| Revision as of 17:48, 23 May 2007 editThe Evil Spartan (talk | contribs)Rollbackers16,194 edits →[]: response to Doc← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:15, 9 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> | |||
| <noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px"> | |||
| {| width = "100%" | |||
| ⚫ | |- | ||
| ! width=20% align=left | <font color="gray"><</font> ] | |||
| ! width=60% align=center | ]: ] | |||
| ! width=20% align=right | ] <font color="gray">></font> | |||
| ⚫ | |} | ||
| </div></noinclude> | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 5: | ||
| ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~ --> | ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~ --> | ||
| ====] (closed)==== | |||
| {| class=" |
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ||
| Line 21: | Line 14: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
| :{{la|Qian Zhijun}} < |
:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| *'''Closing admin's notes:''' DRV is here to review the process of deletion, not the article in question. This article was sent to afd the second time by DRV - as such that Afd should have been allowed to remain open for significantly more time than 45 minutes. One out of process deletion (as determined by DRV) is not fixed by doing it again - and I think thought people should have learnt something from the Daniel Brandt wheel war. IAR is a great rule, it allows you you bypass bureaucracy in the light of pure common sense. But closing a contentious debate you are involved in is NOT in the spirit of IAR - or for that matter the deletion policy. Lastly, there are no BLP issues, per several of the people who participated in this discussion - we are just reporting what someone else has said (referenced to its source) not insulting the man ourselves. ]] 02:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Closing admin's notes:''' DRV is here to review the process of deletion, not the article in question. This article was sent to afd the second time by DRV - as such that Afd should have been allowed to remain open for significantly more time than 45 minutes. One out of process deletion (as determined by DRV) is not fixed by doing it again - and I think thought people should have learnt something from the Daniel Brandt wheel war. IAR is a great rule, it allows you you bypass bureaucracy in the light of pure common sense. But closing a contentious debate you are involved in is NOT in the spirit of IAR - or for that matter the deletion policy. Lastly, there are no BLP issues, per several of the people who participated in this discussion - we are just reporting what someone else has said (referenced to its source) not insulting the man ourselves. ]] 02:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 46: | Line 39: | ||
| *** We're not attached to the article. On the contrary, we rather want to get rid of it, as it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As the closer of the second AfD has pointed out, there was even more time for discussion than normal. No arguments have been presented which found the support of a majority of editors. If an article is twice deleted after discussion, you should just live with it. This is not about "The xth DRV didn't correspond with the yth AfD", this is just about the plain question "Is this article of any value to an encyclopedia" and the answer is "No, it should be speedy-deleted per CSD:G10" --] 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *** We're not attached to the article. On the contrary, we rather want to get rid of it, as it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As the closer of the second AfD has pointed out, there was even more time for discussion than normal. No arguments have been presented which found the support of a majority of editors. If an article is twice deleted after discussion, you should just live with it. This is not about "The xth DRV didn't correspond with the yth AfD", this is just about the plain question "Is this article of any value to an encyclopedia" and the answer is "No, it should be speedy-deleted per CSD:G10" --] 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ****Oh BS. Several featured articles could be deleted as worthless to an encyclopedia if you're going to take that standard. ] (]/]) 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ****Oh BS. Several featured articles could be deleted as worthless to an encyclopedia if you're going to take that standard. ] (]/]) 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Speedy close'''. Honestly, he's "famous" for being fat. Does anybody ''not'' see why we should stop this pointless bickering about process?--''']''' 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | * '''Speedy close'''. Honestly, he's "famous" for being fat. Does anybody ''not'' see why we should stop this pointless bickering about process?--''']''' 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': This whole situation is probably all my fault. I made strong arguments for deletion in the original AfD, based on the effect this article might have on the living person who is its subject. This is an area of BLP policy to which I am concerned that insufficient attention is frequently given and is an extremely serious concern to me (see generally, ]). The original closing admin, Daniel.Bryant, indicated that these arguments were pretty much the basis for his original close as delete. Then someone who'd been tied up in RL until after the AfD closed came by Daniel's talkpage with some colorable (though not I think ultimately persuasive) counter-arguments, and I suggested that it would make sense to discuss them in the context of AfD rather than DRV. From that point on, hilarity ensued. Frankly, if I'd known that all this procedural morass and bickering was going to ensue, I would have just said to the commenter "tough stuff, you missed the deadline, you lost your chance, go away." I suppose I will have to bear that in mind for next time. ] 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': This whole situation is probably all my fault. I made strong arguments for deletion in the original AfD, based on the effect this article might have on the living person who is its subject. This is an area of BLP policy to which I am concerned that insufficient attention is frequently given and is an extremely serious concern to me (see generally, ]). The original closing admin, Daniel.Bryant, indicated that these arguments were pretty much the basis for his original close as delete. Then someone who'd been tied up in RL until after the AfD closed came by Daniel's talkpage with some colorable (though not I think ultimately persuasive) counter-arguments, and I suggested that it would make sense to discuss them in the context of AfD rather than DRV. From that point on, hilarity ensued. Frankly, if I'd known that all this procedural morass and bickering was going to ensue, I would have just said to the commenter "tough stuff, you missed the deadline, you lost your chance, go away." I suppose I will have to bear that in mind for next time. ] 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Just delete the damn thing''': what a waste of time and energy by all parties. How about improving the real content of this encyclopedia instead. ] 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Just delete the damn thing''': what a waste of time and energy by all parties. How about improving the real content of this encyclopedia instead. ] 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 65: | Line 58: | ||
| ***I am new to this debate (having not participated in either of the AFDs), but I would like to echo jeff's comments above and state that many of the arguments to maintain the deletion make me very nervous, as they cite things like "boredom" and "silliness" rather than actual policy. Given the fact that there are stories on this subject from reputable news sources, we need better reasons than those to omit this subject from inclusion. --] (]) 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ***I am new to this debate (having not participated in either of the AFDs), but I would like to echo jeff's comments above and state that many of the arguments to maintain the deletion make me very nervous, as they cite things like "boredom" and "silliness" rather than actual policy. Given the fact that there are stories on this subject from reputable news sources, we need better reasons than those to omit this subject from inclusion. --] (]) 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''STRONGEST possible overturn'''. Have we learned NOTHING from having 13 deletion debates on Daniel Brandt? ] The point of having debates on things like this is to find consensus, to understand how the community interprets its own policies, and to bring the issue to closure. This is not, as bainer put it in his closure, a request for "process for process' sake". Those arguing on the losing side of a debate deserve a certain degree of respect: they deserve that their argument is considered by the community, they deserve the chance to be heard, and they deserve a fair, impartial closure so that they can understand in the end that they lost, not because of some arbitrary decision, but because the community did not agree with them - once that point is arrived at, we have closure and we can move on. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''STRONGEST possible overturn'''. Have we learned NOTHING from having 13 deletion debates on Daniel Brandt? ] The point of having debates on things like this is to find consensus, to understand how the community interprets its own policies, and to bring the issue to closure. This is not, as bainer put it in his closure, a request for "process for process' sake". Those arguing on the losing side of a debate deserve a certain degree of respect: they deserve that their argument is considered by the community, they deserve the chance to be heard, and they deserve a fair, impartial closure so that they can understand in the end that they lost, not because of some arbitrary decision, but because the community did not agree with them - once that point is arrived at, we have closure and we can move on. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn'''; you can't close a contentious AFD in one hour, and there actually are legitimate, mainstream news sources for this person. Sure, the phenomenon is cruel, but so was some of the exploitation surrounding ]. We document what is notable, we don't decide what should or shouldn't be. We're not making fun of the kid; we're reporting what was said in ] about how other people did. ] 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Overturn'''; you can't close a contentious AFD in one hour, and there actually are legitimate, mainstream news sources for this person. Sure, the phenomenon is cruel, but so was some of the exploitation surrounding ]. We document what is notable, we don't decide what should or shouldn't be. We're not making fun of the kid; we're reporting what was said in ] about how other people did. ] 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **The problem is the bad tendency of editors to factor every subject as a biography of some person. Like the incident with Michael Sneed, an article about ''this'' subject shouldn't be pretending to be a biography of a person. The idea that this is a biography of Qian Zhijun's life and works is laughable. As the article itself said, this person's experience is ''one example'' of what the ''actual'' subjects are, which, upon reading the sources cited beyond their attention-grabbing introductions, appear to be ] and ]. ''At the very best'', therefore, it should be presented as but one example of the latter subject. (Singling out this one person as a poster boy for obesity in China is definitely wrong, note.)<p>One irony leaps right at us here: ] asks what we do with things that are important. Answering that point with "we" meaning "all editors" rather than meaning just administrators, it appears, from looking at the redlinks at ] and ], that we what we do is not actually write articles on them at all, spending all our energies instead on declaring people to be "internet memes" and writing articles that pretend to be their biographies. ] 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | **The problem is the bad tendency of editors to factor every subject as a biography of some person. Like the incident with Michael Sneed, an article about ''this'' subject shouldn't be pretending to be a biography of a person. The idea that this is a biography of Qian Zhijun's life and works is laughable. As the article itself said, this person's experience is ''one example'' of what the ''actual'' subjects are, which, upon reading the sources cited beyond their attention-grabbing introductions, appear to be ] and ]. ''At the very best'', therefore, it should be presented as but one example of the latter subject. (Singling out this one person as a poster boy for obesity in China is definitely wrong, note.)<p>One irony leaps right at us here: ] asks what we do with things that are important. Answering that point with "we" meaning "all editors" rather than meaning just administrators, it appears, from looking at the redlinks at ] and ], that we what we do is not actually write articles on them at all, spending all our energies instead on declaring people to be "internet memes" and writing articles that pretend to be their biographies. ] 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***Rather ironically, after this DRV was speedy closed earlier, I started writing an article on ]. It's currently stored on my PC at work, but I can maybe VPN in over the weekend and get something up. It'll be little more than a stub about a neologism, though, since I can only find two distinct reliable sources so far. ''--] 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)'' | ***Rather ironically, after this DRV was speedy closed earlier, I started writing an article on ]. It's currently stored on my PC at work, but I can maybe VPN in over the weekend and get something up. It'll be little more than a stub about a neologism, though, since I can only find two distinct reliable sources so far. ''--] 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)'' | ||
| ****Excellent. Have a look below. I found three articles dealing with the subject. I strongly suspect that there are more. ] 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ****Excellent. Have a look below. I found three articles dealing with the subject. I strongly suspect that there are more. ] 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *****Yeah, I noticed what you wrote after I posted. There are indeed more, since my sources were ''China Daily'' and ''Xinhua.net''. Also, the term is apparently a derivative of ], which ''is'' an article. Maybe end up with a merge/redirect? We'll see... ''--] 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)'' | *****Yeah, I noticed what you wrote after I posted. There are indeed more, since my sources were ''China Daily'' and ''Xinhua.net''. Also, the term is apparently a derivative of ], which ''is'' an article. Maybe end up with a merge/redirect? We'll see... ''--] 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)'' | ||
| ******Have a look at the second and fourth sentences of ]. It seems best to just redirect ] there and add a new ] section therein on e'gao and the Chinese government's attempts to stamp it out. That way readers benefit from a complete background, and ] benefits from some much-needed sources. |
******Have a look at the second and fourth sentences of ]. It seems best to just redirect ] there and add a new ] section therein on e'gao and the Chinese government's attempts to stamp it out. That way readers benefit from a complete background, and ] benefits from some much-needed sources. ☺ I'm glad that you found it to be a startling oasis, incidentally. ] 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Process requires this be kept dead''' - it's a blatant violation of ], which is not up for being superseded by whoever shows up for a DRV - ] 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | * '''Process requires this be kept dead''' - it's a blatant violation of ], which is not up for being superseded by whoever shows up for a DRV - ] 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Which part is a blatant violation? --] <small>]</small> 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | **Which part is a blatant violation? --] <small>]</small> 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 76: | Line 69: | ||
| **That's all right. Any editor who wants to write an article about ], rather than about one specific example of it, hasn't lost much in not having this content to use as a basis. . . . ] 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | **That's all right. Any editor who wants to write an article about ], rather than about one specific example of it, hasn't lost much in not having this content to use as a basis. . . . ] 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', '''speedy close''' as process-wonkery at its worst. --] 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse deletion''', '''speedy close''' as process-wonkery at its worst. --] 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **So expecting a closure to reflect weight-of-argument and consensus is process-wonkery? |
**So expecting a closure to reflect weight-of-argument and consensus is process-wonkery? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', '''speedy close''', BLP supercedes DRV. ] 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse deletion''', '''speedy close''', BLP supercedes DRV. ] 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **where was the BLP issue settled? Unaddressed objections have been raised to the simple claim. ] (]/]) 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | **where was the BLP issue settled? Unaddressed objections have been raised to the simple claim. ] (]/]) 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 85: | Line 78: | ||
| ****I don't think that anyone is arguing that this article should exist to "make fun of him", but rather that he is notable by virtue of being the primary subject of articles in major, verifiable news sources. BLP states that articles on living persons should be held to the highest levels of scrutiny when it comes to verifiability, NPOV, and all other content-governing wikipedia policies. I don't think anyone is arguing against it, but rather that the mere existence of an article on him does not violate BLP. --] (]) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ****I don't think that anyone is arguing that this article should exist to "make fun of him", but rather that he is notable by virtue of being the primary subject of articles in major, verifiable news sources. BLP states that articles on living persons should be held to the highest levels of scrutiny when it comes to verifiability, NPOV, and all other content-governing wikipedia policies. I don't think anyone is arguing against it, but rather that the mere existence of an article on him does not violate BLP. --] (]) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ****And who has claimed to have read every edit in the history and determined that every edit is a violation. Remember, ] only authorizes deletion when there is no acceptable edit to revert to. "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, '''''where there is no NPOV version to revert to''''', should delete the article without discussion." (Emphasis added.) There are plenty of sourced, non-controversial edits in the history, so ] does '''not''' authorize a deletion. ] 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ****And who has claimed to have read every edit in the history and determined that every edit is a violation. Remember, ] only authorizes deletion when there is no acceptable edit to revert to. "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, '''''where there is no NPOV version to revert to''''', should delete the article without discussion." (Emphasis added.) There are plenty of sourced, non-controversial edits in the history, so ] does '''not''' authorize a deletion. ] 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' is my ''opinion'' on this matter. Process is important, yes, but blindly abiding by process with no thought to the state of the encyclopedia is the core of ]. Seeing this dragged back and forth and back again is inane. ] |
*'''Endorse deletion''' is my ''opinion'' on this matter. Process is important, yes, but blindly abiding by process with no thought to the state of the encyclopedia is the core of ]. Seeing this dragged back and forth and back again is inane. ] • ] 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep deleted''' - I don't endorse the process, but good grief, at some point, we need to decide that we want to be an encyclopedia and quit having stuff like this. --] 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep deleted''' - I don't endorse the process, but good grief, at some point, we need to decide that we want to be an encyclopedia and quit having stuff like this. --] 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **What's not encyclopedic about an article on an internationally documented media phenomenon? ] (]/]) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | **What's not encyclopedic about an article on an internationally documented media phenomenon? ] (]/]) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 107: | Line 100: | ||
| :PS I'd like an '''overturn''' if no-one's interested in my compromise... ''--] 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)'' | :PS I'd like an '''overturn''' if no-one's interested in my compromise... ''--] 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)'' | ||
| :*See, this is exactly what I had in mind. If everyone could calm down and let the process run, there'd be time to calmly rewrite the article in a way that would address any concerns and still document a notable phenomenon. ] (]/]) 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | :*See, this is exactly what I had in mind. If everyone could calm down and let the process run, there'd be time to calmly rewrite the article in a way that would address any concerns and still document a notable phenomenon. ] (]/]) 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' If DeLarge's version is created and kept at ], I have no objection to keeping the ] article deleted. I still think leaving out the name is foolish, and that it's unencyclopedic to worry about hurting people's feelings, but apparently too many people think otherwise. ] 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' If DeLarge's version is created and kept at ], I have no objection to keeping the ] article deleted. I still think leaving out the name is foolish, and that it's unencyclopedic to worry about hurting people's feelings, but apparently too many people think otherwise. ] 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep deleted''' - per Jkelly and because this is the utter definition of rerunning a debate until someone gets a result they like. ] 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep deleted''' - per Jkelly and because this is the utter definition of rerunning a debate until someone gets a result they like. ] 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 114: | Line 107: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ⚫ | {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
| ====] (closed)==== | |||
| ⚫ | {| class=" |
||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ||
| Line 123: | Line 115: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
| :{{la|"Z"}} < |
:{{la|"Z"}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| not notable ] 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | not notable ] 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 140: | Line 132: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ⚫ | {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| ⚫ | |- | ||
| ⚫ | :{{lt|drmmt}} < |
||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| * ''']''' – Deletion endorsed without prejudice to a new template of the same name explaining why some users feel that removing warning templates is often not appropriate. Please be certain the new template, if anyone has any desire to create it, is balanced. – ] - ] 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
| ⚫ | :{{lt|drmmt}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| This was speedy deleted by ] because it "misrepresents policy" (see ]). However, this was referring to {{]}}, and not {{]}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* for ]*cough*) - and as if ] didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{]}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{]}} without even explaining why. --] 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | This was speedy deleted by ] because it "misrepresents policy" (see ]). However, this was referring to {{]}}, and not {{]}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* for ]*cough*) - and as if ] didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{]}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{]}} without even explaining why. --] 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' - don't agree with nom, if a newbie removes a template without an edit summary, you can use a template explaining edit summaries. If editors start to revert war over a template they can be cautioned for going upto 3RR. This warning isn't required. ] 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse deletion''' - don't agree with nom, if a newbie removes a template without an edit summary, you can use a template explaining edit summaries. If editors start to revert war over a template they can be cautioned for going upto 3RR. This warning isn't required. ] 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse''' as deleter, because templates should not misrepresent policy. Because this template is designed similar to other warning templates, it implies that removing maintenance templates is grounds for blocking. Aside from that, novice users will not understand such a warning and advanced users will likely not appreciate being warned by template, so in either case writing a message manually would be better. ] 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse''' as deleter, because templates should not misrepresent policy. Because this template is designed similar to other warning templates, it implies that removing maintenance templates is grounds for blocking. Aside from that, novice users will not understand such a warning and advanced users will likely not appreciate being warned by template, so in either case writing a message manually would be better. ] 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :*The fact that you think it ''implies'' blocking semes a bit silly - drmmt3 might have done so, but drmmt? And, for that matter, if the design ''implies'' something that others don't, then it can be changed, which I would be glad to do should this template be undeleted, and someone should point out the design problems. And the argument that novice users won't understand it - clearly not grounds for speedy. ] 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | :*The fact that you think it ''implies'' blocking semes a bit silly - drmmt3 might have done so, but drmmt? And, for that matter, if the design ''implies'' something that others don't, then it can be changed, which I would be glad to do should this template be undeleted, and someone should point out the design problems. And the argument that novice users won't understand it - clearly not grounds for speedy. ] 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''List at TfD''' This is not the place to set WP policy on the use of templates. Nor is this set by individuals acting via speedy. There is a procedure for this, and it should be followed. Speedy is for unquestionably valid deletions. Radiant has found a definite problem, but the problem can probably be solved by editing the template. ''']''' 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''List at TfD''' This is not the place to set WP policy on the use of templates. Nor is this set by individuals acting via speedy. There is a procedure for this, and it should be followed. Speedy is for unquestionably valid deletions. Radiant has found a definite problem, but the problem can probably be solved by editing the template. ''']''' 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
| :*With all due respect, Doc, this isn't a discussion on the merits of the template, it's a discussion on the merits of the deletion. ''If you don't think a removal is appropriate, discuss it'' doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria. ] 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | :*With all due respect, Doc, this isn't a discussion on the merits of the template, it's a discussion on the merits of the deletion. ''If you don't think a removal is appropriate, discuss it'' doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria. ] 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm uninterested in process. I do not believe the encyclopedia benefits from restoring this template, so I say we should not.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | ::I'm uninterested in process. I do not believe the encyclopedia benefits from restoring this template, so I say we should not.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Ah, so this is both ignoring process ''and'' ] - nevermind that something should be deleted without community consensus - if you don't like it, it should go. I see. ] 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, I forgot, this is Doc-opedia: . We don't need consensus from others if ]. | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
| ⚫ | |} | ||
| ⚫ | {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| * ''']''' – Deletion Endorsed, recreated as a redirect. Please feel free to also create tpv1. – ] - ] 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
| ⚫ | :{{lt|Tpv}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| ⚫ | :{{lt|Tpv}} < |
||
| I'm not sure why this page was deleted by ] in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see . And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept. | I'm not sure why this page was deleted by ] in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see . And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept. | ||
| Line 170: | Line 184: | ||
| :*I believe you are mistaken. TPV was moved to TPV0 in order to make way to make TPV, which is equivalent to TPV1. I'm appealing the rather silly deletion of TPV1 when ignoring TPV0, TPV2, TPV3, and TPV4. It most certainly doesn't qualify as g6, non-controversial, as my very contesting it proves it's controversial. ] 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | :*I believe you are mistaken. TPV was moved to TPV0 in order to make way to make TPV, which is equivalent to TPV1. I'm appealing the rather silly deletion of TPV1 when ignoring TPV0, TPV2, TPV3, and TPV4. It most certainly doesn't qualify as g6, non-controversial, as my very contesting it proves it's controversial. ] 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ====] (closed)==== | |||
| |- | |||
| ⚫ | {| class=" |
||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
| |} | |||
| ⚫ | {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ||
| Line 179: | Line 197: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
| :{{la|Qian Zhijun}} < |
:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]|]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by ], and then ] (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by ] as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. ] <small>]</small> 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by ], and then ] (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by ] as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. ] <small>]</small> 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| ====] (closed)==== | |||
| ⚫ | {| class=" |
||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ||
| Line 197: | Line 212: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
| :{{la|Template:Fur}} < |
:{{la|Template:Fur}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by ] on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD ''if'' at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is ''not'' what was deleted. ] <small>]</small> 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by ] on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD ''if'' at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is ''not'' what was deleted. ] <small>]</small> 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 217: | Line 232: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| ====] (closed)==== | |||
| ⚫ | {| class=" |
||
| |- | |- | ||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ||
| Line 227: | Line 241: | ||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
| :{{lc|Settlements in Kurdistan}} < |
:{{lc|Settlements in Kurdistan}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
| Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. ] demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. ] demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:15, 9 February 2023
< 2007 May 17 Deletion review archives: 2007 May 2007 May 19 >18 May 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was listed at AfD after being on here with a fairly contentious discussion which was closed with the decision to undeleted and list of AfD. The afd was then closed as a delete less than one hour after it was opened, this completely ignoring the decision reached here (I'm not sure I can call it a true consensus, given the degree of contention). IMO this was completely inappropriate. A discussion here resulted in a decision to list on AfD in an attempt to achieve consensus, and the discussion was reclosed without there being enough time for even those who were known to be interested to express a view, much less for consensus to emerge. I am appalled. I call for this to be overturned and not relisted. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination). DES 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
not notable Gerhard1 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was speedy deleted by Radiant! because it "misrepresents policy" (see here). However, this was referring to {{drmmt3}}, and not {{drmmt}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* bv for this unending edit war*cough*) - and as if WP:TEMPLAR didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{trivia}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{NPOV}} without even explaining why. --The Evil Spartan 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm not sure why this page was deleted by Resurgent insurgent in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see . And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept. (note: the original template may also have been located at Template:tpv1, but I think that was a redirect. However, I can't tell without administrator rights: only by looking at the deletion logs) The Evil Spartan 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by User:Daniel.Bryant, and then User:Drini (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by User:Thebainer as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by User:JzG on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD if at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is not what was deleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. WP:V demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". -- Cat 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |