Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 15: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:40, 18 November 2006 editElaragirl (talk | contribs)3,865 edits →[]: this is the most insane pile of screed I've ever seen. You people voting keep make Timecube.com look rational and sane.← Previous edit Revision as of 01:11, 18 November 2006 edit undoBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits →[]: some explanationNext edit →
Line 117: Line 117:
:Please not this is A DRV and a second AFD. --] 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC) :Please not this is A DRV and a second AFD. --] 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - this is NOT a second (or seventh) AfD, but I '''strongly''' disagree with the closing decision. A bunch of people saying '''speedy keep''' with the reasoning of "it survived 5 AfD" is '''NOT A RATIONALE FOR KEEPING'''. If the article violates policy, and that policy is referenced in any of the AfD's, it should be deleted. I strongly respect Can't Sleep,Clown Will Eat Me but all he did was count keeps and not look at what was being said. There was not a single reason given in that AfD (or in the one before that) to keep this article, and Speedy Keep implies that it was a bad faith nomination. Furthermore, for all the whine I hear in this article about this being a DRV and not an AfD, none of the keep votes has given any reasons as to why they feel the debate was closed properly, using policy. Most tellingly, more than one person has suggested policy doesn't matter and that the ''limited consensus of a small group of obviously biased editors'' trumps policy, which is quite frankly ''jaw-droppingly incomprehensible''. Accusing Improv (''IMPROV!!'') of acting in bad faith is, amusingly enough, an act of bad faith in and of itself. *'''Delete''' - this is NOT a second (or seventh) AfD, but I '''strongly''' disagree with the closing decision. A bunch of people saying '''speedy keep''' with the reasoning of "it survived 5 AfD" is '''NOT A RATIONALE FOR KEEPING'''. If the article violates policy, and that policy is referenced in any of the AfD's, it should be deleted. I strongly respect Can't Sleep,Clown Will Eat Me but all he did was count keeps and not look at what was being said. There was not a single reason given in that AfD (or in the one before that) to keep this article, and Speedy Keep implies that it was a bad faith nomination. Furthermore, for all the whine I hear in this article about this being a DRV and not an AfD, none of the keep votes has given any reasons as to why they feel the debate was closed properly, using policy. Most tellingly, more than one person has suggested policy doesn't matter and that the ''limited consensus of a small group of obviously biased editors'' trumps policy, which is quite frankly ''jaw-droppingly incomprehensible''. Accusing Improv (''IMPROV!!'') of acting in bad faith is, amusingly enough, an act of bad faith in and of itself.
**Consideirng the DRV and quite possibly the latest AfD were brought about by a banned user, and it had survived an AfD not less than a month earlier, speedy keep was entirely sensible. Furthermore, when an admin who has shown a lack of respect for consensus and a complete misunderstanding of speedy keep criteria deletes this ''during the DRV brought about by the banned user'', yes, it's safe to say that we can assume otherwise. --] <small>]</small> 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 01:11, 18 November 2006

< November 14 November 16 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

15 November 2006

Zezima

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zezima
Zezima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently, Zezima was deleted for non-notability. Now, recently I have seen many Wikipedians being biased against RuneScape. This is unfair. If this deletion is not overturned, then you may as well delete the articles in the Harry Potter series, seeing as Zezima is more notable than any of these. Necrobrawler 04:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. I don't entirely understand why you compare deleting this article with deleting the Harry Potter articles. This is not an article about a major RuneScape character in anyway, but an article about someone who plays RuneScape. We would routinely delete items if the sole assertion of notability was that he is a Harry Potter fan. At any rate, a perfectly valid AFD debate as well with no convincing reason provided for overturning, all other versions are recreations n some form or WP:CSD A7 candidates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but to many people who play RuneScape, he was more than a player, but more of a 'deity'. I realise this topic has little notability outside RuneScape, but there are a whole heap of articles in Misplaced Pages that are only notable to fans, some waaaaaaaaaay less notable then Zezima.
Actually, I think the now infamous "weather in London" is worse: . 68.39.174.238 04:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (sixth nomination)
Cleveland steamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was kept after its sixth AfD. It still violates several key Misplaced Pages policies, and no one has seen fit to fix it and make it an article in its two years of existence. It still violates WP:WINAD because it is simply a definition with a list of attestations. To me, that is a dictionary or lexicon entry such as one would find in the Oxford English Dictionary It also violates WP:NEO and WP:AVTRIV. There has not been one single argument that proves that this does not violate these policies. Most of the keep votes were knee-jerk reactions to another AfD on this article. People voted to keep it because it was kept in the past, ignoring how substandard it is. This is an important issue, because if this is permanently kept, WP:WINAD will have to be modified to reflect reality. I would be willing to help rewrite the policies to say that dirty jokes with a list of attestations from TV and cartoons are suitable articles and should not be deleted. I'm concerned for the encyclopedia, because the existence of this article actually makes the encyclopedia worse, makes it look silly, and if it were deleted, the Wiki would be better off without it. I think the phrase "shit or get off the pot" applies here. Someone should either fix the article, or delete it. Another alternative is a soft redirect to Wictionary or Urban Dictionary. I maintain that "important to pop culture" is the lamest argument possible for keeping this article. There is no policy on "popular culture," as the term is completely subjective. Evangelical Christianity is part of popular culture in many areas in the Southern U.S. I'm beginning to think that "popular culture" to many people is what comes from a TV or movie screen or computer monitor, and I reject that notion of popular culture and urge others to consider my viewpoint on that. Mr Spunky Toffee 05:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to quote the Right Honorable James Wales on a similar article, Donkey punch:

This article is terrible; this debate is absurd

I insist that nothing go back into this article without a proper source. A proper source does not include any slang dictionaries not published by a reputable press. A proper source does not include random original research claiming (in a way that we can not verify) that the term appeared in this or that television program.

If you can find a book, magazine, or newspaper article which documents a fact, it can go in the article. IMDB can also be a valid source in parts, though not from its unreviewed user-contributed content.--Jimbo Wales 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Mr. Wales and the policies I have read, this article also seriously violates WP:EL, as many of the links are to businesses selling books and others require registration or proprietary software for access. Mr Spunky Toffee 11:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, read WP:NEO, "Reliable Sources for Neologisms," which says in part: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

  • Note that Donkey punch was rewritten and kept soon after the Right Honorable James Wales made that comment, during which process many of the arguments you make were convincingly debunked. Note also that he did not at any time nominate the article for deletion, far less delete it unilaterally. Endorse close. Badgerpatrol 04:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. As much as I think the article is bad and of a completely non-notable term, the simple fact remains that there is no consensus to delete the article which is the usual standard we require to delete something. All closures have been within process. Please don't start another debate over this before a year has passed (the GNAA debacle being a precedent for why I say that.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • GNAA is an abomination and a total embarrassment to the Wiki. It should be deleted unilaterally by one of the higher-ups without gathering any so-called "consensus." The problem with democracy is that the majority of people is easily swayed and vote a certain way for all the wrong, stupid reasons. Mr Spunky Toffee 10:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you serious? You think consensus should be abandoned and replaced with unilateral decisions from the 'higher-ups'? You might want to start your own wiki so you can make sure these 'higher-ups' always agree with your point of view. Trebor 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. --Nlu (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, even though it really should ahve been speedy kept immediately. Enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why, Jeff? I challenge you to tell me how this article does not violate the policies I have carefully cited. Are you suggesting that it should be kept by your fiat? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Please, speak up. Mr Spunky Toffee 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • We've already run the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So? The article still violates policy, and consensus cannot override core policies. Therefore, deletion is indicated. Mr Spunky Toffee 12:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:WINAD is very subjective, and it seems like more than enough people feel it merits inclusion based on its possible expansion. That you disagree with those people is no reason to continue beating this dead horse over and over again. WP:NEO doesn't apply because it hasn't "recently been coined," and it generally appears in some general interest dictionaries. It borderline meets the sourcing requirement now, and once Misplaced Pages enters the 21st century for sourcing, it will meet it without debate then. WP:ATRIV is regarding the style guide, which is not a reason for deletion: "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections." Besides, "ists of trivia can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation." We done with this now? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Hmm, interesting points. You see the glass half full, I see. That's admirable. However, I see no possibility for expansion and I think an article should be judged as-is, unless there is a willing and able editor ready to fix the problems. As for being a neologism, I believe it is. I first heard of it in 1992, which to me was not that long ago. That's pretty new. I think anything younger than a generation, say, thirty years, that has no serious attestations is a neologism. Mr Spunky Toffee 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it should not have been speedy kept, since numerous editors in good standing pointed out that it is composed of a dictionary definition and a variety of uncited cruft and original research. Transwiki is the correct action here, in my view. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Consensus by numerous editors in good standing was to keep, move on with life. bbx 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Consensus was to keep the article, Deletion review is not AFD part deux. roy<sac> .oOo. 12:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Can consensus override policy so blatantly? Mr Spunky Toffee 12:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki/Delete: unencyclopedic. This is a dicdef at best, any meaningful content belongs at coprophilia. -- The Anome 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article would actually bring a negative impact on Misplaced Pages the longer it exists. Diez2 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. This is not the place for a new AfD vote - this is about whether the decision made at closure was correct. The merits of the article have been assessed already. This is deletion by attrition - a minority of determined editors trying every tool to get it deleted, hoping that the majority will give up. And the main proponent for deleting believes that a unilateral decision is better than consensus, undermining the whole idea of a wiki. Trebor 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure, valid AFD. Naconkantari 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you clearify what you meant. The AFD resulted in a keep so endorsing deletion does not apply here. --67.68.153.68 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Naconkantari 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • While I personally think that redirecting this to coprophilia is the thing to do in absence of a better article, the only fault I can find with this AFD is that it should have been closed early and speedily as a clear sockpuppet nomination too soon after a previous AFD. So endorse. Kusma (討論) 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Those passing the buck on this one by saying that consensus was to keep are missing the point. AfDs aren't ballots, and numbers don't equal consensus. There was no argument that the article as-is isn't a dicdef in any of the six AfDs. At the end of the day, it's still a dicdef, and the keeping !voters didn't deny this. In any other AfD, violation of a guideline being cited on one side and WP:ILIKEIT arguments and "it can be fixed" arguments on the other would close as delete. This isn't AfD part deux, this is a review of the closure. It closed in disregard of the fact that it's still just a dicdef. If there appears to be a small minority out to get the article, maybe that small majority is riding the content-policy-and-guidelines violation angle particularly hard because it does violate them? (i.e., AGF, please). — Saxifrage ✎ 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse keep closure. This was within admin discretion. In a case where an article is verifiable, with clear third-party reliable sources (and this one is... kudos to the genius who searched out the FCC), poor article quality and distasteful subject matter are not sufficient reason to merit deletion (at least, not a strictly per policy, anti-consensus deletion.) This has sources, clearly exists, and has the majority support among the community. Those factors come together to resolve the issue conclusively, and this matter should be considered closed. Xoloz 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure - Well stated above, AFD was keep, just drop it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse close per Xoloz. Five or six AfD nominations is excessive- there should be limits. This DRV is excessive. As far as I'm concerned, this article doesn't violate any policies and the only thing that can explain the constant attention is distaste with the subject or a desire for censorship. Well wikipedia isn't censored- that's not "silly", but is one of the things that makes wikipedia great. If the nominator feels that the article lacks information, he/she should spend some time expanding the article. --JJay 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't raise the awful spectre of censorship. It's another red herring. My reasons for wanting this deleted has nothing to do with censorship, and I resent the insinuation. When have I mentioned that I want to censor obscene content? Never. If I could fix this article, I would. I can't find any origin for the phrase, how it spread, why it's important, how its meaning has evolved or any of that. All you can find is junk like Urban Dictionary. Your comments are really not very helpful at all. Mr Spunky Toffee 19:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I see absolutely nothing wrong with the result of this afd. For the record I have blocked User:Mr Spunky Toffee as being a sockpuppet of indef blocked user Brian G. Crawford. For those who care I can provide reasonable proof of this.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and transwiki/delete. Policy can not be overridden by a supposed consensus. WarpstarRider 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • endorse closure consensus was keep and this review is probably trolling anyway Yuckfoo 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If he actually is a sockpuppet of Brian G. Crawford it would defently be trolling because Brian G. Crawford initated two AFD on the this topic before he was banned. If he crated a new account for the purpose of trying to get this deleted again as well as this DRV discussion after that failed it would be without doubt trolling. --67.71.77.44 05:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it because it is very clearly not encyclopedic content. Wiktionary does not want it, and it is clearly a dicdef. AfD cannot override such clear-cut misplacement. --Improv 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You must be joking. There are absolutely no policy grounds or consensus to delete this article. It should be restored immediately. After that you should resign as an administrator. As far as I am concerned, the fact that you would take this action on your own initiative in the midst of a DRV review and in support of a banned vandal demonstrates that you lack the judgement to act as an administrator here. --JJay 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You cannot just override process - 6 AfDs have not resulted in a consensus to delete. This DRV (which should not have been brought, as the closing decision was clearly fine) is endorsing the keep. It is not clear-cut in the slightest. Trebor 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This should be restored right away. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've posted on WP:AN/I. Trebor 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It has been restored. Hopefully this will be the end of this. --64.229.73.225 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's discouraging that so much support for this junk article could form here. As Mr. Spunky says, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition with a list of pop culture examples, and is quite clearly outside of an impressive number of policies and guidelines. Smear this "article" with feces and then pull the trigger. —ptk✰fgs 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's an argument for an AfD, not a DRV. To quote:

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — 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). This page is about process, not about content..."

"Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the (action) specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."

Few of the arguments made so far even reference the closing decision, let alone explain why it is wrong. Trebor 23:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. —ptk✰fgs 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please not this is A DRV and a second AFD. --67.68.153.223 22:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is NOT a second (or seventh) AfD, but I strongly disagree with the closing decision. A bunch of people saying speedy keep with the reasoning of "it survived 5 AfD" is NOT A RATIONALE FOR KEEPING. If the article violates policy, and that policy is referenced in any of the AfD's, it should be deleted. I strongly respect Can't Sleep,Clown Will Eat Me but all he did was count keeps and not look at what was being said. There was not a single reason given in that AfD (or in the one before that) to keep this article, and Speedy Keep implies that it was a bad faith nomination. Furthermore, for all the whine I hear in this article about this being a DRV and not an AfD, none of the keep votes has given any reasons as to why they feel the debate was closed properly, using policy. Most tellingly, more than one person has suggested policy doesn't matter and that the limited consensus of a small group of obviously biased editors trumps policy, which is quite frankly jaw-droppingly incomprehensible. Accusing Improv (IMPROV!!) of acting in bad faith is, amusingly enough, an act of bad faith in and of itself.
    • Consideirng the DRV and quite possibly the latest AfD were brought about by a banned user, and it had survived an AfD not less than a month earlier, speedy keep was entirely sensible. Furthermore, when an admin who has shown a lack of respect for consensus and a complete misunderstanding of speedy keep criteria deletes this during the DRV brought about by the banned user, yes, it's safe to say that we can assume otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Libronix Digital Library System

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Libronix Digital Library System
Libronix Digital Library System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reason to undelete

This article was created, many redirects were made for related articles, and then >poof<, it disappeared. It also contained redirect pages, Libronix and LLS. Interestingly, pages less notable, less current, and less relevant (i.e.Standard Template for Electronic Publishing), and pages more brand-specific (i.e. Logos Bible Software) were allowed to survive untouched. The Libronix Digital Library System is almost open format, that is to say it is a licensed standard embraced by many separate electronic publishers. At present, it is claimed over 5,000 electronic biblical reference works are Libronix-compatible. Furthermore, many pages still point to Libronix Digital Library System, thus it reveals it was not even properly deleted by the administrator who did so. Even lowly editors know to check for other articles that point to a proposed article before doing things like renaming (or by extension, deleting) it.