Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 25: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 18:45, 25 March 2007 editKhoikhoi (talk \| contribs)71,605 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:02, 25 March 2007 edit undoJmax- (talk \| contribs)910 edits →[]: recreateNext edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:
	*'''Recreate'''. - ] 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)		*'''Recreate'''. - ] 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep deleted''' - excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment. ] 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep deleted''' - excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment. ] 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Recreate'''. Clearly notable -- ] 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 20:02, 25 March 2007

< March 24	Deletion review archives: 2007 March	March 26 >

25 March 2007

History of Cluj-Napoca

The article was OK and there was no problem reported with it. It contained the history paragraph of Cluj-Napoca article and wanted to develop that part. The article just disappeared without any notice. Roamataa 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted the article per CSD G5 ("Pages created by banned users while they were banned.") Since the article was started by a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, it meets the criteria. Khoikhoi 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Subject of the article is apparently, per a post on the wikien-l mailing list, suing the Wikimedia Foundation. Drove some new eyes to the article, where it was then deleted by User:Doc glasgow per BLP concerns. Cache shows a pretty decently sourced stub with perhaps some debate as to whether the quote was appropriate, but the deletion appears to be a pre-emptive strike. Barring any Foundation-level intervention, this needs a full hearing, IMO. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to press coverage and the official docket, the Wikimedia Foundation and 14 other defendants were sued on Friday by the subject of this article. The Office has not yet had an opportunity to provide advice or instructions on what action, if any, should be taken. I strongly urge that no further action be taken on-wiki or comments made here until the Foundation has had a reasonable opportunity to provide input. I strongly urge that this review be closed for now, without prejudice. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to stop discussion on the matter unless the office requests as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's Sunday. The Office may not be open. You really don't think this can wait a day? Newyorkbrad 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I see no reason to, honestly, especially when it comes to silencing what could be productive discussion on the matter. The full deletion could have waited a day, too, could it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Probably, but that's nothing that can be addressed now. Newyorkbrad 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - article failed multiple policies: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS and possibly WP:N, seeing as most of the cites were to her own website. In current circumstances this should not be recreated in the previous form: no prejudice against recreation, though. Moreschi 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, you might want to check that. Only two of the eight sites were to Ms. Bauer's website; the links support the statements that she has a literary agency and a podcast. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Suspend restoration per Newyorkbrad, but that doesn't mean we can't already discuss the merits of the deletion. On these, I'd say restore. This is not a WP:CSD#G10 case, the article is prima facie well sourced and not obviously derogatory. WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:N are not reasons for speedy deletion (although sometimes I wish they were... :-) Sandstein 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Suspend restoration, per Sandstein's reasoning. While I think Doc jumped the gun on the deletion, there's no reason to have a wheel war now while the Office catches up with things. The article was a good biographical stub, with a two-paragraph section about her agency. A bit of trimming might have been in order, but this ten-month-old article certainly wasn't a G10 ranting screed smear job. I assume someone's already notified Brad; he's still Foundation counsel until the end of the month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravitational attraction

You redirected to Gravitation a page that would make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia. It was about Einstein's presently valid theory that implies that Newtonian gravitational attraction is an urban legend. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying general relativity (which then might be a 15 year project). And so to understand why Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real and why since Einstein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for.

The reality of gravitational attraction, despite being not supported by science, is still very popular among non physicists and even many physicists and consequently they try to push their Newtonian POV, by using sentences like: "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases" (emphasis mine). This is what was done in Gravitation page and that's why redirecting Gravitational attraction to Gravitation that wrongly declares in its first sentence that "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" (emphasis mine) while according to contemporary science they don't attract each other, is like redirecting a page Origin of species to Scriptures since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures.

The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page Gravitation itself since there are so many people who believe in real existence of the "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them, and not wanting to engage in an edit war, to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (reliable published sources). After deleting this page there is no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple (scientific) explanation for the illusion of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead.

So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus (9:1 for deletion), since as Misplaced Pages's policy says "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

A main part of discussion about the deletion in which all concerns against the page were answered and none of mine (as you may see) is in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gravitational attraction. Jim 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do here. Redirecting is an editorial decision, not governed by AfD results. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse redirect. We're reviewing whether the AfD was properly closed as redirect, and it was, by plain consensus. The submitter's argument as to why his gravitational theory should have an article is beside the point; we're not discussing the article on its merits here. Sandstein 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't? I want to create a separate page since Gravitation to which it is going to be redirected does not respect reliable published sources on the subject of the issue of existence or non existence of gravitational attraction in nature. So IMO it is better when Misplaced Pages has at least one page with POV supprted by reliable published sources than none and is pushing POV that is outdated for nearly 100 year as it is now. And as I mentioned before, improving the Gravitation page is too tough for the amount of editors with a lot of free time who fight for it. So let them have their (non Einsteinian) gravitation as they understand it intact and Misplaced Pages would have one suported by reliable published sources for those who are interested in real gravitation and not only in a "model that works in most cases". Jim 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you care that Misplaced Pages supports an outadet for almost 100 years Newtonian view over Einstein's that is still a leading theory of gravitation? Accidentally I'm using Einstein's theory in my PhD thesis but it has nothing to do with the issue. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on reliable published sources and right now it is not. So it is a matter of merits and Misplaced Pages's policy which is ignored. Jim 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not discussing the article on its merits here. Please read the text at the top of the page:

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time)."

If you want the topic to have an article again, write it in userspace, address the issues raised in the AfD, then submit it here for review. Sandstein 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

myg0t

New sources have been both uncovered, discovered, and/or published since the last DRV which contest the previous decision of non-notability. The current sources are listed below.

Rolling Stone Magazine - article scan here.
PC Format Magazine - article scan here.
PC Zone Magazine - article scan here.
Computer Games Magazine - article scan here.
Church of Fools Incident - none of the articles mention myg0t by name but a forum post has recently been uncovered that shows the planning of the incident before it actually occurred and before the articles were published.
- Forum post dated 5/16/2004 - located here. Registration is required to view, use username/password combination of wikipedia/wikipedia
- The Lexington Herald-Leader covering the Church of Fools incident - article scan here.
- BBC News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
- CNN News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim show parodied myg0t's self-produced flash video "pwned.nl" on their show Robot Chicken with a word-for-word quote - comparison video here.

As per Misplaced Pages undeletion policy, this DRV should remain open for a minimum of five days after the date of this signature. cacophony ◄► 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow recreation, but only after someone presents us with an article in userspace that contains not one bit of information that is not sourced to these sources, and is willing to patrol it for crap indefinitely (perhaps aided with indefinite semiprotection). Judging from the logs, this topic seems to attract a lot of crap, even if the press coverage above indicates that the group appears to be notable enough. Sandstein 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, allow recreation of article As long as the user can create a subpage (you can use User:SunStar Net/Myg0t if you wish) which uses these sources only - then I do not have a problem with recreation. Per the fact Misplaced Pages does not work to deadlines, I have no problem with this. --sunstar net 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Recreate. Would have to say recreate. Has more notability then a lot of articles on wikipedia. Can't deny just because some people don't like them. OverlordQ 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Recreate. Finally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Recreate. - Denny 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted - excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Recreate. Clearly notable -- Jmax- 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers in popular culture

Brian Peppers in popular culture – clear-cut WP:SNOW - deletion endorsed, don't be so silly.--Doc 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Peppers in popular culture (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Misplaced Pages must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an argument from authority. `Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)` 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Endorse speedy-deletion. I am trying very hard to assume good faith in the face of what appears to be a WP:POINT violation. This is not and never has been a "prominent Internet meme". Rossami (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I call 221,000 Google hits prominent. You still haven't explained what specific policy the article violated. If you want to claim that an accurate, neutral, sourced article should be deleted, you ought to explain why. `Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)` 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) This is the sort of erroneous belief that is why we don't have a Peppers article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion - This is an attempted recreation of a deleted article - this is really no different than just Brian Peppers. Its deletion was endorsed through DRV before and I see nothing new that should lead this to be overturned, there are no new sources. Wickethewok 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion and protect - Brian Peppers is a recurring meme in popular culture? Sounds like another grasping-at-straws attempt at recreating an article that should not exist. This repeated AfD/Deletion Review/Wikipedia Process mining is way past the point of being disruptive. Thunderbunny 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion We don't have an article on Brian Peppers himself so obviously we shouldn't have an article on this. --Folantin 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, obviously, per Folantin. Moreschi 10:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Speedy endorse deletion. Brian Peppers does not and will not have a place in Misplaced Pages. Get over it. MER-C 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Brian Peppers in popular culture – clear-cut WP:SNOW - deletion endorsed, don't be so silly.--Doc 16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Misplaced Pages must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an argument from authority. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse speedy-deletion. I am trying very hard to assume good faith in the face of what appears to be a WP:POINT violation. This is not and never has been a "prominent Internet meme". Rossami (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I call 221,000 Google hits prominent.
You still haven't explained what specific policy the article violated. If you want to claim that an accurate, neutral, sourced article should be deleted, you ought to explain why. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- This is the sort of erroneous belief that is why we don't have a Peppers article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - This is an attempted recreation of a deleted article - this is really no different than just Brian Peppers. Its deletion was endorsed through DRV before and I see nothing new that should lead this to be overturned, there are no new sources. Wickethewok 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion and protect - Brian Peppers is a recurring meme in popular culture? Sounds like another grasping-at-straws attempt at recreating an article that should not exist. This repeated AfD/Deletion Review/Wikipedia Process mining is way past the point of being disruptive. Thunderbunny 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion We don't have an article on Brian Peppers himself so obviously we shouldn't have an article on this. --Folantin 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, obviously, per Folantin. Moreschi 10:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy endorse deletion. Brian Peppers does not and will not have a place in Misplaced Pages. Get over it. MER-C 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Nicholas Ruiz III

UNDELETE_Notability Nick.ruiz 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetngs administrator,

Please reconsider the following deletion for undeletion. Further, since this discussion between the administrator and I began, it appears that the adminstrator has additionaly taken the egregious liberty of deleting every external link I have entered for the journal Kritikos. I have only entered the external link on pages of relevance (e.g. postmodern literature, postmodern, critical theory, etc.) This additional action by the adminstrator is exceedingly unethical and unfair. The discussion link follows below. Many thanks for your consideration.

User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III)

Endorse Deletion very low notability, not covered by a reliable published source and it is a violation of WP:COI; given username of creator. --KZ 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse speedy-deletion. If you think you are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, you really should wait for someone else to write the article. Autobiographies are bad for the project for a number of reasons. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse as deleting admin; WP:CSD#A7 and WP:COI; see detailed discussion on my talk page at the link provided. Sandstein 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- Addendum: Oh, and I have not deleted any links. It was Hatch68 (talk · contribs) who correctly reverted the linkspamming for Dr Ruiz's journal. Sandstein 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept the decision. However, Kritikos is an open acess journal, indexed in university library datatbases all over the world. Placing such a link in the appropriate article, as I have done, is a reference for further research--not linkspamming to a commercial site. I kindly ask that these links be restored. Thanks again for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)