Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 29: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:44, 30 December 2008 editDavidwr (talk | contribs)50,107 edits →Adult-child sex: *'''Create and lock a disambiguation page'''← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:46, 19 February 2023 edit undoSheepLinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots50,297 editsm fix font tags linter errorsTag: AWB 
(50 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{| width = "100%" {| width = "100%"
|- |-
! width=20% align=left | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> ] ! width=20% align=left | <span style="color:gray;">&lt;</span> ]
! width=60% align=center | ]: ] ! width=60% align=center | ]: ]
! width=20% align=right | ] <font color="gray">&gt;</font> ! width=20% align=right | ] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
|} |}
</div></noinclude> </div></noinclude>
Line 12: Line 12:


Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGENAME|ns=NAMESPACE of page (optional)|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGENAME|ns=NAMESPACE of page (optional)|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->
⚫ {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
====]====
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* ''']''' – No consensus close endorsed for now. The consensus below is clearly that, in this case, the rationale for AfD3 was not sufficient to constitute a new debate separate from AfD2, and also that AfD2 was closed correctly (these are two different things of course). My own feeling--which has been supported somewhat inconsistently but frequently on DRV in the past--is that a no consensus AfD can be relisted again at any time by any user as long as the nomination rationale is significantly different (and, of course, a strong rationale regardless). The issue of time is (I think quite clearly if you think it through) not nearly as important as the issue of the rationale--the "three month rule" (which has not been and should not be strictly applied anyway) only applies if the passage of time is itself cited as an issue in the nomination. AfD3 in this case is not up to that standard, so I don't see the purpose in reopening it--if someone has a better argument to make, make it. Sceptre states correctly below that MGM should not have been the one to close this, but that is also not in itself sufficient cause to overturn. As a general rule, speedy closes are discouraged if there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides. If an editor makes a sensible, well-reasoned nomination of this article in the future, admins are strongly encouraged to let it run its course. – ] 03:49, 4 January 2009 (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;" |


{{drvlinks|pg=BrokeNCYDE|ns=Article}}<tt>)</tt> {{drvlinks|pg=BrokeNCYDE|ns=Article}}<tt>)</tt> (]) | (])


The original article was Speedy'd 7 times. The page was then recreated with "references." These references turned out to be nothing more than myspace, youtube, and blog links. The two Afds failed due to no-consensus as one user would come on and say keep, provide the same links, and other users who would not pay close attention would just agree and take that users word for it. Searching has found no valid sources that can withstand WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. {{unsigned|HooperBandP}} 23:29, 29 December 2008 The original article was Speedy'd 7 times. The page was then recreated with "references." These references turned out to be nothing more than myspace, youtube, and blog links. The two Afds failed due to no-consensus as one user would come on and say keep, provide the same links, and other users who would not pay close attention would just agree and take that users word for it. Searching has found no valid sources that can withstand WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 23:29, 29 December 2008
::'''Note''': I was the admin who closed the latest nomination. Hooper may be a bit unclear here, but he's challenging the closure before mine. - ]|] 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ::'''Note1''': I was the admin who closed the latest nomination. Hooper may be a bit unclear here, but he's challenging the closure before mine. - ]|] 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::'''Note2''': AfD1 was closed as delete on 24 November 2008. SoWhy closed AfD2 as no consensus on 26 December 2008. AfD3 was out of process speedy closed on 29 December 2008. -- ] ] 19:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Endorse AFD closures''' -- references to coverage of this band in third-party reliable sources were provided in ]. The question of whether the coverage is significant is to be decided by community consensus, which should not be gainsaid by the closing administrator. Where, as here, there was no consensus as to significance of coverage, an AFD closure to that effect is appropriate. ] was correctly closed as speedy keep due to the fact that it was initiated a mere three days after the closure of the previous AFD discussion; it is inappropriate to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until once, by sheer fortuity, the desired result is reached. ] 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse AFD closures''' -- references to coverage of this band in third-party reliable sources were provided in ]. The question of whether the coverage is significant is to be decided by community consensus, which should not be gainsaid by the closing administrator. Where, as here, there was no consensus as to significance of coverage, an AFD closure to that effect is appropriate. ] was correctly closed as speedy keep due to the fact that it was initiated a mere three days after the closure of the previous AFD discussion; it is inappropriate to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until once, by sheer fortuity, the desired result is reached. ] 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse 3rd AFD''' because, well you can't as John says renominate something 3 days after it was kept at a prior AFD. A couple of months is the bare minimum to wait. '''Endorse 2nd AFD'''. Several Delete votes were flawed, i.e. arguing thet URB isn't a reliable source, it clearly is as the on-line version of an established magazine, or that the URB source was a blog and therefore ineligible. Blogs can be accepted as RSs in only very limited circumstances but one circumstance is a blog by an established journalist or other subject expert. The URB blog was by Joshua Glazer who appears to be Editor & Content Director at URB Magazine & URB.com . To my mind that does give his entry sufficient weight to be a reliable source for establishing notability but this is only one of the required multiple. On the Keep side the overall quality of the sourcing was totally overstated. In a poor quality discussion where the participants were not fully arguing points against policy/guidelines, "no consensus" is a reasonable outcome although I personally would have preferred to extend the discussion and requested further input into the sourcing. This is probably a case where Chubbles might be able to help research the sourcing but I haven't seen them around recently. I'll drop them a line and ask them to look at this one. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse 3rd AFD''' because, well you can't as John says renominate something 3 days after it was kept at a prior AFD. A couple of months is the bare minimum to wait. '''Endorse 2nd AFD'''. Several Delete votes were flawed, i.e. arguing thet URB isn't a reliable source, it clearly is as the on-line version of an established magazine, or that the URB source was a blog and therefore ineligible. Blogs can be accepted as RSs in only very limited circumstances but one circumstance is a blog by an established journalist or other subject expert. The URB blog was by Joshua Glazer who appears to be Editor & Content Director at URB Magazine & URB.com . To my mind that does give his entry sufficient weight to be a reliable source for establishing notability but this is only one of the required multiple. On the Keep side the overall quality of the sourcing was totally overstated. In a poor quality discussion where the participants were not fully arguing points against policy/guidelines, "no consensus" is a reasonable outcome although I personally would have preferred to extend the discussion and requested further input into the sourcing. This is probably a case where Chubbles might be able to help research the sourcing but I haven't seen them around recently. I'll drop them a line and ask them to look at this one. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Line 23: Line 31:
*'''Endorse 3rd Nom (Speedy keep), overturn 2nd AfD''' unless a more substantial article can be found to reference the band. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse 3rd Nom (Speedy keep), overturn 2nd AfD''' unless a more substantial article can be found to reference the band. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Speedy Keep''' Here's the deal. Brokencyde are a MySpace breakout band with a massive, very young, grass-roots fanbase. They're playing a blend of ] and ] that is, at this very moment, becoming a new fad. In other words, they're what ] were six months ago. They are very new in terms of popularity; they signed to a well-known label, but have just put out their first EP on that label. Of late they started touring nationally (and, very soon, the UK) with a bunch of very popular scene bands (e.g. ] and ]). They're currently making the rounds on the blog circuit, and the blogs of a bunch of respected publications are paying attention, mostly to make fun of them (that's what adults do, to teenage music). For instance, '']'' provides a spot-on, if vitriolic, overview: , ]'s noticed: , and so did the '']'': . Offline, I can say that I just got the Feb '09 issue of '']'' in the mail, and they mention BrokenCyde at least twice, though not in a feature; AP has also done a news story on their tour with ]. The decisions, from this point, are mostly based upon the biases of editors involved; deletionists will claim, "these are blogs, no good as sources. Flash in the pan, not encyclopedic", while inclusionists will claim, "enough reliable sources to demonstrate the group's significance". I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye; this is as borderline as it gets. What I can state, without any hesitation, is that if this does go "delete", we will be back here in a few months (or a few weeks) to unsalt it. Knowing how these things tend to go...I guess I'll see you back then. But I hope I don't have to. ] (]) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse Speedy Keep''' Here's the deal. Brokencyde are a MySpace breakout band with a massive, very young, grass-roots fanbase. They're playing a blend of ] and ] that is, at this very moment, becoming a new fad. In other words, they're what ] were six months ago. They are very new in terms of popularity; they signed to a well-known label, but have just put out their first EP on that label. Of late they started touring nationally (and, very soon, the UK) with a bunch of very popular scene bands (e.g. ] and ]). They're currently making the rounds on the blog circuit, and the blogs of a bunch of respected publications are paying attention, mostly to make fun of them (that's what adults do, to teenage music). For instance, '']'' provides a spot-on, if vitriolic, overview: , ]'s noticed: , and so did the '']'': . Offline, I can say that I just got the Feb '09 issue of '']'' in the mail, and they mention BrokenCyde at least twice, though not in a feature; AP has also done a news story on their tour with ]. The decisions, from this point, are mostly based upon the biases of editors involved; deletionists will claim, "these are blogs, no good as sources. Flash in the pan, not encyclopedic", while inclusionists will claim, "enough reliable sources to demonstrate the group's significance". I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye; this is as borderline as it gets. What I can state, without any hesitation, is that if this does go "delete", we will be back here in a few months (or a few weeks) to unsalt it. Knowing how these things tend to go...I guess I'll see you back then. But I hope I don't have to. ] (]) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is ]? Exactly. We can't just keep stuff on here ]. ] (]) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) :*Who is ]? Exactly. We can't just keep stuff on here ]. ] (]) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:I ''Knew'' someone would say that! However, it should be clear that my opinion does not rest on ] at all, but is based on present status, along with an outlook towards ]. And if you want to know who I Set My Friends On Fire are, you can now read the article! ] (]) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ::*I ''Knew'' someone would say that! However, it should be clear that my opinion does not rest on ] at all, but is based on present status, along with an outlook towards ]. And if you want to know who I Set My Friends On Fire are, you can now read the article! ] (]) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article, that particular band to me at least appears to have just recently been deserving of an article, and I don't label myself a deletionist usually. '''If''' this BrokeNCYDE get to that point, then great for them, and I'm sure they'll be plenty more people by then willing to write up an even better article. But as it stands, it shouldn't be here, regardless of the wiki-bureaucracy of how the AfDs work or dont work. ] (]) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) :::*Looking at the article, that particular band to me at least appears to have just recently been deserving of an article, and I don't label myself a deletionist usually. '''If''' this BrokeNCYDE get to that point, then great for them, and I'm sure they'll be plenty more people by then willing to write up an even better article. But as it stands, it shouldn't be here, regardless of the wiki-bureaucracy of how the AfDs work or dont work. ] (]) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' AfD2 and AfD3. Sources, though non-standard, are reasonable. Certainly no consensus to delete can be found in those discussions. ] (]) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse AfD2 no consensus''' as the present consensus. The article was recreated on 19 December 2008, less than a month after it was deleted on 24 November 2008. Yet, the article was not G4 speedy deleted and AfD2 was left open to completion. It seems reasonable to conclude that the 19 December 2008 recreation was not substantially identical to the deleted version and the changes in the recreated page addressed the reasons for which the material was deleted. Chubbles comment above, "I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye," seem a good characterization of AfD2, and supports the idea that a no consensus close was within the closer's discretion. Three months is a typical rule of thumb between bringing a new AfD after a keep close. Less than three months is a typical rule of thumb between bringing a new AfD after a no consensus close. Perhaps the question is whether enough time has passed since the no consensus AfD close for there to be changes in circumstances that would benefit from a new deletion discussion. Three days is not enough to cite passage-of-time as a basis for bringing AfD3 and nothing new was cited in the AfD3 listing that wasn't already discussed in AfD2. The AfD3 speedy close was correct. In sum, endorse AfD2 no consensus. -- ] ] 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
====]====
*'''Overturn or relist''' - those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Mgm cited process as a reason to close it, but he voted to ''keep'' in AFD2. Closing an AFD in the way that you've voted for is against process in itself. The way the discussion was going, it was veering into deletion territory. And by the way, there is no minimum waiting period on nominating an article for deletion; especially one that closed as no consensus. Yes, it should've gone to DRV. But at the same time, nomination #3 was not disruptive, had 4:2 split for deletion, the nominator wasn't banned, it's not a policy/guideline, it's not linked on the mainpage, and it's in the right forum. No reason to speedy close at all. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <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; text-align:left;" |
* ''']''' – Userfying to ]. Can be recreated only if thoroughly rewritten for neutrality and reliable sourcing. Even if rewritten, it will of course be subject to listing at ] at any time by any editor, like any other article. – ] 20:26, 4 January 2009 (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;" |


{{drvlinks|pg=HomeSeer|ns=Article}}<tt>)</tt> {{drvlinks|pg=HomeSeer|ns=Article}}<tt>)</tt>
Line 37: Line 57:
**:Well, the "new message" tab at the top sticks out to me (as well ]'s instruction not to send him an email), and it's a little hard to understand how you managed to comprehend how to make a listing here but you couldn't perform the much easier task of leaving a talk page message. **:Well, the "new message" tab at the top sticks out to me (as well ]'s instruction not to send him an email), and it's a little hard to understand how you managed to comprehend how to make a listing here but you couldn't perform the much easier task of leaving a talk page message.
**:Leaving that aside, I would '''overturn''' the deletion. While the article was not the best in terms of ], it didn't constitute advertising in my opinion and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion for any other reason. It may possibly be deleted at AFD, but that remains to be seen. If this is restored, I recommend removing most of the external links. ] (]) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) **:Leaving that aside, I would '''overturn''' the deletion. While the article was not the best in terms of ], it didn't constitute advertising in my opinion and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion for any other reason. It may possibly be deleted at AFD, but that remains to be seen. If this is restored, I recommend removing most of the external links. ] (]) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*I was never contacted about this until right now. I just looked at the article and in my opinion is advertising for a product/service. A timeline of all the advancements in the product, why the product is good etc with no neutrality and cited from its own website. Pretty sure that is advertising. I think speedy deletion was the proper course of action but you alla re welcome to review it for yourself. Thanks. ]] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *I was never contacted about this until right now. I just looked at the article and in my opinion is advertising for a product/service. A timeline of all the advancements in the product, why the product is good etc with no neutrality and cited from its own website. Pretty sure that is advertising. I think speedy deletion was the proper course of action but you alla re welcome to review it for yourself. Thanks. ]] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Permit recreation ''', but only ''if there are third party reviews of the product''--I suspect there may be some . The intrinsic importance of technology is not he concern, its the recognition of it that gives rise to notability. ''']''' (]) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
====]====
*'''Overturn''' or at least '''userfy'''. I am not convinved that the version deleted fit the criteria of 'blatant advertising' but instead could have just been edited to prune/remove the features list which was was the worst part imo. I have done a bit of a web search and found 3 reviews which might possibly me of use in establishing notability - , (pay article) and so think there is possible potential for an article here therefore we should give the creator a chance to make it into a reasonable article. ] (]) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and list at AfD. I can't see the article, but it sounds debatable and sources seem to exist. ] (]) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''What Now?''' Thank you for the discussion. If it was not already obvious, I am new to the Misplaced Pages environment - I am familiar with Wiki, but not the whole Misplaced Pages culture. This is why I did not write on the Talk page for Chrislk02 - I was panicked about losing all of the work and his page said not to email him with stupid questions about pages that should obviously be deleted. I simply did not think to use it in the context of a person's communication page. I am happy to remove the features section - I wrote it as a stream of consciousness as you can tell by the fact that there are no references, but removing it altogether is fine too. So what is the next step? ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Deletion reviews last approximately five days then an uninvolved admin will make a decision based on the discussion what the appropriate action is. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I don't know what the article looked like, but the above DRV request is advertisy. HomeSeer is "unique". But not just unique, "unique in many ways". Plus, "they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is". The company as news and the rest of their website is dripping with promotion language. They do look like a good group of guys, but if you decide to continue writing the article, you will need to step away from any interest in the company and write the material from a neutral view. You'll save everyone a lot of work if you do. The HomeSeer article has nothing to do with HomeSeer's view of itself or what it has to offer and has everything to do with what third party ] are writing about the company. You should avoid using any information from the HomeSeer website or press releases in the article. Use information from , , and articles. To get an idea as to what the article should look like, look at some of the articles listed at ]. If you need help with putting the article together, you can try posting a note at ], ], or ]. -- ] ] 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Response''' - Thank you - that is the intention of the article. I am (obviously) a newbie, and I thought the emphasis was in having a source for citation, and did not realize that citing the HomeSeer website was a bad move. I will try to find media related sources, but it may be difficult in some cases because most of the media where HomeSeer appears is commercial in nature because, quite frankly, home automation is rarely mainstream enough for the typical media. Occasionally you get a public interest article discussing home automation, but it is almost always mentioning the big/expensive players in the market, and usually ignores the low-end (DIY) market. I have not read up on the Sandbox yet, but is that the place where I could develop the page under the scrutiny of some admins before it is published? Is there a way to do that? ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::*Use ] to create a draft article. Also, don't write the article and then find sourcing to justify the text. Let the reliable source material tell the story. There's information at , , and articles. Go through each source one at a time, chronologically, and build the article sourced sentence by sourced sentence. -- ] ] 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <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; text-align:left;" |
* ''']''' – Deletion endorsed. I can't see any consensus on where a redirect should point and there is no overwhelming consensus on the disambiguation page either. Suggest users use the talk page to garner a clear consensus on this point. – ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:46, 5 January 2009 (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;" |
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs & DRVs for this article and related pages:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex}}</ul> <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs & DRVs for this article and related pages:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex}}</ul>


Line 57: Line 96:
::*If there are scientific sources documenting historic information of when and where this was accepted (unrelated to the recent pro-pedophelia movement) I think a viable article can be written. Can you point to such sources or perhaps even provide a draft article?- ]|] 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ::*If there are scientific sources documenting historic information of when and where this was accepted (unrelated to the recent pro-pedophelia movement) I think a viable article can be written. Can you point to such sources or perhaps even provide a draft article?- ]|] 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
'''''Clarification''' This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation.'' __] (]) 09:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC) '''''Clarification''' This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation.'' __] (]) 09:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting''' - Per Meco's comments above. ]] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting''' - Per Meco's comments above. ]] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion but un-SALT the page''', to see if people can bring their proposed content in-line to be acceptable by the community. It ''has'' been 11 months since the 2nd AfD took place. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse deletion but un-SALT the page''', to see if people can bring their proposed content in-line to be acceptable by the community. It ''has'' been 11 months since the 2nd AfD took place. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting''' - The many reasons and repeated consensus to delete and salt this article are listed in the six AfD/MfD/DRV's linked in the info box above. --] (]) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting''' - The many reasons and repeated consensus to delete and salt this article are listed in the six AfD/MfD/DRV's linked in the info box above. --] (]) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


*'''Create and lock a disambiguation page''' that is as neutral as possible given ]. '''With 300+ results in a Google Scholar search,''' including usages that predate the Web, having the term come up red at Misplaced Pages risks becoming "Misplaced Pages is censored" POV in and of itself. I recommend that administrators who are active ''as editors'' in sexuality, child-abuse, or censorship articles, xfds, and deletion-reviews defer to disinterested, neutral administrators when it comes to what should be on the dab page. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC) *'''Create and lock a disambiguation page''' that is as neutral as possible given ]. '''With 300+ results in a Google Scholar search,''' including usages that predate the Web, having the term come up red at Misplaced Pages risks becoming "Misplaced Pages is censored" POV in and of itself. I recommend that administrators who are active ''as editors'' in sexuality, child-abuse, or censorship articles, xfds, and deletion-reviews defer to disinterested, neutral administrators when it comes to what should be on the dab page. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Why don't we just create a redirect to ] and leave it protected? ] (]) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Unfortunately, a single redirect, just as a salted missing article, will introduce a POV. In a perfect world, we could do a dab page with big honking 72-point bold font to ] with a normal-size link to ] and a tiny 5-point link to ]. That would follow the spirit of ], ], and ]. Actually, I may have those font sizes wrong, but in any case, they should reflect how the word is actually used. Maybe, if it's mostly used by pro-pedophile activists, pro-pedophile activism should be the prominent link. In any case, we can't do multiple-sized fonts, so the best we can do is probably a dab page with a short introductory text explaining why the page is locked, with 2 or 3 links, with the most popular use first. Does anyone actually '''know''' the most common usages of the term off-wiki? Whatever it is, that should guide the use here. But definitely lock it down. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


*'''Create protected redirect''' to ], as reflecting general contemporary opinion and laws. There is an infobox in that article with links to associated topics. Problem solved. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Addition: Possibly with a hatnote like: "Adult-child sex, a term used in ], redirects here", but that is an editorial matter to be resolved by the editors of that article. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
====] (closed)====

⚫ {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
*'''Comment''' in response to Sandstein and others who favor any redirect: This issue is difficult because Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect the off-Wiki world when it comes to POV: Nazis are bad, mom is good, etc. However, based on comments above and Google Scholar searches, I gather the '''literal words''' "adult-child sex," when used in print are used by pro-pedophile activists or in criticisms of pro-pedophile activism which quote those activists. This would normally mean it should redirect to ] if that were the only usage. Likewise, the English-world '''concept''' of adult-child sex, i.e. what most people in English-speaking countries would think of if you asked them to define the phrase, is much closer to ], meaning the term should redirect there. If Misplaced Pages redirects to one or the other, it is saying "how the term is being used is more important than what people think when they hear it" or vice-versa. Either way, it's a loss for Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, leaving the link read says "the term is not encyclopedic" which isn't exactly correct either. Some type of disambiguation is in order. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. I don't think the encyclopedia's interests is served by having the deleted article restored. I wouldn't be opposed to a protected redirect, as Protonk suggests. And if someone came up with a neutral article on the subject with citations to reliable sources (which I doubt will happen, but anyhow) then that could be used there. ] (]) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I honestly don't see how redirecting this to ] reflects anything but the mainstream POV. If needed, write a short 1 paragraph summary of pro-pedophilia activism and redirect it to ''that'' paragraph in the child sexual abuse article. Contorting ourselves into some position where we feel we need to dab this for NPOV is incorrect. NPOV requires presentation and discussion of views in proportion to their significance and distance from the fringe. It doesn't demand that we not redirect adult-child sex to its mainstream analogue because it would suggest to readers that adult child sex wasn't child sexual abuse. ] (]) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - So far, we're looking at reviewing the AfD2 close (which already was done), determining whether to create a redirect, and looking at creating a dab page. Also, there are a variety of deletion discussions posted with the DRV request, but DRV is at its best when reviewing one deletion action in view of the DRV request. I think we should try to focus this discussion. The page at 06:45, 27 January 2008 by Kylu. The reason given was Per WP:DRV closing admin. The DRV closing admin was Mackensen. The 04:03, 28 January 2008 DRV close did not specify to protect the article. The DRV endorsed AfD2, reasoning that process objections are sufficient to prevent maintaining an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace. This 15:04, 29 December 2008 DRV request is for permission to create a disambiguation page. The first question that needs to be answered is what is the reasoning behind the protection. Did Kylu protect the "Adult-child sex" article name space for any and all purposes or was it only in furtherance of enforcing the DRV decision? ] and/or ] might be able to answer that. I'll invite them to this discussion, but if you find a diff to answer that question, please post in this thread. The second question is whether a disambiguation page at ] would amount to "an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace" that violates the process objections brought out in AfD2. It may help to have a user space draft to answer that. -- ] ] 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*I think the question of page protection is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I take no stance on the creation of a different article, a disambiguation page or the status quo; I have not been involved in the discussions on the relevant talk pages and my role at DRV was that of a completely uninvolved administrator closing a contentious debate. ] ] 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Disambiguate''' - So far, the "mainstream" suggestions above seem to be saying that the average Joe on the street's response is to think ]/]. That may be true; it seems common sense. But, if there are also mainstream ''scholarly'' references which use the term for classical ], as well as aspects of the ] which use the term, it becomes more complex. I'd say the only way to sort it out (aside from leaving an ugly redlink) is a disambiguation page. We can fight out which order the links are on the new disambig's talk page. ;) &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. This DRV requested a disambiguation page, but on thinking about the matter further, I could not approve a disambiguation page without first seeing a draft to compare it against the standard provided in the DRV close. The redlink seems to rub people the wrong way and I think approval for a redirect is a better direction than that initially requested. The ] close stated "the definite minority position which this term occupies vis-a-vis other terms," which seems like it classifies the "undue weight to the fringe views of such activists" position as a definite minority position. In any event, creating a redirect does not go against the DRV close. Also, creating a redirect does not go against the protection and does not go against any Redirects for discussion. There is present interest in this topic, even though the DRV was closed almost a year ago, Thus, I think it reasonable to allow a protected redirect to be created. It is important to keep in mind that it merely is an allowed action by DRV. It does not mean that it is a keep consensus from DRV. Determining whether there is consensus that a single redirect will introduce a POV or whether consensus would support the DRV allowed action is something that takes place in a RfD deletion discussion, not a deletion review discussion. In sum, I would not object to allowing a protected redirect to child sexual abuse per Protonk, Sandstein, and Stifle. -- ] ] 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to ] and include a definition there; it could be good as a redirect, but I'm a bit cautious about the redirect to CSA. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Clarification'''. One or two voters above speculate about scholarly use of this term to indicate classical pederasty. I've run searches in ] and L'Année Philologique and found no such uses, nor do the standard works on the subject employ the term, even in passing. ] 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' in reply to CB: Thanks for looking stuff up in databases that most of us don't have access to. When used in what little literature I did look at, the term is used 3 ways: 1) as a literal term with face value, used by people without an agenda, 2) as a literal term, but used by people with a "there's nothing wrong with it" POV instead of terms they see as baggage-laden such as child sexual abuse, 3) in quotations or discussions of those in group 2, usually by people with the extremely dominant "sex with children is wrong" POV and usually intended to disparage those in group 2. I don't recall any usage relating to Greek or other classical pedastry, other than perhaps by those in group 2. Note that my search was a very small sample of Google Scholar search results, so I'm not saying the term is not used for pedastry, only that I didn't see it used that way. #2 seemed to be the most common, with #3 coming in second. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::*Yes, I think that's right--the term may be used about classical pederasty but not in scholarly sources. To me that means we don't have to cover that usage: i.e., it falls under the category of fringe scholarship, and it's a very minor fringe. I'm not commenting on other usages, but I would not want to see that one included in, for example, a potential disambiguation page. Whether (as Ipatrol says just below), there's enough for a disambig page without any reference to the ancient world, is a separate question. ] 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
*] '''Disabiguate''' to ], ] and ], all the same size.--] (]) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' - I feel like I've written that in this same place on this same subject before - oh wait, I have, multiple times. There is no reason to restore this article, in any form. Its a magnet for pedophilia POV warriors, and almost every one of the main proponents of its restoration in the last few go 'rounds is now banned. ]] 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <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; text-align:left;" | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
Line 75: Line 136:


I don't see why a screen shot should not be included in the article.It'd be rather useful as a visual equivalent of the text about the mud wrestling.Rumble Roses is one of the few,if not the only game which features mud wrestling, so a screenshot would'nt be too unnecessary. Other articles of video games have screenshots too, and as ] currently has no screenshots, the usage is justified. ] (]) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I don't see why a screen shot should not be included in the article.It'd be rather useful as a visual equivalent of the text about the mud wrestling.Rumble Roses is one of the few,if not the only game which features mud wrestling, so a screenshot would'nt be too unnecessary. Other articles of video games have screenshots too, and as ] currently has no screenshots, the usage is justified. ] (]) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <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; text-align:left;" |
* ''']''' – Merge does not require AFD or DRV. There is nothing to do. – <span style="font-family:century gothic;">''']''' </span><small>] ¤ ]</small> 00:27, 1 January 2009 (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;" |


{{drvlinks|pg=UDP Torrent Protocol|ns=}}<tt>)</tt>

Clearly merge into ] or at least '''keep''', closing as "no consensus" with out a reason after an overwhelming amount of keep/merge comments is WTF material. Thanks!--] (]) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close'''. There is no effective difference between a no consensus and a keep closure, and if the nominator wishes to merge, a discussion can be opened on the article talk page (or just invoke ]). ] (]) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*Interesting. '''Endorse closure''' but note that there are other programs that uses UDP, including ]. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 12:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::Tech geek note: ] is a datagram protocol that is simpler from the usual ] used in ] communications. This here article is about a protocol tfor BitTorrent via said UDP, very different from what eMule uses. Thanks!--] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
|- |-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''

Latest revision as of 22:46, 19 February 2023

< December 28 Deletion review archives: 2008 December December 30 >

29 December 2008

  • BrokeNCYDE – No consensus close endorsed for now. The consensus below is clearly that, in this case, the rationale for AfD3 was not sufficient to constitute a new debate separate from AfD2, and also that AfD2 was closed correctly (these are two different things of course). My own feeling--which has been supported somewhat inconsistently but frequently on DRV in the past--is that a no consensus AfD can be relisted again at any time by any user as long as the nomination rationale is significantly different (and, of course, a strong rationale regardless). The issue of time is (I think quite clearly if you think it through) not nearly as important as the issue of the rationale--the "three month rule" (which has not been and should not be strictly applied anyway) only applies if the passage of time is itself cited as an issue in the nomination. AfD3 in this case is not up to that standard, so I don't see the purpose in reopening it--if someone has a better argument to make, make it. Sceptre states correctly below that MGM should not have been the one to close this, but that is also not in itself sufficient cause to overturn. As a general rule, speedy closes are discouraged if there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides. If an editor makes a sensible, well-reasoned nomination of this article in the future, admins are strongly encouraged to let it run its course. – Chick Bowen 03:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

BrokeNCYDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2) | (AfD3)

The original article was Speedy'd 7 times. The page was then recreated with "references." These references turned out to be nothing more than myspace, youtube, and blog links. The two Afds failed due to no-consensus as one user would come on and say keep, provide the same links, and other users who would not pay close attention would just agree and take that users word for it. Searching has found no valid sources that can withstand WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HooperBandP (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2008

Note1: I was the admin who closed the latest nomination. Hooper may be a bit unclear here, but he's challenging the closure before mine. - Mgm| 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Note2: AfD1 was closed as delete on 24 November 2008. SoWhy closed AfD2 as no consensus on 26 December 2008. AfD3 was out of process speedy closed on 29 December 2008. -- Suntag ☼ 19:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse AFD closures -- references to coverage of this band in third-party reliable sources were provided in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BrokeNCYDE (2nd nomination). The question of whether the coverage is significant is to be decided by community consensus, which should not be gainsaid by the closing administrator. Where, as here, there was no consensus as to significance of coverage, an AFD closure to that effect is appropriate. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BrokeNCYDE (3rd nomination) was correctly closed as speedy keep due to the fact that it was initiated a mere three days after the closure of the previous AFD discussion; it is inappropriate to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until once, by sheer fortuity, the desired result is reached. John254 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse 3rd AFD because, well you can't as John says renominate something 3 days after it was kept at a prior AFD. A couple of months is the bare minimum to wait. Endorse 2nd AFD. Several Delete votes were flawed, i.e. arguing thet URB isn't a reliable source, it clearly is as the on-line version of an established magazine, or that the URB source was a blog and therefore ineligible. Blogs can be accepted as RSs in only very limited circumstances but one circumstance is a blog by an established journalist or other subject expert. The URB blog was by Joshua Glazer who appears to be Editor & Content Director at URB Magazine & URB.com . To my mind that does give his entry sufficient weight to be a reliable source for establishing notability but this is only one of the required multiple. On the Keep side the overall quality of the sourcing was totally overstated. In a poor quality discussion where the participants were not fully arguing points against policy/guidelines, "no consensus" is a reasonable outcome although I personally would have preferred to extend the discussion and requested further input into the sourcing. This is probably a case where Chubbles might be able to help research the sourcing but I haven't seen them around recently. I'll drop them a line and ask them to look at this one. Spartaz 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What a mess. The third AFD was correctly speedy-closed as renominating an article that soon after it's been on AFD isn't generally done. However, I would have closed the second AFD as delete. When the number of users supporting keeping and deleting is roughly the same, the admin closing the debate is entitled to consider whether certain arguments warrant higher weighting than others, for reasons which may include whether they make reference to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines or are just an expressed opinion. In the case of the second AFD, OliverTwisted made a cogent keep argument, but the other three keep arguments were little more than bare assertions, whereas four out of the five delete arguments were substantial. At the risk of rerunning the AFD here, which I will try to avoid, the principal claim of notability was based on a urb.com article, but urb.com allows user-created content, so I doubt that this confers notability any more than an IMDB listing. The remaining sources provided were correctly identified by Dendlai as trivial mentions. As a result, I would overturn the second AFD and delete the article. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse 3rd Nom (Speedy keep), overturn 2nd AfD unless a more substantial article can be found to reference the band. - Penwhale | 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Speedy Keep Here's the deal. Brokencyde are a MySpace breakout band with a massive, very young, grass-roots fanbase. They're playing a blend of screamo and pop rap that is, at this very moment, becoming a new fad. In other words, they're what I Set My Friends On Fire were six months ago. They are very new in terms of popularity; they signed to a well-known label, but have just put out their first EP on that label. Of late they started touring nationally (and, very soon, the UK) with a bunch of very popular scene bands (e.g. Haste the Day and Hollywood Undead). They're currently making the rounds on the blog circuit, and the blogs of a bunch of respected publications are paying attention, mostly to make fun of them (that's what adults do, to teenage music). For instance, The Guardian provides a spot-on, if vitriolic, overview: , Washington City Paper's noticed: , and so did the Los Angeles Times: . Offline, I can say that I just got the Feb '09 issue of Alternative Press in the mail, and they mention BrokenCyde at least twice, though not in a feature; AP has also done a news story on their tour with Jeffree Star. The decisions, from this point, are mostly based upon the biases of editors involved; deletionists will claim, "these are blogs, no good as sources. Flash in the pan, not encyclopedic", while inclusionists will claim, "enough reliable sources to demonstrate the group's significance". I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye; this is as borderline as it gets. What I can state, without any hesitation, is that if this does go "delete", we will be back here in a few months (or a few weeks) to unsalt it. Knowing how these things tend to go...I guess I'll see you back then. But I hope I don't have to. Chubbles (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I Knew someone would say that! However, it should be clear that my opinion does not rest on WP:CRYSTAL at all, but is based on present status, along with an outlook towards eventualism. And if you want to know who I Set My Friends On Fire are, you can now read the article! Chubbles (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article, that particular band to me at least appears to have just recently been deserving of an article, and I don't label myself a deletionist usually. If this BrokeNCYDE get to that point, then great for them, and I'm sure they'll be plenty more people by then willing to write up an even better article. But as it stands, it shouldn't be here, regardless of the wiki-bureaucracy of how the AfDs work or dont work. Hooper (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD2 and AfD3. Sources, though non-standard, are reasonable. Certainly no consensus to delete can be found in those discussions. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD2 no consensus as the present consensus. The article was recreated on 19 December 2008, less than a month after it was deleted on 24 November 2008. Yet, the article was not G4 speedy deleted and AfD2 was left open to completion. It seems reasonable to conclude that the 19 December 2008 recreation was not substantially identical to the deleted version and the changes in the recreated page addressed the reasons for which the material was deleted. Chubbles comment above, "I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye," seem a good characterization of AfD2, and supports the idea that a no consensus close was within the closer's discretion. Three months is a typical rule of thumb between bringing a new AfD after a keep close. Less than three months is a typical rule of thumb between bringing a new AfD after a no consensus close. Perhaps the question is whether enough time has passed since the no consensus AfD close for there to be changes in circumstances that would benefit from a new deletion discussion. Three days is not enough to cite passage-of-time as a basis for bringing AfD3 and nothing new was cited in the AfD3 listing that wasn't already discussed in AfD2. The AfD3 speedy close was correct. In sum, endorse AfD2 no consensus. -- Suntag ☼ 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn or relist - those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Mgm cited process as a reason to close it, but he voted to keep in AFD2. Closing an AFD in the way that you've voted for is against process in itself. The way the discussion was going, it was veering into deletion territory. And by the way, there is no minimum waiting period on nominating an article for deletion; especially one that closed as no consensus. Yes, it should've gone to DRV. But at the same time, nomination #3 was not disruptive, had 4:2 split for deletion, the nominator wasn't banned, it's not a policy/guideline, it's not linked on the mainpage, and it's in the right forum. No reason to speedy close at all. Sceptre 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

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

The initial page looks like blatent advertising, but I did not get the chance to fill it out with much of the additional information I needed to make a good case for it to stay before it was SPEEDILY removed. HomeSeer is unique in many ways in home automation - they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is, and there are many other companies listed because of their uniqueness or contributions to the field. Examples include X-10, Z-Wave (Zensys), Insteon (SmartHome) and several others. I tried to present the information in a factual (e.g. non advertising) way but as I was gathering my thoughts and working on it over time, I could not leave the article in perfect condition each time I get done editing it. I request that it be un-deleted and if necessary, put in a non-active state so that I can at least work on it until such time as I would like to make my case to instate the article again. The person who requested that it be speedily removed does not have an active email address so I could not contact that person via email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not familiar with deletion review, and I could not find any references to it here. Speedy deletion was used and so there was no opportunity for a Talk page to be started where there could have been a discussion first. When I went to the admin's page and tried to contact him, I got a message that there was no email address. I would be happy to discuss it further, but I would like to have my content restored so that I will not have to re-type everything should the page be granted life in Misplaced Pages. Again, the page is providing information on a commercial product, so much of it will appear to be advertising, but it is a product that is over 10 years old and is a first in many areas of its category, so I think it is worth noting some of this information. I can expand on some of the early days information and dampen the information on the features of the software if that is what makes it appear too much like advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      Well, the "new message" tab at the top sticks out to me (as well User:Chrislk02's instruction not to send him an email), and it's a little hard to understand how you managed to comprehend how to make a listing here but you couldn't perform the much easier task of leaving a talk page message.
      Leaving that aside, I would overturn the deletion. While the article was not the best in terms of neutrality, it didn't constitute advertising in my opinion and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion for any other reason. It may possibly be deleted at AFD, but that remains to be seen. If this is restored, I recommend removing most of the external links. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I was never contacted about this until right now. I just looked at the article and in my opinion is advertising for a product/service. A timeline of all the advancements in the product, why the product is good etc with no neutrality and cited from its own website. Pretty sure that is advertising. I think speedy deletion was the proper course of action but you alla re welcome to review it for yourself. Thanks. Chrislk02 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Permit recreation , but only if there are third party reviews of the product--I suspect there may be some . The intrinsic importance of technology is not he concern, its the recognition of it that gives rise to notability. DGG (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn or at least userfy. I am not convinved that the version deleted fit the criteria of 'blatant advertising' but instead could have just been edited to prune/remove the features list which was was the worst part imo. I have done a bit of a web search and found 3 reviews which might possibly me of use in establishing notability - , (pay article) and so think there is possible potential for an article here therefore we should give the creator a chance to make it into a reasonable article. Davewild (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AfD. I can't see the article, but it sounds debatable and sources seem to exist. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What Now? Thank you for the discussion. If it was not already obvious, I am new to the Misplaced Pages environment - I am familiar with Wiki, but not the whole Misplaced Pages culture. This is why I did not write on the Talk page for Chrislk02 - I was panicked about losing all of the work and his page said not to email him with stupid questions about pages that should obviously be deleted. I simply did not think to use it in the context of a person's communication page. I am happy to remove the features section - I wrote it as a stream of consciousness as you can tell by the fact that there are no references, but removing it altogether is fine too. So what is the next step? RTinker —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
Deletion reviews last approximately five days then an uninvolved admin will make a decision based on the discussion what the appropriate action is. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know what the article looked like, but the above DRV request is advertisy. HomeSeer is "unique". But not just unique, "unique in many ways". Plus, "they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is". The company cites press releases as news and the rest of their website is dripping with promotion language. They do look like a good group of guys, but if you decide to continue writing the article, you will need to step away from any interest in the company and write the material from a neutral view. You'll save everyone a lot of work if you do. The HomeSeer article has nothing to do with HomeSeer's view of itself or what it has to offer and has everything to do with what third party reliable sources are writing about the company. You should avoid using any information from the HomeSeer website or press releases in the article. Use information from books, newspapers, and scholarly articles. To get an idea as to what the article should look like, look at some of the articles listed at FA-Class Companies articles. If you need help with putting the article together, you can try posting a note at WikiProject New Hampshire, WikiProject Companies, or WikiProject Robotics. -- Suntag ☼ 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - Thank you - that is the intention of the article. I am (obviously) a newbie, and I thought the emphasis was in having a source for citation, and did not realize that citing the HomeSeer website was a bad move. I will try to find media related sources, but it may be difficult in some cases because most of the media where HomeSeer appears is commercial in nature because, quite frankly, home automation is rarely mainstream enough for the typical media. Occasionally you get a public interest article discussing home automation, but it is almost always mentioning the big/expensive players in the market, and usually ignores the low-end (DIY) market. I have not read up on the Sandbox yet, but is that the place where I could develop the page under the scrutiny of some admins before it is published? Is there a way to do that? RTinker —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Adult-child sex – Deletion endorsed. I can't see any consensus on where a redirect should point and there is no overwhelming consensus on the disambiguation page either. Suggest users use the talk page to garner a clear consensus on this point. – Spartaz 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AfDs & DRVs for this article and related pages:
Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)


This being a very obvious search term, notwithstanding the persistent impasse with regards to whether this subject should be redirected to child sexual abuse or to pedophilia (I am not proposing to allow for this article in its own right), leaving this address as a void is no happy solution which I think could be improved upon if it became a disambiguation page simply. It could read for instance. "The following Misplaced Pages articles deal with the topic of adult-child sex:" meco (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion -- As "Adult-child sex" is a euphemistic neologism coined by pro-pedophile activists, Misplaced Pages's use of this term, in a disambiguation page for child sexual abuse and pedophilia, would give undue weight to the fringe views of such activists. The only acceptable article on this topic, consistent with our neutral point of view policy, would be a discussion of the term itself, its etymology, usage, etc, provided that there were sufficient reliable sources to support it. The deleted article, of course, attempted no such linguistic analysis, but merely discussed child sexual abuse in a manner favorable to pro-pedophile activists, in violation of WP:NPOV. John254 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously there's no need to present arguments against the deleted article as I'm not proposing it be undeleted as such. However, having merely taken a glance at previous deletion discussions, I am soundly convinced that your initial assertion is blatantly false, as anthropologists and ethnologists in the past unambiguously have documented that sexual relations between human adults and their offspring (as children in an age-referencing sense) has been prevalent, even accepted, in many cultures completely distinct from today's so-called "child-love" or pedophelia advocacy movement. __meco (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If there are scientific sources documenting historic information of when and where this was accepted (unrelated to the recent pro-pedophelia movement) I think a viable article can be written. Can you point to such sources or perhaps even provide a draft article?- Mgm| 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation. __meco (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Create and lock a disambiguation page that is as neutral as possible given WP:UNDUE. With 300+ results in a Google Scholar search, including usages that predate the Web, having the term come up red at Misplaced Pages risks becoming "Misplaced Pages is censored" POV in and of itself. I recommend that administrators who are active as editors in sexuality, child-abuse, or censorship articles, xfds, and deletion-reviews defer to disinterested, neutral administrators when it comes to what should be on the dab page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why don't we just create a redirect to child sexual abuse and leave it protected? Protonk (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately, a single redirect, just as a salted missing article, will introduce a POV. In a perfect world, we could do a dab page with big honking 72-point bold font to child sexual abuse with a normal-size link to pedophilia and a tiny 5-point link to Pro-pedophile activism. That would follow the spirit of WP:UNDUE, WP:CENSOR, and WP:NPOV. Actually, I may have those font sizes wrong, but in any case, they should reflect how the word is actually used. Maybe, if it's mostly used by pro-pedophile activists, pro-pedophile activism should be the prominent link. In any case, we can't do multiple-sized fonts, so the best we can do is probably a dab page with a short introductory text explaining why the page is locked, with 2 or 3 links, with the most popular use first. Does anyone actually know the most common usages of the term off-wiki? Whatever it is, that should guide the use here. But definitely lock it down. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment in response to Sandstein and others who favor any redirect: This issue is difficult because Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect the off-Wiki world when it comes to POV: Nazis are bad, mom is good, etc. However, based on comments above and Google Scholar searches, I gather the literal words "adult-child sex," when used in print are used by pro-pedophile activists or in criticisms of pro-pedophile activism which quote those activists. This would normally mean it should redirect to Pro-pedophile activism if that were the only usage. Likewise, the English-world concept of adult-child sex, i.e. what most people in English-speaking countries would think of if you asked them to define the phrase, is much closer to Child sexual abuse, meaning the term should redirect there. If Misplaced Pages redirects to one or the other, it is saying "how the term is being used is more important than what people think when they hear it" or vice-versa. Either way, it's a loss for Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, leaving the link read says "the term is not encyclopedic" which isn't exactly correct either. Some type of disambiguation is in order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I don't think the encyclopedia's interests is served by having the deleted article restored. I wouldn't be opposed to a protected redirect, as Protonk suggests. And if someone came up with a neutral article on the subject with citations to reliable sources (which I doubt will happen, but anyhow) then that could be used there. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I honestly don't see how redirecting this to Child sexual abuse reflects anything but the mainstream POV. If needed, write a short 1 paragraph summary of pro-pedophilia activism and redirect it to that paragraph in the child sexual abuse article. Contorting ourselves into some position where we feel we need to dab this for NPOV is incorrect. NPOV requires presentation and discussion of views in proportion to their significance and distance from the fringe. It doesn't demand that we not redirect adult-child sex to its mainstream analogue because it would suggest to readers that adult child sex wasn't child sexual abuse. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - So far, we're looking at reviewing the AfD2 close (which already was done), determining whether to create a redirect, and looking at creating a dab page. Also, there are a variety of deletion discussions posted with the DRV request, but DRV is at its best when reviewing one deletion action in view of the DRV request. I think we should try to focus this discussion. The page was protected at 06:45, 27 January 2008 by Kylu. The reason given was Per WP:DRV closing admin. The DRV closing admin was Mackensen. The 04:03, 28 January 2008 DRV close did not specify to protect the article. The DRV endorsed AfD2, reasoning that process objections are sufficient to prevent maintaining an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace. This 15:04, 29 December 2008 DRV request is for permission to create a disambiguation page. The first question that needs to be answered is what is the reasoning behind the protection. Did Kylu protect the "Adult-child sex" article name space for any and all purposes or was it only in furtherance of enforcing the DRV decision? Kylu and/or Mackensen might be able to answer that. I'll invite them to this discussion, but if you find a diff to answer that question, please post in this thread. The second question is whether a disambiguation page at Adult-child sex would amount to "an adult-child sex POV fork in the article namespace" that violates the process objections brought out in AfD2. It may help to have a user space draft to answer that. -- Suntag ☼ 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the question of page protection is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I take no stance on the creation of a different article, a disambiguation page or the status quo; I have not been involved in the discussions on the relevant talk pages and my role at DRV was that of a completely uninvolved administrator closing a contentious debate. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - So far, the "mainstream" suggestions above seem to be saying that the average Joe on the street's response is to think pedophilia/child sexual abuse. That may be true; it seems common sense. But, if there are also mainstream scholarly references which use the term for classical pederasty, as well as aspects of the pro-pedophilia movement which use the term, it becomes more complex. I'd say the only way to sort it out (aside from leaving an ugly redlink) is a disambiguation page. We can fight out which order the links are on the new disambig's talk page. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You: 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This DRV requested a disambiguation page, but on thinking about the matter further, I could not approve a disambiguation page without first seeing a draft to compare it against the standard provided in the DRV close. The redlink seems to rub people the wrong way and I think approval for a redirect is a better direction than that initially requested. The DRV close stated "the definite minority position which this term occupies vis-a-vis other terms," which seems like it classifies the "undue weight to the fringe views of such activists" position as a definite minority position. In any event, creating a redirect does not go against the DRV close. Also, creating a redirect does not go against the protection and does not go against any Redirects for discussion. There is present interest in this topic, even though the DRV was closed almost a year ago, Thus, I think it reasonable to allow a protected redirect to be created. It is important to keep in mind that it merely is an allowed action by DRV. It does not mean that it is a keep consensus from DRV. Determining whether there is consensus that a single redirect will introduce a POV or whether consensus would support the DRV allowed action is something that takes place in a RfD deletion discussion, not a deletion review discussion. In sum, I would not object to allowing a protected redirect to child sexual abuse per Protonk, Sandstein, and Stifle. -- Suntag ☼ 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pro-pedophile activism#Terminology and include a definition there; it could be good as a redirect, but I'm a bit cautious about the redirect to CSA. Sceptre 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification. One or two voters above speculate about scholarly use of this term to indicate classical pederasty. I've run searches in JStor and L'Année Philologique and found no such uses, nor do the standard works on the subject employ the term, even in passing. Chick Bowen 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment in reply to CB: Thanks for looking stuff up in databases that most of us don't have access to. When used in what little literature I did look at, the term is used 3 ways: 1) as a literal term with face value, used by people without an agenda, 2) as a literal term, but used by people with a "there's nothing wrong with it" POV instead of terms they see as baggage-laden such as child sexual abuse, 3) in quotations or discussions of those in group 2, usually by people with the extremely dominant "sex with children is wrong" POV and usually intended to disparage those in group 2. I don't recall any usage relating to Greek or other classical pedastry, other than perhaps by those in group 2. Note that my search was a very small sample of Google Scholar search results, so I'm not saying the term is not used for pedastry, only that I didn't see it used that way. #2 seemed to be the most common, with #3 coming in second. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that's right--the term may be used about classical pederasty but not in scholarly sources. To me that means we don't have to cover that usage: i.e., it falls under the category of fringe scholarship, and it's a very minor fringe. I'm not commenting on other usages, but I would not want to see that one included in, for example, a potential disambiguation page. Whether (as Ipatrol says just below), there's enough for a disambig page without any reference to the ancient world, is a separate question. Chick Bowen 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - I feel like I've written that in this same place on this same subject before - oh wait, I have, multiple times. There is no reason to restore this article, in any form. Its a magnet for pedophilia POV warriors, and almost every one of the main proponents of its restoration in the last few go 'rounds is now banned. Avruch 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Rumble_Roses_Mud_Wrestling.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD|article)

I don't see why a screen shot should not be included in the article.It'd be rather useful as a visual equivalent of the text about the mud wrestling.Rumble Roses is one of the few,if not the only game which features mud wrestling, so a screenshot would'nt be too unnecessary. Other articles of video games have screenshots too, and as Rumble_Roses currently has no screenshots, the usage is justified. Roaring Siren (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


UDP Torrent Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Clearly merge into BitTorrent (protocol) or at least keep, closing as "no consensus" with out a reason after an overwhelming amount of keep/merge comments is WTF material. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tech geek note: UDP is a datagram protocol that is simpler from the usual TCP used in IP communications. This here article is about a protocol tfor BitTorrent via said UDP, very different from what eMule uses. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.