Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 30: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 11:20, 30 November 2006 editFish and karate (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators36,446 edits →[]: endorse← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:20, 30 November 2006 edit undoEluchil404 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,397 edits Review Ice Age (band) deletionNext edit →
Line 68:		Line 68:
	*'''Endorse deletion'''. The article is slightly expanded from the version deleted via AfD, but no version that I can find has cited any ], which would be required to overturn the AfD. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)		*'''Endorse deletion'''. The article is slightly expanded from the version deleted via AfD, but no version that I can find has cited any ], which would be required to overturn the AfD. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse deletion''', ] from the title on, no sources = no compelling reason to overturn AfD. Every appearance that this is a neologism used by a very small number of people. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)		*'''Endorse deletion''', ] from the title on, no sources = no compelling reason to overturn AfD. Every appearance that this is a neologism used by a very small number of people. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

			====]====
			:{{la\|Ice Age (band)}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ice Age (band)\| — (])\|}}

			There was a clear consensus on the AfD to Keep. There are no allegations of ] or bad faith votes. When queried the deleting admin cited ] but Prolog's argument in the AfD was that they meet criteria number 5 of that guideline and it seems to have been accepted by other participants. ] 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:20, 30 November 2006

< November 29	November 31 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

2006 November 30

Just Dial Communications

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was only providing information about corporation's history. Please review.

Endorse until multiple third-party nontrivial reliable sources are given. Please read WP:V. ColourBurst 06:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mesilla Valley Mall

Deleted as part of a mass nomination. Prior to its deletion I improved the article and added several sources, and had planned to continue adding more. If I was able to locate this much information pertaining to the structure, despite that I live nowhere near it and had never heard of it, it should be easy enough for somebody to do the same for the other items. — CharlotteWebb 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion your edits haven't addressed the failure to establish notability or third party sources, at a glance the main elements of the AFD arguments. The subject of the only third party source was the fact that someone "famous" (Tyrone Nelson) was arrested their, this event doesn't establish any notablility for the mall itself --pgk 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Undelete. I see no reason why CharlotteWebb should be prevented from expanding an article she was working on. Silensor 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You could say that of any article which ever comes up for deletion, someone merely says I'm working on expanding it and we don't delete? This is actually the point of deletion review, if CharlotteWebb (or anyone else) can shed new light on the subject which address the issues of the AFD then we undelete, so far there hasn't been anything new offered. The sources listed on the current article are 2 sources for the arrest story, the malls own website, various satellite images and streetmap. I'm not sure which of those several sources were added but none address the issues of the AFD, just because you can find streetmaps and satellite images of somewhere doesn't make it magically notable (You can do that for my house, it isn't notable). Indeed if CharlotteWebb improved the article after the AFD commenced, I'd have hated to see it before the improvements, in it's current form there is a four sentence intro, one saying where it is located, one saying when it was built and tow listing store there. There is a section listing stores there (which essentially duplicates some of the intro), there is a larger section than the into describing the arrest for which the mall itself is effectively irrelevant, someone "famous" being arrested there does not make it a notable place, again no more than someone famous being arrested outside my house would make my house a notable place --pgk 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, created by Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an employee of the mall's operating company as part of a spamming campaign. Sole claim to fame is being the place where Tyrone Nelson was arrested, that story is already covered in Nelson's article. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Already covered" is a bit of a misnomer, check the timestamps. — CharlotteWebb 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just happened to notice that another mall deleted (speedily, in fact) by the same admin JzG is doing rather well on AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paradise Valley Mall). I am close to requesting that each of them (some of which I never got the chance to read) be separately listed rather than mass-nominated based on their association with this user you keep calling a vandal. — CharlotteWebb 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse. The mall article Charlotte mentions has nothing in common with this article. No problem with a referenced article that asserts notability being created on this mall. The one that was deleted was both unreferenced (the only reference was for the Tyrone Nelson thing), and failed to assert notability (all it said was "Mesilla Valley Mall is a shopping mall located in Las Cruces, New Mexico", then the inappropriate section about Nelson, then listed the stores. Proto::type 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Imaging Systems

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

Warrant officer (Star Trek)

The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon (though never clearly established) and numerous times in star trek novels IIRC (not cannon but still human knowledge). It is perhaps best to toss this article to Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia as a section. It should still be undeleted and 'Rediretified'. See also:

--Cat out 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rediretify Make it so! Actually, whats up with this Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia? Bwithh 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As the closing admin, it has been requested that I provide the reasons for the deletion. I closed it as a delete because after 5 days at Afd there was an obvious consensus that it was original research. At the risk of !vote counting, there were 14 deletion votes and none in favour of keeping the article. Viridae 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This article should be restored. It was nominated by someone for deletion who has a history of quick, "in the middle of the night" purges of these Star Trek rank articles without any discussion. Also, the tone of the delete page seems t be from those with a dislike of the subject and a bias from the article. All that aside, Warrant officer has been referenced in at least 3 Pocket Books novels, one Star Trek tech manual, a comic book series, and can be found in the costume producers notes for Star Trek II. UNDELETE -Husnock 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closure (re-delete). I see no process problems with the deletion discussion and no new evidence to justify overturning the decision. In fact, it's incredibly rare to see a unanimous deletion discussion like this. Regardless of any hypotheses about the nominator's motivations, the community consensus was clear. I do note that this page was unilaterally undeleted within hours of the closure of the deletion discussion. I can find no justification to support such action in the face of such a clear consensus. Redelete and strip the disputed content back out of the target page. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It appears to have been turned into a redirect page now. -Husnock 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, after an apparently unjustified undeletion. Rossami (talk)
Endorse Deletion clear consensus on AfD. No opinion on whether it should be a redirect or not. Eluchil404 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Something needs doing about that target article too. I think that there's sufficient problems with verifying conjectured aspects of a fictional universe that it counts as fancruft. Chris cheese whine 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per nominator'sa powerful argument: The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon (though never clearly established) - i.e. speculative article on a minor aspect of a fictional universe. Otherwise known as fancruft. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse, there wasn't a single 'keep' vote - why is this even being reviewed? This has prompted me to AFD the parent article, which is similarly nothing but conjecture and OR. Proto::type

Cheese house

This afd a while ago on a marginal vote - I have re-written it and would like it to have another life - but it keeps getting deleted as it has a failed afd in its history Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. The article is slightly expanded from the version deleted via AfD, but no version that I can find has cited any reliable sources, which would be required to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, original research from the title on, no sources = no compelling reason to overturn AfD. Every appearance that this is a neologism used by a very small number of people. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ice Age (band)

There was a clear consensus on the AfD to Keep. There are no allegations of sock-puppets or bad faith votes. When queried the deleting admin cited WP:MUSIC but Prolog's argument in the AfD was that they meet criteria number 5 of that guideline and it seems to have been accepted by other participants. Eluchil404 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)