Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 19: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:39, 19 February 2010 editLifebaka (talk \| contribs)15,116 edits →User talk:Spartaz: closing: Moot. Deleting admin reversed own action.← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:05, 19 February 2010 edit undoYekrats (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,893 edits →19 February 2010 Next edit →
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2\|page=<PAGE NAME>\|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>\|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ -->		Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2\|page=<PAGE NAME>\|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>\|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ -->
			====]====
			:{{DRV links\|Super Obama World\|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Super Obama World\|article=}}

			Game is non-notable. According to ], "Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry." This article does not do that.
			Yes, it did get some coverage from the BBC and a few other places around election time, but what makes this Flash game more notable than the ? ] (]) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


	====] (closed)====		====] (closed)====

Revision as of 14:05, 19 February 2010

< 2010 February 18 Deletion review archives: 2010 February 2010 February 20 >

19 February 2010

Super Obama World

Game is non-notable. According to WP:VG/GL, "Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry." This article does not do that. Yes, it did get some coverage from the BBC and a few other places around election time, but what makes this Flash game more notable than the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama? Yekrats (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Spartaz (closed)

User talk:Spartaz – Moot. Deleting admin reversed own action. – lifebaka++ 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:Spartaz (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Following what appears to be a dispute with others, Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and protected his user talk page. I undid this deletion as out of policy. Spartaz has re-deleted it and labeled himself as retired. Since people do not own their talk page or any other page, I ask that the page be undeleted and unprotected. If Spartaz feels that it ought to be deleted, he may nominate it for WP:MfD. WP:RTV#How to leave states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion." Sandstein 07:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Allow deletion. It seems odd to comment here for something like this, but if a user truly wants to retire from Misplaced Pages for some reason, any reason, they should be able to delete their talk page. RTV. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC) As noted above, the RTV policy explicitly does not extend to talk pages. Talk pages are required to communicate with users. They may also contain content of relevance to other users. Sandstein 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I understand that, but there isn't much to talk about if the person has legitimately left the project. Ideally, we should delete this talk page (leaving it as it is) and remove the administrative privileges from the account. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Looking at the deletion history of his talkpage, he's misused deletion in this way before. He gets mad, "retires", deletes his talkpage, and comes back. It's not an acceptable use of the delete button, and it needs to stop. Scott aka UnitAnode 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Overturn deletion. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. Scott aka UnitAnode 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, speedy close. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Speedy close per Tim Song. The 1st person to !vote here for an overturn is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea. Pcap ping 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Undelete and unprotect (note that I have reversed my speedy closure as the admin in question has now escalated matters by protecting their talk page). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page (thanks!), I think this can now be closed as moot. Sandstein 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User talk:Spartaz – Moot. Deleting admin reversed own action. – lifebaka++ 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Following what appears to be a dispute with others, Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted and protected his user talk page. I undid this deletion as out of policy. Spartaz has re-deleted it and labeled himself as retired. Since people do not own their talk page or any other page, I ask that the page be undeleted and unprotected. If Spartaz feels that it ought to be deleted, he may nominate it for WP:MfD. WP:RTV#How to leave states that user talk pages "are generally not deleted unless there is a specific reason that page blanking is insufficient. This specific reason needs to be established by nominating it via Miscellany for Deletion." Sandstein 07:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow deletion. It seems odd to comment here for something like this, but if a user truly wants to retire from Misplaced Pages for some reason, any reason, they should be able to delete their talk page. RTV. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, the RTV policy explicitly does not extend to talk pages. Talk pages are required to communicate with users. They may also contain content of relevance to other users. Sandstein 08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but there isn't much to talk about if the person has legitimately left the project. Ideally, we should delete this talk page (leaving it as it is) and remove the administrative privileges from the account. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the deletion history of his talkpage, he's misused deletion in this way before. He gets mad, "retires", deletes his talkpage, and comes back. It's not an acceptable use of the delete button, and it needs to stop. Scott aka UnitAnode 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Overturn deletion. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances. Scott aka UnitAnode 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, speedy close. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy close per Tim Song. The 1st person to !vote here for an overturn is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea. Pcap ping 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Undelete and unprotect (note that I have reversed my speedy closure as the admin in question has now escalated matters by protecting their talk page). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page (thanks!), I think this can now be closed as moot. Sandstein 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.