| Revision as of 02:07, 14 June 2007 editCoredesat (talk | contribs)22,795 edits →[]: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:20, 30 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (116 intermediate revisions by 55 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. | ||
| 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}} ~~~~ --> | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{la|Daniel Brandt}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | |||
| Ok, this is what everyone has been dreading- the DRV of the latest Daniel Brandt AfD. I'm really sorry to have to do this. If this had closed as almost any form of keep or delete I wouldn't be doing this, but the current close just doesn't work. The AfD was closed by ] who I give a lot of credit for being willing to close such a difficult AfD. That said, his close has no basis in policy, common sense, AfD consensus, ethics or what is good for Misplaced Pages. The AfD was closed as "complex merge" which it is clear from reading the AfD has no consensus behind it whatsoever (and two prior attempts at similar merges met with clear consensus against them. One is so fresh that it is still on the talk page at ] ) The vast majority of editors wanted it either kept or deleted. A few called for merging and there views were at best ignored. AMIB's logic behind the close which focused on three points was also faulty in at least two regards. First, AMIB asserts that "This article causes Brandt distress, largely because of previous and potential coverage of minor things he'd rather not have discussed in public but which have been mentioned in minor self-published publications Brandt has mostly tried to bury" - to characterize Brandt's distress at soley those issues is inaccurate in the extreme. Brandt has made it clear that he is not happy with any article about him and that indeed he is unhappy with almost any mention of him. Thus, this complex merge does not even solve Brandt's "distress". Furthermore, the problematic material that AMIB refers to is not in the article and can be easily kept out (the only such material I'm aware fails ] anyways). AMIB's claim that "this article cannot hope to be complete, due to incomplete coverage in the sources" hinges on an extreme definition of what constitutes completeness. For no other biography would we consider it fatally incomplete if we had trouble tracking down minor details like the year of the author's birth. All in all, this close does not reflect any consensus, will not satisfy Brandt and should be overturned. ] 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Speedy</s> endorse''' HOLD ON A MINUTE. How about we come to a compromise on the close, instead of ramming articles through PROCESS? Instead of "overturning" this decision, let's all go to the AFD talk page and work something out like civilized people. ] ] 01:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **OH NOES NOT PROCESS. Get a grip. Don't want DRV? Get it right the first time. --] <small>]</small> 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I have a problem with people immediately running articles through DRV without 1) Talking to the closing administrator and 2) simply because they don't like the decision. This did not turn out the way that I wanted it to, but I '''respect''' the judgment of the closing administrator and '''endorse''' this close. ] ] 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****I have problems with people automatically jumping on the "OMG PROCESS" bandwagon while endorsing nonsensical closures. I don't know why I'm replying anyway, since the closure proved that none of our opinions mattered, anyway. --] <small>]</small> 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] has my notes on the close. Regarding "the vast majority of editors wanted it either kept or deleted"; rather than counting the bolded bits of text, I looked at the reasoning advanced by each editor. A simplistic "Okay, five days are up so it's time to close this again with no result" close ill serves this project. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep AMIB's decision''' His is the only way that I can see all parties being happy in some form or another. ] 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Endorsing this close is a matter of formality, for there was nothing wrong with it. There's absolutely nothing in our policy that says the closer must choose between a multitude incompatible suggestions, and good AfD closes have tended to seek a consensual middle ground in much the same way as this one. The problematic article disappears and the information stays. There is no downside. A Man In Black is to be congratulated on producing something that we can all live with. --] 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''. While very few people argued specifically for a merge, this seems to be a reasonable compromise. It won't completely pacify Brandt, but it should alleviate his concerns somewhat, and, in doing so, satisfies the objections the people who suggested deletion had. It keeps much of the content, though, as a concession to the people who wanted it to be kept. It's a difficult AfD, and AMIB's solution is probably the best we can get. --] 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse decision''' - I believe AMIB's closure of the AFD is an intelligent synthesis of the people's opinions — he accounted for ''arguments'' and not ''bolded votes''. That's a good admin right there. (] • ]) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Thoughts? Dumbest closure imaginable, and I was prepared for some dumb ones. But this isn't a DRV situation, somewhat sadly - he wants to merge, so it's an editorial deal. There's obviously no consensus for a merge, so it won't happen, and we move on. --] <small>]</small> 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Scratch that, he protected the redirect. Completely absurd, '''overturn'''. --] <small>]</small> 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***This isn't a vote, Jeff. For our benefit, would you care to explain why "There's obviously no consensus for a merge"? --] (]) 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Can you explain where there is consensus for a merge? Oh, wait, I know, you have to defend the bad closures for the future. Forget it, I'm done commenting here. We're not an encyclopedia anymore. --] <small>]</small> 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:] is as good a place to discuss this as any, as I've used my admin tools to make this close happen, protecting ] as a redirect. | |||
| *:By the way, the dumbest closure possible is "The result was '''BLEEP BLOP BLOOB ZORP.'''" - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, that would be marginally brighter than this. At least that closure would reflect consensus better than this bullshit. --] <small>]</small> 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure''', I swear, I knew this was coming no matter how it was closed. After 14 AFDs, I would think that the time for "process for the sake of process" has long past. I think it was a well-reasoned close and is a good compromise, and is probably as close to not having an article on Brandt (and in turn, pacifying him as Rory096 states) as we will possibly get. --]] 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** This isn't process for the sake of process. This doesn't reflect consensus and as I observe above, we've had two ''nearly identical'' proposals on the Daniel Brandt talk page before. Both were rejected. I think anyone can see that this isn't a good solution given that Daniel Brandt now redirects to one of his various enterprises and doesn't given any hint that he had any involvement with the others. ] 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***If all else fails, that's what ]s are for, and the close statement does include a sentence about discussing what to do with the actual ] article space. --]] 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''. This was a thoughtful balancing of the various positions expressed, going to the core of the arguments made to consider whether there was a compatible position incorporating the different objectives. --] (]) 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| *'''Possibly endorse merge, but not protection of redirect''' I believe that merging actually may turn out to be the best decision, but it is an editorial one. If AMIB wishes to make such an editorial decision, he ], and I am glad to see that someone's trying to be inventive here. However, others are free to disagree with that decision-but with protection, not to reverse it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| *'''Overturn''' and '''delete''' (first choice) or '''relist''' (second choice) or '''appoint an agreed upon committee to make a decision one way or the other''' (third choice) - wholly inappropriate decision on many levels. First off, there was no consensus for such a decision. When you have a Really Great Idea (tm) on how to do something, the way to see it happen is to propose it and come up with a consensus for it. Why even have AFD if we're just going to impose a predetermined result? Next, there are procedural problems with this close. Nothing good can come from keeping the history around. The article has been often vandalized. It will continue to be a source of angst and division as long as it remains in any form. It would be much better to copy/paste the sources somewhere and create ] or anything else from scratch, if there is community consensus that such an article should even exist. --] 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ''']''' – Speedy endorse. No procedural prroblems, clear consensus that this should not be overturned, and considering the fact that most of the List of... cruft has been deleted. – ''']]''' 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> | |||
| *: Don't ask the Arbitration Committee to make a content decision. They won't. --] 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| *::Ok ... I don't really care who ... just someone needs to make a decision (switched to "agreed upon committee")--] 02:01, 14 June 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>'' | |||
| *::: That's what we're doing now: making a decision. --] 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
| :{{la|List of celebrities who were obese in childhood}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | |||
| This should not have been deleted, as it's not "listcruft" (what a wacked-out term ''that'' is!) and it doesn't violate ] either. It wasn't original research, and it should be undeleted because there '''ARE''' sources that assert the fact the people listed were obese in childhood. This article should be undeleted, relisted and sent to a wider forum for discussion - it's not remotely controversial, let alone a violation of any policy. ] 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *People need to actually read ] ... the argument that there is notable information about the events in Brandt's life has been addressed by keeping the information, and the argument that there is not enough information to write a good bio of someone who is only marginally notable ''as a person'' at best, has been addressed by not having the article '''endorse brilliant closure''' and slap Jeff with a trout for his out of line remarks here. '''DISendorse''' the very existance of a DRV on this brought before the ink even dried. And full marks to AMiB for taking on a very challenging close. ++]: ]/] 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' as just plain ''wrong''. I could see a ''category'' such as "Formerly Obese Celebrities" or something (assuming the claims were sourced) but a list as an encyclopedic article seems to violate ] and ]. -] 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Out of line? Only thing I see out of line is numerous endorsements of further middle fingers to the opinions of the community. --] <small>]</small> 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' Even if the BLP speedy deletion may be questionable (and I don't have the article history to examine this), it is beyond question that the subject of the article is a bad idea. Some users raised ] and ] in the discussion, and I would add ]. ]] 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Jeff come on here, no offense, but you can't win them all. ] 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Per what defines "celebrity". Also, pointless. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Agreed. Whining about the closure to everyone endorsing it (as well as about them) doesn't help your case to get it overturned, if that's what you're trying to do. It only strengthens the case against you at RFAR. --]] 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' |
*'''Endorse''' ], ], ]. This is canonical listcruft. When policy and consensus are this clear waiting 5 days to delete is pointless (and potetially detrimental). ] 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse''' how do we define obese? Let alone, how do we define fat? Anyways, my point is along the same lines as Kwsn. Plus, it is a hornets nest for BLP violations. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', what would be the encyclopedic merit of such an article, even (and I'm not at all convinced this is even possible) if it were written without writing ], ], and ] all at a shot? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''List of lists that should be kept deleted''' --] 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly endorse deletion''' per all above, completely useless and unencyclopedic, plus "celebrity" is a subjective term. Inherently brings up ] issues. --]] 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong endorse''', inherent BLP landmine. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per N, really - it is just ''wrong''. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per the many reasons given above - BLP concerns, trivial information, OR problems, but hey, this is DRV, so it's sufficient to say "consensus was clear, no procedural problems with this deletion". ] • ] 16:39, 15 June 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>'' | |||
| :{{la|Xiaxue}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | |||
| |} | |||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for ], a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. {{unsigned|January2007}} | |||
| |- | |||
| *'''Endorse''' this sounds like a ] argument. -] 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| * ''']''' – Deletion endorsed – ]] 01:03, 19 June 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;" | | |||
| :{{li|QueenSky.jpg}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | |||
| Book cover, with notable photo, used in article covering author's being fired for publication of said photo and subsequent writing of book (the title of the book, ] is a redirect to the author's bio). Since book covers are considered quasi-automatic fair use when discussing the book, and the cover photo itself is also mentioned in the article I fail to see how this fails fair use. -] 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| *'''Question''' If the book "article" redirects to the author article, and the article substantially discusses the book, is there precedent that we don't consider that sufficient fair use? Does the position of the photo matter, i.e. if it were in a section about the book instead of at the top? If a book article with an image were merged with the author article does the cover become automatically unfair? Or was this simply a case failing to have a well-argued rationale? --] | ] 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{la|List of Dragon Ball special abilities}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>|</tt>]<tt>)</tt> | |||
| **Well... the article is mostly about the events that lead up to the writing of the book. Talking about the book itself would be duplicative of this material (the book is basically her story or in other words the story of the writing of the book, if you get my drift). I'm not sure if the article could be re-written to give more weight to the book itself. I'm not sure about the rationale, I suppose I should have looked at that better *before* the deletion. -] 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''', fair use book cover can't be used on article about author. Unless she's dead, somebody could, some day, get a photo of her, and that could be used on her article. ] 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **As I've said, the author's biography is basically the story of the book. You cannot separate the two. The picture is not being used to show what she looks like, it a) shows the book she wrote and b) shows the photo Delta fired her for. -] 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *The article the image supports is basically about how the subject got fired from her workplace, Delta airlines, for blogging and for photos placed on her blog; E.S. is famous for that; that is why there is an article about her. After being fired, she wrote the book (this image is the book cover) based on her blog. The image shows her on an airplane, one of the photos that got her fired, the title of her blog, and the book that resulted from the blog. The title of the book is also the title of her blog. In short, the image is a many-purpose illustration for the article, and it seems to me to be an ideal illustration. I can't say I understand the nuances of wikipedia image policy, but to me the deletion of this image seems quite strange. Far better to keep the image, but perhaps add a caption that tells what is going on with the image. ] 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' image deletion. The subject's primary notability is not from the book. It is from the larger issues about employer rights over employee blog content. — ] ] 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse'''. Image was not being used for critical commentary of the book. The same picture, without the book cover, would probably pass FU, and is available on the same blog. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:That hurts my brain, especially in regard to ]. Someone (possibly her) gets revenue from blog hits. Taking the original image and putting it on Misplaced Pages can be seen to damage the commercial opportunities in that respect. Using the book cover, on the other hand, does less damage to commercial opportunities, since, the book cover is "out there" because it may incite someone to buy the book. -] 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse''' as closing admin. The book's title (as seen in ]) is ''Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog''. It does not appear to be redirected in any way to her article. According to the article, ] (which does redirect) is her ''nom de plume''. The entire content of her article discussing the book appears to me to be in the last sentence which reads (without footnotes), "Simonetti has written articles for the news media including ''The New York Times'' and CNET, adapted her blog to a published book, and now works in real estate." Mentioning the book in the article is not enough to establish fair use. The image had no rationale for it's usage in the article, although it was uploaded in April 2007. Since Simonetti works in real estate, it should not be overly difficult to obtain a free image or to request that she release one under terms that would allow it's use without fair use justification. ~ ]] 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks for taking the time to state the reasons for the deletion. I think I see what the issue is now; ya learn something new everyday on wikipedia! ] 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made {{unsigned|January2007}} | |||
| | 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>'' | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. ]. Article was listed for just a few hours short of the full 5 days, and somehow I doubt 3 extra voters would have appeared in that time to swing the numbers. This endorsement is, of course, without prejudice should someone find any reliable third party coverage of the topic. -] 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| * '''Zelda Classic''' – "Zelda Classic is a free fan-made computer game program based on the NES console game The Legend of Zelda." And the requester has no other edits. Enough said. – <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:21, 14 June 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;" | | |||
| :{{la|Zelda Classic}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | |||
| New links to address deletion issues were provided in the page recreation, but page was "speedy deleted" as spam, possibly due to the time frame from the original deletion and the recreation. ] 14:02, 14 June 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>'' | |||
| |} | |||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| * ''']''' – Undeleted, rationale and source added – ]] 01:03, 19 June 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;" | | |||
| :{{li|America album.jpg}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | |||
| Deleted because no fair-use rationale was given. Since it's an album cover that ''does'' have a proper fair-use rationale, and since I'm not able to find a suitable quality image to use, I'll gladly provide said rationale. ] 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Undeleted so that you can write said rationale. I suggest you be quick about it, and remember that we need a source for the image as well, which appears to be missing on first glance. -- '']']'' 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''', now that rationale has been provided. Fair use seems to be adequately stated; this is an album cover, and a fairly well-known one at that. It would be absurd to claim that reproducing the album cover in an article about the album would hurt the label's ability to sell the album. ] 15:28, 16 June 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>'' | |||
| |} | |||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
| * ''']''' – Closure endorsed – ] 05:10, 19 June 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;" | | |||
| Please see: ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | 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;" | | |||
| * ''']''' – Undeleted, now at ] – ]] 01:01, 19 June 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;" | | |||
| :{{la|Xiaxue}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | |||
| Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for ], a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *<s>'''Endorse''' this sounds like a ] argument. -] 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
| Since both are notable for their blogging activities and the Dawn Yang article is more encyclopedic in nature, a more encyclopedic entry can be written about Xiaxue that is not based mostly on POV. However, please note that the reason that lead to deletion, "it is unencyclopedic" is also listed on the "arguments to avoid" page. Therefore, the article's deletion is questionable. - ] | |||
| :Another admin, ], undeleted the article per my request on IRC. Having won several prestigious blogging awards and been frequently mentioned in the Singaporean press, Xiaxue's clearly notable. A post on her blog, dated 11 June, indicates that she is unhappy with the deletion. I e-mailed her to notify her that the article has been undeleted; she replied requesting I help her rewrite the article. All I need is someone with Newslink who will e-mail me lots of Straits Times/New Paper articles on her, and I can start rewriting the article based on information found in the newspaper articles. --] 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recommend close''' article is already undeleted and AfD is already underway. -] 13:46, 17 June 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>'' | |||
| |} | |||
| {| 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 – ]] 01:02, 19 June 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;" | | |||
| :{{la|List of Dragon Ball special abilities}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | |||
| AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. ]. Article was listed for just a few hours short of the full 5 days, and somehow I doubt 3 extra voters would have appeared in that time to swing the numbers. This endorsement is, of course, without prejudice should someone find any reliable third party coverage of the topic. -] 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **AFD proposals are not opinion polls. Voting is irrelevent. At any rate, "third party coverage" is, in this case, synonomous with "fan coverage". Thus it is impossible to use as a source.--] 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***I said "reliable". -] 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Based on that argument, there's not cause to overturn.--] - ] 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **The main reason for the creation of the list page was so that the information could be moved out of the character pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dragon_Ball_special_abilities for a more detailed explanation. | |||
| *The article's primary source is the Dragon Ball/Z/GT manga and anime. Which, as far as I know, is considered a reliable source.--] 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Per ]. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 05:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **So how does that apply?--] 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***It's probably the reason it was deleted, and the reason it should stay deleted. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''', sound closing judgment, problems identified with the article were real and not addressed either here or in the AfD. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Weak overturn ] the list's material is to be merged elsewhere. If I'm misunderstanding Marhawkman's comments above</s>, (which I did, on first read) then '''endorse''' as there will be no GFDL violation. -- '']']'' 13:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', if the article's only source is the manga and anime, but no third-party reliable sources have covered the subject, we shouldn't have a full article as that would be ]. Fan Wikias tend to allow that type of thing, such an article would probably be a better bet there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion'''. It's silly to suggest that the closure was improper because it didn't wait ''exactly'' 5 days. ] • ] 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' the consensus demonstrated by the AfD. Process is the servant of consnsus not vice versa. ] 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' it was closed after 4 days instead of 5. But only one person had posted a keep rationale by then, & it wasn't a very strong one--it amounted to keep because this stuff is so little known that this is the only source, & I've done a lot of work on it. No reason to think anything more would have appeared--a trivial violation not affecting the result. But the closer should learn not to close early, because waiting another day would have avoided all this fuss. ''']''' 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' I really think a reasonable article on this should be possible, but I wholeheartedly dismiss the undeletion reasoning presented by the nominator: the AFD being closed a day early matters not a whit. We aren't a beaurocracy, and we don't override consensus because of a matter of hours. ] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I didn't post an undeletion reasoning. I should have, but I was in a hurry. It's going to be a long one.... | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| The article fulfills the criteria of both of those. | |||
| How? Reliable sources DO NOT need to be third party. Sourcing the anime and manga is permissable by Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| Original research is defined as: | |||
| An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: | |||
| It introduces a theory or method of solution; | |||
| It introduces original ideas; | |||
| It defines new terms; | |||
| It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; | |||
| It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; | |||
| It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; | |||
| It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. | |||
| None of those applies to the deleted article as a whole. | |||
| ] | |||
| That got thrown around as the primary reason for deletion both times, and yet has nothing to do with the article. | |||
| Why? There are ten things listed in there and this isn't one of them. | |||
| ] | |||
| That got thrown around a lot in both AFD, but is at best slander. | |||
| Why? Well it basically states that the article violates one of the above mentioned policies.--] 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' ] applies, and to have this kind of an article, you not only need primary sources, but reliable secondary sources as well. See ]. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">]] -</span> ])</span> 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Could you explain why you think ] applies? I read it. I don't see any reason at all. Also ] does NOT say anything about a requirement of secondary sources.--] 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Perhaps ] is the best link. People often throw around policy links for the general principles they stand for rather than their exact wording. As a general rule details about fictional worlds only verifiable from the fiction itself and not covered in reliable third party sources are deleted. This may or may not be clearly written down in any specific policy or guideline page (they are editable by anyone too) but is firmly established practice. ] 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****"This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The subject HAS fulfilled that requirement. However the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from those sources. As far as I know there is no rule that requires this.--] 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****The relevant topic isn't Dragon Ball in general but rather this specific article. If the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from reliable sources it will be deleted per ] or ]. ] 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******Um, Notability requires secondary sources. However Reliable sources are not necessarily secondary. the article is composed of information that would be considered derived from a Primary source.--] 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *******Generally, looking at a primary source and interpreting it oneself is ], which is prohibited. If secondary sources are not available to which such interpretations can be attributed, we should not have the article. That's why sources independent of the article's subject are required. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *there's a fine line between research and original research. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. " Note Where it says "unpublished". That's the distinction between research and original research. This was just a collation of things published and organized for easy reference.--] 01:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per all reasons said above. ] | |||
| *'''Endorse.''' Just because the debate didn't last five days doesn't mean it should be overturned. ] 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per User:N. --] 05:16, 16 June 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>'' | |||
| |} | |||
Latest revision as of 12:20, 30 January 2023
< 2007 June 13 Deletion review archives: 2007 June 2007 June 15 >14 June 2007
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This should not have been deleted, as it's not "listcruft" (what a wacked-out term that is!) and it doesn't violate Biographies of living persons either. It wasn't original research, and it should be undeleted because there ARE sources that assert the fact the people listed were obese in childhood. This article should be undeleted, relisted and sent to a wider forum for discussion - it's not remotely controversial, let alone a violation of any policy. Gleggsord 19:12, 14 June 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. |
|
Book cover, with notable photo, used in article covering author's being fired for publication of said photo and subsequent writing of book (the title of the book, Queen of Sky is a redirect to the author's bio). Since book covers are considered quasi-automatic fair use when discussing the book, and the cover photo itself is also mentioned in the article I fail to see how this fails fair use. -N 18:12, 14 June 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. |
New links to address deletion issues were provided in the page recreation, but page was "speedy deleted" as spam, possibly due to the time frame from the original deletion and the recreation. DarkNation AG 14:02, 14 June 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. |
|
Deleted because no fair-use rationale was given. Since it's an album cover that does have a proper fair-use rationale, and since I'm not able to find a suitable quality image to use, I'll gladly provide said rationale. fuzzy510 03:18, 14 June 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. |
|
Please see: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2 |
| 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. |
Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for Dawn_Yang, a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)
Since both are notable for their blogging activities and the Dawn Yang article is more encyclopedic in nature, a more encyclopedic entry can be written about Xiaxue that is not based mostly on POV. However, please note that the reason that lead to deletion, "it is unencyclopedic" is also listed on the "arguments to avoid" page. Therefore, the article's deletion is questionable. - January2007
|
| 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. |
AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Misplaced Pages:No original research The article fulfills the criteria of both of those. How? Reliable sources DO NOT need to be third party. Sourcing the anime and manga is permissable by Misplaced Pages policy. Original research is defined as: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. None of those applies to the deleted article as a whole. Misplaced Pages:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information That got thrown around as the primary reason for deletion both times, and yet has nothing to do with the article. Why? There are ten things listed in there and this isn't one of them. Misplaced Pages:Fancruft That got thrown around a lot in both AFD, but is at best slander. Why? Well it basically states that the article violates one of the above mentioned policies.--Marhawkman 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |