| Revision as of 10:40, 6 September 2006 editAnomo (talk | contribs)2,334 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:48, 6 September 2006 edit undoDoc glasgow (talk | contribs)26,084 edits rv WP:SNOW - this nomination is just plain disruptiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| </noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
| ===5 September 2006=== | ===5 September 2006=== | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| : Dec 2004 - ] - closed as "delete" | |||
| : Jun 2005 - ] - closed as "keep" | |||
| : Mar 2006 - ] - closed as "no consensus" | |||
| : Jul 2006 - ] - closed as "delete" | |||
| : Jul 2006 - - deletion endorsed | |||
| Encyclopedia Dramatica ''is'' and, although , I think it should be kept on Misplaced Pages as I see no reason to delete it as an article on it could meet ], ], and ] easily (it's like ], but with more emphasis on ]). -<span style="color:rgb(153, 0, 0);">]</span> <span style="text-transform:capitalize; font-size: 7pt; color: rgb(0, 51, 204);">]</span> 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong keep deleted''' per valid AfD, no convincing reason given to overturn. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' How is the AfD valid? There was no consensus and it was to be kept. If Wikis like ] are notable enough, how come ] isn't ()? -<span style="color:rgb(153, 0, 0);">]</span> <span style="text-transform:capitalize; font-size: 7pt; color: rgb(0, 51, 204);">]</span> 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Undelete''' - I feel that an error was made in judging the site's notability. This is not an obscure site. --] 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep deleted''' per valid AfD and previous DRV. Speedy close if at all possible. Anyone who wants to find out about ED can do so trivially easily via Google and the drama queens, if I may call them that, have already caused more than enough dsiruption. <b>]</b> 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy close deletion review immediately'''. I was tempted to do this myself, but as the closing admin I want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. ED has already had its day at DRV, and the deletion was endorsed. We don't keep rehashing the debate over and over for no particular reason. ] 23:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** It occurs to me that Alexjohnc3 might be confused because he is looking at the older ED AfD, and not the most recent one. Let me find a link for him. ] 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** See the ] and the . ] 23:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' Nandesuka, several times people mentioned you had "excellent reasoning". Could you tell me where I could find that reasoning? I couldn't find any good reason for deleting it after scanning through the newer AfD. I did notice ] had some good points that no one answered. -<span style="color:rgb(153, 0, 0);">]</span> <span style="text-transform:capitalize; font-size: 7pt; color: rgb(0, 51, 204);">]</span> 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I still say '''undelete'''. Anyone who thinks the third AfD was handled properly isn't looking closely. Massive refactoring, bad faith abound, and if anyone actually cared about the quality of the 'pedia and a proper end to the ordeal, they'd run a closely watched, sock-free, unrefactored AfD to end the damn thing already. --] <small>]</small> 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy close''' DRV endorsed decision a month ago. No new info. ~ ] 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy close''' DRV endorsed deletion a month ago. ] - ] 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Full history of the various discussions added above. (At least, as full as I could find. If there are other iterations of this debate, please add them.) '''Endorse closure''' of the most recent DRV discussion. No new evidence has been presented. ] <small>]</small> 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep deleted''' Nom doesn't present any new evidence and DRV isn't for a rehash of the AFD arguments. --] 04:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy close'''. Been there, done that, got a CLOSETFUL of t-shirts. Let the drama queens take their act on the road if they're looking for something to do, but not here, not again. --] | ] 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy close''' We just got through with this. As an attack site, not only does it not need an article, but shouldn't even be linked to Misplaced Pages via external links.--] 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Put all links to this site on the meta spam blacklist.''' ] 10:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 10:48, 6 September 2006
| < September 4 | September 6 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
5 September 2006
Loserz
The reason there is a literal crapload of keep votes in the above AFD was because it was spammed in the webcomic forum here. If you go through the AFD and look at the non-fan-invasion comments, they are only three shouts for keep. Whereas there is about eight shouts for delete, commenting that it shows no sign of notability nor does it have any sources whatsoever. The keep votes churn out things like "been online for years", "has an active forum community" (as can be seen from the vote flood), and my favourite "If you delete this page, then you might as well start deleting pages for other webcomics as well, which is just nonsensical", which is exactly what we should be doing. - Hahnchen 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete per Hahnchen, or relist with policing if we must. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INFORMATION do not trump WP:V and WP:RS. Guy 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete and leave a polite but strong note on the closer's user page. Ignoring the socks/meats is standard AfD closure practice, but it apparently wasn't done in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Relist and semi-protect I can support on the AFD either a no-consensus close or a delete close - neither side made arguments very well to clearly be convincing on the strength of the arguments, and sorting out the new/meat-puppet voting is a discretionary item that could go either way on some of them. However, the external spam is a process violation leading to a reason to relist, semi-protecting if needed to limit the discussion to editors with a vague grasp on policy. GRBerry 01:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Podcast Alley
Notable podcast directory (Alexa rank: 14,247 -- compare Podcast Pickle approx 22,000). This rank indicates this site receives a significant number of visitors yet the original AFD never addressed why a site with so many visitors would be non-notable. All the people who voted, followed the nominator without any new comments. I'd like this decision to be overturned, or at least re-evaluated based on it's Google and Alexa ranks that weren't mentioned before. - Mgm| 08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete and Relist Based on who the voters were, this would seem to have been part of the GNAA war-on-blogs thing awhile back, a campaign of rather questionable good faith to put it nicely. I'm not of the opinion that a rank of 14,247 is necessarily enough to keep on that basis alone, so a relist would be in order, but it deserves a fair hearing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: (Note: I was the admin that closed the original AfD.) Although the AfD had considerable GNAA input, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the opinion that such articles don't belong in Misplaced Pages. When I used to close AfD debates, I generally looked for the most persuasive arguments. In this case, an article about a non-unique web directory doesn't qualify for an article in my opinion. However, I think Cyde Weys' comment in the AfD deserves some attention - merge articles about prominent directories into one single article; there's nothing particularly encyclopedic about any such site, but the concept may deserve mention. I don't think it should be a list of directories though (per WP:NOT). Perhaps the Podcasting article is more than sufficient for this purpose. (Aside: I think that most of the *casting articles need to be pruned, redirected etc. They all discuss the same concept.) Mindmatrix 13:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak relist, Cyde's suggestion at AfD was to merge to a list of podcast directories, I am not convinced, but there was enough going on in the AfD to make a rerun probably worth the effort. Mind you I am of the opinion that WP:NOT a directory of directories, so I will probably advocate deletion... Guy 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- 'Endorse Deletion Other than a single "per nom", I don't see any problems with the AfD, and I have to accept the editors' opinion that the deleted article was spamvertising. Also, since WP:NOT Alexa, I don't see anything in the nomination that would change my mind. That said, I find quite a bunch of of news clips that name Podcast Alley (119 on Newsbank), although none of them seem to be about PA. (Typical example: "List your RSS feed on podcast directories such as iTunes, Podcast Alley, and PodcastPickle.") So an article about Podcast directories seems quite supportable from the news material there is. An article on PA alone, I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The entire contents of the best version of the deleted article were "Podcast Alley is a podcast ranking website that uses a ranking system based on votes and comments. Unlike the iTunes podcasting ranking system, the Podcast Alley system binds each vote to an IP address, making the system less easily abused." plus the AFD tag and a hyperlink to the site. Their long-term Alexa ranking is average but the Alexa test is a flawed test in this case. Any directory-site will get inflated scores when compared to other types of sites. (Examples like this demonstrate why Alexa is no longer listed as an inclusion criterion at WP:WEB.) I don't see any problems with the deletion discussion. No evidence has yet been presented showing that this site does meet the recommended criteria at WP:WEB. Endorse closure. Rossami (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)