Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 10 January 2009

9 January 2009

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama

The Ongoing Adventures of Rocket Llama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Keep against consensus. Keep arguments unusually weak, as acknowleged on Closing admin's talk page. Given reason for Keep is "the weight of people screaming 'ITS NOTABLE'", which is a new principle to me, and seems to contradict WP:NOTAVOTE (and User:MBisanz/AfD for that matter). / edg ☺ ☭ 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom I am the one who has nominated the article as AfD and I want to be a co-nominator for this deletion review since I believe that the reasoning of those who want to keep the article is erroneous. See my last entry in the previous AfD for my argumentation. Thanks for your support, Edgarde. --Shishigami (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I find myself divided between what I feel was probably a correct closure of the AfD and what I would !vote if this came up again. The only thing I can find which is close to meeting WP:Notability (web) is a mention in the Henderson State University "Oracle". Thats a pretty marginal attempt in terms of verifiable notability (WP:WEB Criterion 1, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). I think this is a suitable candidate for a Relist in a 2nd AfD since while there was nothing wrong with the closure, I don't see that the article meets notability inclusion requirements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• This DRV should look only at the AFD and whether deletion process was correctly followed; making reference to the article isn't really in order. In this case, there were roughly as many users recommending deletion and recommending keeping. In my view, none of the arguments on either side were so weak as to be discounted, and none were so strong as to be given extra weight. I would have been more inclined to close as no consensus than keep in the circumstances, but no consensus defaults to keep anyway. As such, I endorse the closure, but I would expect the article to be listed again at AFD before long unless substantially improved. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Whatever may be my sociopathy, I cannot subject my fellow Wikipedians to an excessively long, basically pointless !vote, as otherwise I might do, when Stifle has put the argument so cogently. I would add only that, per Usrnme, I do not know that I should object to one's renominating at his/her leisure in order that we might flesh out more usefully the positions, even as I am likely to fall on the merits on the side opposite that of Usr. Joe 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure-- The keep !votes were not only screaming notability, the main argument was that the reason for deletion was not a valid one because the stats from the website were misleading. The keepers also noted that this user 1 created a second account just to nominate an article not following the standard practice in an AfD.--Jmundo (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure DRV is not a repeat of AFD, and while if it were relisted I would most likely fall on the deletion side, the correct procedure was followed, there was clearly no consensus for deletion, whether it would have been better to close it as no consensus is anyone's guess, but regardless of the wording the result would have been the same: keeping the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. DRV is not a repeat of AfD. An eventual relisting would make sense, but given that AfD closure was proper, it should not be immediate. Give people time to fix the article. While I expected this prompt DRV based on the AfD nominator's actions (creating a single purpose account just to pursue deletion of an article on an utterly non-controversial topic -- possible COI?), this is disappointing to see. Teethmonkey (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Observation: 4 keeps outnumbered 3 deletes so the "Keep against consensus" claim which opened this DRV is inaccurate. It's not a consensus anyway, but don't say there was a consensus, much less a consensus contrary to the facts. Teethmonkey (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• endorse the keep the refs look reasonably good to me,for the topic at any rate,so i predict a 2nd afd will lead to the same result. But after a keep, it's usually considered good to wait 4 to 6 months before trying again. Consensus can change, but it is more likely to do so if given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. "No consensus" I could see (though I wouldn't agree with it); "keep," however, is an unsupportable closure, given the nature of the arguments presented in the AfD. Deor (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

from what you have said, there is no degree of consensus on a keep that you think would justify a keep closure?

• Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in this discussion with no overriding policy arguments made to justify ignoring opinions. Personally would have inclined towards no consensus but keep is not completely outside admin discretion. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as a good close. Anyway, calling the keeps "unusually" weak is a bit of hyperbole. We sees lots of weak votes/arguments in AfDs (pretty much any one with "cruft" in it, but we even see some that are just votes, i.e. just a keep or delete and a signature with no argument at all), so I would think for something to be "unusually" weak would require a bit more than what we see in this particular discussion. Best, --A Nobody 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fate: Undiscovered Realms (closed)

Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture

Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Ethnic stereotypes in American media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

These pages were deleted a year and a half ago, but in a recent AfD it was pointed out that the edit history of these articles contained material which is being used in existing articles (e.g. Stereotypes of African Americans, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims). Therefore, I believe these articles should be restored and made into redirects or disambiguation pages (as I indicated in my comment in the African American stereotypes AfD) in order to comply with the GFDL. DHowell (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question: How are you suggesting we redirect these? The source material pages don't exist under other names. For example, "in American media" can't very well redirect to "of African Americans" as that would be confusing... Should this be a recreation followed by a move to a more useful redirect? Or would that undermine the context of the original edits too much? Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Moving it to a more suitable title before making it into a dab to the different existing pages sounds reasonable, but ethnic stereotype already exists and a history merge would undoubtedly cause problematic overlap of edits in there. Any other suggestions for possible targets? Retaining the GFDL for attribution purposes should happen, but the location of the page should make sense too. - Mgm| 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• What Mgm said, and endorse on principle the result of not having articles on popular culture artifacts in popular culture. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Restore Given the clear acceptance of the other articles, I think this article might be well stand--I think consensus in this matter has changed. But I would make an effort to not duplicate, and expand the material of the propensity of Americans (and others) to use such stereotypes in general,. Unlike some of the eds. above, I encourage articles on all notable aspects of popular culture,& such I think the current consensus in general. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Didiot

(Originally a redirect to an article about a living person, currently a redirect to Idiot) Avruch 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Didiot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Redirect deleted by User:Krimpet after two successive, longer-than-one-week deletion discussions ending as "keep" both times. First discussion lasted eight days and ended 24 December; second discussion started 26 December (two days after close) and ended 8 January (13 days later) at 16:48 UTC; the redirect was deleted five and a half hours later, at 22:20 the same day. For disclosure purposes, I was the sole participant in the first discussion, but have nothing to do with either the deleted redirect or the second RfD, which should have been speedily kept as starting two days after a "keep" closure. It simply seems disturbing that in this case, the process was disrupted, first by the second RfD, and then by the admin basically ignoring the result afterward. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I cannot leave the notification on Krimpet's talk page as it's semiprotected and my work computer rejects cookies. I had to ask the admin who closed the second RfD for some clarification, and he/she forwarded my question to Krimpet. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

*Endorse Speedy Deletion per closing admins rational in log and on his own talk page. CSD:G10 is a general CSD criterion and as such applies to redirects - and this looked like nothing but an attack. A new redirect to Idiot may be suitable, but not with a restored edit history. Remember that !votes are not votes and Admins are not required to follow results of XfD - they are supposed to ensure policy is followed. Usrnme h8er (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn per User:Stifles quote from WP:CSD. I stand corrected. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Undelete redirect as this has the effect of overruling the results of two redirect deletion discussions. What's the purpose of the discussion if an admin can arbitrarily overrule a close mere hours later? I participated in the second RfD strictly on procedural bases as the first RfD was closed as keep after an 8 day discussion in which only one person (the IP) actually commented (saying "keep") and then a new RfD was started two days after the close of the first (despite my urging of the speedy keep - as a bad faith nomination - the second discussion lasted almost two weeks, from December 26 to January 8). Edit note by deleting admin overlooked the sourced information in the target article which mentions the contentions between Ms. DiDio and some advocates of Linux... and their use of the epithet in question (a look at the target will reveal that the controversy was explained in a NPOV manner, definitely not a violation of WP:BLP). B.Wind (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn per WP:CSD: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements". Stifle (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I think this deletion (G10, attack page) was based on a misunderstanding about spelling and pronunciation. While someone may mistake it for rhyming with idiot, a long 'oo'-sound (as in Edgar Allen Poe) without speaking the t is also possible. Together with the fact that a speedy is inappropriate when 2 discussions have just occured, I think it should be restored and I have done so. - Mgm| 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per the article and , "Didiot" is indeed intended as an attack and as rhyming with "idiot".  Sandstein  19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - attack redirect, pure and simple. No consensus in either to delete, and no consensus should default to delete when regarding BLP violations. Sceptre 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse G10 deletion. The deletion discussions were ludicrously cursory, with one editor each commenting. Disparaging and unhelpful redirect to a WP:BLP.  Sandstein  19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I need not, I'm sure, to recite the significant reasons for which the community have determined that pages that have survived a deletion discussion may not be speedied; the blanket proscription exists, in any case (rightly, IMHO), such that G10 could not properly have been applied here. Sandstein's analysis of the underlying deletion discussions is probably quite right, but one's recourse to claim that the RfDs were wrongly closed is to raise the issue at DRV; were one to bring the closes here, I'd !vote to relist, as I suppose we ought to now (or, more precisely, upon restoration), even as on the substantive issues I will be a "keep" (I would observe once more, though, that we need not to reach those issues here; the procedural posture is clearly flawed, and we at DRV are obliged to address that first). Joe 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • CSD aside, WP:BLP is sufficient grounds for the deletion of an attack redirect. If its deletion is not endorsed here on the basis of it having survived a XfD, I intend to delete it under the authority of WP:BLPSE.  Sandstein  22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And actions taken pursuant to WP:BLPSE (which has, I think it fair to say, been roundly rejected by the community, to the extent that I am convinced that there no longer exists majority support on the ArbCom for the decision that led to its creation; I am very confident that the Committee will elect explicitly to reconsider the holding after the new members settle in) may be overruled by "clear community consensus" (more simply, consistent with the outcome a consensus-based community discussion), which, at least theoretically, exists here. The RfDs, whatever may have been their insufficiency, represent, at least theoretically, a consideration—and rejection—by the community of the BLP issues, such that the onus was on those raising BLP-based objections to obtain a contrary consensus before acting. You are welcome, of course, to do as you please should DRV counsel recreation, but I imagine that both the community and the ArbCom would look with disfavor on your wheel warring against consensus, although I don't know that anyone (including me) would get particularly exercised over a matter of such little significance. Joe 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The outcome of a sparsely attended RfD cannot sensibly be interpreted as a "clear community consensus" - especially when it directly and obviously contradicts the BLP policy. What people are asking for here, in overturning the deletion, is to put process above content and above the BLP policy. The very object of having an IAR policy, and of constantly reminding people that the encyclopedia is what matters (and not our byzantine processes), is to prevent absolutely wrong decisions from being made and upheld based on a narrow and small interpretation of criteria used in an edit summary. Avruch 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Get it gone. I can hardly believe we are even having this conversation. WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP clearly apply, nuke from orbit, sprinkle the remains with anthrax toxin and post a big sign saying "beware of the leopard". Good grief. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse Deletion and strongly considering deleting under BLP. BLP is a non-negotiable policy, no matter how much as a techie, I don't like her and what she's done. The very idea of the redirect violates BLP. SirFozzie (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:BLP. The general principle articulated in the criteria for speedy deletion that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." is inapplicable to XFD discussions in which participation is extremely limited, and are therefore reasonably believed not to reflect a consensus of the overall community. Unilateral deletions should not be performed after controversial AFD discussions merely due to bare disagreement with "keep" or "no consensus" outcomes. John254 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No question. Avruch 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion under BLP this is one of the problems of RfD and the XfD processes generally except AfD--they do not get a sufficient cross section of the community & in practice we do need to review them here. I cannot however see using the heavy bat of BLPSE for something as trivial like this--accepted or not, it is not necesssary. DGG (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree too much with this; my solution to the problem of an RfD's having been poorly visited, though, is for us to return the matter to RfD, again and again if necessary (and not just for the sake of process; it may be argued convincingly that a legitimate RfD discussion is more likely to reflect the consensus of the community than a similarly constituted DRV discussion, especially in a case like this, where in the attendant DRV the procedural and substantive issues are unhelpfully enmeshed). Joe 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is a reasonable alternative, if sufficiently wide notice is given. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The redirect was there for GFDL compliance, as is noted in the edit history. Prose originally written by Dysprosia and 68.100.57.223 was copied into another article by a third party. Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • GFDL compliance can be preserved by merging the page history into Laura DiDio (delete Laura DiDio, move the redirect to Laura DiDio, restore all revisions at that page title), then deleting the redirect at the offending title. John254 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I already know how it can be preserved, thank you. And no, that's not the procedure in this case. I did outline in it what I wrote, but that was lost when I hit an edit conflict. The procedure in this case is more complex, in order to avoid (a) having anything other than those two edits in the merged article's edit history and (b) having undesirable links to didiot in the merged article's edit history at the end of the process. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, one would have to delete the redirect, then restore only the revisions of the redirect merged into Laura DiDio, before moving the redirect to Laura Didio. John254 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:Merge and delete has a list of techniques that may be used. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Redelete Once the GFDL issues mentioned above have been sorted, redelete this redirect as a BLP violation. Strictly speaking by process should not have been speedy deleted but in this case (IAR) this Deletion Review has become a defacto RFD and is getting a much wider community participation than the original RFDs. Sending it back to RFD would just be a waste of time when the discussion can and is being held here. The basic problem here as DGG said is the lack of participation in RFDs. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A couple of extra comments. The present redirect is in many ways worse than the previous one as it now redirects one persons nickname to idiot, which imo is a clear BLP violation. Secondly using BLPSE to delete this redirect, if there is a consensus to overturn the speedy deletion of the redirect on this DRV, will not resolve this case but instead just move the discussion over to WP:AN/AE where we would then hold the same discussion again. Better to just have the discussion here and hopefully reach consensus that this redirect should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• endorse G10 deletion - this is an obvious BLP issue and we simply do not need this redirect. Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, not kosher per WP:BLP. Redirecting a term of disparagement to a BLP isn't very nice :( And a "consensus of one" at RFD isn't :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion BLP attack page. The speedy was valid, and the admin who undid a BLP based speedy should know they are living dangerously. A BLP speedy holds until there's a consensus that it is invalid. Undeletion=desysopping.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)