| Revision as of 02:07, 13 October 2006 editAlfakim (talk | contribs)5,185 edits →[]: comments← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:43, 6 September 2022 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,038 editsm Fix linter errors (via WP:JWB) |
| (52 intermediate revisions by 25 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> |
|
===11 October 2006=== |
|
===11 October 2006=== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
'''''Nomination for:'' Undeletion.''' |
|
|
:'']'' |
|
|
This article was deleted without any input from the WikiProject which covers it (i.e. ]) who would have given more argumentation that may have provided reasons for the AfD's not going through. Some of those reasons are listed below. I have now alerted the project to this deletion and we would like this deletion to be reviewed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Put simply, there is also another article ]. If ] goes, so does that; if ] stays, ] stays. They are both of exactly the same format. |
|
|
|
|
|
] is a valid article because it provides information on how the DVDs were released, complications there were, etc. It also lists the individual release dates for each of the DVD volumes. This is important information simply because the Stargate DVDs, canonically released in many volumes, are collectors items; particularly ones bought at the release. The article, along with ] is a useful list. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure the Project will say more. For now, I humbly submit this article to Deletion Review! --''']'''-- ] 22:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion'''. The argument that "some cruft exists therefore this cruft must exist" is, as ever, spectacularly unpersuasive. <b>]</b> 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Thats not what we are arguing here at all. There wasn't even anything fictional in this entire article, how could it be cruft. ] 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Cruft is anything which is of strictly limited appeal outside of a closed circle of fans. I think we can leave catalogue listings to Amazon. <b>]</b> 09:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support undeletion''' With at least 4 seasons being made and the abundance of information that can be presented this is a valid article. ] 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Re-list''' Although I don't think it's necessarily to have to notify a WikiProject about a deletion, it seems to me that it's very bad taste not to do so when it's so evident that there is one. Given what ] is, I understand why ] was deleted, but I can see it going either way. Re-listing will allow us to come to a real consensus on this, rather than having it be snuck under the radar. -- ] 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I guess no one noticed this, but it seems the nominator ] was a ] (]). -- ] 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::And this matters because...? Also, '''relist'''. --] <small>]</small> 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Given that you need an account to initiate an AfD, in contrast to almost everything the vast majority of users and a significant proportion of editors want to do on Misplaced Pages, doing so is a perfectly legitimate use of one, single or not. Unless they click 'remember me' people who create an account because Misplaced Pages forces them to may just as well fade back into the shadows once they've done what they wanted. Anyway, the nomination was based on policy and supported by numerous editors in good standing, so that's not really important. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist.''' SPA = bad faith until proven otherwise. (Yeah, I know it's not policy, but I can dream....) --] 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Absolute rubbish and a monumental violation of ]. Not just not policy, but explictly anti-policy. I urge you to read my above post to <s>Aaron</s> and reconsider this attitude. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::But I '''am''' Aaron! --] 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Sorry, I meant Ned. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Guy, no compelling reason to overturn the AfD, which had a near-unanimous consensus for deletion bar one editor who argued for keeping (but gave no reasoning). It's neither necessary, reasonable nor always beneficial to inform a relevant WikiProject (of which there are a hundreds of varying degrees of utility), as depending on the WikiProject it may amount to votestacking, inadvertantly or deliberately. I would take an educated guess that telling WikiProjects on fictional universes (or fancruft if you prefer) that something is up for deletion is more likely to result in reflexive 'keep' !votes than, say, WikiProject India or WikiProject Science. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Whoa there, extreme bad faith. I'm apart of WP:STARGATE and I'd probably have moved for a delete too. Not only that, but several WikiProjects are created to ''decrease'' fancruft and inappropriate articles. I take extreme offense to such a suggestion. The consensus reached, whether I agree with it or not, is hardly a consensus. Have some faith in the system, that if those deletion rationales are valid they would come through in another AfD. Ignoring valid concerns and demeaning your fellow wikipedians as mindless fanboys is no attitude to have. -- ] 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::I agree. This is an extreme baf faith comment. One of The stargate projects primary goals is to eliminate fancruft. |
|
|
*::::Given on the WikiProject's talk page by a member which says ''"Please comment to have this article restored"'' (in contrast to the properly neutral listing on the main page), which exhorts a selected group of members to 'vote' a particular way (the definition of votestacking) and has clearly had the intended effect, I think my educated guess can be upgraded to a persuasive theory at least. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::'''Response:''' As the poster of that comment, I'd like to provide the context to prove this wasn't an attempt for votestacking. See , and the preceding 3-4 edits, to view the previous discussion that came to a decision that a) we didn't like the article deleted, b) we'd have voted to keep and c) we wanted a WP:DRV. So it was perfectly legitimate when I made the final post, "d) here's what we discussed" --''']'''-- ] 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::'''Comment'''. As a member of the project, I will say that however he may have worded his post on the Project page, I'm not involved in some grand conspiracy to votestack. When it's all said and done, I may vote to delete. However, as it stands now, I have no idea what has been deleted or what may be (permanently) restored. I'm just curious about the article itself, what the hubub is about, and would like to make up my own mind. I can't do that if I can't see the article in question. I'm also disappointed that we all seem to be engaged in lawyering with each other instead of being more understanding. Name-calling on the one-side and formulating conspiracy theories on the other is unbecoming. --] 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete''' The fancfruft argument doesn't work here. There wasn't even anything fictional in te entire article. It was all facutal about DVD release dates. How can that possibly be fancruft?!?. Not only that, the deletion nom was in bad faith and atacks agaisn't ] here are also in bad faith. ] 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I wouldn't call the nom in bad faith, but just noting that it was a SPA. If anything, I was saying that to suggest that he probably didn't know to notify a WikiProject or even know that one existed. -- ] 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' Valid AFD. Nomination contains <s>two</s>three reasons for relisting: 1) a second discussion ''might'' produce keep arguments, which is inherently unpersuasive; 2) another similar article exists, however ] reminds us that that carries no weight in discussion; and 3) the data is useful, however, the deletion discussion described it as original research, which is contrary to policy, no matter how useful it is. Also, because I don't see it linked above, here is the AFD: ]. ] 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::How is this article original research? DVD realase dats are published in tons of places. ] 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Note that I said "''the deletion discussion described'' it as original research". Ask that poster why, not me. This is not the deletion discussion. This can be either a discussion about whether the deletion was proper (this case) or a discussion about whether a new and possibly better article can be put on top of a protected deleted article (not this case, as it is not protected deleted). ] |
|
|
*'''Speedy keep deleted'''. This is not AfD redux. ]|] 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' 1. If an SPA's nomination is endorsed unanimously that's clear evidence of good faith. 2. It is incumbent on members of special projects to monitor AfD for relevant nominations. 3. I don't see any convincing argument that this AfD was out of line, and the delete arguments during the AfD were persuasive. I guess that means ] should be deleted too per Alfakim's argument. ~ ] 04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:'''Reply:''' Yes that's right. Either both stay or both go, BEING EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm not a fanboy, I'm looking for consistency here. --''']'''-- ] 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' Five editors (including nom) moved for deletion, one editor moving for a redirect and another for a merge. Considering the number of editors who have a very high interest these articles, why is it unreasonable to re-list this for deletion? Why all the bad faith? Why are some editors afraid to allow additional discussion? |
|
|
: I'll be blunt: don't be assholes about this. This AfD went completely under the radar for us, and we'd like to have our say in it. Not as a WikiProject, but as individual editors in good standing, who have reasonable rational to assume that further discussion is not only appropriate but also productive. As it stand now this will just piss people off and likely mean the article will be re-created later on and be harder to delete a second time. It doesn't matter if you are pro deletion or pro keeping, further discussion is a more than reasonable request and will help prevent further dispute at a later time. -- ] 05:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:First the AfD nominator is acting in bad faith (]), then those who endorse the consensus that supported said bad faith are assholes (]), and we also have an effective claim of ]ership by a WikiProject on deletion discussions that are and always will be community-wide. Policy violation trifecta complete. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::For crying out loud, did you not even read that last post? For one, I already made it clear that I pointed out the SPA '''not''' out of bad faith but as a possible new user who might have otherwise left a message with the WikiProject had he known about it. Second, if you're not acting like an asshole then I'm not talking to you, am I? I didn't call anyone an asshole, but asked that people not be an asshole when looking at this request. And third, this has nothing to do with ownership issues, this has to do with a significant portion of editors who have an interest in the topic's subject, '''including the main contributors of the deleted article''', wanting to get a chance to be included in a discussion that simply somehow got past us. WikiProjects are just points of collaboration, they are not clubs and not everyone in one WikiProject even feels the same way about these issues. We are not of the same mind, we are individual editors. Your lack of good faith on fictional WikiProjects is very evident here, and seems to be your main objection to re-listing. |
|
|
*::Why the hell do we have to fight tooth and nail for a completely reasonable request? Why are people here so defensive about a supposed "consensus" of only 5 editors? Don't you understand that the article will just be created again without a stronger deletion discussion? This works both ways. -- ] 10:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::There is no right to notice about deletion discussions, to anything, fact, fiction, etc... No regular here is going to agree to overturn a deletion decision on the basis of a claim that notice wasn't given. You need to make arguments based on the ] and ]. |
|
|
*:::There is room in the undeletion policy to overturn based on bona-fide arguments that we would be a better ''encyclopedia'' with the article. Not merely based on a claim that such arguments might be made after the deletion is overturned. The old AFD contained arguments that 1) the content was not encyclopedic (i.e, it shouldn't exist anywhere), 2) that it was crufty (also implies not encyclopedic among other meanings), 3) that the info is adequately covered through the external links from the central article (i.e., it isn't encyclopedic to have it), 4) that it is original research, 5) that it is effectively an ad, etc... Arguments to overturn need to overcome those arguments. Given that there are no process violations and nobody in the AFD discussion wanted to keep a standalone article, that is a heavy burden to bear. I don't see even a serious attempt here to make bona-fide arguments that we would be a better ''encyclopedia'' with the article. |
|
|
*:::Nothing prevents the creation of a new article adhering to our policies and standards. However, if it is substantially identical to the old, it will be subject to speedy deletion under CSD G4. The only time DRV needs to get involved in discussions about creating new articles is if the page has been protected deleted, which is not the case here. ] 14:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::The deletion of the original article was not a consensus among the six voters. The members of the project can't see it now, so we can't defend keeping it or merge any good info into another article. If a lawyer-type rationale is required, I'll offer two: "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion (MFD), or because the article was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." "Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. (temporary undeletion)" --] 15:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::One, I did not say that you were responsible for all three violations (a mere two). Two, don't be passive-agressive. You said 'stop being assholes', which was clearly directed at some person or people on the side endorsing deletion. Not specifying who's being an asshole doesn't mean that you're attacking no-one, it means you're attacking everyone. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support undeletion'''. I'm a little disheartened that a small group of people can delete a Project's page without telling them, and then play on that precedent to not restore it when the Project finds out and protests. I'm a member of the Stargate Project and would like to make my mind up, but that's impossible now because the article in question is now gone. To avoid any appearance of shady behavior from my fellow editors, the article should be restored, and discussions on whether to keep it or not should begin from scratch at that point. At least that way anyone who wants to comment on the matter can comment from an informed perspective. ] 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:"A Project's page"? Nope, no ] issues here. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Then how about, "If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion (MFD), or because the article was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." or "Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article, either to use its content elsewhere, or alternatively, because they cannot tell if it was wrongly deleted without seeing what exactly was deleted. (temporary undeletion)" ? --] 20:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist jointly with the SG-1 version''' There is no point having a discussion about just one of them when they are almost identical. Not informing the appropriate wikiproject makes it look like the AfD was in bad faith (it was probably just an oversight, but it looks bad nevertheless), although I'm suprised none of us (the project) had the page watchlisted... --] 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Individual releases of products definitely don't deserve articles. It would probably be best to merge all the stargate stuff into a single article on stargate anyhow. --] 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Wait a second. I remember that you were the guy who wanted to delete the entire project a little while back. Now you want to merge the whole thing? Take a look at ] and tell me if you don't think that 600+ articles megred into one would violate ] ] 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''' along with the Stargate SG-1 DVD article--assume good faith with Wikiproject Stargate, and give them a chance to argue for the article being kept. — ] <font color="#000088"><sup>]</sup>'''/'''<sub>]</sub></font></span> 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''RELIST with ]'''<br />People here seem to have assumed (bad faithly) that ] is a collection of fanboys who just want to save all the Project's articles indiscriminately. This is just simply not true. The project is probably one of the fictional-universe projects most dedicated to reducing fancruft, citing sources, etc. My original argument wasn't "there's an SG-1 article, so this one stays", it was simply: either both stay or both go. I don't mind both going. But I personally think there are reasons for both staying on the same criteria. Whether or not that's true will be up to a double AfD if/when these are both relisted. --''']'''-- ] 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
'''Nomination for relist at afd''' This article about a current event (not far from where I work incidentally) was nominated for deletion by a new account but was speedily kept in less than 20mins and marked as a bad faith nomination (I found that out when I was trying to nominate the article myself(I wanted to suggest a redirect at most to ], and transwikiing any material not already on Wikinews to the Wikinews article; it took about 2 seconds for someone to remove my initial afd tag...)). Afd here: ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the nominator had a good point - too many people treat Misplaced Pages as if its Wikinews (Misplaced Pages is not a place to write up current events of little or no historical importance as per ]). This was a tragic accident and terrible for the casualties, but it has only tenuous links to 9/11). I understand the closing admin's perspective (and the concern about single purpose accounts - I too usually consider all SPAs suspicious) but I disagree that there this is necessarily a bad faith nom, and feel that this afd should be allowed to run, with the precedent of the afds for similar Tampa and Milan small aircraft crashes of 2002 (in both cases, small aircraft crashes into a building, people worry briefly that it was terrorism like 9/11, but it turns out it wasnt): |
|
|
|
|
|
See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The afd for these articles ended in no consensus. While I predict that if relisted, most people will vote for keep ("because it's on the news" and "because it's to do with 9/11") due to recent occurrence of this event (see ]), I feel on principle that this should be relisted rather than just speedily closed as bad faith nom. ] 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Relist after departure from Main Page''' There is no rule preventing new users from nominating articles for deletion; the nominator's statement is perfectly coherent and legitimate. However, due to ] (i.e. the article is linked from the Main Page), we ought to wait until the article is de-linked from the Main Page before deciding whether the article should remain permanently. -- ''']''' 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I refuse to cite ], so ok about the CSD guideline - though I'd like to point out that this is another symptom of the confusion between Wikinews and Misplaced Pages (shouldn't we be linking wikinews articles from the main page current events box? I do feel that wikinews editors are getting the short end of the stick here in terms of wiki user community exposure and the confusion between wikipedia and wikinews. ] 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*The 'in the news' box is for articles which have been updated (or created) recently based on recent events. Of the six items currently in that box, three of the focus articles are 'normal articles' and their scope is larger than a single event - i.e. ], ] and ]. Arguably that's different from 'current events', and it's certainly different from what Wikinews does - and also arguably people do get confused about that. Still, I would say that if it's linked from the main page, it's of some merit, and shouldn't be AfDed while on the Main Page. I have no particular opinion at the moment whether it should be relisted at all. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Since this AfD was closed by a non-admin (namely, myself), my reading of policy is that ] is free to reopen it for further discussion if he wishes, without running it through DRV. I have no objection to that, and I thank ] for taking a moment to notify me of his intentions on my user talk page; there's too little of that sort of courtesy around here lately. Regarding the AfD itself, it was opened by an ] who apparently created his account solely to list this article, and it was a 100% "keep" or "speedy keep", so I invoked ] and closed it. But as long as a good faith editor like Bwithh wishes to reopen it, I'm fine with it. --] 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks Aaron for the gracious response. Given Tariqabjotu's point about the main page issue, and my reservations about ], I'll refrain from nominating the article for the moment. ] 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think this should be 1. resolved on the article talk page (since an actual delete is unlikely and merge discussions don't need to be held on AfD), and 2. probably in two weeks when people start to forget about this accident. ~ ] 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:*I was just posting the same. It'd be better just to merge this in than out-and-out AfD it. I don't think it deserves an article either, but AfD on this sort of topic tends to polarize some people to the point where they don't even consider merge a viable option where they might have had it been proposed through the standard merge channels. ] 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This article was tagged as db-spam and then summarily deleted. I feel that the deletion is completely unjust. The article only describes SMFR as a Helsinki-based BDSM organisation and is not intended to specifically advertise it as any better than any other BDSM organisation. |
|
|
|
|
|
I feel this organisation is notable as being the only public BDSM organisation in Helsinki, as I explained in ]: |
|
|
:On the other hand, SMFR is by far the most famous BDSM organisation in the entire city of Helsinki. It is the only public one, and the only one known to mainstream media. SMFR, founded in 1996, is a legally registered organisation (RY, ryhmäyhdistys). It is one of the two Finnish BDSM organisations to have its own closed discussion forum on ]. |
|
|
(Note about UngBDSM, though: I only know about that organisation what was written in the article, and I'm arguing the case for SMFR, not for UngBDSM.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Going by ], I feel that the following articles are similar enough to be judged by the same criteria: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Of these, I wrote Turun Baletti, but I have nothing whatsoever to do with the others. If the other articles are kept, so should SMFR be. If SMFR is deleted, so should most of the other articles. ] | ] 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Note''': I'm the one that placed the {{tl|db-spam}} tag on this article; I just thought I'd mention that since I've been active on DRV lately. As I recall, it was a single line article with a link to their web page, so I thought it qualified. For the purposes of this discussion, I '''abstain'''. ---] 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' absent multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The most famous BDSM club in Helsinki is not much of a cliam to fame. <b>]</b> 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**But the most famous BDSM club in Turku is? ] has even less information yet no one has deleted it yet. And I think most of the other organisations I mentioned don't claim that much notability either. If I'm wrong, please explain. ] | ] 05:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Feel free to propose ] for deletion. Actually, you can speedy it as {db-author} since you created it. The presence of one inappropriate article can ''never'' be used to justify keeping another. ] 14:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
This article was deleted by an administrator who personally knows Mr. Andrew Bruce Nellis on IRC through Dalnet. I believe this is an unfair because of the personal connection between the two people. It was stated in the past that the users who wanted this article deleted were people who had a personal vendetta against Andrew Nellis. This article was previously deleted at ]. No one from Misplaced Pages believe me and other users when we stated this. All the previous nominations for delete were from people on one IRC channel #atheism who wanted the article deleted because of their personal and political ideological differences from Andrew Nellis. I hope someone looks into this matter immediately because it shows a severe flaw in Misplaced Pages if admins have the power to delete articles on people they know personally. This should NOT be happening.--] 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Deletion log shows deletion was a G4 referencing prior discussion at ]. ] 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' unless someone has a real reason to overturn the AfD. You know, that is based on Misplaced Pages policy and demonstrable evidence of notability, and isn't a fairy story about how our administrators and numerous editors are all part of some sort of shady shenanigan on the Induhnets. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion.''' No valid reason given to overturn the decision. Reading the prior discussion linked above, it appears that several ''delete'' voters cited policy including the core matter of ], while the only non-"they don't like me" ''keep'' votes merely asserted notability without showing any evidence. Regardless of whether the article or the review request are "vanity", it appears that proper process was followed, and we have nothing new to consider except an empty whine. I'm prepared to consider that an IWW labor activist could be notable, but I have no reason to consider this one to be notable, regardless of which side of the atheism dispute he's on (I honestly don't know and don't consider it encyclopedic). ] 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion'''. If it makes anyone feel any better I'll go and re-delete it myself; since I've never heard of the guy that should demonstrate fair play. <b>]</b> 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Please see . |
|
|
This article was deleted through an that was spammed for delete votes on 10 September 2006. Also, see the . |
|
|
|
|
|
One of the main arguments in the discussion that being notable for being seen in many commercials was not enough, that there needed to be verifiable sources. When it was deleted, the closing admin ] emailed me and said I could "recreate the article at any time, as long as it is 'substantially different from the previous article' according to Misplaced Pages policy." In the month since it closed I have been doing more edits on wiki and have gotten a better feel for articles, and have rewritten the article and added verifiable sources. I feel strongly that this article should be included in wikipedia so I decided to bring it here for discussion.--] 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''' Looking at the most recent revision of the article, I still feel that this fails to meet the criteria of ]; in the last AFD, you claim that she meets this criteria:"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Your only sources are the Better Business Bureau, a press release about the advertisements, and ], none of which establish notability by Misplaced Pages's standards. Please find better sources before attempting to re-create this article again. --] 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''' Fails to meet the criteria of either ] or ] and looks fairly close to CSD G11 speedy deletion territory. Lack of ] reliable sourcing is the biggest problem, discussed in more detail by ] above. ] 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''' I think ''there is even an entry at Urban Dictionary'' says enough. ~ ] 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''' absent multiple non-trivial independent mentions in sources of some provable authority. <b>]</b> 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Here is the original AFD: ] from May 10, 2005; result was '''Delete'''. Among the many reasons cited for the deletion was the low number of google hits at the time of the article's listing (about 500) and non-notability. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that the deletion was a little premature, as the phrase gets over 40,000 hits now, and since the deletion of the article, the originator of the phrase appeared on ] , CBS's ] , and the phrase itself has become incorporated into many regular sportscasters routines. The phrase has also been referenced in many other mainstream media, as recently as a ] of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that this was a fairly widespread internet meme (similar to the ]), certainly more significant than many other items with articles on ], that had lasting impressions on other genres, and should be re-evaluated for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. --] 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Undelete''', with no opposition to a relist. Seems like it's reached sufficient audiences that it may not have before. --] <small>]</small> 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Edorse deletion''', allow a redirect to ]. <b>]</b> 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Are you saying that Brian Collins should be undeleted? Two separate AfDs have resulted in it being deleted, one of them only last June. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Ah, I see you are right. In which case of course one must '''endorse deletion''' as a non-notable saying of an apparently non-notable person. <b>]</b> 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion'''. All notability remains gaseous and evaporates the moment the power goes out. No complling reason to overturn the AfD(s). --]<sup>]</sup> 00:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
eAthena is a program used by ] servers. It is the most popular of its kind and its popularity exceeds that of ]'s, which apparently deserves its own article. One of the main reasons for the original deletion was because it lacked information and was used as an advertisement by gaming communities. I propose that the protected redirect be removed since eAthena meets the guidelines listed in ] (it has thousands of users) and a new article written in its place (I can help write one). ] 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Prior AFD discussions: ] in November 2005 resulted in redirect to Ragnarok Online; ] in March 2006 again resulted in redirection. ] 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse redirection''' If you can write an article meeting ] using ], please do so in your user space and then propose that version for review. If ]'s doesn't meet standards, please propose it for deletion, either via PROD or AFD. (Arguments that article X should exist because article Y does have essentially no weight, see ]. ] 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse redirection'''. A para on the Ragnarok article does the job just nicely; any more info can be gained trivially easily from the site's FAQ. I redirected the Freya article as well, which should satidfy the complaint that "other cruft exixts". <b>]</b> 22:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Streetwise Scarlet was deleted because an administrator from another country dictated that they weren't notable. However, they just started out and are one of the many artists who use myspace as their official site, have released a single which is being played on a mjor New Zealand music channel, and an EP and have been endorsed on a few websites and appear on official New Zealand music sites. ] 18:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:"they just started out and are one of the many artists who use myspace as their official site". Exactly. '''Keep deleted'''. ]|] 18:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep deleted''', textbook A7. --''']]]''' 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Undelete when they become the next ]. Until then, '''endorse deletion'''. ~ ] 08:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Endorse deletion''', Zoe put it beautifully. <b>]</b> 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Good God I'm surrounded by idiots (and before anyone harps on about "personal attacks" I was being general and didn't name anyone in particular. It's called being passive aggressive AND I'm griping so if anyone does get tender feelings because of this then I do apologise. This is my Disclaimer). Anyways, do I really have to compile or just start speedy deleting EVERY SINGLE non-notable band and/or artist/actors/actresses/singer who use myspace as an official site or who have "just started out (which fyi i meant within the last 5 years but OBVIOUSLY i overlooked the fact people don't know what a search engine is or how to use one) because i will using this as a basis (which we can thank Zoe for) and it wouldn't be classed as vandalism it would be classed as following the guidelines... however in yet another dispute about this... |
|
|
|
|
|
'''The Notability Guideline''' |
|
|
*''Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.'' - The bands current single is currently on the ] singles chart as of 09-October-2006 |
|
|
*''Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.'' - Try 7 in the last two years both in NZ and Australia. |
|
|
*''Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).'' - Has an EP under AUT Music (indie label for Auckland bands), the single is under ] and their album and next EP will be under ] |
|
|
*''Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).'' - Have been featured in four New Zealand music magazine in the past three months and appeared including '''Real Groovy''' |
|
|
*''Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.'' - Two of the members are from a previous Smokefree RockQuest band back in the late '90's. |
|
|
*''Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.'' - 2006's aren't due until next week. |
|
|
*''Has won or placed in a major music competition.'' - but they did win best new artist at the bNet's. |
|
|
*''Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)'' - Not yet but will be in an up and coming NZ movie. Not that any on here will ever see it. |
|
|
*''Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.'' - all major stations especially The Edge. |
|
|
*''Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.'' - 4 appearance on 3 current affairs shows and a 2 and a half hour co-hosting session on NZ's major music channel, C4. |
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm going to readd them regardless of what anyone says. Decided to do things the right way for once but that works as well as a dead donkey. And before anyone does the "why didn't you add it in the article before", it was because the band member I work with just got back today from the nationwide "School Attack Concert". |
|
|
And once more to cover my own arse, I do apologize to anyone who did take offense from this but that's not really my problem since I am getting tired of this site's dictatorial hierachy but I'm not here to make friends, I'm only here to update things about New Zealand and won't listen to anyone who doesn't know jack about my country especially what's going on in it. And just a side note... I've noticed that a majority of contributors on this site don't know who to google. They just delete. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 22:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|