Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 16 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 22 November 2006 (Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica - Deletion endorsed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:09, 22 November 2006 by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) (Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica - Deletion endorsed.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< November 15 November 17 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

16 November 2006

Ashtree Primary School

Per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashtree Primary School (3rd nomination)

This article was kept as no consensus at a recent AfD. I have no idea how such a conclusion could have been made other than by mere vote counting. The expressed purpose of the "AfD is not a vote" mentality is that participants should give a rationale why the article should be kept or deleted. Comments expressed as votes, with no rationale given, are not counted, since AfD is not about counting who showed up. Ad hominem arguments that do not address the merit of the article in question fall into this category, especially if the AfD is not unanimous. Of the 10 keep comments, very few—acording to my estimation two (JYolkowski and Silensor who claim the sources are sufficient)—gave any argument why the article should be kept. Others claim that it meets policy like WP:V or WP:SCHOOL without citing why, or that the nomination was made in bad faith, which is a red herring, since it made a clear argument and had plenty of support from good faith editors. I'm not interested in entering the school debate, I'm more interested in this nomination because of the closure technique; I think it was a bad call.. Comments that provide no rationale should not be counted. Overturn. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure. My reasons for keeping were rather explicit I thought, regardless of whether or not it was nominated by a sockpuppet. This is just venue shopping. Silensor 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No one has called your response into question. What does this have to do with the merit the closure decision? It was the mass of other votes without rationale that makes a "no consensus" decision a bad call. Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure so basically any troll can come in... list something for AFD purely out of spite and we have to take it as a valid listing?!?!?!!??! The article as it stands meets our WP:SCHOOL guidelines, passes our WP:Verifiability guidelines, and is one of the better school stubs. All the delete arguments can be summed up as "per reasons of the afd lister" whereas the majority of keep votes had valid rationales (granted mine wasnt one of them). Overturning this afd result is basically a support vote for the "keep throwing shit at afd until its deleted" camp.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "the majority of keep votes had valid rationales"— can you give six such keep comments, then? This is meant to be nothing more than a support for reasoned rationale, which were not provided, not a deletion camp. Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I will note that there were an awful lot of "per nom" votes in there based on the verifiability standard, which was quite easily dealt with by the keep voters, and a keep result would have also been logical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Shorter deletion discussion: "Doesn't meet WP:SCHOOL. Yes it does. No doesn't. Does too. Nope. Yes. No. Yup." etc. I don't see how this could be closed otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: despite claims above, WP:SCHOOL is neither a policy nor a guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SCHOOL is irrelevant here. Thsi is an article which has been expanded beyond the usual pathetic stub, and sources appear to exist which rasie it above the generic. I would have advocated merging to the community, but I see no compelling reason to overturn this close. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. Only a few of the keep arguments addressed the article itself - the rest discredited the nominator for being a sockpuppet (which was probably the case, but the AFD was deemed valid). As for guidelines, WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline, but WP:N is. No evidence of notability was presented, and the article is simply a summary of a report that all schools in the UK get (which does not make them notable), and just because an article is not a stub does not mean that it is automatically worthy of inclusion. --Coredesat 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. My personal preference would be to merge most of the smaller school-type articles, but this one was moderately decent and I would've opted to keep it had I the opportunity to weigh into the discussion. Having reviewed this particular debate, it is pretty evident that there was no clear consensus to delete, and some fair arguments for retention. Everyone knows that WP:SCHOOLS isn't a fully ratified guideline, but its a starting point in the right direction. RFerreira 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This listing is to consider the wisdom of the closure, which seems to have been performed as vote-counting. It has nothing to do with the actual reasons for deletion, as this is not supposed to be a re-fighting of the AfD. Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we compromise and merge it? The article isn't that long and is mostly statistics. (Radiant) 10:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's probably a better idea than just deleting it outright, since there is mergeable content. Overturn and merge. --Coredesat 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • A reminder that keep in an AFD does not prevent a merge. No consensus even less so. There is no reason to overturn and merge, just go merge if that is the right solution. GRBerry 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per Alkivar and badlydrawnjeff. bbx 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. I agree that this was a borderline call, and I'm not even sure myself whether I would have said "keep" or "merge" if I had been a participant in the AfD. But, the point of the debate here at Deletion Review isn't whether or not the article should be kept, but whether, based on the results of the discussion, that the admin made the proper call. For myself, after having read all of the comments, and factored in that the AfD was an obvious bad-faith nomination by a sockpuppet, I agree with the determination of "No consensus, defaulting to keep". --Elonka 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure per Badlydrawnjeff, but I think a merge would be a good idea. Grand Slam 7 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Seems well within admin discretion per Elonka. The article's claims of notability are at best weak, though. Would support a merge, unless somebody could expand it further. Shimeru 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse No evidence of abuse of discretion by closer. I wish I had faith that this closer used discretion and did more than count the !votes, but with no explanation of reasoning; I can't be sure they did. GRBerry 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure-would've happily voted delete on AfD myself, but this is not a revisit of AfD. Closing admin's determination of no consensus was clearly correct. Seraphimblade 08:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This was a textbook no consensus outcome. After weighing out the arguments presented by all parties I found that no consensus had come about and closed it as such, and stand behind that decision. Merging is a solution I continually advocate discussing when it seems appropriate to do so, and does not require a xFD or DRV to follow. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Both Elephant

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

Both Elephant is a legitimate manufacturer of airsoft guns that are sold throughout the world, I believe that a deletion because of csd g11 (patent nonsense) is in error. RangerOfFire 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar
Spanish Gibraltarians (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I would like to request this page to be undeleted. A copy of the deleted article is to be found on my talkpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Burgas00

I cannot find the original article which was posted for deletion (by Gibnews) but it is important to say that the article was modified to the point that none of the original (both name and content) remained. The result however is that the new article was also deleted and is now protected from reposting. I called for a new vote, to which voters heeded, voting to keep, butNaconkantari, in my opinion, erroneously and prematurely erased the page.

  • The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. However, for User:Gibnews, the mere existence of this group of people is, in his eyes, offensive.

A copy of the deleted article is to be found on the talk page of the deleted article, albeit without its appropriate referencing.

--Burgas00 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn, relist procedurally This discussion was a mess, not in small part due to Burgas00's hapless refactoring, but I cannot see that the discussion in the blue box also covered Spanish Gibraltarians, which occurred in an unnoticed separate section below the main discussion. It wasn't part of the nomination and it wasn't enclosed in the blue box. In any case, I enclosed the discussion that happened after closure in a separate white box and protected the AfD for now. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was discussed and its deletion agreed. The author attempted to save it by changing its name; the content remains substantivly the same if not worse. He has now reposted the article to the talk page to keep it alive. --Gibnews 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I would simply like to respond to this last post. The article has nothing to do with the original discussed. 0% of its original content remains and the name is different, so it is effectively 2 different articles. I have posted the article on the talk page, as explained, to make it easier for users to read it while this procedure of undeletion lasts. Thanks.--Burgas00 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regretably thats simply not the case, the article was offensive racist propaganda when it started and substantially the same, if not worse when it finished. The article title is an oxymoron, as Spain does not recognise dual nationality. If anyone really needs to see a copy, mail me.
The discussion here is about deletion and unofficial resurrection, not revisiting content, on that there was a clear consensus.
--Gibnews

See article on: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Burgas00

Hi Asterion and Francis. The article is posted on my talk page. I put it on the talkpage of the deleted article but Gibnews got it speedy deleted. Apparently it is against wikirules to post material on a deleted page:-(. --Burgas00 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete: I personally cannot see any problem with the new article. Nonetheless, I do agree with FayssalF's comments left in your talk page regarding the need for references and so on. I also have problems understanding the reasoning behind the AfD, as POV is not a valid rationale indeed. Regards, Asterion 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of the Spanish Gibraltarians and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks. --Burgas00 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would ask the author of that article to accept the consensus decision to delete it, and desist from re-publishing. Any administrator who needs to see it can do so.

The policy says: please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage


--Gibnews 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find that? Septentrionalis 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoah! That is a blatant misrepresentation of the opening text of Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion. Read it again, and you will see it specifically says the article can be userfied. The predicate "cannot" ends at the closing parentheses, the relevant predicate for "user page" is "the article is then..." An impressively clever misuse of copy and paste, I'll have to remember that. AnonEMouse 17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The only source in the copy on the userpage uses "Gibraltarian" only to describe residents of Gibralatar after it became British territory. The one incident of "Spanish Gibraltarian" is in quotes in the source, indicating that the source thinks the term is unusual, and it is explicitly described therein as an 1890s use for the 97% of Gibraltar residents that had never been to London. Valid AFD, no sourcing relevant to the potential article, no reason to undelete. GRBerry 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sourcing was lost in the first deletion. I have now included some relevant sources all of which use the expression "Spanish Gibraltarian" (at least one for each of the 3 definitions of the term). See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Burgas00
I would also like to point out to GRBerry that it would be pointless to use the expression Spanish Gibraltarians before Gibraltar was conquered by Britain! It would be, so that you understand me, like saying American Newyorkers, or British Londoners! :-) In any case, the other sources do refer to pre-Utrecht Gibraltarians by this name. Thanks for your imput.

--Burgas00 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete - Most arguments to delete were about POV. We do not delete articles because they are full of POV. It can be fixed. Indeed, AfD lasted no more than 5 days w/ only a few votes! -- Szvest Ω 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - the article is inherently POV due to the title; 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is a non-standard and loaded term that is misused and misapplied to imply the people of Gibraltar are Spanish. There are Spaniards living in Gibraltar, but they are not Gibraltarian. Poles living in London do not automatically become British Poles, they remain Polish, or they change their nationality and then become British. There is no such thing as a Spanish Gibraltarian, as Gibraltar is not in Spain. AFD close was correct. Proto::type 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete:

Proto wrote: ...the article is inherently POV due to the title; 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is a non-standard and loaded term... And what about a change to "Descendants of Spanish Gibraltarians". The content is NPOV and sourced. If the source of the dispute is in the title, I suggest a more precise wording, because the content must be undeleted. Randroide 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Undelete. It's a fine article, the AfD was broken due to the article being heavily edited during the AfD, and even renamed, correcting some of the concerns, with most participants after the edit arguing to keep. It's also a political dispute. Fine - then we should document that there is such a dispute. describes the term well. I also admit I was seriously non-plussed by User:Gibnews's creative copying and pasting of text in this debate above, but that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the article. AnonEMouse 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria
Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Talk subpage for List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall; CSD G8 does not apply. --Stratadrake 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanton LaVey

Stanton LaVey (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)
AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanton LaVey

I would like to request that the artical for Stanton Zaharoff LaVey be undeleted. I apologize for taking off the "Speedy Deletion" tag when I re-wrote the new page. However, Mr. LaVey, I should note, has become the subject of attack and harassment from the organization his grandfarher founded; The Church of Satan. Memebers from that organization have been trolling the Internet for years in an attempt to try and silence Stanton from the public. The content that was on the new page was approved by Stanton himself, and in no way shape or form was the artical offensive, or predjudice. It stated the facts as they happened, and did not "point the finger" at anyone. Thank You for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonlord66 (talk • contribs)

What exactly do you mean by the phrase "subject isn't notable enough for an article". By your own standards, Stanton LaVey qualifies as having what you call a "cult following". If you want proof, I can give you the URL of his MySpace account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demonlord66 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 19 November 2006. Thank You.


Yesterdog

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

Lack of concensus

Those that voted "keep" weren't particularly good with the markup, but it was still a 5 against 4 vote. Notable with those voting "keep" is that by and large they weren't regular editors, however they all cited living in the region. As a semi-regular editor and someone who lived in Western Michigan for several years (though not for the last 5) I would tend to agree that the place is a regional icon. Quoting from GRNow:

It seems as if every city has that one signature spot where locals insist must be visited before leaving town. For Grand Rapids, that place is Yesterdog. Located in the artsy urban neighborhood of Eastown, the inspiration for 'Dog Years' in the American Pie movies has been slinging up hot dogs for thirty years.

Such sums things up well. It's probably only restaurant in the circa 1 million Grand Rapids metro area that I'd make this claim for. Scott.wheeler 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure This was a completely valid deletion. Everyone who !voted delete was an established user, and all but one of the keep !voters were anonymous IPs. Being the inspiration for a restaurant in a movie (or series of movies) does not create nor confirm notability. Hell, the cafe at my college was the inspiration for "Central Perk" on Friends, and you don't see me writing an article about it. There was no valid reason to keep the article, which is why almost all of the regular WP editors moved to delete it. -- Kicking222 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? Actually on reinspecting it the count was 4 to 4 since the nominator explicitly disclaimed a preference. Granted, 3 of the 4 keep votes were anonymous, but they don't seem sock-puppet-ish. Scott.wheeler 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion If it were a particularly good article about a barely notable place I'd say ok to restore, but this is a crappy article about a barely notable place. Intro, menu, opening hours (!), and a quickshot picture of hotdogs ready to be served. No notability even asserted. Besides, it's already covered in the Grands Rapids section in Wikitravel, where it probably belongs. No prejudice against a well-written new article though. ~ trialsanderrors 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Closure seems fine. I really really really hope that someone creates a WikiDining soon (maybe as a branch of WikiTravel) so that the fun new trend in creating articles for specific reviewed-but-unencyclopedic restaurants, fast food shacks, and street food vendors can be shipped off to their nice new home away from Misplaced Pages. TAt the moment, this is higher on my wishlist than even someone creating WikiList (where people can create obscure lists to their heart's content) Bwithh 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)