| Revision as of 18:22, 21 August 2006 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits →[]: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:25, 21 August 2006 edit undoSynergy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,794 edits →[]: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| ***'''Close debate''' per Doc, and SNOW. ] 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | ***'''Close debate''' per Doc, and SNOW. ] 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ****Based on? The review is here because of your mistake, so this is curious. --] <small>]</small> 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | ****Based on? The review is here because of your mistake, so this is curious. --] <small>]</small> 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****On the basis that no one agrees with you. Sorry, its just the way it is. I may have called it a speedy keep by accident, but that doesnt mean I cant invoke SNOW, IAR, or just be BOLD and overturn. ] 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 18:25, 21 August 2006
| < August 19 | August 21 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
20 August 2006
Mun Charn Wong
This page was deleted by Centrx as CSD A7 (in this form) and again as repost by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (this form). I believe that contrary to both the letter and spirit of A7, the article does assert notability, not once, but multiple times: "one of only twelve life insurance agents to be named as a "Legend"...", "the impetus behind the establishment of the Wah Kau Kong Memorial Award Scholarship at the University of Hawaii", (these 2 assertions were only present in the first deleted revision), "the first rookie agent in the history of the company to earn this recognition" (in second deleted revision only). IMO, neither deleted revision was A7-worthy, and this article deserves at least a hearing at AfD. Kimchi.sg 14:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Restore. Notable enough for obituaries in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser, at least. Not an A7 (at least not the first version Kimchi links to, which contains a link to one of the obits), and if AfDed I would argue for 'keep'. No incoming article links, which is usually a bad sign (not least because the only way for someone to come across the article is by searching for it), but his connections with the University of Hawaii should merit a mention in one of the related articles, at least, if only in 'lists of alumni'. --Sam Blanning 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Restore without prejudice per Kimchi.sg. Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser are both reliable enough sources that this should be brought to AFD if contested, my apologies for the oversight. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Since there were no objections, I've gone ahead and restored the article history. If notability is still contested this can be brought to WP:AFD for broader discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Aquygen
Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Aquygen This section appears to have been deleted repeatedly without adequate review by interested parties. As far as I can tell the reason seems to be 'bad science' which is precisely the reason it should have been kept. The article was balanced and clear in it's assertion that Aquygen is not neccesarily what it claims to be. However the ongoing news coverage of this product, it's potential for economic change if it is valid and the fallout if the claims are proven false surely give the article as much validity as Alien Autopsy, The Brand Name Tylenol, and Blumpkin.
--Vaughanwj 21:21, 20 August 2006 (CST)
Overturn or Relist and Clean up. The news sources do exist, even if the stories themselves are full of it. Most of the deletion votes focused on the name "Aquygen" instead of "HHO Gas". Googling for Aquygen does get results in the 100-200 range, as seemed to be a primary justification for the deletion. However, HHO Gas gets 45 500, which makes it not so clear-cut nn. Other justifications focused on how the science is nonsense; that may be true, but the article can cover that issue. If this is indeed a recovered copy of the latest version, it does need to be reworked, as it cuts into being a little too sided towards the company. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)- Create some redirects to Brown's gas. The article probably need a little extra work as well. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted: Let me explain why: the article was named for a company, and it was boosterish of that company (with references to internal claims). The wider phenomenon of HHO gas might need the Spaghetti Monster treatment or the Time Cube treatment, but this is a specific company making a claim. The specific company does not get the hits. There might or might not need to be a review of HHO Gas (which is misnamed), but I cannot see relisting of this one company. Geogre 11:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is an article on Brown's gas which seems to be about this whatever-it-is. --Sam Blanning 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- There we go, then. HHO gas and HHO Gas were slugs. I figured that we'd have discussed the phenomenon or pseudo-phenomenon some place. Therefore, only a redirect would be needed, and the supporters of Aguygen could, if consensus isn't against it, put in a single line saying, "Aguygen has recently claimed to manufacture Brown's gas." (As opposed to my old roommate, who generated so much brown gas that I moved out.) Geogre 19:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't we just discuss this here? I can't find it in the archives, but I know we had a DRV on this topic less than a month ago. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, Zoe is right - I remember this too. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Already reviewed and endorsed - see from two weeks ago. Regards, MartinRe 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close, endorse all decisions. ~ trialsanderrors 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Boston, Ontario
AfD closed by User:SynergeticMaggot as speedy keep, although it meets none of the criteria. Given the small size of the place and whether it actually deserves an entry, not only was the closure way out of process given the delete votes, but this is one that should probably get a full hearing. First closure was contested at Samir the Scope's talk page, and he gladly reopened it, so this is a reversal of another closure already, as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- It was best to start the AfD over again. Notice that after it was reopened, there were two more keep votes. The AfD should have been relisted, not reopened. If there was a real, or valid reason to delete, I would have left it be (as I'm a deletionist). You're more than welcome to reslist it in todays AfD log, given theres a reason to delete. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Will place a new AfD on today's log -- Samir धर्म 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Second AfD closed early. Likelihood of the folks who had issue with its notability or sourcing having input or awareness on this were extremely minimal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're going to request that an AfD be reoponed, you should really cast a decision on it. SynergeticMaggot 03:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I have to, but it was closed so quickly that I never had an opportunity anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you dont feel like voting in an AfD you requested to be reopened....Ok. Fine by me. But you're just wasing others time by doing this. SynergeticMaggot 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to, but, again, the opportunity never really arose. It was closed too quickly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- MMMhhm. Thats because there wasnt a reason to delete. And no one else thinks so. Would you have voted delete, or keep? If you dont mind me asking. SynergeticMaggot 04:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see at least two reasons in the original AfD, two other people who think so. What I'd vote is inconsequential. I think I've said my piece for tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't ask for a deletion debate to be re-opened, when a) you don't want the thing deleted. b) It obviously won't be. There is no possible gain to the encyclopedia by such. If those who voted delete still want it deleted (and most of them seem to have wrongly thousght it was a hoax) then let them come here, or let them renominate it. --Doc 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't close things out of process, and you won't have to worry about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not in the least worried. But process is a means, not an end. And when there's an obvious right answer, then we don't bother with the red tape (see WP:IAR). Let's keep DRV for reviewing deletions that someone feels may remove good material from the encyclopedia (there's plenty of that about), and it is more constructive than process wonkery. Time-wasting wonking is what worries me. --Doc 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:IAR holds no weight here within the process. As DRV is about process, I will continue to challenge those who feel the process doesn't matter. Process ignorance worries me much more than your "time wasting" wonking. No one's asking you to waste time here, so feel free to do whatever else you need to do. But if you close early, you'll be wasting my time when I'm forced to challenge it. That's that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No one's forcing you to challange anything - you'd be better to focus on improving the content of the encyclopedia. And if DRV was 'about process', rather than making sure we deleted and kept the right things, then I'd nominate DRV for deletion immediately - or just speedy it. --Doc 14:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hard to improve the content much when you can't be assured that the processes in place are going to be followed to protect the content. My contributions to the project should not be in question, and my challenging of poor judgement by folks who don't follow the process have not hindered my abilities or contributions. So yes, you're technically right, no one's forcing me to do so. But my hand has been tipped, the camel's back has been broken. You don't want them challenged? Don't act out of process. That's all I have to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Using process to protect good content is fine. But, you're not suggesting this is good content. You seem to be using process to protect process, and keep bad content hanging about - that is seriously screwed up. --Doc 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm defending bad content here, or trying to keep bad content hanging about. I don't agree with that characterization at all. Process is here to make sure we keep good content at the best quality we can have it at on the encyclopedia, and that bad content gets a proper hearing so there's no questioning its removal. "Process to protect process" is ultimately protecting content - if we can't protect what protects the content, we can't be sure any of the content can be seriously be guaranteed to be handled properly by those with power. If I have to do a one-man crusade to protect it, so be it, but I'd much rather you work with me than belittle my attempts as "screwed up" and a waste of time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Using process to protect good content is fine. But, you're not suggesting this is good content. You seem to be using process to protect process, and keep bad content hanging about - that is seriously screwed up. --Doc 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hard to improve the content much when you can't be assured that the processes in place are going to be followed to protect the content. My contributions to the project should not be in question, and my challenging of poor judgement by folks who don't follow the process have not hindered my abilities or contributions. So yes, you're technically right, no one's forcing me to do so. But my hand has been tipped, the camel's back has been broken. You don't want them challenged? Don't act out of process. That's all I have to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No one's forcing you to challange anything - you'd be better to focus on improving the content of the encyclopedia. And if DRV was 'about process', rather than making sure we deleted and kept the right things, then I'd nominate DRV for deletion immediately - or just speedy it. --Doc 14:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:IAR holds no weight here within the process. As DRV is about process, I will continue to challenge those who feel the process doesn't matter. Process ignorance worries me much more than your "time wasting" wonking. No one's asking you to waste time here, so feel free to do whatever else you need to do. But if you close early, you'll be wasting my time when I'm forced to challenge it. That's that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not in the least worried. But process is a means, not an end. And when there's an obvious right answer, then we don't bother with the red tape (see WP:IAR). Let's keep DRV for reviewing deletions that someone feels may remove good material from the encyclopedia (there's plenty of that about), and it is more constructive than process wonkery. Time-wasting wonking is what worries me. --Doc 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't close things out of process, and you won't have to worry about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't ask for a deletion debate to be re-opened, when a) you don't want the thing deleted. b) It obviously won't be. There is no possible gain to the encyclopedia by such. If those who voted delete still want it deleted (and most of them seem to have wrongly thousght it was a hoax) then let them come here, or let them renominate it. --Doc 13:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see at least two reasons in the original AfD, two other people who think so. What I'd vote is inconsequential. I think I've said my piece for tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- MMMhhm. Thats because there wasnt a reason to delete. And no one else thinks so. Would you have voted delete, or keep? If you dont mind me asking. SynergeticMaggot 04:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to, but, again, the opportunity never really arose. It was closed too quickly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you dont feel like voting in an AfD you requested to be reopened....Ok. Fine by me. But you're just wasing others time by doing this. SynergeticMaggot 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I have to, but it was closed so quickly that I never had an opportunity anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're going to request that an AfD be reoponed, you should really cast a decision on it. SynergeticMaggot 03:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. Please stop this endless pointless nitpicking. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's not pointless at all. I don't plan on finding a way to convincing you as to why, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. SynergeticMaggot 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. This is the process Bastique▼ voir 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is it really? THe process is to ignore it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let it go. Either endorse or overturn. Please. SynergeticMaggot 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- At some point it ceases to be mere process-wonking and becomes disruptive. And you know what that means. --Cyde Weys 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing disruptive are the early closes. Preach to them and get back to me before making threats. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- At some point it ceases to be mere process-wonking and becomes disruptive. And you know what that means. --Cyde Weys 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let it go. Either endorse or overturn. Please. SynergeticMaggot 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is it really? THe process is to ignore it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse close and perhaps speedy close this debate per WP:SNOW --Doc 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would be inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close debate per Doc, and SNOW. SynergeticMaggot 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Based on? The review is here because of your mistake, so this is curious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the basis that no one agrees with you. Sorry, its just the way it is. I may have called it a speedy keep by accident, but that doesnt mean I cant invoke SNOW, IAR, or just be BOLD and overturn. SynergeticMaggot 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Based on? The review is here because of your mistake, so this is curious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Close debate per Doc, and SNOW. SynergeticMaggot 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would be inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2006 mobile phone arrests
- undelete' --Striver 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Overturn simply because I don't know why it was deleted. If a proper justification for the deletion is provided, I might change that, but it seems out of process as is. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)- Abstaining for now, but I would still like to know what it consisted of and which if any speedy deletion criteria it falls under. Considering the title of the article, it sounds silly, but that's not necessarily a reason to delete it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because it seemed like the kind of thing Striver wrote knowing that it would be deleted, just so he could raise a stink about it. Adam Bishop 03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted unless it can be explained why this deletion was out of process. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted: It's another G1 from this author. In fact, it's darn near the "spam" definition. Granted, Striver's nomination isn't longer than the article, but the article was "In 2006, several people have been arrested on suspicions of terrorism due to having large amounts of cell phones. ==External links== *http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4116889.html *http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4111938.html *http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4111938.html *http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/14/wal-mart_joins_gwot/" . People have been arrested. People have been patted on the back. People have been glared at, and all for using cell phones. Geogre 12:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, G1. Authors of G1-ed articles should consider writing actual articles in their place rather than bringing hopeless DRV nominations (Striver is not the only one). --Sam Blanning 14:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per Geogre - CSD A3 I'd say (only rephrasing of title + external links). Kimchi.sg 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per above comments. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, cool, i get it. I did not know that it was enough reason to make a speedi. I did ad a expand sign, but never mind, i understand know. Ill created again with a bit more content. --Striver 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close this review. Striver created a new article, which was sent to AfD, then he userfied it, and that's how it stands at time of writing. This review is now moot. --Sam Blanning 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Striver 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
List of Paris by Nights
The purpose of this list was for a COMPLETE listings of the Paris by Night programs. The programs that are listed in Paris by Night (Programs 63 to 84) are for more details. This list shows the Paris by Night programs, from number 1 to 84.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurtran (talk • contribs)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Paris by Nights. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - no reason given on why listings must be separate from main article, which could do with the expansion. Kimchi.sg 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted—even List of Paris by Night episodes doesn't stand a chance of getting created. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)