| Revision as of 15:54, 27 July 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed, after new users, solicited votes discounted)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:05, 5 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
{| width = "100%" |
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> |
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
</div> |
|
</div> |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===22 July 2006=== |
|
===22 July 2006=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==== Userbox article? ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
How come the Userbox article was deleted? I'm kind of a n00b, so don't yell at me for not knowing. --] 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Leave as-is''' Userboxes aren't encyclopedia content, they're things you find on the user pages of encyclopedia editors. We try to maintain a strict seperation between the "encyclopedia" and "all the nasty stuff that goes on in the background that helps people make the encyclopedia." Userboxes are part of the latter. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 01:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*The place for information about userboxes is ] (in the Misplaced Pages namespace for administrative matters, not the main namespace for the actual content of the encyclopedia). --] 05:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Cluster Resources, Inc.==== |
|
|
Deletion review is probably not the right place to put this but I'm not sure where is: |
|
|
|
|
|
:] |
|
|
|
|
|
closed (correctly) deleting the article, but the dependent entries ] (product of the spammer, redirecting to the deleted article) and ] (photo of the spammer's headquarters, unfortunately not including GPS targeting coordinates) should also be deleted. There was also a bunch of linkspam inserted into other articles that I cleaned up most of, but I can't delete the above, and I'd rather not leave any remnants around. |
|
|
|
|
|
Related article ] now has its own AfD. Hmm, ] may need one too. These are actual articles rather than redirects, so I guess they need discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. -- ] (]) 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment:''' ] meets ] (redirect to nonexistant page) and has been tagged as such. I have no idea about the image, but it looks like it'll be deleted for missing copyright status in the next day or two anyway. I'd just take the TORQUE article to AfD or maybe prod it, it's not really a DRV issue. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Kitty May Ellis==== |
|
|
{{afdsock}} |
|
|
After DRV's to overturn the keep result in ] for ] and delete the article, the article's primary composer reposted the content at ]. Judging the content substantially similar, I speedy deleted this as a G4 repost, and protected both pages, in an effort to get this matter resolved through a new appeal to DRV. The article's composer has taken exception to this deletion, leading to a long discussion on our respective talk pages regarding the reasons his article was ultimately considered not verifiable. |
|
|
|
|
|
He presents the following points below, affixed with his signature. I have posted this DRV for his ease. ] 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*The opinion of an editor who has no knowledge of a source, as it whether it is a ] should not be the basis for deleting an article. A grading of a source as a ] should be based on other ]s, not on editors opinions. If an editor feels that a source is not a ] they should obtain a citation which states that. If during an Afd or Review, there are opinions stating that something is not a ] the closing admin should disregard those *unless* the poster can confirm their opinion using a ]. |
|
|
*A newspaper reporter, reporting events, that he/she was not an eye-witness to, should be considered a secondary, published and ] |
|
|
*Extracts of government documents, published by third-parties should be considered as secondary, published, ]. |
|
|
*This article was deleted based on a claim of non-verifiability, without any attempt being made to determine whether the sources were actually verifiable. The mere fact that some sources are hard to verify, should not preclude their being used if they are the only or most pertinent sources available for the task. |
|
|
*This article was marked <nowiki>{hangon}</nowiki> and <nowiki> {underconstruction}</nowiki> with active editing at the *time* it was deleted. No attempt was made to allow me time to correct the stated flaws. The main complaint was that I was citing to the online diary, when I should have cited to the published secondary sources. I was in the middle of making those changes when the article vanished. |
|
|
*And finally ] should dictate that I was making an attempt to make the article *more* verifiable and it should not have been deleted. |
|
|
:] 04:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' I feel a bit sad for the author of that article. Even though I haven't read it, I think I get the picture from the AFD and DRV. I think the solution is for the author to submit the article (or a revision) to some appropriate historical journal, along with copies of any necessary source materials needed for the journal's referees, instead of trying to put it in Misplaced Pages. That puts the RS question into the hands of professionals, and those referees can accept types of source material that's not accessible enough for Misplaced Pages. If the journal publishes the article, Misplaced Pages can then use the article as a source. If the journal rejects the article, well, they're professionals and we have to assume that they know what they're doing. ] (]) 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' with regret. Perhaps a sister-project? The cited source is primary, the subject is unverifiable from any secondary sources. ] 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The question of verifiability was not for the trivial facts of her life (to which refer e.g. the "extracts of government documents"), but for the assertion that she warranted inclusion because as a diarist she is a notable source for historians. No source was given that could pass ] for this claim, only links to the local newspaper and a privately published document. The article fails both ] (a guideline), and for her weak claim to notability, ] (a policy), and has thus no reason to be included in Misplaced Pages. ] 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article has already been published, in a historical journal, along with source material. ] 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fram has been a consistent mis-characterizer of the statements I made. Fram claims no notability based on no verifiable sources. These claims have been refuted many times. I have posted the ] which are ] and these claims have been taken to the talk pages of those guidelines and policies where they agree with my position. A newspaper on microfilm *is* verifiable and a non-eye-witness report is ]. If anyone can find where I'm mistaken, please inform me. The relevant policy pages say that I'm not mistaken on this point. ] 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The events of her life are not sourced from the diaries, they are sourced from newspapers, historical journals, and government documents. All verifiable, secondary, published sources per ]. The diaries only serve to support and back-up the events cited from the secondary sources. ] 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Wjhonson, for the umpteenth time, I'm not discussing the events of her life, I'm discussing the notability of her diaries as an important source for historical research, as indicated by verifiable publications by reputable publishers. First, wjhonson: you say that "the article has already been published in a historical journal, along with source material". Could you tell us when and where? It may strengthen your case. Second: I am not claiming that you can't use the census or a persons obituary to gather facts about her life. They don't give any notability though, and aren't under discussion here. In the article (version: ]), the only source that may be what is needed is "Clearview Pioneers", which you cite as evidence of two dates and places. Is this a work published by a reputable publisher? Does this work claim that the diaries of Kitty May Ellis are an important source for the historical knowledge of Clearview and other places? Or is she just mentioned as a pioneer who indeed lived there for a while? ] 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::One I didn't say you were discussing the 'events of her life'. One of the objections to the article was that it was cited to the diaries. That is the only thing I was addressing in stating that each statement is made from secondary sources, and *backed-up* from the diaries. Two yes, her diaries are notable as an important source for historical research, as indicated by verifiable publications by reputable publishers. Three, you may not be claiming that I can't use the census, and other government documents, but another editor did, I took that to ] and they said no, you can. Four, an obit does give notability, if the obit is writen as an actual news story by a reporter, gleaning information from multiple sources and editing it together into something newsworthy. That is what occurred in this situation. That would be in-contrast with an obit submitted, paid-for, and writen in-whole by a funeral home or family member, which is *not* what occurred in this case. Fifth, yes, each place where she has appeared, they have noted that not only is she a newsworthy individual herself, but also that her information, backs up and fills-out many newsworthy events from the various pioneer communities in which she lived. Hopefully this is more clear now. ] 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Where and when is the article published, as you claimed it was? You did not respond, so I ask it again. ] 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Notability of the person is not established. My daughter writes a diary too. And she even won some prize from the school district. So what? `'] ] 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment:''' Not again! It's because of this stupid article that I'm taking a Wikibreak from closing contentious AfDs. Regardless of the results of this DRV, I strongly urge the author to please accept the final result and not waste any more of Misplaced Pages's time. --] ] 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. I understand that the article creator has done a lot of work putting this together, and the subject is interesting, but she just doesn't meet the standards of notability given in ]. Whatever the result of the DRV, ], so please let the issue rest. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': Why would we assume good faith in wjhonson when he violates ] by soliciting meatpuppets like ? ] 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorsed''' Dairies do not make for good verifiability. (That's why primary sources aren't liked). Previous DRV and 2nd AfD already ended this. Also, my good faith is indeed burned by fram's link encouraging 'vote-stacking' on what is a non-vote anyways. ] 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I must disagree here, there's a dairy very near my house and its existence is easily verifiable by the sound of mooing. --] ] 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''', process was followed, insufficient new information cited to verify that the article subject is notable enough for a general encyclopedia. Probably useful to a very very very few people, and might belong somewhere else, but not on Misplaced Pages. ] 06:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|