Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 10: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 22:49, 10 November 2006 editNixeagle (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users32,737 edits →Two Dickinson Street Co-op: sorry← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:50, 10 November 2006 edit undoPeter M Dodge (talk \| contribs)4,982 edits Endorse deletion →Two Dickinson Street Co-op Next edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:
	To be clear, my objection is not to the deletion but to the shortcutting (and deletion!) of the debate. At least one sysop believed the article was not appropriate for speedy deletion, so can we please at least have a full airing on the issue?] \| ] 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)		To be clear, my objection is not to the deletion but to the shortcutting (and deletion!) of the debate. At least one sysop believed the article was not appropriate for speedy deletion, so can we please at least have a full airing on the issue?] \| ] 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn deletion''' not really a valid speedy, article asserted importance... even if they were not the strongest claims ever, they were there, and as far as I can tell the article wasn't vandalism. This article might go to AfD but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Of course I am just going by the above statement and looking at the article... if there's more going on here, let me know. --] 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC).		*'''Overturn deletion''' not really a valid speedy, article asserted importance... even if they were not the strongest claims ever, they were there, and as far as I can tell the article wasn't vandalism. This article might go to AfD but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Of course I am just going by the above statement and looking at the article... if there's more going on here, let me know. --] 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

	*''Please note that the debate is still at the articles talk page, and that there is discussion at my ]. —— ] (]) 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)		*''Please note that the debate is still at the articles talk page, and that there is discussion at my ]. —— ] (]) 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

			* '''Endorse deletion'''. Fails ], ]. Vanity article. Would've been a waste of everyone's time on AfD - that's why we have speedy deletion. ✎ <b>]</b> <sup>(]) ((]) (]) (])</sup> 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 22:50, 10 November 2006

< November 9	November 11 >

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

10 November 2006

Two Dickinson Street Co-op

Can someone help me out here? Less than a minute after I created an entry for Two Dickinson Street Co-op, it was deleted by User:Diez2. I attempted to repost with a 'hang-on' tag, and not only was it instantly deleted again, but I was flagged for vandalism on my user page. User:Dcandeto noted on my talk page that the vandalism warning was inappropriate. On the talk page for the entry in question (which is now gone), an admin (whose name I can't remember because the talk page is gone!) noted that speedy deletion was inappropriate here and that other forms of consideration for deletion might be more appropriate.

I and others were just starting to add content and links to the entry in question when it was flagged for deletion in five days. So, we thought we had five days to add source material and explain why the entry was notable. (It is certainly as notably as the ten other Princeton Eating clubs which all have dedicated Misplaced Pages entries). But then it was speedily deleted again, despite the clear notice of the warning that we had five days to improve the article! Now we don't have the article or the talk page to even reference the previous discussion as to why it shouldn't be speedily deleted.

Can someone please restore the deleted page and give us at least five days to properly source the material and explain why the entry meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines?

(Incidentally, the article when it was deleted did have some content as to why the entry was notable and some sources -- there was more in the talk page that was intended to be worked into the main entry.)

To be clear, my objection is not to the deletion but to the shortcutting (and deletion!) of the debate. At least one sysop believed the article was not appropriate for speedy deletion, so can we please at least have a full airing on the issue?Ajkessel | Talk 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Overturn deletion not really a valid speedy, article asserted importance... even if they were not the strongest claims ever, they were there, and as far as I can tell the article wasn't vandalism. This article might go to AfD but it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Of course I am just going by the above statement and looking at the article... if there's more going on here, let me know. --W.marsh 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

Please note that the debate is still at the articles talk page, and that there is discussion at my talk page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Vanity article. Would've been a waste of everyone's time on AfD - that's why we have speedy deletion. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Natascha Bartlett

created a page to save time after she wins young person of the year 2006, so people can learn about her straight away. i made a fair contest as to why it shouldnt be deleted. other people wanting to be young person of the year may want to look her up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron haze (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion. Totally unknown person, apparently being considered for some award, does not even hint at notability. Fan-1967 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Why was this page deleted to begin with? Kingjeff 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Twice. ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - (edit conflict)Reply: See WP:CSD#A7: Speedy Deletion Criteria - No assertion of notability. If you were under the impression that an article can be created on just anyone, you were mistaken. There must be an assertion that the person is Notable by Misplaced Pages standards. No indication of that here. Fan-1967 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Create the page after she becomes notable.--Panarjedde 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AMV Hell

I have several concerns over this deletion.

User:Jaranda, the admin that deleted/protected the article, is no longer a member of Misplaced Pages. (Please see the statement on his/her user page.)
The article is about a series of movies/videos, similar to many internet phenomenon, and therefore is as deserving of an article as any other internet phenomenon or parody video.
Lastly, and this may be irrelevant here but should be considered, there is no record (that I could locate) as to why the article was deleted. A list of reasons for article deletion would make support for article deletion understood. Perhaps this should be made a requirement on deleted and protected article pages (to enlighten those that were not part of the debate).

--Everchanging02 07:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment AfD linked. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you. I shall add the link to Talk:AMV Hell. --Everchanging02 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, status of Jaranda is irrelevant, the "some foo exists therefore this foo should exist" argument is specious, this was deleted once by WP:PROD and cone by AfD, article is subjective and makes no provable claim to notability (as well as having no reliable sources). Guy 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion 1. irrelevant, 2. T&E:FEQ, 3. Proper AfD, even though participation was a bit low. You can always write a new article in user space and present it here for approval, just remember to properly source it to show that it meets WP:WEB. ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse per Trialsanderrors. If someone writes one that even comes close I'll move it in over the deletion protection thing and it can have a proper AfD most likely. But the deleted version... it didn't assert importance or cite any reliable sources. --W.marsh 14:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Todaro, Sr.

Joseph Todaro, Sr. was under consideration for deletion when User:Zoe deleted it as "an apparent serious violation of WP:BLP". User:Coredesat then closed the discussion. At that stage it was running 100% in favour of keeping, excluding only the nominator who's original concern about notability had, I suggest, been addressed.

Zoe's main concern appears to be that the page could give the reader the impression that Joseph Todaro is a gangster. A quick google search shows plenty of sites that support the claim that Joseph Todaro is a gangster, eg http://www.americanmafia.com/Mob_Leaders/Mob_Leaders_2.html , http://www.laborers.org/Fino_Gow_4-18-96.htm and http://www.thelaborers.net/trijustice/RICOnewest.htm but also other pages on Misplaced Pages, eg List of Italian American mobsters and List of famous mafiosi by city.

There are problems with the article but, I suggest, not to the extent that it should have been deleted. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment My closure of the AfD was a procedural move since the article had already been deleted. No opinion from me. --Core des at 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Google cache. "Keep and cleanup" is really not an argument in WP:BLP articles. If there are reliable sources, no, let me rephrase this, RELIABLE SOURCES confirming what the article said recreation shouldn't be an issue, but given the paucity of resources and overall crappiness of the article, starting from scratch seems like the better solution. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found per Trialsanderror. JoshuaZ 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion without prejudice per trialsanderrors and Joshua. WP:BLP doesn't give us room to "keep and cleanup" such an article which makes serious allegations against numerous people. In addition, this article is extremely unencylopedic and needs to be rewritten anyway. I agree with Trialsanderror's view that starting from scratch seems like the best solution.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Even if we had rewritten the article we'd have had to delete the history per WP:BLP. Feel free to try again, without the hatchet, but check WP:MOS first as this read more like a newspaper expose than an encyclopaedia article. Guy 08:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FootballMercato

Knowing that there are more than 100 millions of websites in the world, this site belongs to the Top 1%. I know that it’s not in the Top 5 worldwide, but everything that is in "Top 1% of something" should enter in such an encyclopedia from my point of view. What do you think? Deni smailbegovic 04:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As the first deleting admin, I've been asked to offer my reasons. It was nominated for speedy-deletion under A7 (not asserting importance). The facts presented in the version at that time were: (1) owned by Linea Networks; (2) people all over the world interested in soccer can communicate and offer services through it; (3) website is in 20 languages and provides auto-translation; (4) people interested in an ad can get contact info for the ad without delay. Since 2 is trivially true of any website, 4 isn't special, 1 is irrelevant, and 3 is certainly nice of them but not something that makes them special, I was inclined to agree strongly with the nominator that the article contained no assertion of importance. A later version (the one deleted by Improv) seems to have more statements of fact: (5) it's free; (6) it's had 150,000 unique visitors in a year and a half of operation; (7) it has an Alexa rating of 1,029,947; (8) it has three regular features. Of these, 5 is irrelevant, 6 and 7 are overwhelmingly underwhelming, and 8 is an unremarkable feature of millions of websites. None of (1)-(8) qualify as assertions of importance. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that this deletion was/is warranted, given the content, for reasons similar to Saxifrage's. --Improv 06:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per the visitor count, if nothing else. My personal vanity website, hosted via my DSL link from the server in my living room, got over 96,000 hits last month - 150,000 visitors in a year and a half is anything but significant, and none of the other claims appear to be significant either. Guy 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Guy, I hope that you know the difference between hits and unique visitors. How does it happen that Objectivo website is kept in that category? It's much less important and visited than FootballMercato. Should I restate the description of our site or should I request the deletion of other less important sites in that category? I would like to have the same criteria for all. I still disagree with the deletion. Deni smailbegovic 14:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  - The point is that 150,000 in nearly two years, however that's evaluated, doesn't really matter because number of users isn't a criteria of importance in our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Have a look at WP:WEB for things that do count. In particular, if your website hasn't been covered by independent media or won any awards, it hasn't had enough impact on the world to be in an encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. I agree with the above comments; the content of the article meets criterion A7. Also, please note that the article has been deleted on the French Misplaced Pages for the same reasons: see fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/FootballMercato. Korg (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Un-notable.--Panarjedde 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aplus.Net: Deleting Legitimate Corporations Due to Bias

Aplus.Net, a legitimate web hosting company that has alas earned more than a few detractors, has had a few postings on Misplaced Pages, which have all been deleted. OK, message received: Users (at least the ones who voice their opinions) hate Aplus.Net to the point that it will not suffice to list said grievances on Aplus.Net's site; rather, the company itself shall not be allowed to have an entry on this site.

That has been the judgment of Misplaced Pages and I abide by it. I do want to air a request, however, that many of those who have taken it upon themselves to regulate Misplaced Pages do so with a little less hostility, prejudice, and self-importance. It seems that once that ever-evil "spam" label gets mentioned on this website, people's emotions overrule their sense of fairness. It's akin to saying the word "terrorist" in a small town truck stop. So, while Aplus.Net does have an unfortunate reputation for "spam" because of a few missteps in the past, I do wish that the users who were so vehemently against the organization would have simply added those complaints to the company's description rather than decided that the company itself (with revenue in the millions, a customer base in the hundreds of thousands, and widespread recognition in the web hosting industry) is not allowed a mention on this site. Like it or not, Aplus.Net has a prominence that goes far beyond its alleged use of “Google bombing” to win high search engine rankings. Assuming that the Google-bombing accusation is true (which I suspect it is not, at least not on a widespread basis), I’d like to see the same condemnation levied upon the hundreds of other corporations that have not always played fairly.

While I understand the motives behind the heavy-handedness with which Misplaced Pages editors purge anything they deem suspect -- it's essential to this site's integrity to keep it free of advertising's corrupting influence -- I also feel that these reactionary tendencies underscore the recent upsurge in criticism and disrespect this site has received. I mean, come on: The main reason why Aplus.Net is not allowed on this site but its chief competitor, GoDaddy, is, can be directly attributed to a greater public awareness of GoDaddy due to the fact that they advertise on TV (those great Super Bowl ads). While this does point to GoDaddy as being more significant both in public awareness and revenue (hence being able to afford said Super Bowl ads), I'm greatly disillusioned to learn that these are credible factors when deciding whether to allow an entry on a forum that bills itself a community website.

Thanks, though, for heeding my earlier request for a moderated discussion. I appreciate it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnate76 (talk • contribs)