify") undesirable processes. Nevertheless this seems like something better resolved in getting more community feedback. Drop a line on the village pump and admin board and see what people think of it. The new process is not a priori a bad idea. >Radiant< 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finger jousting

There was an ongoing debate in the AfD discussion [[1]], the concensus appeared to be leaning towards a keep. The closing admin obviously disagreed but rather than contributing to the debate chose close the AfD and to delete the page. I was under the impression that such things were decided by the concensus of the community rather than the opinion of one admin. Surely the reason AfD debates take place is to gauge this concensus not to help one admin make the right decidion. If this is the case the debate should not have be ended by an admin giving a reason why he thinks a particular result is correct but rather by an admin who has seen that a concensus has been reached in the debate and then acts to to uphold it. Guest9999 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn not based on vote counting, but based on strength of arguments. The closing admin claims a podcast by the BBC isn't a reliable source. The BBC is run by the British government, it's basically British state media. What does it matter what format the BBC is broadcasting in? -Nard 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "BBC podcast" appears to be a BBC blog of sorts which links to an outside site with the podcast. Is podme.org a reliable source? --- RockMFR 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The conclusion was in total opposition to the actual consensus, whether judged by counting or by arguments raised. The opinions given at AfD are not merely advisory, after which the closing admin can decide independently based on his personal views. The role of the closing admin is to determine the consensus of the policy based arguments. It requires an admin so there can be confidence that the closer knows what are the applicable arguments, not because the admin is necessarily the best judge of the issue. An admin who disagrees with the developing consensus should present his arguments, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above, and especially per DGG. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion I checked the sources before deleting, The BBC source is a blog which leads to some independent podcast site which isn't run by the BBC, all the other sources I seen were blogs, youtube, the "official" finger jousting site, associatedcontent which is like a news wiki, etc, there aren't any Reliable sources at all and policy is key. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That arguement should have been made during an AfD not given as a reason for deletion. Admins have no more say than any other editor in forming the concensus they are just the only ones with the power to act on it and carry out the will of the community. Why even open up the debate to non admins if their opinions can just be ignored. [[Guest9999 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
AFD is never a vote count, and the sources issue was mentioned in the deletes, and the BBC source is from a blog which links to a independent site. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per nom and DGG. Well said, DGG. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, doesn't appear to actually be verifiable. The whole concept is rather silly, too. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is really for AfD, but I didn't want to pass this by: BBC broadcasts and transcripts are RSs. A blog of reader responses is not. However, this particular thread seems to have been posted editorially by BBCX, & I think the podcast would count--though not the subsequent comments. DGG (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further comment That may be your opinion but other editors interpretted the information differently, the fact that an admin does not agree with the concensus does not make it wrong. The only reason everyone does not have the power to close an AfD debate is that that power would be abused. By closing a debate based anything but the consensus the admin is abusing his power. Even if they think the concensus is wrong, that it is based on people misinterpretting the guidelines or that they just know better than the editors taking part in the debate. The closing decision made by the admin should never be based on the admin's own opinion but the contents of the debate - which every admin - like any other editor - is free to contribute to should they choose. [[Guest9999 02:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Endorse Deletion - Keep votes were based on sources that do not qualify as WP:RS Corpx 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this issue - the quality of the mentioned source - was never brought up in the debate and so counts as new information. If new information is presented in the deletion review then I believe relisting under AfD is the prefered course of action. Additonally WP:RS is a guideline, not set in stone and so should be mentioned in the debate not the delete decision. [[Guest9999 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 *'''Weak endorse''' the closure.  It is fairly evident where this was headed, but I have to second [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] and say that the closer ought to be [[WP:TROUT|trout-slapped]] for the exceedingly quick closure.  A little bit of patience helps to avert situations where these things are brought up on DRV, sent back to AfD and ultimately get deleted anyway. [[User:Arkyan|<b><font color="#0000FF">ɑʀк</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Arkyan|ʏɑɴ]]</font></b> 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep deleted'''. Although the closure may have been too early, I can't see or imagine any arguments that could have kept this from deletion. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-*'''keep deleted. Quoting from [[Hawaii Nation]] "The Hawaii Nation (or Nation of Hawaii) is and always has been a sovereign and independent nation defined by a physical land mass in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with agreements, contracts, and treaties with other nations. This particular Wikipedia entry is NOT related to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement nor is it related to the State of Hawaii." and the massive POV continues from there. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''keep deleted'''. Quoting from [[Hawaii Nation]] "The Hawaii Nation (or Nation of Hawaii) is and always has been a sovereign and independent nation defined by a physical land mass in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with agreements, contracts, and treaties with other nations. This particular Wikipedia entry is NOT related to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement nor is it related to the State of Hawaii." and the massive POV continues from there. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[:Breaking_Laces]]====