| Revision as of 06:25, 30 September 2006 editBignole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers67,638 edits →[]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:44, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,017 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 21 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> |
|
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]'' |
|
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]'' |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
===29 September 2006=== |
|
===29 September 2006=== |
| Line 14: |
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. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
===]=== |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
This article was deleted once on bad faith by a wikipedia admin. It was deleted again today by the same user (]) who I am now certain is abusing his authority as an admin. This article will be recreated until we can establish consensus which was never achieved in the first place. At last check the discussion for deletion was 7 for and 7 against. That's not consensus nor is it a majority. The administrator claimed that certain votes did not count but this was strictly a ] reaction as he had not inquired properly into the history for votes on deletion of this article. Had the administrator done so, and it was pointed out several times, he would have realized that it was continually pointed out that the users who voted for the deletion of the article were a block of people all from the same IRC channel on ] who all had a vendetta against Mr. Nellis because they didn't agree with his politics. The other articles which I wrote on the other noteable Ottawa activist, ] was never deleted. It was only modified by the same users to edit on Nellis' name. Can we get some clear answers from the Misplaced Pages admin? Does a 7-7 vote count as a reason for deletion? What do you consider 'consensus' because the definition is quite clear. Can you not take into account the fact the users asking for deletion are political enemies of Nellis? Can you not see that the article is not a vanity piece but a very ordinary article for any activist in the same light as the article on ]? If ] cannot properly respect the condition of being an admin, perhaps is admin status should be removed. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a fair community and not one where the admins seemingly delete articles at random.--] 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What you are saying is not true. As far as I can tell, the only delete vote that came from a regular of Dalnet was kultur. I am from Dalnet, but I did not vote since I nominated. If you check the histories of the other users who voted for deletion, nearly all are longtime wikipedia users and not SPAs. This has nothing to do with a political disagreement and everything to do with the fact that this article does not belong on Misplaced Pages. ] 01:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''': I welcome review from all in the community here. I discounted several single-purpose account votes in this closing; more were there on the "keep" side than the "delete" side. Furthermore, the delete voters made some unanswered policy-related points, including ] and ], that the keep voters largely didn't answer. They were not entirely unanswered, but in the end, there was a clear majority (again, among established users) for deletion, plus, ], which the delete camp clearly wins. I have now ]ed the ] page as Fmaack has reposted the material twice in the last day, including unsourceable stuff like Nellis' IRC handle and personal heroes. I've patiently tried to explain myself to Fmaack and a couple other users: really, this was not a very difficult decision at all. Frankly, if I'd gotten one more harangue, I would have opened a DRV myself here. Note to admins looking through the file history: I undeleted the page and userfied it to ], after that user asked for the source back so the issues could be addressed, in good faith, so some of the history is there. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
I would like the closing of this AfD for suposed trolling reviewed. I feel I presented evidence that shows the movie is not notable and further that it fails every aspect of the proposed guideline of ]. The article shows no notoriety in the film either. The original AfD proposal is ] and a repost of my arguements is below: |
|
|
|
|
|
Fails ] on almost all levels, rundown listed below. ] 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In general a film is notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria: |
|
|
# The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers. |
|
|
#* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews ''except'' for the following: |
|
|
#:'''Only one review provided in web based magazine. Slant magazine ''' |
|
|
#The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters. |
|
|
#:'''Per IMDB release information it has not been.''' |
|
|
#The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. |
|
|
#:'''No awards issued''' |
|
|
#The film is a full length film released by a major studio. |
|
|
#:'''Has not been''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope people can look at the evidence and not an admins accusations, we do not keep or delete articles for reasons outside of the AfD process itself. I hope people voice their opinions on the matter according to the content itself and our guidelines here. --] 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comments'''<br> |
|
|
I'm having trouble finding these policies that you are quoting. I've been to the ] page and I don't see these things. Could you provide me an actual link so that I may be more objective, thank you. ] 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Clarified thank you. --] 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks. I've check this out, and I've found some issues with it. The page you are referencing currently is neither policy nor guideline, and is really only something someone wants to be established. So, using this as a basis really isn't satisfying in terms of deletion. I have looked at the film page and it is in dier need of information. Currently, it has almost no information, not even a well established format. I'm not aware of how many editors are working on this page, but someone needs to update it, especially since the film has been out since 2004. As for the things you did bring up, I would find another source besides IMDb.com. They have become notorious for not researching their information, especially lately. I'm sure more than 1 review could be found if actually searched for. I think the main problem with this article is more of editors not caring enough to do some research than there not being enough out there to support it. I think if there is truly nothing out there for this film then it should be deleted, but there usually is. BUT, it wouldn't surprise me if everything that is found is in French, and thus better suited for one of the foreign language Wiki's. But, this is just my opinion on the matter. ] 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have done part of the research sales etc from IMDB, the movie was not released wide, you can look at the link and find other information if you require. The movie fails basic notability, it then goes on to fail notability on the grounds of the proposed methods for films of establishing notability. As articles are required to establish their notability I think it against speaks for itself as why it should be deleted. I would just like the AfD reopened so people can put their own opinions in as I feel it was unfairly closed. --] 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and Relist''', only because it is not apparent (or "obvious") why the nominator was allegedly trolling. The nomination itself was well-reasoned (whether you agree with the reasoning or not), and without anything else I cannot assume that this nomination was in bad faith. Even if ] is not a policy or a guideline, there is nothing to say that the criteria cannot be a consideration in deletion or retention. I have to assume the nomination was made in good faith. That said, I doubt it would end up being deleted after a proper AfD ran its course, because it looks like this film does meet encyclopedic criteria. However I am only considering the AfD results - this is not the place to argue the merits of the article. ] 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*He's using a proposed guideline that is blindly copied from other notability pages in an effort to pervert what's been standard practice — and essentially undisputed — regarding film articles for some time. Couple this with this same user's consistent disruptiveness and deliberate obfuscation on ], I see no reason to believe this was anything but an effort to waste time.--] | ] 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and Relist''' neither the fact that the nominator has a history of misbehavior nor the fact that Sean Black disagrees with the proposed guideline (which is WP:NOTFILM, by the way) are appropriate speedy criteria. ] 02:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Troll''' User:NuclearUmpf account was created September 18, 2006. His very first action was to put an ]. Since then the majority of his edits have edits have been arguments on ]. When I voted to keep the article ], he then put my article that I just created, ], up for deletion. I will let the admin know that he is arguing about this deletion, along with all the other admins that he is arguing with on the Administrators' noticeboard. ] (]) 02:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think it may be best served on the French Misplaced Pages, seeing as it is a French movie, produced there, distributed there, was nominated for 4 Foreign Awards. I've check and there isn't an article for it on the French Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how it works, and I highly doubt you can just copy it and the French version will automatically update it. I think it needs a lot of work to even be a decent film page (as it stands now it's just bare). None of these rules are required, and if they were then more than half of the articles on Films in Misplaced Pages would be deleted by now. A more comprenhensive page should be created, and the entire thing should be moved to it's appropriate Wiki. ] 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
On September 24, ] speedily a template I created, ]. The deletion reason he gave referenced a comment by ], who previously deleted a template by the same name. ] characterized the deleted template as a "Rogue deletion for a CSD that doesn't exist." However, the template that I created referenced an existing CSD, ], and was intended to be placed on pages whose creation constituted spam vandalism. Clearly, since not all creation of pages which appear to be comprised largely of advertising matter constitutes spam vandalism, many articles which are written as advertisements do not qualify for speedy deletion, and must be nominated for deletion through the AFD process. Nonetheless, in extreme cases, creation of advertisement articles does constitute spam vandalism, and such articles are subject to deletion under ]. For instance, if a user creates twenty articles consisting of the same advertisement under different, unrelated, names, these articles are considered to be spam vandalism, and are subject to speedy deletion. I created this template in response to just such an occurrence. Similarly, if a user creates, say, an article comprised entirely of advertisements and links to various offshore pharmacies bearing no relation to the article title, I would consider such a page to be subject to speedy deletion under CSD G3. While there is an existing speedy deletion template for CSD G3, ] is valuable for a more precise description of why spam vandalism pages are subject to speedy deletion. Since I created ] for a legitimate purpose compatible with ], and with no intention of employing it to request "rogue deletion for a CSD that doesn't exist", ] clearly does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. I am therefore requesting the undeletion of this template. ] 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep Deleted''' Truly, I support the creation of a speedy category for spam, but at this time there does not exist one, regardless of various attempts to shoehorn it into one of the existing categories. (Spam does not fit the Misplaced Pages definition of ].) Until there is a legitimate, consensus agreement on a CSD spam category, we cannot have a template to so tag it. ] 04:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Actually, spam ''is'' a type of vandalism, as is clearly stated in ]. Furthermore, as I explained at length above, this template is not intended to be applied to ordinary advertisement articles as a substitute for the AFD process. Instead, this template is intended to be used for the purpose of dealing with extreme spam vandalism, such as link farms for offshore pharmacies with some accompanying advertising matter, mass article creation with the same advertisement, and other pages which can be and are speedily deleted under CSD G3 today. ] 04:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***From the vandalism section referenced: "''Note that this applies only to placing links on numerous and/or unrelated pages.''" Placing links on pages is not grounds to delete a page, only to revert the links. I know some admins are liberal in speedying blatant spam, but it's a stretch to say any existing category authorizes it, though in the most blatant cases you could always fall back on ]. ] 04:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**We can't really "revert" the links if the page was created with them. Where the page was created for the sole purpose of holding the links and associated advertising matter, we can consider it to be an instrumentality of the spam vandalism, and thus, spam vandalism itself. That is, if we wish to confine ourselves to the letter of the policy. However, another policy, ] councils against such literality in policy interpretation: "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines." In actual practice, blatant spamming is vandalism, links or not. If a user adds advertising text to twenty articles, while refraining from adding any links, this user ''will'' be blocked for spam vandalism, notwithstanding the fact that the user never violated the letter of the policy. In practice, if a user creates twenty advertising articles with identical text and misleading names, the user ''will'' be blocked and the articles ''will'' be speedily deleted. I would be laughed out of AFD for nominating such "articles" for deletion. The whole debate as to whether a CSD category for "spam" should be created really revolves around whether ordinary corporate/product/service vanity articles should be subject to speedy deletion. The fact remains that blatant, extreme spam vandalism, such as mass identical advertisement creation and linkspam farming is already subject to speedy deletion under CSD G3. ] 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment:''' I agree with your intent, and I agree that spam should be able to be spee speedily deleted. However as it seems not everybody agrees it already can be I reccommend proposing a new speedy deletion criteria along the lines of "Pages created soley for spamming" there would need to be a proviso that if there was content beside the spam links that was (potentially) encyclopaedic and didn't meet other speedy criteria (e.g. if there was spam links and and a nn-biography) then just the links should be removed. The place for this is ] not DRV though. ] 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion''', it is quite likely that the current wording of a possible spam criterion will pass, but until it does we should not encourage the belief that spam is a speedy criterion. Note to the interested: adding a vapid and self-promotional article is vandalism, and we can speedy vandalism... <b>]</b> 10:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Deleting spam vandalism under CSD G3 is the purpose of this template, as I have described above. It is not intended to be used on ordinary advertisement articles, the speedy deletion of which is being debated at ]. If we are going to interpret the CSD so narrowly that even mass advertisement article creations for which a new user would be indefinitely blocked can't be speedily deleted, then what criteria for speedy deletion does my template meet? ] 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Keep deleted.''' I'm sensitive to issues regarding out-of-process deletion, but in this case, the existence of {{tl|db-spam}} would cause problems. If you try to mark a page for speedy deletion, and you know about the templates, sooner or later you will try {{tl|db-spam}}, and its existence will confuse you. What the template says isn't nearly as important as its name: people use them for the name, not for what is said inside. Okay, that said, I can understand trying to back up a very EGREGIOUS case of spam with criterion G3, but honestly, I think it would be a rare exception when that is legitimate. Creating promotional articles isn't a type of vandalism; it's inappropriate, but not everything inappropriate is vandalism. There used to be a version of {{tl|db-spam}} that said in big red letters "Spam is not a criterion for speedy deletion; please use ] instead" or something like that. I for one think that was a great idea, and we should bring it back in some form, because this kind of thing does keep happening. (Heck, I made the same mistake once!) ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|