Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bumm13 (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 23 February 2007 (→[]: added comments regarding admin actions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:33, 23 February 2007 by Bumm13 (talk | contribs) (→[]: added comments regarding admin actions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< February 22	Deletion review archives: February	February 24 >

23 February 2007

PLAYSTATION® Store

I do not think it fit the criteria for a speedy deletion. There are articles for similar virtual markets and this one is just as big, such as the Wii Shop Channel and the Xbox Live Marketplace, which are competing online stores of the PLAYSTATION® Store, thus it is a notable page and should fit speedy deletion. DanB91 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Stabby

Mr Stabby – Protected redirect created as requested – GRBerry 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mr Stabby (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` "Mr Stabby" as an article has rightfully been deleted, however Misplaced Pages does already carry information on Mr Stabby, at Weebl's cartoons#Mr Stabby - why not make a protected redirect from Mr Stabby to Weebl's cartoons, as is already the case for other entries, like Magical Trevor? 62.31.67.29 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mr Stabby – Protected redirect created as requested – GRBerry 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

"Mr Stabby" as an article has rightfully been deleted, however Misplaced Pages does already carry information on Mr Stabby, at Weebl's cartoons#Mr Stabby - why not make a protected redirect from Mr Stabby to Weebl's cartoons, as is already the case for other entries, like Magical Trevor? 62.31.67.29 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Talk:Brian Peppers

Like many editors, I hope to work on establishing a notable and verifiable entry for internet celebrity Brian Peppers, so now that the Grand High Poobah deigns to let us to write about it again, I was upset to find that admins have deleted and blocked the Brian Peppers talk page. There is no reason why this should be the case - the arbitrary year's embargo has lifted, we should get on with creating a good article on Brian Peppers. If we can't go about this collaborative editing process in the article itself, we at least need a talk page. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion we don't keep talk pages around for deleted articles. Andrew Lenahan 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. There is enough rubbish on the wiki without discussing the revival of some of the stuff we've already deleted long ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - we've quite enough of this --Doc 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse - we've been there, seen that, got the T-shirt. Doc said it all. Moreschi 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Restore talk. Maybe if the talk page is open, people will actually be able to find and discuss the topic and everything won't be WP:SNOWed or otherwise closed early... --Dookama 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Even more of a magnet for particularly sick trolls than the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt – deletion endorsed per WP:SNOW and more importantly WP:BLP – gaillimh 16:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel Brandt (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Talk:Daniel Brandt (edit \| ] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`)` Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?" Pages talk page was deleted on 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Do you people use common sense at times? We are not obliged to do this nor are we proveyers of knowledge" Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) deleted his/her own talkpage on 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) with a deletion summary: "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?" I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria to delete Daniel Brandt. --Cat out 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion this is long overdue. We are a serious encyclopedia and we need to rise obove the silliness of this tiff. He doesn't want an article, and he isn't (very) notable. He can be mentioned on the various pages about the activities he is involved in, that's a much better solution. Honestly, whilst we may not like this guy, enough is enough - he's got a point, our biographies on people who are not public figures have rel-life implications. Would deleting this this set a precedent, and lead to other demands?? Yes, and we'd be a better encyclopedia for it. Delete all less-notability bios if the subject is unhappy and the article no loss, and lets go back to creating great articles in all the meaningful areas where we are full of shit.--Doc 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've awarded Yanksox an Ed Poor barnstar.--Doc 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, in order that 400Kb of AfD argumentation need not take place. 400Kb of contributor effort that would be better expended writing articles �" Qxz 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Daniel Brandt's significance isn't all that great, and respect for his privacy should take precedence, at least as long as he is still alive. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles. Bastique 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Keep deleted. You're right, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Similarly, this wasn't an encyclopedia article; it was a weapon in some people's private war with a vilified external force. When the formal rationality expressed on policy pages loses touch with the substantive rationality behind building this encyclopedia, we shouldn't be afraid to just do the right thing. --Robth 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn, retrieving the article from Google cache shows that the article had thirty-two sources. While some of those weren't too specifically about Brandt, others were. He's easily notable, so his bullying aside, that article belongs here. This is not the same as the Brian Peppers case, where sources were thin to nonexistent. WP:BLP applies to unsourced information, not well-sourced information. Seraphimblade 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion; in the spirit of WP:BLP, "do no harm". Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion due to my own personal belief (admittedly unsupported by current policy) that in cases of unclear, ambiguous, or borderline notability we should respect subjects' wishes not to have articles about themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Actualy we have a clear precedent that the subject's wishes should be taken into account in cases of marginal notability. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke (I knew that would come in handy).--Doc 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion It's true that the WP:CSD may not have been met specifically, and that's not something that should happen casually, but this was clearly a proper example of WP:IAR to do the right thing. This guy isn't really notable, and if, after he dies of old age, we revisit the matter and decide he actually is/was, then he can be re-added. There's nothing _that_ urgent about having an article about him in the meantime. The wiki isn't going to burn down. It was a fine article, well cited, and it's still there in the logs. I don't think his bullying should be rewarded either, but perhaps the best revenge is living well in the meantime. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion; If he's notable at all, he's just notable for being notable. Let it go. Tom Harrison 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I wish I'd done this a year ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion He's not really notable, no real reason to have this article.Lkinkade 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Can I say ~~endorse deletion and~~ someone hurry up and emergency desysop Yanksox for apparently going mad and acting without any deletion policy basis? Maybe just deleting the Brandt article would be regarded as mere rougeness, but the deletion of the user page etc. appears to demonstrate this was Yanksox's explosive departure from the wiki, or something to that effect. I'm happy to be proven wrong, however. - Mark 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Upon review, I tend more towards to overturn on this. I am not obsessed with process or whatever, but Deletion Review is not AfD. We are supposed to be examining the merits of the deletion by Yanksox, which was clearly unsupported by deletion policy. I feel this should be undeleted and sent to AfD (or have the WP:OFFICE folks step in and make an executive decision). - Mark 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I have yet to see anybody explain why Brandt is notable in the first place. - jredmond 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Strongly endorse. Good job, Yanksox. – Chacor 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn. Process wasn't followed, and the article was kept through numerous AfD debates earlier. While the subject's notability is fairly marginal, plenty of other people with higher notability, including famous comic book artist John Byrne, have made similar demands, which are likely to get more strident given this precedent. And isn't Paris Hilton also just notable for being notable? Should we delete her too? Dan T. 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) The fact afd has failed to delete this just shows what a busted flush it is. And Paris Hilton is a very notable hotel, so I see no comparison.--Doc 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC) No offense, Doc, but that argument is basically, "The rules won't let me do what I want, so the rules must be broken." Ab e g92contribs 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn and look into the wider problem of long-time users supporting unilateral actions like this one. Zocky \| picture popups 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist. Or was your intent something other than trying to menace folks for expressing an opinion? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) It's not about opinions, it's about imposing one's opinions on others. Zocky \| picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn and list. I have no involvement and little interest in the drama surrounding Brandt, but I care a lot about seeing things done right. People regularly (and generally wrongly) accuse admins of acting like they hold a sceptre, not a mop, and I'm against anything that reinforces that notion. If this is so clearly a correct decision, Yanksox and the commenters above shouldn't have trouble getting an AfD consensus for it. William Pietri 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comment it is the arguments like of the last two users that have almost driven me to leave wikipedia. Total introspective focus, the only concern being "have the internal rules been followed?" - "are some wikipedians getting too much power?" "is the structure/community etc. being disrespected?". I'm afraid I'm getting sick of such myopic navel-gazing. We are a great encyclopedia - we are one of the top ten websites in the whole world. We are a resource for all humanity - not just a trade union for wikipedians, or an experiment in on-line democracy. We have a global reach and a global responsibility, and yes, we can really really hurt people in the real world. Does carrying on this petty tiff with one individual make for a gear encyclopedia? No. Is his article critical to an encyclopedia? Absolutely not. Are we better without it? Probably. Should we consider the wishes of borderline non-entities who don't like having articles? Yes, we don't leave our humanity at the door. With great power comes great responsibility. And if we delete 1,000 Brandts we will not be weaker. Ignore all the rules - says it well "if the rules stop you improving Misplaced Pages" then IGNORE THEM. We are bigger than rules and petty powergames - we are not a club that concentrates on in-house politics, protocols and pecking orders. Let's rise above it and be great. Lift your sights people.--Doc 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Doc, we're all working for improving Misplaced Pages. It's just that some of us think that a transparent process is more likely to achieve that than unilateral actions by people who think they know better than others. Zocky \| picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) When the world looks in at Misplaced Pages, it is not our transparent processes that impress them. Think bigger.--Doc 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) The idea is to improve Misplaced Pages, not the world's opinion of it. Even if this particular deletion improves the outside impression of Misplaced Pages in the short run, the idea that admins can unilaterally delete articles they don't like will make the encyclopedia (and the impression) worse in the long run. Zocky \| picture popups 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn. A notable person and the cached page on Google looks encyclopedic enough. Removing the page just because the subject doesn't want it here sets a disturbing precedent for others. --Dookama 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comment: I honestly wonder why there hasn't been any thread on WP:ANI about this yet, why there's no wheel-war going on and why the consensus on this seems to be quite clear on this (until now, at least) all of a sudden. Not that I think that's a negative thing of course, but it just strike me as odd. I don't have a strong opinion on the DRV itself either way, although process shouldn't be ignored like that, IMHO. If process doesn't work, {{sofixit}}, but don't just ignore it. --Conti\|✉ 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Comment actually, it was restored out-of-process while this DRV was ongoing by Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and redeleted by Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). – Chacor 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC) How was Bumm13's restoration of the article "out-of-process"? May I refer you to the Undeletion policy which states "If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting." Bumm13 wasn't even given time to blank the article, if that was his intention. - Mark 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Well, so much for that. To my defense, I started writing that comment before the article got undeleted/redeleted. Maybe an WP:ANI thread was started by now. :) --Conti\|✉ 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Please define what process you refer to; is it related to the one that says that deletion of articles takes precedent over undeleting articles with all other things equal? I'm not aware of such a thing, but I'd be more than happy to have it pointed out to me. Regardless, I'm done "messing" with the article; this current situation is a reflection of the disease that exists at this site Bumm13 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion - good call. Firstly, with this gone this odious individual might actually shut up. Secondly, I just don't think he's notable. What's he done? A bit of web activism that everyone will have completely forgotten about in ten years? The odd repulsive paranoid rant? Who cares? Looking at the google cached version the sources cited are either trivial, fail RS, are unrelated to establishing notability, or only mention Brandt incidentally. Doesn't seem notable. Moreschi 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion The article long ago stopped being about "encyclopedia", and turned into a spite-fence. This is a somewhat face-saving way to get out of a very bad situation, and going back to contention over it hurts everyone -- Seth Finkelstein 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Misplaced Pages sometimes seems to me like a little kid yelling "I'll do it because I want to, but not because you tell me to." Just because Daniel Brandt wants the article deleted is not a good reason to keep it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD? It seems that the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and had survived eleven AfD nominations. I don't think it is appropriate to just ignore those discussions. --KFP (talk \| contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Strong endorse per all above. Enough is enough here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn. One admin and their actions aren't ranked above those of any other; this article about a person of dubious notability has been discussed ad nauseum and has been kept. User:Yanksox isn't listed as having Oversight and did not appear to act in accordance to WP:OFFICE so it's hard for it to appear as anything other than unilateral action with no apparent motivation behind it. Bumm13 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Daniel Brandt – deletion endorsed per WP:SNOW and more importantly WP:BLP – gaillimh 16:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
Pages talk page was deleted on 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Do you people use common sense at times? We are not obliged to do this nor are we proveyers of knowledge"
Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) deleted his/her own talkpage on 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) with a deletion summary: "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"

I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria to delete Daniel Brandt.

--Cat out 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

endorse deletion this is long overdue. We are a serious encyclopedia and we need to rise obove the silliness of this tiff. He doesn't want an article, and he isn't (very) notable. He can be mentioned on the various pages about the activities he is involved in, that's a much better solution. Honestly, whilst we may not like this guy, enough is enough - he's got a point, our biographies on people who are not public figures have rel-life implications. Would deleting this this set a precedent, and lead to other demands?? Yes, and we'd be a better encyclopedia for it. Delete all less-notability bios if the subject is unhappy and the article no loss, and lets go back to creating great articles in all the meaningful areas where we are full of shit.--Doc 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I've awarded Yanksox an Ed Poor barnstar.--Doc 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, in order that 400Kb of AfD argumentation need not take place. 400Kb of contributor effort that would be better expended writing articles �" Qxz 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Daniel Brandt's significance isn't all that great, and respect for his privacy should take precedence, at least as long as he is still alive. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles. Bastique 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleted. You're right, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Similarly, this wasn't an encyclopedia article; it was a weapon in some people's private war with a vilified external force. When the formal rationality expressed on policy pages loses touch with the substantive rationality behind building this encyclopedia, we shouldn't be afraid to just do the right thing. --Robth 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, retrieving the article from Google cache shows that the article had thirty-two sources. While some of those weren't too specifically about Brandt, others were. He's easily notable, so his bullying aside, that article belongs here. This is not the same as the Brian Peppers case, where sources were thin to nonexistent. WP:BLP applies to unsourced information, not well-sourced information. Seraphimblade 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion; in the spirit of WP:BLP, "do no harm". Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion due to my own personal belief (admittedly unsupported by current policy) that in cases of unclear, ambiguous, or borderline notability we should respect subjects' wishes not to have articles about themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actualy we have a clear precedent that the subject's wishes should be taken into account in cases of marginal notability. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke (I knew that would come in handy).--Doc 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion It's true that the WP:CSD may not have been met specifically, and that's not something that should happen casually, but this was clearly a proper example of WP:IAR to do the right thing. This guy isn't really notable, and if, after he dies of old age, we revisit the matter and decide he actually is/was, then he can be re-added. There's nothing _that_ urgent about having an article about him in the meantime. The wiki isn't going to burn down. It was a fine article, well cited, and it's still there in the logs. I don't think his bullying should be rewarded either, but perhaps the best revenge is living well in the meantime. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion; If he's notable at all, he's just notable for being notable. Let it go. Tom Harrison 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. I wish I'd done this a year ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion He's not really notable, no real reason to have this article.Lkinkade 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I say ~~endorse deletion and~~ someone hurry up and emergency desysop Yanksox for apparently going mad and acting without any deletion policy basis? Maybe just deleting the Brandt article would be regarded as mere rougeness, but the deletion of the user page etc. appears to demonstrate this was Yanksox's explosive departure from the wiki, or something to that effect. I'm happy to be proven wrong, however. - Mark 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Upon review, I tend more towards to overturn on this. I am not obsessed with process or whatever, but Deletion Review is not AfD. We are supposed to be examining the merits of the deletion by Yanksox, which was clearly unsupported by deletion policy. I feel this should be undeleted and sent to AfD (or have the WP:OFFICE folks step in and make an executive decision). - Mark 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. I have yet to see anybody explain why Brandt is notable in the first place. - jredmond 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Strongly endorse. Good job, Yanksox. – Chacor 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Process wasn't followed, and the article was kept through numerous AfD debates earlier. While the subject's notability is fairly marginal, plenty of other people with higher notability, including famous comic book artist John Byrne, have made similar demands, which are likely to get more strident given this precedent. And isn't Paris Hilton also just notable for being notable? Should we delete her too? *Dan T.* 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact afd has failed to delete this just shows what a busted flush it is. And Paris Hilton is a very notable hotel, so I see no comparison.--Doc 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense, Doc, but that argument is basically, "The rules won't let me do what I want, so the rules must be broken." Ab e g92contribs 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and look into the wider problem of long-time users supporting unilateral actions like this one. Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist. Or was your intent something other than trying to menace folks for expressing an opinion? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not about opinions, it's about imposing one's opinions on others. Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and list. I have no involvement and little interest in the drama surrounding Brandt, but I care a lot about seeing things done right. People regularly (and generally wrongly) accuse admins of acting like they hold a sceptre, not a mop, and I'm against anything that reinforces that notion. If this is so clearly a correct decision, Yanksox and the commenters above shouldn't have trouble getting an AfD consensus for it. William Pietri 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment it is the arguments like of the last two users that have almost driven me to leave wikipedia. Total introspective focus, the only concern being "have the internal rules been followed?" - "are some wikipedians getting too much power?" "is the structure/community etc. being disrespected?". I'm afraid I'm getting sick of such myopic navel-gazing. We are a great encyclopedia - we are one of the top ten websites in the whole world. We are a resource for all humanity - not just a trade union for wikipedians, or an experiment in on-line democracy. We have a global reach and a global responsibility, and yes, we can really really hurt people in the real world. Does carrying on this petty tiff with one individual make for a gear encyclopedia? No. Is his article critical to an encyclopedia? Absolutely not. Are we better without it? Probably. Should we consider the wishes of borderline non-entities who don't like having articles? Yes, we don't leave our humanity at the door. With great power comes great responsibility. And if we delete 1,000 Brandts we will not be weaker. Ignore all the rules - says it well "if the rules stop you improving Misplaced Pages" then IGNORE THEM. We are bigger than rules and petty powergames - we are not a club that concentrates on in-house politics, protocols and pecking orders. Let's rise above it and be great. Lift your sights people.--Doc 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc, we're all working for improving Misplaced Pages. It's just that some of us think that a transparent process is more likely to achieve that than unilateral actions by people who think they know better than others. Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

When the world looks in at Misplaced Pages, it is not our transparent processes that impress them. Think bigger.--Doc 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to improve Misplaced Pages, not the world's opinion of it. Even if this particular deletion improves the outside impression of Misplaced Pages in the short run, the idea that admins can unilaterally delete articles they don't like will make the encyclopedia (and the impression) worse in the long run. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn. A notable person and the cached page on Google looks encyclopedic enough. Removing the page just because the subject doesn't want it here sets a disturbing precedent for others. --Dookama 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I honestly wonder why there hasn't been any thread on WP:ANI about this yet, why there's no wheel-war going on and why the consensus on this seems to be quite clear on this (until now, at least) all of a sudden. Not that I think that's a negative thing of course, but it just strike me as odd. I don't have a strong opinion on the DRV itself either way, although process shouldn't be ignored like that, IMHO. If process doesn't work, {{sofixit}}, but don't just ignore it. --Conti|✉ 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment actually, it was restored out-of-process while this DRV was ongoing by Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and redeleted by Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). – Chacor 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  - How was Bumm13's restoration of the article "out-of-process"? May I refer you to the Undeletion policy which states "If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting." Bumm13 wasn't even given time to blank the article, if that was his intention. - Mark 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, so much for that. To my defense, I started writing that comment before the article got undeleted/redeleted. Maybe an WP:ANI thread was started by now. :) --Conti|✉ 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Please define what process you refer to; is it related to the one that says that deletion of articles takes precedent over undeleting articles with all other things equal? I'm not aware of such a thing, but I'd be more than happy to have it pointed out to me. Regardless, I'm done "messing" with the article; this current situation is a reflection of the disease that exists at this site Bumm13 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - good call. Firstly, with this gone this odious individual might actually shut up. Secondly, I just don't think he's notable. What's he done? A bit of web activism that everyone will have completely forgotten about in ten years? The odd repulsive paranoid rant? Who cares? Looking at the google cached version the sources cited are either trivial, fail RS, are unrelated to establishing notability, or only mention Brandt incidentally. Doesn't seem notable. Moreschi 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion The article long ago stopped being about "encyclopedia", and turned into a spite-fence. This is a somewhat face-saving way to get out of a very bad situation, and going back to contention over it hurts *everyone* -- Seth Finkelstein 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Misplaced Pages sometimes seems to me like a little kid yelling "I'll do it because I want to, but not because you tell me to." Just because Daniel Brandt wants the article deleted is not a good reason to keep it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and list at AfD? It seems that the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and had survived eleven AfD nominations. I don't think it is appropriate to just ignore those discussions. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong endorse per all above. Enough is enough here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. One admin and their actions aren't ranked above those of any other; this article about a person of dubious notability has been discussed ad nauseum and has been kept. User:Yanksox isn't listed as having Oversight and did not appear to act in accordance to WP:OFFICE so it's hard for it to appear as anything other than unilateral action with no apparent motivation behind it. Bumm13 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

World Trade Center in film and media

While the nominator is under no obligation to notify the article creator, it really would have been helpful if someone notified me about this AFD when it was posted back in November. My watchlist is massive, thousands of pages, so I missed this one. The AFD wasn't a unanimous 100% delete. 2 of 6 said keep, and I would have said strong keep, and then it would have been kept as no consensus. The subarticle was created per WP:SUMMARY to keep the "film and media" section in the main article pared down to ~two sentences. Since it was deleted, trivia is starting to creep back in and becoming a nuisance to maintain. Someone even started re-adding a list of films with the WTC in them, and was "offended" when I cut it out. (See the top of my talk page) As primary maintainer of the main article and creator of the subarticle, I strongly prefer having a subarticle where people can put stuff like this, as it makes maintaining the main article more manageable. Per Misplaced Pages:"In popular culture" articles, the WTC article is getting to #5. We need to go back to #3, with just a very brief summary in the main article. At some point, as the main article reaches featured article status, I would go through, cleanup, and pare down this subarticle if we could have it undeleted. Please let us have our subarticle back. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please restore per my nom. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse since AfD is not a vote™ the addition of another keep argument would have changed the result only if it was persuasive. Instead of restoring the highly problematic old list I would suggest simply recreating a list with clear and exclusive inclusion criteria. The "we don't want this material in our article so we need a place to put it" argument is generally unpersuasive. If it is unencyclopedic it should be excised not quarintined. Eluchil404 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (a featured list) and Joan of Arc (featured article). Ultimately, if the WTC gets to featured article status (may happen in the next couple months or sooner), the subarticles will all be made at least good articles if not featured themselves. In the case of pop culture references, it would be a featured list. Now, do I have to start from scratch and make up a new list or can I please work with what was there, try to find references, and cut out what's not notable. It would be much easier (a big time saver) for me to do the latter. --Aude (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case I have no objection to userfication. You can work on the list in your userspace and when it meets minimun standards move it back to the mainspace. It doesn't need to be FL ready but some basic standards on inclusion and some secondary sources would be a big help in convincing people that it has potential. Eluchil404 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse The two keep comments didn't provide any arguments to why the list should be kept. So they had almost no weight in the discussion. Also AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Restore; per Aude above, we need something like this. Tom Harrison 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
YEah the DRV nom is rather vote-ish. The two keep "votes" in this AfD were rather weak ("useful list", "interesting list"... arguments not based in policy but just WP:ILIKEITs), if another weak reason for keeping had appeared I probably still would have deleted. All four delete "votes" linked to or at least mentioned policy. But the DRV nom is not all that weak of a reason. I would be okay with restoring it if the people really think it could be improved, but the article does need a huge overhaul... glancing at the deleted version, I can't really imagine who would possibly want to read that entire laundry list of trivia. --W.marsh 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Go Too Far

This article has been deleted for prevention of recreation. The single has been confirmed. A music video has been released and the single as already started charting. What more is there to say. This page should be unprotected and recreated for the benefit of fans and other artists etc. User:Zz128 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, agreed as per nom Lord Metroid 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse again, for the same reason as on 11 Feb. What's changed since then? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Opinion on Feb. 11 was "Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)". That DRV closed as request withdrawn. GRBerry 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I would strongly suggest endorse deletion but as my userpage states I'm extremely repulsed by any rap/hiphop song so my endorse vote would border COI. So no opinion here. Wooyi 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem: rap song is a tautology. Not sure why the C is silent in rap, but a song has a tune. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I'm sure you meant oxymoron (or more precisely contradiction in terms) rather than tautology. -- Ben 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi, someone I greatly respect, C. S. Lewis, wrote (among other things) book reviews, but declined to review mysteries, saying that because he disliked the genre he could not fairly judge whether any given book was a good or bad example of it, and he wished not to write any unfair reviews. It's nice to see that you share the same scruple. -- Ben 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn The video has been released; "Go too far Jibbs" gives you something like 230,000 ghits. And, btw, this is not "gangsta rap" - this features a member of the Pussycat Dolls and is strictly tame suburban rap/r&b - this would not sound out of place on a KISS-format station. --Brianyoumans 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghits? I think you need to look past the google test and find some evidence that proves this is notable. Lots of ghits justify a redirect for reader convenience, not an article. For that, we have WP:N and stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:GHITS? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:BinSL.jpg

Image was deleted for not complying with Fair use, although it did comply, and it is needed as a citation. TheGreenFaerae 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series

The deletion of this list was discussed with two marginally related pages in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3. The conclusion "delete all" didn't take in account that some opinions favoring deletion very mainly about Deaths in Final Destination 3 and opinions for keeping specially the above list weren't examined. -- User:Docu

Overturn as per above. -- User:Docu
Relist while delete may well be the correct ultimate outcome, the balance of arguments at the AfD suggest that this article needs to be considered seperately. Eluchil404 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Relist due to the fact that most of the opinions for deletion either didn't take Lists of deaths in the Friday the 13th series into account (for example, they noted the over-the-top plot summary nature of the list--while the Friday the 13th list was very brief and matter-of-fact) or they expressed an opinion to keep the list. I think that this list, being very different from the Final Destination lists should get a chance to be deleted or kept on its own merits. janejellyroll 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of supercars

Don't bother going to the link, someone has started a new page with the same name. The AfD was a very weak delete with no consensus (5 to 4 by my count) http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars My particular objection is that that that article was on my watchlist and yet the AfD notice did not appear in it, which I check every day. Also the deletion summary was not filled in thereby forcing me to do a manual search for the AfD debate, which is a waste of time. Greglocock 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion and re-deletion as G4. AfD is not a vote, and the delete arguments pretty clearly demonstrated that the subject inherently requires subjective judgment. If we can't possibly write an article without original research, we can't write that article period. Seraphimblade 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While a vote may not be mandatory, a consensus is, by my reading. I see no consensus. Also I have checked my watchlist for that date, and taken a screenshot of it. No proposal for deletion was posted on that page, so far as I can tell. Greglocock 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

An AfD notice would've been posted there, but you'd no longer see that. Since the page was in fact deleted, its history would be gone as well, and not show up on your watchlist. An administrator could look at history of the old page and verify that the AfD notice was posted. Seraphimblade 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawball

I recreated this after searching for the original deletion reason. The only thing I could find was that it was frequently vandalized and that nobody could be bothered protecting it. I don't believe that this is a valid criteria for deletion, otherwise we would have deleted George W. Bush some time ago. It seems like the beginning of a reasonable article on a notable enough subject (an example of web 2.0 emergent behavior) to me so I recreated it. Seraphimblade speedied the article pointing out that it was probably deleted for a reason. The AFD was "No consensus". I originally searched for Drawball on Misplaced Pages as I had read of it elsewhere and wanted to know more. This seems like a good criteria for an article to me. AntiVan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes and clarifications It was actually Lectonar who deleted the article, though I did G4 tag it (and Coredesat who closed the AfD). I'll notify them of the DRV. Also, while the first AfD was indeed a no consensus result, this did not lead to deletion-no consensus results default to keeping. It was the second AfD which led to deletion, this time on the basis of lack of notability due to no reliable secondary sourcing available. I endorse deletion unless those sources now are available and can be cited, but am willing to change my mind if they are. Seraphimblade 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Seraphimblade for incorrectly attributing the deletion to you, and thanks for notifying the others. Obviously I am not familiar with this process. In support of secondary sources I offer these: SmartMobs, The Wilx Collection & AdRants. I appreciate these are not the same as a front page story in the Times, but I feel it should be enough to support a little stub of an article. Thanks, AntiVan 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, blogs tend not to count as reliable sources, due to lack of editorial supervision. ColourBurst 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, the most recent AFD was valid. I have linked it in the nomination statement. Blogs are also generally not considered reliable sources. --Core desat 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion valid unanimous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Materialization (science fiction)

Materialization (science fiction) – Nothing for DRV, as nothing was deleted. Merges are not deletions when done properly, as this one was. Changing it is subject to normal editing and discussion. – GRBerry 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Materialization (science fiction) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Materialization (science fiction) just redirects right to teleportation, but that is not always how it's used in sci-fi; there are examples of materialization of matter from energy or from nothing, for instance the replicator (Star Trek), the Grails from the Riverworld novels, in the tv series Ark II, a major plot point from one of the Tom Swift books from the '80s, and probably a lot more that I've forgotten. It deserves its own separate entry, I think. -- Noclevername 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) There doesn't seem to be a deletion to review here. The old article went through Votes for Deletion but was closed with no consensus. You can simply replace the redirect with new text. —Cel ithemis 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Materialization (science fiction) – Nothing for DRV, as nothing was deleted. Merges are not deletions when done properly, as this one was. Changing it is subject to normal editing and discussion. – GRBerry 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Materialization (science fiction) just redirects right to teleportation, but that is not always how it's used in sci-fi; there are examples of materialization of matter from energy or from nothing, for instance the replicator (Star Trek), the Grails from the Riverworld novels, in the tv series Ark II, a major plot point from one of the Tom Swift books from the '80s, and probably a lot more that I've forgotten. It deserves its own separate entry, I think. -- Noclevername 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a deletion to review here. The old article went through Votes for Deletion but was closed with no consensus. You can simply replace the redirect with new text. —Cel ithemis 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

IndieTits

Overturn Article had an AfD with a clear consensus to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and relist Deletion was out of process. It had survived a fairly recent AfD. JuJube 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment logs say it's an A7 speedy deletion (doesn't seem to be related to the AfD decision). The last AfD was almost two years ago; consensus may have changed so relist it. ColourBurst 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The article had no sources and claim of notabily, the deletion wasn't really out of process as I doubt the admin who speedied knew about the AFD so JuJube please WP:AGF. The prior AFD or VFD when it was called back then also wasn't fairly recent, it was over a year and a nine months ago. AFD had much weaker standards back then, same with sourcing, so that VFD is moreorless moot. Endorse Deletion. But if any valid, reliable sources can be found for notabilty, than I would think over Jaranda 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse speedy. The article states in two lines that it is a webcomic, who writes it, when he started, and how often it's updated. In between, the entirety of the article is a description of the comic's content. No sources are given other than a link directly to the comic itself, and no claims of importance or significance are made. This is a textbook A7, and even if it had a claim to disqualify it as a speedy, I would remove the bulk of the article as original research. The vfd is ancient and the opinions given not based in any sort of policy, even as it existed then. As usual, nothing's stopping anyone from creating a new article that either meets WP:WEB, or at least contains the barest minimum hint that it might possibly. —Cryptic 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)