Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 24: 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 23:09, 25 September 2006 editAnonymous 57 (talk | contribs)213 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:44, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,033 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) 
(40 intermediate revisions by 19 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;">&lt;</span> ]
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
|}
</div>
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]''
</noinclude>
===24 September 2006=== ===24 September 2006===
<!--
====]====
New entry right below here. Please put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== (For example, ====]====)
:]
I created the article today, and I know the article has been recreated and deleted many times, and I know Jeffree Star is controversial. I'm not saying all administrators endorse censorship on Misplaced Pages, but I'm sure there's some administrators who know who Jeffree Star is. Star is a celebrity with a mainly teenage fan base (that is also outside of ], Star is alwo working on a ] like many sources say), known for being a ] and obscense song lyrics, though I don't think that should be the reason for deletion. There's probably a few administrators and editors who think Misplaced Pages should be censored.


Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
If you don't like the writing of the article, you can always edit it and add on to it instead of putting it up for speedy deletion. I was in a bit of a hurry so I didn't check for mistakes at first and didn't add on to it right away. --''']''' - ] 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
-->

*SEVEN deletions and one AFD. Standard nn-bio material, '''redelete''' and protect. --] | ] 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment:''' Why? I know it's been deleted many times, but is there any other reason? This better not be an act of ] on Misplaced Pages.--''']''' - ] 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
** Comment: The only AFD discussion I could find (now linked above) was closed as a "speedy-deletion". The contents of this page have been deleted six times so far, the first as an attack page, the rest under ] - biobraphy with no assertion of notability of the subject. The seventh deletion was the removal of the "protected page" template on 23 Sep 06. ] <small>]</small> 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I am having a hard time ] notability outside of myspace, and "working on" an album is worth just about zero, compared to having actually released one, that sold significantly and received reviews. ] 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' again, see and for previous DRVs. This has nothing whatsoever to do with censirship and everythign to do with a lack of both verifiable independent information and evidence of significance. Misplaced Pages is not a place for every minor thing that happens on the iinternets - try Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Or somewhere. <b>]</b> 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion again''', per JzG. This figure has no verifiable notability, and the deletion is not censorship. Misplaced Pages is ] a crystal ball, as well. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Misplaced Pages is ] a crystal ball, and the article is not ], at least verifiably. I know this has already been said :P ] 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

====]====

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)

* '''Endorse deletion''' (]). More crap off the internets. <b>]</b> 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
::The other afd discussions :
:::]
:::]

** Well, I came here originally to find out more about Limecat. Isn't that the whole point of Misplaced Pages? Or am I wrong to be interested in learning about what you call "crap"? Have a heart—it's a seriously cute picture. ] 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Um, I think Misplaced Pages is trying to move away from that perception of being a dump for random internet meme info.... There are a million cute cat pictures on the internet which are very popular - if you are enthusiastic about cataloguing them all, how about creating your very own "'''cutekittypixwiki'''" at ]? I bet the folks at would be very glad to help out! Or alternatively, there's (where Limecat is held in ), or ] 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Hmm... I read the above nomination debates, and the third one (the most recent--I don't remember seeing a debate, though?) seems to imply that I created the article as a result of something to do with Encyclopedia Dramatica. But I'd never seen that site until you pointed it out right here. And their so-called "article" on Limecat (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Limecat) only emphasizes the need for a ''real'' article, right here on Misplaced Pages. Unless you're saying that page is actually reliable?
::::If you care to read the version I wrote, I strongly believe it meets all criteria under ]. (FWIW, I don't think "it was deleted before" should be sufficient reason to delete it again. I have no doubt that many useful, informative articles would be permanently banned from this site if this were true.) ] 07:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
** And as I said, my article (written from scratch) addresses whatever objections were raised previously. ] 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment''' What exactly is the harm in keeping this article around, so long as all the information is sourced and verifiable according to ]? Maybe it's a curiosity, even a fairly obscure one, but Misplaced Pages excels at providing information on obscure curiosities, and it's the first place I look for information on these things. And if I was the 3rd person to create a Limecat article, surely I can't be the only one. ] 07:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

: You can't keep it by applying ] because no credible evidence has been presented that it meets the ] inclusion criteria. It's just random crap off the internets. <b>]</b> 15:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Dude, that's just not true. Read WP:WEB and read my version of the article, if you still can, and you'll note all the sources meet criterion 3: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." I'd present the evidence right here if I could still access the article. ] 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''', valid AFD. ] 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:: No, this is about a different version of the article that addresses the objections raised in the "AFD". As I stated above. ] 23:09, 25 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>


by definition "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to." It doesn't fit the standards of an attack page. ] 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

*'''comment:''' The original article was clearly an attack page (as verified by several non-interested parties) written in retaliation for the author's inablility to gain consensus on his POV on the ] page. The author has recently re-created the article, citing opinion articles as fact. No original document refers to Alpha Kappa Nu as (a) a fraternity, (b)an entity that was ever formally chartered or incorporated (c) an entity that "lasted several years" as the author states in the article. However, the author has a history of deleting any corrective edits proving such even if they cite the same information that the author cites. -] 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

====]====
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)
::My issue is not with the article, it's with the process. If an article gives some assertion of notability (and being one of the main persons in a notable television show is an assertion of notability), the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under A7. In that case, the article has to be prodded or AfD'ed instead. ] ]]] 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
:'''Endorse'' status quo, article was not worth arguing over, reidrect is just fine. <b>]</b> 21:49, 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)
: Nah, '''endorse deletion'' - fuck process. <b>]</b> 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I get a say as the user who nominated the article for deletion, but if so, here 'tis: I don't subscribe to the view that the removal of a speedy or prod tag without any addition of matter to assert/prove notability is "opposition" to deletion in any sense other than the panic felt by a user on seeing that "their article" is up for deletion. Thus, when the CSD tag I'd put on this in the first place was removed, I didn't view it as a controversial deletion which immediately had to appear at AfD - prodding it seemed like a sensible halfway house to allow anyone to make the player more notable than he was at the time. Of course, when a prod is removed (as this one was), there's nowhere else a non-notable article ''can'' go other than AfD. My advocation of someone "slapping a Speedy on it" meant that I was rather hoping an admin would see the listing, realise that this was a clear CSD A7 in spite of that tag not sticking and close the discussion early - I'm not a fan of AfDs hanging around like a bad smell when the subject is patently not notable, and I doubt that anyone else much is either. I accept that I didn't necessarily follow process to the letter in what I did, but surely this is a case of ] (or ] if you prefer) rather than sticking to the rules and (as ] puts it above) "tak two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy". I certainly reject any notion that I wasn't "playing by the rules" in trying to speed the inevitable deletion of an article. ] - ] (]) 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', based on the article as it stood and ]. Article most definitely deleted by the rules. Sometimes, the rules are there are no rules. ] <small>]</small> 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''List at AfD'''. I don't really understand what happened here, but IAR wouldn't apply as there's just as much evidence that keeping this article improves the 'pedia as deleting it at this stage. --] <small>]</small> 21:16, 25 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)
*'''Endorse deletion''', ] a memorial; we need to see some evidence of this being an unusual or groundbreaking case. <b>]</b> 21:52, 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. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 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)
*'''Undelete''' per the above comments, list on AfD if need be. 01:18, 25 September 2006
* I have AfDd it. I think this review is now moot. <b>]</b> 09:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:44, 6 September 2022

< September 23 September 25 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

24 September 2006