Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 18: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 23:56, 26 January 2015 editIvanvector (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,139 editsm diff← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:45, 27 January 2015 edit undoBobrayner (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,706 edits →The Weight of Chains 2: hmmmNext edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:
	*'''Endorse close, allow restoration''' - There's nothing to do here. Consensus was that the article should be a redirect because the film had not yet been released. The close was proper. Now that the film has been released, the having-not-been-released reason for the original deletion discussion no longer exists, thus that consensus is moot. Nothing wrong with having recreated the article at this point. If editors here feel that there are other, non-not-being-released reasons for deletion, that is the subject for a fresh AfD. Go to. ] (]) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		*'''Endorse close, allow restoration''' - There's nothing to do here. Consensus was that the article should be a redirect because the film had not yet been released. The close was proper. Now that the film has been released, the having-not-been-released reason for the original deletion discussion no longer exists, thus that consensus is moot. Nothing wrong with having recreated the article at this point. If editors here feel that there are other, non-not-being-released reasons for deletion, that is the subject for a fresh AfD. Go to. ] (]) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Note to closer''' - I have refactored a number of back-and-forth sniping comments from a few editors which were not constructive to this discussion, in the interest of keeping this civil and on-topic. If you are interested in them anyway, please see . ] (]) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		*'''Note to closer''' - I have refactored a number of back-and-forth sniping comments from a few editors which were not constructive to this discussion, in the interest of keeping this civil and on-topic. If you are interested in them anyway, please see . ] (]) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
			::Did you really remove a diff showing that UrbanVillager canvassed supporters? That is unlikely to help the closer gauge the community's true position. ] (]) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 00:45, 27 January 2015

< 2015 January 17 Deletion review archives: 2015 January 2015 January 19 >

18 January 2015

List of unconfirmed exoplanets (closed)

List of unconfirmed exoplanets – Not within the scope of DRV. Please discuss with the deleting admin before bringing it here, and be sure the listing meets WP:DRVPURPOSE – Lankiveil 09:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of unconfirmed exoplanets (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I see that EPE has a list of unconfirmed exoplanets. So I would have voted keep, the list is worthy as some of these planets will be confirmed eventually. Even having list of retracted planets is like having readers reading history books. Planet Star 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Speedy close as out of scope of deletion review. From the top of the deletion review page: Deletion Review should not be used: because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment; when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination As such, this listing is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of unconfirmed exoplanets – Not within the scope of DRV. Please discuss with the deleting admin before bringing it here, and be sure the listing meets WP:DRVPURPOSE – Lankiveil 09:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I see that EPE has a list of unconfirmed exoplanets. So I would have voted keep, the list is worthy as some of these planets will be confirmed eventually. Even having list of retracted planets is like having readers reading history books. Planet Star 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy close as out of scope of deletion review. From the top of the deletion review page:
Deletion Review should not be used:
1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination
As such, this listing is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The Weight of Chains 2

Since the vote in late September 2014, the film sequel has been released worldwide, with premieres at the Montecasino Film Festial in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Swedish Film Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and the National Museum of Culture in Mexico City (also shown in Vancouver, Toronto, Innsbruck, Stuttgart, Berlin, etc.). I added notable references for the article which has been greatly expanded. UrbanVillager (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I closed the original AfD. I have suggested to UrbanVillager that trying to build consensus for this at Talk:The Weight of Chains would be a lighter-weight (and thus superior) process than DRV. FWIW, if events have unfolded over time which make the issues raised in the AfD no longer valid, then restoring the article may make sense, but I'll leave that to other people to decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Overturn - The film appears to have been shown in many locations and the interviewees are known/significant people. This has also been sourced in the version that User:Urbanvillager linked to. Therefore, it seems notable enough to have its own article. Having it as a footnote to "The Weight of Chains 1" feels like an inadequate and aesthetically ugly solution. If someone then proceeded to add the proper template to the second movie as well, in that article, it would look even worse. - Anonimski (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Overturn. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do here. Deletion discussions that end with a redirect or other non-delete decision can be amended by talk page consensus or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Uphold the earlier AfD, since there's lots of bluster but not much actual evidence of notablity. bobrayner (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Uphold the 'multiple locations' described above represent single screenings (many non-commercial, and many free ie approx. 10 audiences have seen the film, some at free showings). The two festival screenings are possibly notable, however the only source for the contents of the film are (oldish) interviews with the film maker himself (self-sourced info). No reviews appear to be available or seem likely to appear in the near future. I do not see any need for a seperate article at present as this new material can easily be incorporated into its present 'redirect' section.Pincrete (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse original AfD close and restore. The AfD close was an accurate assessment of the consensus in the discussion. RoySmith was correct in closing as redirect with the history preserved under the redirect rather than delete. This has allowed editors to work on the article after new sources surfaced without having to ask an admin to restore the article. This is a clear example of a scenario I mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
I recommend restoring the article (which has already been done) because circumstances have changed. The film has now premiered and new sources have surfaced and been added to the article:
I am unfamiliar with the sources' publishers so do not know how reliable they are. If editors still believe the subject is not notable, then that discussion should be held at another AfD.
Cunard (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The first source is from Tanjug, the Serbian state news agency. Subotica.com is a generalistic website of the city of Subotica. baneff.com is the official website of BaNeFF - Balkan New Film Festival. mexicoescultura.com is one of the main Mexican websites about cultural events. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Overturn - per UrbanVillager and Anonimski. FkpCascais (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Would UrbanVillager please stop replying and challenging every comment? Stifle (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse close, allow restoration - There's nothing to do here. Consensus was that the article should be a redirect because the film had not yet been released. The close was proper. Now that the film has been released, the having-not-been-released reason for the original deletion discussion no longer exists, thus that consensus is moot. Nothing wrong with having recreated the article at this point. If editors here feel that there are other, non-not-being-released reasons for deletion, that is the subject for a fresh AfD. Go to. Ivanvector (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Note to closer - I have refactored a number of back-and-forth sniping comments from a few editors which were not constructive to this discussion, in the interest of keeping this civil and on-topic. If you are interested in them anyway, please see this diff. Ivanvector (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you really remove a diff showing that UrbanVillager canvassed supporters? That is unlikely to help the closer gauge the community's true position. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Young Independence (closed)

Young Independence – Nothing to do here. Closed per S Marshall – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Young Independence (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The group is very notable and a simple google can find a number of sustained newspaper articles since 2010. The admin that deleted the page has been contacted by wikipedia in the past for being seen as conducting an 'edit war' on the main party's page. The merged article with the page UK Independence Party also is a mess as frankly if Young Independence is not notable enough to merit it's own encyclopaedia page how can a deputy county chairman leaving the group possibly be even slightly notable? Some major media references to Young Independence include and to name but a few. The page in question clearly is notable. Sorry for the sub-par formatting of this complaint but I am new to wikipedia.Williambatesuk (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I've fixed the listing a little for you. Generally speaking it's going to be seen as a very weak argument to start "attacking" the admin rather than talk about any substantive problems with a close. I also have no idea what you mean the admin has been contacted by wikipedia, wikipedia is an encylopedia, it isn't sentient and can't contact people. Do you have a conflict of interest in this matter? Looking to the five year old deletion discussion, the outcome seems pretty clear, so that should be Endorsed, as to if now the situation is different, I think that's an editorial decision not something for DRV. If someone independent wanted to create an article I can't see there would be a particular block to that, not withstanding it could of course be taken to AFD again. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC) ~~FWIW this suggests the admin who closed the discussion on this subject has never edited the UKIP article, so not sure where the claims of edit warring come from.~~ --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Struck through most of my comments now having dug a little, it appears the request for review actually relates to this recently being redirected by an editor. This editor isn't an admin, and the article hasn't been deleted. This is ultimately an editorial dispute, really there are a few options - one the WP:BRD cycle, revert the redirection and then discuss it. Or start a discussion on the talk page of the redirect target to gain any consensus to demerge and have a standalone article. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Out of scope of DRV; this is a content/redirect issue, not a deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I agree that it's out of scope, and that it's basically an editorial dispute. In an attempt to be helpful and to kickstart the WP:BRD cycle I have reversed the merger and restored the article. I think the deletion review can probably be closed without result, if an uninvolved admin happens to pass by.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Young Independence – Nothing to do here. Closed per S Marshall – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The group is very notable and a simple google can find a number of sustained newspaper articles since 2010. The admin that deleted the page has been contacted by wikipedia in the past for being seen as conducting an 'edit war' on the main party's page. The merged article with the page UK Independence Party also is a mess as frankly if Young Independence is not notable enough to merit it's own encyclopaedia page how can a deputy county chairman leaving the group possibly be even slightly notable? Some major media references to Young Independence include and to name but a few. The page in question clearly is notable. Sorry for the sub-par formatting of this complaint but I am new to wikipedia.Williambatesuk (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the listing a little for you. Generally speaking it's going to be seen as a very weak argument to start "attacking" the admin rather than talk about any substantive problems with a close. I also have no idea what you mean the admin has been contacted by wikipedia, wikipedia is an encylopedia, it isn't sentient and can't contact people. Do you have a conflict of interest in this matter? Looking to the five year old deletion discussion, the outcome seems pretty clear, so that should be Endorsed, as to if now the situation is different, I think that's an editorial decision not something for DRV. If someone independent wanted to create an article I can't see there would be a particular block to that, not withstanding it could of course be taken to AFD again. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
~~FWIW this suggests the admin who closed the discussion on this subject has never edited the UKIP article, so not sure where the claims of edit warring come from.~~ --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Struck through most of my comments now having dug a little, it appears the request for review actually relates to this recently being redirected by an editor. This editor isn't an admin, and the article hasn't been deleted. This is ultimately an editorial dispute, really there are a few options - one the WP:BRD cycle, revert the redirection and then discuss it. Or start a discussion on the talk page of the redirect target to gain any consensus to demerge and have a standalone article. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope of DRV; this is a content/redirect issue, not a deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's out of scope, and that it's basically an editorial dispute. In an attempt to be helpful and to kickstart the WP:BRD cycle I have reversed the merger and restored the article. I think the deletion review can probably be closed without result, if an uninvolved admin happens to pass by.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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