| Revision as of 21:16, 24 September 2006 editAnonymous 57 (talk | contribs)213 edits Limecat — comments anyone?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:44, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,038 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (88 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<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="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;"><</span> ] |
|
|
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">></span> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]'' |
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
===24 September 2006=== |
|
===24 September 2006=== |
|
<!-- |
|
<!-- |
| Line 5: |
Line 14: |
|
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. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
|
|
|
I created the article a couple days ago, but I don't really know anything about Limecat—the reason I looked here to begin with was to learn more about the image (its author, its origin, who that adorable cat is, etc.), as I so often do on Misplaced Pages. Another user pointed out to me that the article had been deleted before. I never saw the old version, but I looked at the deletion debate and added sources specifically to address the concerns raised therein. Then today, I came back to see if anyone had contributed further information to the article, but was disappointed to see that ] had simply deleted my work altogether. :-( |
|
|
|
|
|
Could the article be restored so it can undergo the same vetting as the older version (which I never saw)? I believe the sources in mine, as described on the talk page, meet the criteria in ]. If there's disagreement on that point, it's certainly up for debate, IMO. Thanks. ] 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:] |
|
|
] was deleted as an attack page. It appears that this article describes a dispute with ] as to which is the oldest Black fraternity. However, I don't believe that makes this article an attack page. ] (note capitalization) was recreated, not exactly the same article. I have moved it to ] for now. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2006-09-24 21:06Z</small></i></span> |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Chuck Wissmiller was nominated for speedy deletion by ] and subsequently speedied by ]. The problem apparently was a lack of notability of Chuck Wissmiller. While I'm not sure he is notable ''enough'' for wikipedia, the article does assert some notability via ]. I suggest undeleting the article and listing it for AfD. ] ]]] 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have merged the pathetic shreds of content from the article into ] and created it as a redirect. ] 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This is a nomination based on a strong objection to the procedure used. ] says quite clearly "Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues." According to this, the AFD discussion should have continued. Not only did I object to the speedy on that AFD discussion, but also someone had already moved the speedy tag on the article itself, done it again after another speedy was added the same day by a different person, and had removed a prod tag on the same article. Furthermore, the prod tag should never have been there in the first place, because ] says "For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion (for deletions likely to meet no opposition)". Obviously, if the speedy tag has been added and removed, it is '''not''' a deletion likely to meet no opposition". Therefore, you need to go to the next clause, "or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (for potentially controversial deletions)." ] 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Note also that when the prod tag was on there earlier today (perhaps yesterday on your clock), notice was given of a five day period for corrective action to be taken. Based on a sense of fairness, whether or not it is specified in the rules, that period should not be shortened by a moving from prod to AFD. ] 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: '''Response as closer''': I found the article in ], noticed the presence of an AfD tag as well, went to look at the nomination. There I saw the nominator submitting it as a contested Prod, but also stating he would prefer the article speedily deleted even though it was at AfD. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''What I meant by the phrase "to slap a Speedy on it" wasn't "to add a CSD tag to the article again", but rather "to speedily delete this article despite its appearance at AfD", something which frequently occurs for things which have only turned up here because of process.'' -- ], AfD nomination |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I saw someone else also asking for speedy deletion. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: ''Speedy delete - playing in a school side isn't an assertion of notability. I'll see if I can get that speedy tag to stick.'' -- ], AfD nomination |
|
|
|
|
|
::Finally, I saw a third person saying that they didn't care whether it stayed or not, but that speedying it would be against the rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: ''Live with it. I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules.'' -- ], AfD nomination |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I made that two people in favour of speedy deletion, and one person opposed to speedy deletion for process reasons, but with no opinion on the actual article. In other words, not one argument in favour of keeping the page. I went back to the article and examined all revisions of the history, decided it did fit into ], deleted it, and closed the nomination. If this wasn't perfectly in line with the deletion policy, I apologize; though speaking in terms of processes I have a feeling ] applies to a certain extent here, not to mention ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I assume that as closer of the nomination I can't give an Endorse/Overturn response here, so I won't – ] 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::One person objecting to speedy closure is all it is supposed to take on the AfD discussion, to keep it from being speedily closed there. Not a vote of those favoring speedy closure or not. ] 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: OK, fair enough. I accept my decision was incorrect; put the article back so it can be deleted again (and I shall quietly ignore the fact that it will have taken two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy) – ] 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:] |
|
|
This was deleted as unnotable on ], ]. George Allen Smith was a passenger on ]'s '']'' when he went overboard in ] in the ] while near ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
His story was highlighted during an episode of ] on ], ]. His case can be found on the CBS.com website transcript . In addition, Royal Caribbean keeps a separate news archive on his disappearance . In light of this new highlight to his case, I think it warrants article reinstatement. --] 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' As the person who originally nominated this article for deletion, I want to emphasize that the sensationalistic media coverage - including a highlight of the case on '']'' on ] - was not only noted in the afd discussion, but was actually the <u>main issue</u> of the discussion. Here's . We also noted that the case was a public relations problem for the cruise line. In the view of the delete voters, media coverage does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability - particularly if the victim lacked the renown or infamy needed to pass ], and if the news media was primarily interested in this case for its sensationalistic aspects. The CBS transcript linked above is mainly about another cruise line death (a woman), and the story about George Allen Smith is used as a secondary story for a minor segment of the show. I don't see how this adds much to the media coverage discussion in the first afd. Given that the Smith case was a PR problem for the cruise line, I don't see how the documents on the cruise line website add much either - is every PR crisis damage control exercise for every corporation encyclopedically notable? In the afd discussion, delete voters noted that there was nothing much to distinguish the subject from thousands of other ordinary murder or disappearance victims, except that the case had trivial aspects (it happened on a cruiseline, which reminds viewers/readers of an ] murder mystery or perhaps an exciting CSI episode; it happened on a honeymoon, which has "shock/sympathy" value for viewers/readers). But, as the CBS story concludes about the woman victim it focusses on, - the same goes for George Allen Smith. ] 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
:''See |
|
|
] speedy deleted this with an edit summary; "A7". I've tried to on his talk page, but despite a asking for an answer he has completely ignored me while still editing other articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
If I recall right, this article not only was on Misplaced Pages for a long time but had contributions from many active Wikipedians. Note that the band is not only ] but also associated with ] and is thus a controversial topic. At least three users have been warned for vandalizing the page (see ). Two of these were done this month. |
|
|
|
|
|
The page might even have been vandalized right before deletion, meaning the request for speedy deletion was done in ], but as the admin refuses to comment on this, I have no other choice but to bring the matter here. Notability of the band can be questioned, but this does in no way meet the A7 criterion for speedy deletion. ] 23:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:There was no assertion of notability in the article. There are no reliable sources about the band. All of the non-trivial edits to the article were by anonymous IPs. You are welcome to create a verifiable article on the subject if the band indeed warrants an encyclopedia article. —]→] • 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article did have claims of notability. One band member was mentioned to be in ]. 15-year-long career, 11 recordings and 4 full-length albums, as shown in the discography section, can also be seen as an assertion of notability, at least enough not to be speedy deleted, especially if Google confirms the information, the subject is controversial and the article has been on Misplaced Pages for a long time. ] 09:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:There actually was one weak assertion of notability for the article - that the recently deceased vocalist was a member of band ], but this was very easy to miss (I did at first). I am not familar with this genre of music, but I do not think that ] are notable enough to propogate notability for its members. This does not technically meet the criteria for CSD:A7, but I am reluctant to reccomend an AfD per ] and user:centrix's points above. I '''endorse closure''' as good faith but would not stand in the way if someone wants to see how long it would last at AfD. ] 00:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and list at AfD'''. If it doesn't meet the criteria for A7, it shouldn't have been speedied. --] <small>]</small> 00:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Restore'''; Why is this band not notable? They have three full length releases and a number of singles, splits and compilations. Also, I've been finding read links to their article in various related articles such as ], ] and ]. The article ''definitely'' doesn't meet CSD A7 ("non-notable biography / vanity"). If there had been an AFD I strongly doubt that the article would have been deleted. <u>It is not true that there are no reliable sources</u> : the band gets 37,400 google hits; see , , , , , , , etc. ]]] | ] 02:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|