Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 28: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:52, 3 October 2006 editRFerreira (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers6,511 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:58, 3 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (no consensus closure endorsed)Next edit →
Line 34:		Line 34:
	*'''Relist''' on AfD per the above comments. ] 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)		*'''Relist''' on AfD per the above comments. ] 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted'''. ] has changed since the this was nominated to DRV. Both of the AFD nominations were made by the subject of the article. As I noted in the prior DRV, the editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even ''he'' argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. ] <small>]</small> 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)		*'''Keep deleted'''. ] has changed since the this was nominated to DRV. Both of the AFD nominations were made by the subject of the article. As I noted in the prior DRV, the editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even ''he'' argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. ] <small>]</small> 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

	====]====
	* ]
	I would like to see the "no consensus" closure of this AFD reconsidered on the weight of the arguments. There was precious little debate in the discussion, most of which centered around the term's appearance on '']'' and ], neither of which are particularly reliable sources. The major Keep proponent, ], may not be (although he does have some reasonable arguments in other deletion discussions). I believe Mailer Diablo erred in closing this as no consensus, as the article lacks any reliable sources, and has excluding WP, UD and TDS, showing it as the poster child for neologisms. Rather than being "widespread enough to end up on the Daily Show", as BDJ argues, it appears that it was the day of the Daily Show episode, and spread from there. -- '']']'' 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*I assure you, I'm being entirely serious, even if my language is blunt. I'm being completely sincere. Please assume good faith. ] 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' as a valid AfD and without much new to say. If it was added to UD ''after'' the ''Daily Show'', it seems to me that it had notability ''before'' it made the net rounds, since the show referenced it. --] <small>]</small> 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	**Jeff, if you can show me evidence this existed somewhere prior to the Daily Show writers coining it in May, I will gladly reconsider this deletion review. -- '']']'' 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	***There's a chance I misunderstood the debate, seeing this question. Are you claiming the word was invented by the Daily Show? --] <small>]</small> 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	****I haven't seen this episode, but what it appears to be is a neologism made up by the writers and thrown into the segment by Samantha Lee's character. It was then picked up by UD and some of the bloggers; my quick Google search didn't show anything to contradict that, but I'm using ], not any sort of rigorous analysis. I'm relying on your vigorous dedication to process to see if you (or anyone) can come up with evidence to the contrary, without making this a second 'content" AFD. If the suppositions made in the AFD were wrong, then it probably ought to be overturned. -- '']']'' 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*****I'm going to drop a note on Poet's page about this, as s/he claimed to have known the word in the UK. I'll be honest - my position came from the belief that the term existed ''before'' the ''Daily Show'', not because of it, and was further emboldened by Poetlister's claim. If it turns out otherwise, I'll gladly reverse myself on it. --] <small>]</small> 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	** Is it time to start tagging articles with {{tl\|onlyoneseeminglyreliablesource}}? Or should wiktionary's ] (usage in three independent instances spanning at least a year) be used as a minimum on Misplaced Pages for apparent neologisms? --] 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Overturn''', clearly this has only one root source, the article should simply be redirected to The Daily Show and leave it at that. <b>]</b> 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''', valid AfD. Also, this term is in current use, and will ] be used even more. ] 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	**] a crystal ball. Eventualism has nothing to do with crystalballism. --] 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Endorse closure''', this makes me shudder but I'd rather people know what's being talked about than censor. Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. ] 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)</s> <s>Wait a second, both of the sources go back to the Daily Show. This isn't a term they invented is it? '''Overturn''' ] 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)</s> Uuuuh.... The other ''Urban Dictionary'' entries '''don't''' reference the ''Daily Show'', but I'm not sure the're old enough to show that the term was independent of it.... '''Abstain''' ] 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn''' and redirect to the Daily Show. Google for this term omitting WP and The Daily Show comes up with a grand total of four - count'em four - Google hits. It's a made-up word, and ] for neologisms. ] <small>]</small> 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' The closing admin made an entirely reasonable decision on the basis of the debate.--] 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' The people have spoken. Misplaced Pages is mostly run by hoi polloi, whether they be bright or dull, reasonable or unreasonable. That's a built-in characteristic of a wiki. The closure was resonable and right. ] 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Relist'''. The closing decision was reasonable, but having seen the original show I thought it was a joke at the time. That were added the Daily Show further supports that this was coined by them. It's worth another pass at AfD. ] 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Relist'''--] 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
	* '''endorse closure''' there was no consensus and it was closed that way ] 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' We've had the debate; no convincing grounds have been advanced for changing the result.--] 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment:''' Community consensus seems to be that sex moves do not have to be verifiable or sourced and therefore, this is an entirely acceptable article. Besides, it had its day in court, so let's not spill any more ink on this matter. ] 20:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
	**You're having a laugh, aren't you? I mean, really, are you just taking the piss out of wikipedia? You really think community consensus favours made-up unsourced sex moves on wikipedia ] 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	***No, I'm not laughing. I've seen several made-up poorly sourced sex moves, and I'm just following what I see. ] 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	**** That we have some low-quality articles isn't proof that we need more. See ] for more on this. I also don't think it's proof that the community is happy about those articles. Consider Jimmy Wales's recent call for favoring quality over quantity, and the community reaction to it. E.g., ]. ] 02:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	*****Thanks for referring me to those articles. I have some ideas for some good articles I'm currently thinking about. I'm not really interested in turning WP into a sewer. ] 02:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn or Relist''' as per Guy, Peitri and others above. A gag on Daily Show is not sufficient for an article. Plus, I have no confidence in Blythe as per nom and also after comment above plus . ] 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	**Well I don't have any confidence in Jimmy Wales or his call for quality over quantity. He can call all he wants, 24/7, but he ain't gettin' it, because people would rather write about their favorite Pokemon, and no academic wants to work for free. Ugly world we live in, isn't it? The sum of all human knowledge? Bah. Impossible. It's just a soundbite. ] 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn.''' Googling on <tt></tt> returns only 9 hits. The term is not notable; the article should be deleted. - ] 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn''' and relist for AfD per Brian, Guy, Peitri, et al. ---] 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse closure''' (no consensus). This was a difficult decision given the state of the discussion at the time of closing. I would have weighted some of the comments differently but calling it as "no consensus" is within reasonable admin discretion. That said, the article can be renominated for deletion by anyone after a reasonable period. ] <small>]</small> 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse closure''' by the administrator. This is a forum to review procedure, not the merits of an article. Like Rossami said, nothing is preventing any one of us from relisting the article for deletion after a reasonable period of time. ] 05:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:58, 3 October 2006

< September 27	September 29 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

28 September 2006

Erik Möller

This article has been deleted due to non-notability, and deleted again due to CSD G4. However, it was recreated again after he got a position on the Board, and it's common conjecture that being on the Trustee of a notable corporation means you can get an article. However, Michael E. Davis, where Board member Michael Davis's article would go, redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation article. However, Möller is also a published author, and arguably "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (see WP:BIO). I am not sure how this should be treated (so count me as a neutral), so let's decide once and for all (for now) how to treat this article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

~~Send to AFD~~ as I can't find a previous AFD. Naconkantari 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- First AFD under title "Erik Moeller": deleted due to non-notability. Second AFD under title "Erik Möller": deleted as recreation (CSD G4) under a different title. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks, I now change to Keep Redirected and Protect Naconkantari 00:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Things have changed considerably since those AfDs. It'd be improper to judge the consensus now considering his status then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      - They have not, however, changed since the last DRV discussion on this article. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Overturn and send to AfD. I was waiting for User:Pilotguy to get back (as he's on semi-wikibreak) and ask him first, but this should, at the very least, ~~get an AfD~~ get an AfD due to his new status. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
keep redirected seems to be the sensible option. --Doc 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Overturn and send to AFD. Circumstances have changed substantially since the last AFD. Redirecting might still be the most sensible option, but I see no reason for the redirect to stay protected. Kusma (討論) 06:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Send to AfD. Circumstances have changed sufficiently to merit an AfD hearing. Thryduulf 09:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Relist per the others. I see no reason to be too bureaucratic here. Also, the prior AfDs were plain vote counts with no discussion whatsoever. I couldn't even tell why the original article was deleted from the debate. Mango juice 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep redirected; the only thing that changed is his position on the board, so a redirect to the foundation is appropriate. (Liberatore, 2006). 23:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Relist changed circumstances make a new AfD appropriate. Eluchil404 02:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
relist so that it can be discussed now with recent changes Yuckfoo 06:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
relist Per many others with new information. --NuclearUmpf 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
relist - I created the article. I wasn't aware it had existed before and had been deleted, however I consider that irrelevant since he wasn't a board member then. The two other elected board members, Florence Nibart-Devouard and Angela Beesley, have biographical articles. Möller is, as already pointed out, also a published author, developer of the MediaWiki software and well-known wiki enthusiast (also outside of Misplaced Pages), and thus clearly notable. Wolfram 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Relist on AfD per the above comments. RFerreira 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Nothing external to WikiMedia has changed since the last time this was nominated to DRV. Both of the AFD nominations were made by the subject of the article. As I noted in the prior DRV, the editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even he argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)