Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 30 December 2008 (→HomeSeer: ty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

29 December 2008

BrokeNCYDE

BrokeNCYDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The original article was Speedy'd 7 times. The page was then recreated with "references." These references turned out to be nothing more than myspace, youtube, and blog links. The two Afds failed due to no-consensus as one user would come on and say keep, provide the same links, and other users who would not pay close attention would just agree and take that users word for it. Searching has found no valid sources that can withstand WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HooperBandP (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2008

Note: I was the admin who closed the latest nomination. Hooper may be a bit unclear here, but he's challenging the closure before mine. - Mgm| 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse AFD closures -- references to coverage of this band in third-party reliable sources were provided in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BrokeNCYDE (2nd nomination). The question of whether the coverage is significant is to be decided by community consensus, which should not be gainsaid by the closing administrator. Where, as here, there was no consensus as to significance of coverage, an AFD closure to that effect is appropriate. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BrokeNCYDE (3rd nomination) was correctly closed as speedy keep due to the fact that it was initiated a mere three days after the closure of the previous AFD discussion; it is inappropriate to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until once, by sheer fortuity, the desired result is reached. John254 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse 3rd AFD because, well you can't as John says renominate something 3 days after it was kept at a prior AFD. A couple of months is the bare minimum to wait. Endorse 2nd AFD. Several Delete votes were flawed, i.e. arguing thet URB isn't a reliable source, it clearly is as the on-line version of an established magazine, or that the URB source was a blog and therefore ineligible. Blogs can be accepted as RSs in only very limited circumstances but one circumstance is a blog by an established journalist or other subject expert. The URB blog was by Joshua Glazer who appears to be Editor & Content Director at URB Magazine & URB.com . To my mind that does give his entry sufficient weight to be a reliable source for establishing notability but this is only one of the required multiple. On the Keep side the overall quality of the sourcing was totally overstated. In a poor quality discussion where the participants were not fully arguing points against policy/guidelines, "no consensus" is a reasonable outcome although I personally would have preferred to extend the discussion and requested further input into the sourcing. This is probably a case where Chubbles might be able to help research the sourcing but I haven't seen them around recently. I'll drop them a line and ask them to look at this one. Spartaz 07:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• What a mess. The third AFD was correctly speedy-closed as renominating an article that soon after it's been on AFD isn't generally done. However, I would have closed the second AFD as delete. When the number of users supporting keeping and deleting is roughly the same, the admin closing the debate is entitled to consider whether certain arguments warrant higher weighting than others, for reasons which may include whether they make reference to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines or are just an expressed opinion. In the case of the second AFD, OliverTwisted made a cogent keep argument, but the other three keep arguments were little more than bare assertions, whereas four out of the five delete arguments were substantial. At the risk of rerunning the AFD here, which I will try to avoid, the principal claim of notability was based on a urb.com article, but urb.com allows user-created content, so I doubt that this confers notability any more than an IMDB listing. The remaining sources provided were correctly identified by Dendlai as trivial mentions. As a result, I would overturn the second AFD and delete the article. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse 3rd Nom (Speedy keep), overturn 2nd AfD unless a more substantial article can be found to reference the band. - Penwhale | 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Keep Here's the deal. Brokencyde are a MySpace breakout band with a massive, very young, grass-roots fanbase. They're playing a blend of screamo and pop rap that is, at this very moment, becoming a new fad. In other words, they're what I Set My Friends On Fire were six months ago. They are very new in terms of popularity; they signed to a well-known label, but have just put out their first EP on that label. Of late they started touring nationally (and, very soon, the UK) with a bunch of very popular scene bands (e.g. Haste the Day and Hollywood Undead). They're currently making the rounds on the blog circuit, and the blogs of a bunch of respected publications are paying attention, mostly to make fun of them (that's what adults do, to teenage music). For instance, The Guardian provides a spot-on, if vitriolic, overview: , Washington City Paper's noticed: , and so did the Los Angeles Times: . Offline, I can say that I just got the Feb '09 issue of Alternative Press in the mail, and they mention BrokenCyde at least twice, though not in a feature; AP has also done a news story on their tour with Jeffree Star. The decisions, from this point, are mostly based upon the biases of editors involved; deletionists will claim, "these are blogs, no good as sources. Flash in the pan, not encyclopedic", while inclusionists will claim, "enough reliable sources to demonstrate the group's significance". I doubt it will be possible for the two to see eye to eye; this is as borderline as it gets. What I can state, without any hesitation, is that if this does go "delete", we will be back here in a few months (or a few weeks) to unsalt it. Knowing how these things tend to go...I guess I'll see you back then. But I hope I don't have to. Chubbles (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is I Set My Friends On Fire? Exactly. We can't just keep stuff on here because of what it might be later on. Hooper (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I Knew someone would say that! However, it should be clear that my opinion does not rest on WP:CRYSTAL at all, but is based on present status, along with an outlook towards eventualism. And if you want to know who I Set My Friends On Fire are, you can now read the article! Chubbles (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, that particular band to me at least appears to have just recently been deserving of an article, and I don't label myself a deletionist usually. If this BrokeNCYDE get to that point, then great for them, and I'm sure they'll be plenty more people by then willing to write up an even better article. But as it stands, it shouldn't be here, regardless of the wiki-bureaucracy of how the AfDs work or dont work. Hooper (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

HomeSeer

HomeSeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The initial page looks like blatent advertising, but I did not get the chance to fill it out with much of the additional information I needed to make a good case for it to stay before it was SPEEDILY removed. HomeSeer is unique in many ways in home automation - they are the leaders of their category, just like X-10 is, and there are many other companies listed because of their uniqueness or contributions to the field. Examples include X-10, Z-Wave (Zensys), Insteon (SmartHome) and several others. I tried to present the information in a factual (e.g. non advertising) way but as I was gathering my thoughts and working on it over time, I could not leave the article in perfect condition each time I get done editing it. I request that it be un-deleted and if necessary, put in a non-active state so that I can at least work on it until such time as I would like to make my case to instate the article again. The person who requested that it be speedily removed does not have an active email address so I could not contact that person via email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with deletion review, and I could not find any references to it here. Speedy deletion was used and so there was no opportunity for a Talk page to be started where there could have been a discussion first. When I went to the admin's page and tried to contact him, I got a message that there was no email address. I would be happy to discuss it further, but I would like to have my content restored so that I will not have to re-type everything should the page be granted life in Misplaced Pages. Again, the page is providing information on a commercial product, so much of it will appear to be advertising, but it is a product that is over 10 years old and is a first in many areas of its category, so I think it is worth noting some of this information. I can expand on some of the early days information and dampen the information on the features of the software if that is what makes it appear too much like advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTinker (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    Well, the "new message" tab at the top sticks out to me (as well User:Chrislk02's instruction not to send him an email), and it's a little hard to understand how you managed to comprehend how to make a listing here but you couldn't perform the much easier task of leaving a talk page message.

    Leaving that aside, I would overturn the deletion. While the article was not the best in terms of neutrality, it didn't constitute advertising in my opinion and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion for any other reason. It may possibly be deleted at AFD, but that remains to be seen. If this is restored, I recommend removing most of the external links. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I was never contacted about this until right now. I just looked at the article and in my opinion is advertising for a product/service. A timeline of all the advancements in the product, why the product is good etc with no neutrality and cited from its own website. Pretty sure that is advertising. I think speedy deletion was the proper course of action but you alla re welcome to review it for yourself. Thanks. Chrislk02 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation , but only if there are third party reviews of the product--I suspect there may be some . The intrinsic importance of technology is not he concern, its the recognition of it that gives rise to notability. DGG (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex

• Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex
• Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Adult-child sex

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex

• Deletion review - User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/ACS

Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This being a very obvious search term, notwithstanding the persistent impasse with regards to whether this subject should be redirected to child sexual abuse or to pedophilia (I am not proposing to allow for this article in its own right), leaving this address as a void is no happy solution which I think could be improved upon if it became a disambiguation page simply. It could read for instance. "The following Misplaced Pages articles deal with the topic of adult-child sex:" meco (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- As "Adult-child sex" is a euphemistic neologism coined by pro-pedophile activists, Misplaced Pages's use of this term, in a disambiguation page for child sexual abuse and pedophilia, would give undue weight to the fringe views of such activists. The only acceptable article on this topic, consistent with our neutral point of view policy, would be a discussion of the term itself, its etymology, usage, etc, provided that there were sufficient reliable sources to support it. The deleted article, of course, attempted no such linguistic analysis, but merely discussed child sexual abuse in a manner favorable to pro-pedophile activists, in violation of WP:NPOV. John254 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously there's no need to present arguments against the deleted article as I'm not proposing it be undeleted as such. However, having merely taken a glance at previous deletion discussions, I am soundly convinced that your initial assertion is blatantly false, as anthropologists and ethnologists in the past unambiguously have documented that sexual relations between human adults and their offspring (as children in an age-referencing sense) has been prevalent, even accepted, in many cultures completely distinct from today's so-called "child-love" or pedophelia advocacy movement. __meco (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• If there are scientific sources documenting historic information of when and where this was accepted (unrelated to the recent pro-pedophelia movement) I think a viable article can be written. Can you point to such sources or perhaps even provide a draft article?- Mgm| 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification This review hinges on the fact that the redlinked article space is protected from creation. __meco (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting - Per Meco's comments above. Chrislk02 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but un-SALT the page, to see if people can bring their proposed content in-line to be acceptable by the community. It has been 11 months since the 2nd AfD took place. - Penwhale | 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Endorse Salting - The many reasons and repeated consensus to delete and salt this article are listed in the six AfD/MfD/DRV's linked in the info box above. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Create and lock a disambiguation page that is as neutral as possible given WP:UNDUE. With 300+ results in a Google Scholar search, including usages that predate the Web, having the term come up red at Misplaced Pages risks becoming "Misplaced Pages is censored" POV in and of itself. I recommend that administrators who are active as editors in sexuality, child-abuse, or censorship articles, xfds, and deletion-reviews defer to disinterested, neutral administrators when it comes to what should be on the dab page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rumble_Roses_Mud_Wrestling.JPG (closed)