Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:30, 8 January 2008 editJerry (talk | contribs)19,297 edits →Maurizio Giuliano: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 06:32, 8 January 2008 edit undoJerry (talk | contribs)19,297 edits →Maurizio Giuliano: !'ing the vo~esNext edit →
Line 69: Line 69:


Jerry, I never said the deletion was hasty. I am questioning whether there was a fair consensus. I count three opinions to delete and two opinions to keep. That certainly is not a consensus. ] (]) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Jerry, I never said the deletion was hasty. I am questioning whether there was a fair consensus. I count three opinions to delete and two opinions to keep. That certainly is not a consensus. ] (]) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::I understand your concern. I do not determine concensus as a count of !votes. I believe that the '''bolded''' recommendation in an AFD comment is the least important part of the comment. First the !vote is scrutinized for whether it is made in good faith (most are), then the rationale behind the comment is considered. In the case of Wikid77, his rationale was fairly ''out to lunch'', it was clear that he wanted the article kept, but as I elucidated above, his !vote was given much less weight by standards of strength of argument and adherance to policy/guideline/precedent. The other keep vote, as I explained above, specifically said "keep IF...." the if part was proven wrong to my satisfaction, and the editor who left the comment did not come back to continue the discussion (several days later). So I took his !vote on face value as "don't keep if not"... acordingly. So I counted 3 solid delete votes, one discounted keep vote, and one lower-weighting delete vote. That makes it an 85% delete tally, by my standards, and that is why I closed it as such. So the main point I am trying to make is that AFD debate closures are not about counting votes... if they were, we would use an "#" in front of our !votes, and sectionalize them to make the closings dead easy. Some very wise people realized long ago that this was not the way to handle such discussions. Thanks, <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ::I understand your concern. I do not determine concensus as a count of !votes. I believe that the '''bolded''' recommendation in an AFD comment is the least important part of the comment. First the !vote is scrutinized for whether it is made in good faith (most are), then the rationale behind the comment is considered. In the case of Wikid77, his rationale was fairly ''out to lunch'', it was clear that he wanted the article kept, but as I elucidated above, his !vote was given much less weight by standards of strength of argument and adherance to policy/guideline/precedent. The other keep !vote, as I explained above, specifically said "keep IF...." the if part was proven wrong to my satisfaction, and the editor who left the comment did not come back to continue the discussion (several days later). So I took his !vote on face value as "don't keep if not"... accordingly. So I counted 3 solid delete !votes, one discounted keep !vote, and one lower-weighting delete !vote. That makes it an 85% delete tally, by my standards, and that is why I closed it as such. So the main point I am trying to make is that AFD debate closures are not about counting !votes... if they were, we would use an "#" in front of our !votes, and sectionalize them to make the closings dead easy. Some very wise people realized long ago that this was not the way to handle such discussions. Thanks, <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 06:32, 8 January 2008

< January 6 Deletion review archives: 2008 January January 8 >

7 January 2008

Age of Empires III campaign storyline (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Age of Empires III campaign storyline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) restore

I want this article back. It was one of the best Misplaced Pages articles. The campaigns were talked about in the actual article about the game, and that is the reason this article was deleted. Could you please bring this article back? 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Monitor Group

Monitor Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I tried making a post with information about that company. It was immediately deleted because it written in too much of a promotional tone. The page was also protected because of too many recreations of deleted pages. This was my first time, so I don't know what happened there. So I edited the entry to get rid of the editorial-sounding parts and posted it on my talk page and the administrator (Hu12)'s talk page. But the administrator wouldn't give me any feedback on the edited version and suggested that I go to deletion board. The edited version is on my talk page. If a further edit is needed, I would like to know. The administrator simply wouldn't communicate with me after telling me the reason for deletion.

My question isn't with the deletion. If the article is not up to the standard, it gets deleted. I get it. But why is the page protected so I can't put up rewritten versions? --Floralpattern (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • When an article gets protected due to repeated recreations, the approach you need to take is: write a new article in your userspace, for instance at User:Floralpattern/Monitor Group, then post here to get people to take a look at it. If it addresses the problems with the deleted article (too promotional, didn't establish why Monitor Group is a notable company), the article will be unprotected and your rewrite moved into place. --Stormie (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maurizio Giuliano

Maurizio Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I count two mentions to keep the article about three or four mentions to delete the article. That is not a clear consensus. If there is no clear consensus, the article should not be deleted. Please re-instate this article. Or at least keep the AfD debate open for another seven days to get a larger pool of editors. (Note: I did not participate in the discussions of whether to delete or keep the article. I am not trying to defend my side. Kingturtle (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • OBJECT As closer of the debate, I was not notified of this DELREV. I just happened to come here to look at something else, and I noticed the article title. You ought to let the closer know that you are disputing their close, and attempt to resolve it before opening a DELREV. Please read the instructions which clearly explain this. I think this DELREV should be closed as out of process and discussed first on my talk page. JERRY contribs 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I felt it was the correct protocol to bring it here instead of discuss it on a user's talk page. I apologize for not notifying you soon enough. Your objection came only six minutes after I posted this, and I wasn't done with my notification to you. Kingturtle (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then I guess we will run the DELREV, then. I don't have to like it I guess. 5 editors contributed to this AFD:

  • Edcolins nominated it and !voted to delete; his criteria was non-notable subject per WP:BIO/WP:PROF.
  • Lazulilasher initially !voted weak keep, changed his mind, changed it back, and then finally !voted delete.
  • Avruch !voted delete, and elaborated with facts supporting the nom.
  • Shoessss !voted keep, and stated that his !vote was conditional, based on it being determined that his google search was not flawed. Another editor sufficiently demonstrated that to be the case, so his !vote was ignored, as he requested.
  • Wikid77 initially !voted keep and then changed it to strong keep. He cited as criteria:
    • For a young person, he seems notable enough (SUBJECTIVE)
    • claim for record world-traveller (USED WIKIPEDIA MIRROR AS REF)
    • has toured all nations in Africa (NOT NOTABLE)
    • he's more notable than a merged Pokemon character (BIZARRE)
    • let WikiProject Africa decide if they need the information (NOT PER POLICY)
    • possibly move into a list of recent UN Africa press officers (a MERGE CRITERIA)

So I count 3 deletes, a self-reverted keep and a keep with flawed reasoning. That equated to Delete for me, which is how I closed it. So I:

Jerry, I am not questioning your integrity or your ability. I simply feel the consensus was not there. I'd like at least for it to be open longer to get more discussion going. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It was open for 9 days. The requirement is 5. As for me, I'm gonna Endorse this one. It looks pretty straightforward. --Smashville 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    I am not questioning the length of time it was open. I am questioning the level of consensus and whether it was reached. Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per JERRY's arguements. I don't think that keeping it open longer would have resulted in much more constructive discussion, anyways, since most AfDs get most of their comments in the first day or two. Consensus seems to be there just fine. As a side note, since JERRY doesn't seem like he is going to budge on this, it probably would've just been a waste of time to discuss it with him before bringing it here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • doesn't seem like he is going to budge . . . ? Where did that come from? Nobody has had a conversation with me yet to provide any sound reasoning for a different outcome. I'm perfectly willing to budge... just somebody tell me which way and why. I am dumbsrtuck by this DELREV. Perhaps this explains the backlog at AFD? How could a 9-day AFD closing be hasty? How long ought an AFD stay open? More importantly, how many open overdue AFD log pages should remain backlogged? The interested parties had more than ample time to weigh-in on this debate, it did not gain any new momentum in its recent hours, and the article in question had not been improved. I just don't get it. If somebody had asked me to please reopen it because they think that my closing was in error, please give me the good faith assumption, that I would have been willing to discuss it, as I STILL AM. Here's my new quotable quote: I'm perfectly willing to budge... just somebody tell me which way and why. Look for it on my userpage soon. JERRY contribs 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, I never said the deletion was hasty. I am questioning whether there was a fair consensus. I count three opinions to delete and two opinions to keep. That certainly is not a consensus. Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I do not determine concensus as a count of !votes. I believe that the bolded recommendation in an AFD comment is the least important part of the comment. First the !vote is scrutinized for whether it is made in good faith (most are), then the rationale behind the comment is considered. In the case of Wikid77, his rationale was fairly out to lunch, it was clear that he wanted the article kept, but as I elucidated above, his !vote was given much less weight by standards of strength of argument and adherance to policy/guideline/precedent. The other keep !vote, as I explained above, specifically said "keep IF...." the if part was proven wrong to my satisfaction, and the editor who left the comment did not come back to continue the discussion (several days later). So I took his !vote on face value as "don't keep if not"... accordingly. So I counted 3 solid delete !votes, one discounted keep !vote, and one lower-weighting delete !vote. That makes it an 85% delete tally, by my standards, and that is why I closed it as such. So the main point I am trying to make is that AFD debate closures are not about counting !votes... if they were, we would use an "#" in front of our !votes, and sectionalize them to make the closings dead easy. Some very wise people realized long ago that this was not the way to handle such discussions. Thanks, JERRY contribs 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson IV

Adlai Stevenson IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The content of this article, the references provided, and the discussion on the talk page provided a sufficient assertion of notability to render its speedily deletion under CSD A7 inappropriate. The article should have been discussed at AFD, not unilaterally deleted. John254 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing "implicit" about it. Notability is explicitly and non-frivolously asserted in both the article, and the talk page. Are we going to start speedily deleting articles that cite two newspaper articles as references? In no way does this constitute an acceptable use of CSD A7. John254 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Two, that looked like the same reference twice. You asked for a review, you got my opinion. Spartaz 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was a total of three citations between two different sources. -Hit bull, win steak 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, per the criteria for speedy deletion, speedy deletions should not be used to effectuate controversial removals of articles:

These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.

Consequently, as there is a disagreement between administrators as to whether this article should have been speedily deleted, the deletion should be overturned, and the matter discussed at AFD. John254 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AfD. I don't see this as an A7. An A7 does not provide enough assertion of significance for a deletion debate to be based on, which makes it clear that a deletion debate is not worth having. That does not seem to me to be the case here. Chick Bowen 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion A claim of notability was made in the article based on the subject's profession, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. While editors may object to the details of the claim, this is a subject that should be determined based on consensus of Misplaced Pages editors, and not on the whim of a passing admin who refuses to respect consensus. Given that there was a clear violation of Misplaced Pages process and policy, the deletion should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eerie Horror Film Festival

Eerie Horror Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why is our page always deleted after posting? I can completely understand not using this site as advertising (and we respect that), but our Festival has a history and we'd like to be able to share that data with your readers. Please send me a reply: greg@eeriehorrorfest.com to allow the Eerie Horror Film Festival an entry on this site. Thanks! 71.116.18.69 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Bulldogs

Pittsburgh Bulldogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7. However, semi-professional baseball teams assert notability, and should not be speedily deleted. John254 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely being a semi-professional baseball team is a sufficient assertion of notability as to preclude the application of CSD A7, which is designed to facilitate the deletion of blatantly non-notable material such as vanity autobiographies, garage bands, and personal webpages. This issue should really be discussed at AFD -- often further evidence of notability is provided, if the article isn't deleted before the discussion has even begun. John254 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please being semi-proffesional isn't a claim of notabilty, I doubt it's even that as well, as it's one teams out of thousands in National Adult Baseball Association, which is non-proffesional. Endorse my deletion Secret 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Merely being one member of a group of thousands doesn't imply the non-assertion of notability -- are we going to start speedily deleting publicly traded corporations next, on the grounds that the stock exchanges list thousands of them? John254 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello there. Just a quick note - we already do delete companies, unless the company is a member of a benchmark share index, such as the FTSE 100, or some other assertion of notability is made, such as awards or press coverage. Nick (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We may delete publicly traded corporations as non-notable, but such deletions are effectuated through AFD after prior discussion, not via speedy deletion. CSD A7 is designed to quickly dispose of blatantly non-notable material, not to be applied to questionable cases. John254 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. You're quite mistaken, CSD-A7 is for articles where no notability is asserted, that normally includes non notable articles, but not always, sometimes non notable articles will need to go through AFD is there is an assertion of notability, but the community judges the assertion is insufficient. This article was quite correctly deleted as no notability was asserted, there is no prejudice to recreation, and if you think the subject is notable, please feel free to create a new article on this subject. Nick (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering the entire league lacks notability...I fail to see how being semi-pro equals notability. It means just the opposite. --Smashville 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Being a semi-pro team with no other claims of notability clearly fails notability. There are 25,000 people who play semi-pro? That would mean that every one of those teams would qualify, and I don't buy that for a minute. What makes this team stand out from the multitudes? Nothing in the article says. Corvus cornixtalk 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, this is clearly an "article about an organization (band, club, company, etc.) that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". If the Pittsburgh Bulldogs are for some reason more significant than the thousands of other clubs in the NABA, that needs to be stated in the article, with reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The cached version doesn't assert the importance of the team. Granted, it might well be notable, but that is beyond the scope of WP:CSD#A7. There isn't anything preventing anyone from going and writing a better version anyways. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion a team that's a member of a notable league is a claim of importance. Shouldn't have been speedy deleted. --W.marsh 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not really part of the league, the league the team is "in" is like a the little league for adult baseball with thousands of teams. With your criteria, all little league teams have a claim of importance because they are a member of a "notable league". If it's a league with a limited number of teams I understand, but this isn't Secret 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Little league is not semi-professional... but I guess it's a fair point, I was thinking this was more of a small league than a large association of teams. --W.marsh 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Nither is the league in which the the Bulldogs is on according to the article, I have no idea why they said that the Bulldogs were semi-proffesional. Secret 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The NABA is not a league, it's an umbrella organization for many individual leagues. Chick Bowen 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; the team has no assertion of importance and only fully professional teams get a free pass. — Coren  05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church

St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7. However, churches assert notability, and should not be speedily deleted. John254 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As above, how does this church indicate notability? And a question, was the article about the church itself (as a building or place of historical significance), or the group of people who meet there? If the former, it should be an overturn, since buildings aren't eligible for A7. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Merely being a church is a sufficient assertion of notability as to preclude the application of CSD A7, which is designed to facilitate the deletion of blatantly non-notable material such as vanity autobiographies, garage bands, and personal webpages. This issue should really be discussed at AFD -- often further evidence of notability is provided, if the article isn't deleted before the discussion has even begun. John254 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A church is a group of people, A7 applies, Endorse my Deletion Secret 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, A7 doesn't permit the speedy deletion of any article concerning a group of people, as Secret appears to be claiming. As churches are frequently notable institutions, an article concerning a church asserts notability, and shouldn't be speedily deleted. Also, A7 expressly provides instructs: "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead" -- churches are generally institutions with notability comparable to schools. John254 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, churches rarely survive AFD, most of the article was on the church basketball grips and groups are valid A7. Secret 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While it may be true that "churches rarely survive AFD", this one might have -- and might have been expanded and sourced during the AFD process. It is not for an individual administrator, acting unilaterally, to decide that this church couldn't be notable. John254 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - and trout the nominator who is trying to make a WP:POINT because of some quarrel with the deleter. Yes, a good article /might/ be written about this church - and who knows is /might/ be the most important church in the world. But there was no assertion of notability here: the entire text was "Located on Wallings Road in North Royalton, OH, St. Paul is a Greek Orthodox church, and is therefor a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The head priest is Father Dimitrios Simonidis, with Father David Zuder as the other priest of the parish". Now if that's counted as an assertion of notability we might as well remove A7 and send 2,000 substubs to AfD every hour. By the way, it is perfectly permissable for someone to recreate an article deleted under A7, giving a proper assertion of notability - and only two sentences will have needed retyping. Oh, speedy close this as tendentious nomination--Doc 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - and suggest churches or congregations be added as a criteria for A7 deletion. The justification of a DRV paves the way for many nonsensical churches to be created without being speedily deleted via due process.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course "nonsensical churches" can be speedily deleted. However, the article deleted here appears to be describing a church with a dedicated building and lands. Churches of this type can be important community institutions, and can be notable because of press coverage in local newspapers. John254 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And, while it is true that anyone could recreate this article, providing, say, sufficient references to coverage in third-party reliable sources to preclude its speedy deletion under any imaginable application of CSD A7, as a practical matter, it is far more likely that the article would be improved if it were retained or discussed at AFD, than if it were to remain speedily deleted. John254 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear "just being a church" isn't an assertion of notability any more than "just being a person" - however, if there is any other assertion - significant age, impact, size, famous pastor, quirky theology then it goes to afd. We don't speedy delete things because we judge them not notable - we only speedy delete if there is no assertion of notability - that is nothing that anyone could possibly argue is notable. This was a very valid deletion because the text said "this is a church" and nothing else - but if there's ever any doubt, it goes to afd. Further, articles deleted under A7 as lacking an assertion of notability, can be recreated with an assertion if that's indeed possible.--Doc 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

XCritic

XCritic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Incorrect close of the AfD as "no consensus". I count seven "deletes", all with reasoning, and 4 "keeps" - of which 3 are: the author (who is also the subject of the article), one SPA or sock and one person who it doesn't appear has read the article or debate and is basing their views on a different article. To me, this is a clear "delete". The closing admin says that, since the article was edited during the AfD to add sources, a "keep" close is valid. The people arguing for deletion don't mention sources as being the main issue. The admin will also not reconsider due to the weekend passing between closure and request for review. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete AfD decisions should also be judged on strength of arguments. Delete arguments were rooted in policy (Misplaced Pages:Notability being the big one), while the keep arguments were rooted in the idea that notability is inherited (in this case from the site the subject in question was spun off from), which it is not. (The conflict of interest of the creator doesn't help the keep voters, nor does the sock/SPA getting involved.) The sources provided don't show the notability of this site, just the site it originated from. The article should've been deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete per nom and NeoChaosX. I believe that the AfD was improperly closed for the reasons stated above, and see no reason to restate them. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete per nom. Extremely poor close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - just to point out that there were actually 5 editors (including potential sockpuppets or SPAs) who were of the opinion the article should be kept, 8 editors (inclusing nominator) who thought it should be deleted and 1 who thought the article should be merged. ]
  • Overturn and delete Obvious as I voted for delete in the first place. The article fails Misplaced Pages:Notability; the references in the article are weak at best and not applicable at worst. --Blowdart | 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep first of all as was pointed out in the discussion, deletion is not a vote, it's a discussion. The page should be kept as it satisfied notability and further issues of COI have been addressed as the author of the page (me) has agreed not to continue to contribute to it. Gkleinman (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, possibly relist. It's a "no consensus". Reading that discussion myself, I think that's proper. There's no problem with relisting this if concerns about notability still exist. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse no consensus per Gkleinman and UsaSatsui. John254 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete the keeps has no policy based reason Secret 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - Initially I was endorsing the "no consensus" but after reading the arguments and comments and following up with some of the comments on the links etc... I find that the arguments clearly were in favour of delete, based on strong Misplaced Pages policy and arguments. --Pmedema (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the closing admin I am going to leave it you all to decide. I will however reinforce my view that it would have been improper to change my closure three days after it occurred. For editors to be told on one day that the article they had worked on had survived being deleted and then told three days later that it had gone, would be unacceptable. I also take the view that deletion should occur only after a clear consensus or very clear policy reasons. I did not see either. There are references. It comes down to arguments about whether these references are good ones, and that is never clear-cut. It needs someone who understands the topic of the article, but we do not expect that of admins closing debates. --Bduke (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking, Misplaced Pages tends to applaud those who are able to admit that they made an error and frown on those who consider self-correction to be "unacceptable". I find it somewhat scary that someone who holds such views is closing debates at all, frankly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete clearly incorrect close. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn; the close was an error, especially given that the keeps were at best in conflict of interest and at worst WP:SPAs. — Coren  05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:202.76.162.34 (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:202.76.162.34 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I still want the old comments from this talk page back. Do you realise that the administrator who deleted the archive and all history of the old comments is one of the worst and roguest adminstrators on Misplaced Pages? Either bring back those comments or delete the damn page altogether! This is as much faith as I can put here! And it's not just me who thinks that adminstrator is bad. Many other people think that as well!138.217.145.45 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Aside from not liking the admin, do you have a reason for wanting the old comments? What is necessary about them? --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
They are necessary because they prove what this IP has done in the past. 138.217.145.45 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody really cares about warnings over a year old. Including them just gives the vandals recognition. Hut 8.5 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There is no reason to restore the page, and disparaging the admin who deleted it doesn't help your cause. If it is really necessary to find out what people from this IP have done in the past, the people who really need to know can access the info. Besides, it's the IP for a school. So many people use it, it doesn't matter. It's unlikely to be the same person doing everything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, as I can't see any purpose served in restoring warnings and such for a school IP, unless it's actually the school itself making the request for their own disciplinary purposes. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse no reasoning given, besides (apparently) personal annoyance. Seems to be more an attempt to draw attention to a complaint about an admin than a good-faith deletion review request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per my comment above. Deletion review is not for crusades or personal attacks. Hut 8.5 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Like I said, this is as much faith as I can put here! What do you all have against that page anyway!!?? Either bring back those old comments, or delete the damn page! I don't want that page if it can't have the old comments! So delete it, or bring back the comments. Now make me happy and do one of those things, okay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have so. I want them back because how are people supposed to know what this IP did in the past? I know you can look at the contributions, but how are they supposed to know more detail about what this IP did? Could you tell me one other user talk page that this has happened to: many of its history deleted, but not the whole page deleted? This is the only page that I know this has happened to. If you can tell me one page, I will probably end this discussion. 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not disrupting! I don't know why you hate that page so much! I want the old comments back. Or the page deleted altogether! I don't want a page not saying this IP's past actions like that here! I will probably "join" you guys if you could tell me one other page this has happened to!

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cyril Walker (footballer)

Cyril Walker (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7, which was inapplicable, as the subject of the article was a player on a fully professional football team, and might well be notable. John254 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Overturn - sometimes we have to use better discretion when 'searching' for assertion of notability. Also, it appears that the article was tagged for A1, not A7. the_undertow 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn - The subject was a professional footballer for 20 years, and later was a manager at the professional level. There are few sources, true (the subject was born in 1914), but some exist. Incidentally, the article has already been undeleted, and I have added a reference and some background. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn - I already did some housekeeping and notified the relevant wikiproject to spruce it up. Fulfils notability as per profesional football. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn WP:BIO is rather clear on the notability of professional athletes such as Walker. This is part of a rather disturbing pattern of highly questionable speedy deletions from a single admin and should be carefully monitored. Given the claim of notability, WP:CSD#A7 is inapplicable, and as the deletion violated Misplaced Pages policy and process it should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Lake, Alberta(closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ghost Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7, which doesn't apply to geographical features. Moreover, this might well be a notable lake. John254 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Overturn the article had context and if the lake is notable then the intro was something we'd want to use. The last sentence of the article might have been spam, but we didn't need to delete it to solve that problem. I dunno if this is a notable lake, but it probably is due to size and proximity to settlements (there also seems to be a settlement called "Ghost Lake"). At any rate that's a question for AFD... this was not a good speedy deletion.--W.marsh 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and take to AfD. We can't have entire lakes being deleted speedily. the_undertow 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AFD. Significant geographic features are generally kept if verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and don't bother listing at AfD - it's clearly a real lake, and long-standing precedent is that such geographical features do not get deleted. --Stormie (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn named geographical features are almost never deleted at AfD, and should absolutely never be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn geographical features are not covered by A7. Hut 8.5 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn it is a real place. It is far more convenient to assume that something notable occurred to create the geographical feature or that something notable has happened as a result of its existance or that something notable has been found there or happened there, then it would be to prove otherwise. Precedent is for geographical features and places to be kept. JERRY contribs 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

North Central Victoria (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
North Central Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a good faith closure by the closing administrator but it results from a fundamental misunderstanding about what delete and rewrite means. A delete and rewrite does not mean delete and rewrite immediately, it means this article is patently unsuitable for Misplaced Pages but there is no prejudice against a rewrite should someone care to do so in the future. See User talk:Jerry#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria for earlier discussion. Mattinbgn\ 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • (as closer) I appreciate the assumption of good faith. However, my understanding of the deletion policy is that WP:AFD is the wrong process for content improvement, the correct process for that being WP:EDIT. There is no need to delete the page history to change the content of the page, unless it is a WP:BLP or WP:CV violation. Any editor may use the edit button without an AFD to improve the article. If the subject was notable enough for a rewritten article, then it is notable, and therefore not a candidate for deletion. Several of the !votes in the AFD in question stated that the subject was notable, but the article had quality issues, such as sourcing, etc. So those !votes, you see, were seen by me as self-contradictory, and therefore ignored. The balance of the comments demonstrated clear concensus that the subject was notable, and therefore a default action of keep seemed warranted. JERRY contribs 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I !voted to keep the article on the basis that the article subject was notable but I did see problems with the content, but not that it was patently unsuitable - it needs referencing, more encyclopaedic tone, all sorts of improvements ... - but the geography is not for example wrong. The debate itself uncovered many sources potentially to be used as references. As User:Jerry suggests AfD is not a substitute for clean up and deletion by AfD to me means do not recreate - ie delete and rewrite does not make sense. This article could be edited to a stub quite easily and I am sure has the potential to become a good article at the very least with some effort (which I cannot provide at present) just as other articles on Australian regions, such as Riverina have been developed. Definitions of the Riverina region were for example hard to initially settle on but once thorough research had been done the article started to come together. That is what this article needs too. I suport the closing admin's decision based on how I read the debate (ie a couple of people said delete and rewrite which does not make sense and AfD does not = clean up) as well as of course my own prejudices per my !vote. --Matilda 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The cleanup in the last half an hour has produced a meaningful stub with references - congrats to Euralyus!--Matilda 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this listing as per Matilda above. -- Mattinbgn\ 04:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was unilaterally deleted on 07:03, 1 January 2008 citing unarticulated WP:BLP concerns, none of which, in any event, couldn't be remedied editorially and/or via full page protection to prevent editing in violation of WP:BLP. In addition to being involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, Rachel Marsden is notable as a TV personality, a columnist, and an aide to a politician. Though the deleting administrator asserts that the "article is totally out of proportion to her current importance", notability is not temporary. This deletion is completely unjustified. John254 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Overturn Eh nearly all of our articles on civil war figures and any number of other dead historic people are "totally out of proportion to current importance"... I seriously hope this isn't the new standard for deletion. --W.marsh 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I agree with what W.marsh said above regarding the most recent deletion. I doubt highly that every revision of the article has had WP:BLP problems, so the protection was probably out of order per the arbcom ruling cited. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn, of course, per nom; it is quite clear that whatever problems that may have existed (there were, IMHO, very few) might be dealt with in a more narrowly tailored fashion. Joe 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I have watched this article on and off for 2 years. It has been the subject of 2 Arbitration cases, and been deleted or stubbed for BLP problems about 7 times that I can count. In all those versions I have never read anything positive about this person. The most recent version covered the end of her two most recent jobs. (Quoting her on her blog saying "Much has been made of my being escorted by FOX security to gather my belongings from the Red Eye office...this is standard procedure...Any other inferences of any kind are totally baseless and inappropriate" is merely a backdoor way of making that selfsame baseless inference that you can't get in the front door.) The article never said what about her made her interesting enough to get hired in the first place. Even the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy is terribly unbalanced because it focuses almost entirely on her case and barely mentions that the University president resigned and the University was forced to rewrite its policies for dealing with sexual harassment allegations and overturn 11 other cases--this context was completely missing from this article as if the only thing that happened was one student made one false allegation. When an article needs to be deleted or stubbed 7 times in two years it means that the people interested in writing negative things about this person are much more interested in her than anyone else; as an ex-low level aide to a politician, an ex-columnist and an ex-TV commentator, I'm not convinced her importance outweighs the repeated concerns over content that keep happening. Thatcher 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, mainly per Thatcher above. This article stank. No matter what was done to it (numerous stubbings, several tear-it-up-and-start-again deletions, 2 ArbCom judgements, pages and pages of AN and ANI postings) it continued to stink. All of this for a woman who wasn't very notable to start with and now, having had the trappings of celebrity fall away from her, isn't notable at all. The encyclopedia will not be poorer in any way for not having this article around. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse People who obsess about this woman, who has simply been a freelance columnist and a short-term late-night pundit might want to put some effort into the bios of truly notable journalists.64.230.106.232 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. "Her article causes drama on Misplaced Pages" is not a Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion reason. If you think you can convince people that she's not notable any more, take it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion. --AnonEMouse 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Declare my conflict of interest - well, simply because a friend of mine has contacted the individual (not Misplaced Pages-related BTW), so it's presumably a COI. Recreation could happen, but it would have to keep to the very letter of WP:BLP. However, the arbitration rulings may make this a hard article for editors to work on, due to the delete-and-recreate, 2 ArbCom cases, and numerous postings at WP:AN. I can't really say much more than this for now... --Solumeiras 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse The deleted article was a hatchet job and if we dcan't do any better after 2 years then BLP allows us to do without. Spartaz 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Horrendous mess, BLP issues and undue weight for a figure of highly marginal notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Rachel Marsden's behaviour changed the way Canadian Universities operate. This is not a small issue, and her (a)history and her (b)role in propagating mistrust at SFU need to be described in conjunction with each other. Rachel Marsden's further exploits in the media, her faking of portions of her CV, and her harassment conviction are all part of the explanation of this damaged individual. Her accomplishments are not notable, but that's not the issue. _She_ is notable. The fact that her bio is getting so much attention indicates that it is a matter of interest - and what defines wikipedia's entries is that they should be "of interest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.100.172 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn WP:BLP has been successively misinterpreted and abused to mean that any article with any information that could be interpreted to be negative can be deleted by any admin regardless of sourcing, notability or the possibility of removal and discussion of the supposed BLP issues. This is a perfect example of this abuse. That there are so many who will tolerate these disruptive practices only undermines Misplaced Pages's credibility. As there are clear claims of notability, as the content in question is properly sourced and as there are remedies for any imagined WP:BLP issues well short of deletion, Misplaced Pages process and policy has been violated and the article in question should be restored. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

match_pump

Match_pump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just translated (and a little summerazed ) from ja.wikipedia.org. Original article is also short. While I was looking for several tags, it was deleted. Reason for dispute follows: This term is often used in Japan, and often is believed to be English. So, I think it is good for non-Japanese wiki has this entry. By definition, it is a "Japanese word" and not commonly used in English speaking world. It may result in confusion during conversation. AIEA (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The entry doesn't appear to exist in the Japanese Misplaced Pages, at least at the title "match pump" -- see . Is the article located at a different title? John254 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, it appears that the Japanese article is located at "マッチポンプ" -- see . John254 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The article was deleted by WP:CSD#A1, which given the nomination might have been inapropriate. However, it's easier to just write a new version of the article than it is to bring a single speedy here to DRV, so I am endorsing the deletion in order to discourage this sort of nomination here. That said, since it was just a single speedy there shouldn't be any problem if you recreate the article. The japanese version appears long enough to make a decent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse as procedural default; DELREV is unnecessary to create a new article under these circumstances.JERRY contribs 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)