Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 26 September 2006

24 September 2006

Jeffree Star

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeffree Star

I created the article today, and I know the article has been recreated and deleted many times, and I know Jeffree Star is controversial. I'm not saying all administrators endorse censorship on Misplaced Pages, but I'm sure there's some administrators who know who Jeffree Star is. Star is a celebrity with a mainly teenage fan base (that is also outside of MySpace, Star is alwo working on a studio album like many sources say), known for being a drag queen and obscense song lyrics, though I don't think that should be the reason for deletion. There's probably a few administrators and editors who think Misplaced Pages should be censored.

If you don't like the writing of the article, you can always edit it and add on to it instead of putting it up for speedy deletion. I was in a bit of a hurry so I didn't check for mistakes at first and didn't add on to it right away. --grejlen - talk 00:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• SEVEN deletions and one AFD. Standard nn-bio material, redelete and protect. --Calton | Talk 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why? I know it's been deleted many times, but is there any other reason? This better not be an act of censorship on Misplaced Pages.--grejlen - talk 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The only AFD discussion I could find (now linked above) was closed as a "speedy-deletion". The contents of this page have been deleted six times so far, the first as an attack page, the rest under speedy-deletion criterion A7 - biobraphy with no assertion of notability of the subject. The seventh deletion was the removal of the "protected page" template on 23 Sep 06. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am having a hard time Verifying notability outside of myspace, and "working on" an album is worth just about zero, compared to having actually released one, that sold significantly and received reviews. Fan-1967 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again, see and for previous DRVs. This has nothing whatsoever to do with censirship and everythign to do with a lack of both verifiable independent information and evidence of significance. Misplaced Pages is not a place for every minor thing that happens on the iinternets - try Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Or somewhere. Guy 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again, per JzG. This figure has no verifiable notability, and the deletion is not censorship. Misplaced Pages is still not a crystal ball, as well. --Coredesat talk! 19:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a crystal ball, and the article is not WP:NOTABLE, at least verifiably. I know this has already been said :P Hello32020 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. We can always revisit once the album is released, if it receives enough press to make him notable. -Hit bull, win steak 13:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Limecat

I created the article a couple days ago, but I don't really know anything about Limecat—the reason I looked here to begin with was to learn more about the image (its author, its origin, who that adorable cat is, etc.), as I so often do on Misplaced Pages. Another user pointed out to me that the article had been deleted before. I never saw the old version, but I looked at the deletion debate and added sources specifically to address the concerns raised therein. Then today, I came back to see if anyone had contributed further information to the article, but was disappointed to see that User:Tom harrison had simply deleted my work altogether. :-(

Could the article be restored so it can undergo the same vetting as the older version (which I never saw)? I believe the sources in mine, as described on the talk page, meet the criteria in WP:WEB. If there's disagreement on that point, it's certainly up for debate, IMO. Thanks. Anonymous 57 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Limecat). More crap off the internets. Guy 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The other afd discussions :

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Limecat_(2nd_nomination)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Limecat_(3rd_nomination)

• • Well, I came here originally to find out more about Limecat. Isn't that the whole point of Misplaced Pages? Or am I wrong to be interested in learning about what you call "crap"? Have a heart—it's a seriously cute picture. Anonymous 57 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think Misplaced Pages is trying to move away from that perception of being a dump for random internet meme info.... There are a million cute cat pictures on the internet which are very popular - if you are enthusiastic about cataloguing them all, how about creating your very own "cutekittypixwiki" at Wikia? I bet the folks at stuffonmycat.com would be very glad to help out! Or alternatively, there's Encyclopedia Dramatica (where Limecat is held in particularly august esteem), Uncyclopedia or Antiwikpedia Bwithh 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I read the above nomination debates, and the third one (the most recent--I don't remember seeing a debate, though?) seems to imply that I created the article as a result of something to do with Encyclopedia Dramatica. But I'd never seen that site until you pointed it out right here. And their so-called "article" on Limecat (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Limecat) only emphasizes the need for a real article, right here on Misplaced Pages. Unless you're saying that page is actually reliable?

If you care to read the version I wrote, I strongly believe it meets all criteria under WP:WEB. (FWIW, I don't think "it was deleted before" should be sufficient reason to delete it again. I have no doubt that many useful, informative articles would be permanently banned from this site if this were true.) Anonymous 57 07:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • And as I said, my article (written from scratch) addresses whatever objections were raised previously. Anonymous 57 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment What exactly is the harm in keeping this article around, so long as all the information is sourced and verifiable according to WP:WEB? Maybe it's a curiosity, even a fairly obscure one, but Misplaced Pages excels at providing information on obscure curiosities, and it's the first place I look for information on these things. And if I was the 3rd person to create a Limecat article, surely I can't be the only one. Anonymous 57 07:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't keep it by applying WP:WEB because no credible evidence has been presented that it meets the WP:WEB inclusion criteria. It's just random crap off the internets. Guy 15:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, that's just not true. Read WP:WEB and read my version of the article, if you still can, and you'll note all the sources meet criterion 3: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." I'd present the evidence right here if I could still access the article. Anonymous 57 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is about a different version of the article that addresses the objections raised in the "AFD". As I stated above. Anonymous 57 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protect valid AFD... yes, the article may have been brand-new, but the issues of notability and verifiability from the AfD remained. Included a "references" section which, (and I am not making this up) starts with the words, "The following pages call Limecat "cute" or "adorable"" and then goes on to list such respected media institutions as Urbandictionary and someone's Myspace profile. Still no sign of any reliable sources or media attention whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Nu

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Nu

Alpha Kappa Nu was deleted as an attack page. It appears that this article describes a dispute with Alpha Phi Alpha as to which is the oldest Black fraternity. However, I don't believe that makes this article an attack page. Alpha kappa nu (note capitalization) was recreated, not exactly the same article. I have moved it to Alpha Kappa Nu for now. —Quarl 2006-09-24 21:06Z

by definition "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to." It doesn't fit the standards of an attack page. Mykungfu 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment: The original article was clearly an attack page (as verified by several non-interested parties) written in retaliation for the author's inablility to gain consensus on his POV on the Alpha Phi Alpha page. The author has recently re-created the article, citing opinion articles as fact. No original document refers to Alpha Kappa Nu as (a) a fraternity, (b)an entity that was ever formally chartered or incorporated (c) an entity that "lasted several years" as the author states in the article. However, the author has a history of deleting any corrective edits proving such even if they cite the same information that the author cites. -Robotam 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment: 6 Distinct references are provided. Solely dealing with Alpha Kappa Nu. Reknown historians refer to Alpha Kappa Nu as a fraternity. It bore greek letters, was an organization on a college campus. Having a charter or incorporation aren't critera to being a fraternity, which is the basis of Robotam's argument. Fraternity by definition is

1. a local or national organization of male students, primarily for social purposes, usually with secret initiation and rites and a name composed of two or three Greek letters. 2. a group of persons associated by or as if by ties of brotherhood. 3. any group or class of persons having common purposes, interests, etc.: the medical fraternity. 4. an organization of laymen for religious or charitable purposes; sodality. 5. the quality of being brotherly; brotherhood: liberty, equality, and fraternity. 6. the relation of a brother or between brothers.

Robotam is the original individual whom wrote of Alpha Kappa Nu as being an attack page. Any issue he brings up can be brought into the talk section. He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha a rival fraternity which has a disputed claim of being the first inter collegiate black fraternity. Robotam has brought issue with Sigma Pi Phi the oldest black fraternity nationwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&action=history He has brought issue on whether or not it is even a fraternity when on it's national website it states, Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/ . This only creates un necessary rhetoric and pointless arguing. 152.163.100.138 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Wissmiller

Chuck Wissmiller was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Anthony.bradbury and subsequently speedied by User:The Land. The problem apparently was a lack of notability of Chuck Wissmiller. While I'm not sure he is notable enough for wikipedia, the article does assert some notability via Family Plots. I suggest undeleting the article and listing it for AfD. Aecis 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the pathetic shreds of content from the article into Family Plots and created it as a redirect. The Land 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My issue is not with the article, it's with the process. If an article gives some assertion of notability (and being one of the main persons in a notable television show is an assertion of notability), the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under A7. In that case, the article has to be prodded or AfD'ed instead. Aecis 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

'Endorse status quo, article was not worth arguing over, reidrect is just fine. Guy 21:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

David Harris (Rugby League Player, Parade College Raiders)

This is a nomination based on a strong objection to the procedure used. Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion says quite clearly "Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues." According to this, the AFD discussion should have continued. Not only did I object to the speedy on that AFD discussion, but also someone had already moved the speedy tag on the article itself, done it again after another speedy was added the same day by a different person, and had removed a prod tag on the same article. Furthermore, the prod tag should never have been there in the first place, because Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletions says "For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion (for deletions likely to meet no opposition)". Obviously, if the speedy tag has been added and removed, it is not a deletion likely to meet no opposition". Therefore, you need to go to the next clause, "or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (for potentially controversial deletions)." Gene Nygaard 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that when the prod tag was on there earlier today (perhaps yesterday on your clock), notice was given of a five day period for corrective action to be taken. Based on a sense of fairness, whether or not it is specified in the rules, that period should not be shortened by a moving from prod to AFD. Gene Nygaard 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Response as closer: I found the article in the CSD category, noticed the presence of an AfD tag as well, went to look at the nomination. There I saw the nominator submitting it as a contested Prod, but also stating he would prefer the article speedily deleted even though it was at AfD.

What I meant by the phrase "to slap a Speedy on it" wasn't "to add a CSD tag to the article again", but rather "to speedily delete this article despite its appearance at AfD", something which frequently occurs for things which have only turned up here because of process. -- BigHaz, AfD nomination

I saw someone else also asking for speedy deletion.

Speedy delete - playing in a school side isn't an assertion of notability. I'll see if I can get that speedy tag to stick. -- MER-C, AfD nomination

Finally, I saw a third person saying that they didn't care whether it stayed or not, but that speedying it would be against the rules.

Live with it. I don't care whether it stays or not, just play by the rules. -- Gene Nygaard, AfD nomination

I made that two people in favour of speedy deletion, and one person opposed to speedy deletion for process reasons, but with no opinion on the actual article. In other words, not one argument in favour of keeping the page. I went back to the article and examined all revisions of the history, decided it did fit into CSD A7, deleted it, and closed the nomination. If this wasn't perfectly in line with the deletion policy, I apologize; though speaking in terms of processes I have a feeling WP:SNOW applies to a certain extent here, not to mention WP:IAR.

I assume that as closer of the nomination I can't give an Endorse/Overturn response here, so I won't – Gurch 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One person objecting to speedy closure is all it is supposed to take on the AfD discussion, to keep it from being speedily closed there. Not a vote of those favoring speedy closure or not. Gene Nygaard 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I accept my decision was incorrect; put the article back so it can be deleted again (and I shall quietly ignore the fact that it will have taken two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy) – Gurch 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

: Nah, 'endorse deletion - fuck process. Guy 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I get a say as the user who nominated the article for deletion, but if so, here 'tis: I don't subscribe to the view that the removal of a speedy or prod tag without any addition of matter to assert/prove notability is "opposition" to deletion in any sense other than the panic felt by a user on seeing that "their article" is up for deletion. Thus, when the CSD tag I'd put on this in the first place was removed, I didn't view it as a controversial deletion which immediately had to appear at AfD - prodding it seemed like a sensible halfway house to allow anyone to make the player more notable than he was at the time. Of course, when a prod is removed (as this one was), there's nowhere else a non-notable article can go other than AfD. My advocation of someone "slapping a Speedy on it" meant that I was rather hoping an admin would see the listing, realise that this was a clear CSD A7 in spite of that tag not sticking and close the discussion early - I'm not a fan of AfDs hanging around like a bad smell when the subject is patently not notable, and I doubt that anyone else much is either. I accept that I didn't necessarily follow process to the letter in what I did, but surely this is a case of WP:SNOW (or WP:IAR if you prefer) rather than sticking to the rules and (as Gurch puts it above) "tak two weeks and five different processes to remove an A7 speedy". I certainly reject any notion that I wasn't "playing by the rules" in trying to speed the inevitable deletion of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, based on the article as it stood and WP:IAR. Article most definitely deleted by the rules. Sometimes, the rules are there are no rules. Steve block Talk 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• List at AfD. I don't really understand what happened here, but IAR wouldn't apply as there's just as much evidence that keeping this article improves the 'pedia as deleting it at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

George Allen Smith

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith

This was deleted as unnotable on September 16, 2006. George Allen Smith was a passenger on Royal Caribbean International's Brilliance of the Seas when he went overboard in 2005 in the Aegean Sea while near Turkey.

His story was highlighted during an episode of 48 Hours on September 23, 2006. His case can be found on the CBS.com website transcript here. In addition, Royal Caribbean keeps a separate news archive on his disappearance here. In light of this new highlight to his case, I think it warrants article reinstatement. --Kitch 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As the person who originally nominated this article for deletion, I want to emphasize that the sensationalistic media coverage - including a highlight of the case on Larry King Live on CNN - was not only noted in the afd discussion, but was actually the main issue of the discussion. Here's the link to the afd. We also noted that the case was a public relations problem for the cruise line. In the view of the delete voters, media coverage does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability - particularly if the victim lacked the renown or infamy needed to pass WP:BIO, and if the news media was primarily interested in this case for its sensationalistic aspects. The CBS transcript linked above is mainly about another cruise line death (a woman), and the story about George Allen Smith is used as a secondary story for a minor segment of the show. I don't see how this adds much to the media coverage discussion in the first afd. Given that the Smith case was a PR problem for the cruise line, I don't see how the documents on the cruise line website add much either - is every PR crisis damage control exercise for every corporation encyclopedically notable? In the afd discussion, delete voters noted that there was nothing much to distinguish the subject from thousands of other ordinary murder or disappearance victims, except that the case had trivial aspects (it happened on a cruiseline, which reminds viewers/readers of an Agatha Christie murder mystery or perhaps an exciting CSI episode; it happened on a honeymoon, which has "shock/sympathy" value for viewers/readers). But, as the CBS story concludes about the woman victim it focusses on, "This could be the story of anybody." - the same goes for George Allen Smith. Bwithh 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, WP:NOT a memorial; we need to see some evidence of this being an unusual or groundbreaking case. Guy 21:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AFD ran the full time. No process failures or evident failure to read consensus by the closer. No new evidence asserted here. WP:NOT a memorial is policy, and Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. To be worth having an article on, being encyclopedic needs to be demonstrated, not being newsworthy. Newsworthy is for wikinews. GRBerry 16:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)