Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 27 January 2008

27 January 2008

Desson Thomson

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

Movie reviewer for top paper in USA, the Washington Post, he has over 20 internal links in Misplaced Pages. It was deleted without discussion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn the article was a bit vague, but it seemed to imply he's been a critic with the Post for 20+ years... that's a reasonable claim of importance. You don't seem to have discussed this with the deleting admin though, it could have just been an oversight. --W.marsh 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Caïman Fu (closed)

Superflat Monogram

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

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but I declined that speedy deletion because it is an article about an advertising campaign by Louis Vuitton directed by Takashi Murakami. Even if ad campaigns fell under CSD A7, which they don't, being by a notable company and a notable artist are clear claims of importance. It also cited a book reference. There was no basis in policy for the speedy deletion. I have discussed it with the admin in question, with no useful results. W.marsh 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn & List at AFD Natch. Spartaz 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Wow. Talk about the standard case of assuming bad faith. Geez. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily Overturn with Trout A speedy declined by one admin is no longer an uncontroversial deletion. I'm all for A7-ing #wikipedia-en-admins though. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD (and for that matter, all WP policy) is open to the spirit, rather than the letter of the policy. It is for articles that would unquestionably be deleted if met with review by the full community. The article in question met that standard; it was a non-notable ad campaign that was poorly sourced. In fact, I debated whether to delete it under G11, before deciding that A7 would suffice. There is a "web content" clause of A7 that I imagine would include this type of content, though the article was written so poorly and without context that I'm unsure where this ad even appeared. This debate seems to focus much more on means rather than on ends. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • CSD has never been about guessing what the results of an AFD would be, assuming the article was not improved during the AFD (which is often untrue). If predicting the results of an AFD was the point of speedy deletion policy, that's all CSD would say. Instead, it says to send it to AFD it the speedy deletion is controversial. --W.marsh 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm... curious. I don't remember saying that CSD was a guessing game. But I will say that CSD, especially A7, has always been applied through an admin's judgment as to whether to article is would pass / fail AfD, or if the article needs further review from the community. This article did not. Also, I would ask you kindly to remove any unsourced accusations from the intro paragraph, particularly anything that would not assume good faith. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • By "intro paragraph" do you mean my DRV nomination? The only conclusion I made was that your deletion was contradicted by policy. Anyway, an admin did apply a judgment on this article, and I said further review from the community was needed. Then you reversed me. CSD A7 has always been about whether a reasonable assertion of importance is there or not... not about guessing whether it would "pass / fail AfD" as you say. --W.marsh 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & list at AFD. No assumption of bad faith here, but this made at least a tenuous claim of potential notability, enough of a gray area to remove it from the jurisdiction of CSD. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:critics of Islam

Category:Critics of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Some people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are notable mainly or only because of being a critic of Islam. I cannot think of any other better category for them. Andries (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: My deletion was following this CfD, which was unanimously to delete. the wub "?!" 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand the potential problem with this category, mainly that it is not a defining category for most people who ever made a critical comment about Islam, but for some it is. I propose that only people should be included who are famous or notable mainly because of their criticisms of Islam. Andries (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closed correctly. --Kbdank71 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is something I do not dispute. I am only missing the correct category for people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What is the alternative that you propose category:anti-Islam activists? Andries (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I suggest the DRV is closed, this isn't an editing advice service. Have you considered that if the consensus was that such a category was "unrequired", then there is no requirement to put these people in such a category? They already appear in various categories. I guess it's a matter of perspective as to what they are mainly notable for, making blanket assertions of such is not really helpful. In reality their notability (as indeed hopefully for anyone/anything) on wikipedia is rooted in the fact that the rest of the world find them interesting enough that multiple reliable sources have chosen to write about them. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comments, but I disagree with everything you write. For example, there can be no doubt that Geert Wilders is mainly notable for his criticism of Islam or attacks on Islam. There are several people like him and hence a category is required. Andries (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens

Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a deletion of a block of pages that I had created quite a long time ago. I was on vacation when the debate happened and did not get a chance to participate. Some were PRODs and some were AfDs. I'd like to pull it back up and have a chance to defend them.

These were lists of collectable pens and were moved to these pages to clean up the Mont Blanc pen main article. Where the links still exist. These pages were not advertising or spam, but links to the individuals recognized by having a pen made in there honor. For example the Writers Edition list had links to Hemingway, Agatha Christie and Voltaire. Some of the lists were shorter then others but we would expect these to increase each year as a new individual was recognized and received the honor.

I think that the short discussion on this block, shows that many editors only looked at the first page (in alphabetical order) whcih was probably the weakest. Anyway, I'm asking for a reinstatement so we can have the debate and I have a chance to defend the pages. Or an undelete and I can improve them. Perhaps if we combined all the pages into one long list with sections. - BMcCJ (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Question Were these articles well sourced? Spartaz 08:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment leaning endorse The one linked above has one entry ("George Washington, 2007") and a blog link. Another one I checked has more listing but no sources. Not making any judgement on the merit of including the info somewhere if it can be properly sourced, but I don't see a reason to bring them back in this convoluted form. Also, if this was branched out from the Montblanc article, the info should still be in the edit history.

Eugene Martin Ingram

Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unilateral out-of-process deletion, contrary to AFD outcome. Result of AFD was fast keep. Jwray (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn This is quite odd. The AfD was closed as "early keep" (unanimous votes to keep), yet the nominator subsequently speedy deleted it as G10 and a violation of WP:BLP. MKoltnow 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This was also a former frontpage DYK article. It was embarrassing to Scientology. Jwray (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I note the AFD was closed by a sitting arb. I'm very interested in the explanation of their reasoning from the deleting admin. I'm leaning towards relisting this. Spartaz 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• You endorsed the deletion last time. Just FYI. :) Mangojuice 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• That just shows you that a) my memory sucks & b) my approach to deletion is less deletionist then it used to be. If we have alreay done this then there is no misuse of process to worry about so I endorse again. Note that per BLP recreation requires a clear consensus to do so. Spartaz 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I want to wait for Mangojuice's explanation before deciding either way, but I see no BLP violations in the deleted article. There are some assertions that could be considered negative (court cases, for instance), but all are supported by reliable sources. On first glance, an article like this would require careful monitoring, not outright deletion. Aecis 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the later deletion. People should really give me a chance to explain before opening this. My action was already reviewed at DRV, and was thoroughly endorsed. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 20 for the discussion. This was a WP:COATRACK article, and a biography of a private figure where it is impossible to cover the subject neutrally because of a number of anti-scientology sites that dig up dirt on Mr. Ingram. As others in the DRV said, those criticisms of the COFS and Mr. Ingram could be mentioned on pages about the COFS's practices, but a biography we cannot have. The AfD was deeply flawed: it was canvassed at the Scientology WikiProject and closed within a few hours, not giving the community at large the chance to respond. I'd really rather not have that debate all over again: if Jwray had even read the rest of my talk page he would have found the other discussion. Mangojuice 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Where was it canvassed? A neutral listing at Wikproject Scientology does not fit the Misplaced Pages definition of canvassing. I cannot find the link. Andries (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I considered it canvassing: see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS which got sorted out somewhat later, indicated a long-term pattern of disruption so serious that all Scientology-related articles had to be put on probation. But this isn't so relevant anyway, because the deletion was not about the AfD. Mangojuice 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the term WP:COATRACK, which popped up as a wikipedia-only neologism on 7 AUG 2007, has been gaining increasing useage lately in XfD and DRV, and it is used in a variety of inconsistent ways. By reading the actual essay, one can garner the intended purpose, but it seems to get used as an adjective synonymous to stinky or just really bad. I physically want to vomit everytime I see it. For the benefit of those reviewing this DRV could you actually articulate the offensive nature of this particular article without just referring to the ephemeral coatrack term? JERRY _contribs 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article is about a police officer who lost his job. It made the local papers once years ago and then was forgotten, but this is the source of all the notability this person has. The article was really about the Church of Scientology and its abusive practices involving private investigators; mainly, the article was trying to lay out every obscure objectionable thing Ingram was connected to. This was not and could never become an appropriate biography, and the points that were being aimed at belong in other articles. Mangojuice 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. That makes great sense.JERRY _contribs 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion actual previous AFD closure is moot. JERRY _contribs 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Olympiad in Informatics

Swiss Olympiad in Informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See Ukrainian_Olympiad_in_Informatics, Turkish Informatics Olympiad, Indian Computing Olympiad and British Informatics Olympiad. Those topics are about national Informatic Olympiads. Petar Marjanovic 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen AfD - probably not notable but with the lack of contributions to the AfD discussion it's effectively like a contested prod; a wider consensus should be sought. Guest9999 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• PROCEDURAL OBJECTION (as closing administrator) the nominator made no attempt whatsoever to discuss this AFD with me prior to filing a delrev, as is required under WP:DRV. JERRY _contribs 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete Closure (as closing administrator) This AfD was listed for the full 5-day period, and there were no participants who raised any objections, concerns, or hesitation to delete. Each delete recommendation included a fully-articulated sensible rationale based solidly on policy and precedent. It was clear to me that relisting this AfD would not change the outcome. A review of nearly any day's log will show that I relist a huge number of AfD's, so closing debates with low participation is not a matter I take lightly. But when policy-based consensus is clear, it is clear. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and AfD is not a plurality vote system. The nominator is not raising any valid concerns with the determination of rough consensus in the AfD, but is rather bringing up a new argument which was never put forth in the AfD; this argument is essentially OSE-based, and is not compelling enough, IMO, to overturn the AfD.JERRY _contribs 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)