Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 2 - 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 Samuel Blanning (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 3 November 2006 (→[]: endorse deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:58, 3 November 2006 by Samuel Blanning (talk | contribs) (→[]: endorse deletion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< November 1 November 3 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

2 November 2006

Brody Ruckus

I strongly feel that the Brody Ruckus page should be unprotected and restored - the Facebook group was an important marketing technique and social phenomenon that involved over 300,000 people and has been covered by major student newspapers - http://www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2006/11/03/News/threesome.Facebook.Group.Allegedly.A.Scam-2437716.shtml?norewrite200611030613&sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&mkey=1491036

How can Misplaced Pages cover incredibly obscure topics but ignore one that involved so many people?

Teeterdil

Wow i cannot believe this got deleted. I play Teeterdil all the time STRONG OVERTURN! This is legit mang. Sportsguru9999 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how, with its immense popularity, it has thus far managed to elude the all-encompassing gaze of Google. There are precisely two hits: Misplaced Pages and the creators' MySpace. Contributors include Teeterman (talk · contribs) and Teeterdilforlife (talk · contribs) Endorse deletion of this vanispamcruftisement unless and until we have proper sources. Guy 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dustin Varpness

I created an article on the actor Dustin Varpness. The initial article was not submitted until I had referenced several outside sources including the IMDB. Another user added a STUB category while I continued to work on completing the article. I found the article was speedy deleted shortly after its creation. The reason for this was cited to me as WP:BIO but that decision was based on an assumption. The admin saw my username and believed me to be the subject of the article but I am actually a relative of Dustin. My name is Matthew Varpness and I decided to contribute the article on Dustin based on his appearance in several television shows on the Discovery Channel and the Disney Channel. In addition, I believe the article is beneficial because there are folks who wish to find out more about Dustin's career. I should know, I am the admin for Varpness.com and have received numerous emails from girls who saw Dustin on the Disney Channel and want me to forward their letters to him. In addition, I host some photos and information on his Discovery Channel program and have the internet search word referrals showing people visting my website based on their search for more information on him.

Anyway, I realize I can be long-worded so I'll post this undeletion request with a reminder that the reason for deletion was based on an incorrect assumtion and I'd like to have access to the source for the article so I can complete my contribution to Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Thew Varpness 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. From the article: Dustin Varpness is a young actor who has contributed his talents to one Discovery Channel Program and at least one Disney Channel commercial. Sorry, I'm afraid we expect a bit more than that. We also don't much like articles written by members of the subject's family, because it's so hard to be properly neutral. Wait until he's in the next Spielberg movie, perhaps. Guy 09:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mobile Weapon

There was an article created by a dedicated forum, http://en.wikipedia.org/Mobile_weapon , which gave very good information, context and content, about the free online game Mobile Weapon. It was not copyright infringing, as the creators of the game gave their permission, and it was not advertisement, as it only described the game and its series. The reason sited for its deletion was, "Site comes up when searching for Gundam," or something like that. However, we had a tag up at the top that said that if they were searching for Gundam, they should just click on the link provided, and be redirected. That deletion request was removed, but it was still deleted later on. Many members of the forum asked for its restoral. No one knows the exact date it was deleted, but it was in the last week or so. I had created one about this topic about a month ago, but it didn't have much on there, and was deleted. However, this topic was full of information, well made, and had no reason to delete it. If people want to search for Gundam, they should type "Gundam," not "Mobile Weapon." Could someone please restore this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N00b Master (talk • contribs)

Percy Nobby Norton

This article was just created today and was undergoing edititing to reinforce its position in Misplaced Pages because of a previous hoax article by the same title. From memory (correct me if I'm wrong) the reason behind deletion was due to numerous editing in a small time period. Once again I would like to say that this was the article's first day in existence and needed this editing. It also needed editing due to the limited amount of information available on the subject. During the second half of today editing constantly reoccurred as I found new information. Another Misplaced Pages user was helpful enough to add to the information, so how can two people be wrong on such a topic? Everything in this article was fact and justified. It was also cohesive and did not have anything that even hinted to the article being a hoax. I would appreciate it if my hard work and Percy Norton were acknowledged by the speedy un-deletion of this article. Please allow this article to grow and develop and I can promise that I personally will keep it from factual corruption. Yours sincerely, Enknowed 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and protection. The only thing that came close to an assertion of notability in the article were unreferenced and unverifiable peacock terms. Also, Enknowed contradicts the article in this request. He speaks of "the limited amount of information available on the subject", while the article says that Norton "has won his place in his nation's ... heart." The lyrics to "his Classic Folk Song" don't return a single google hit. Neither do the critics mentioned in this article. The two users who worked on the latest incarnation of this article were possible single purpose accounts Enknowed (talk · contribs) and Silentbob4477 (talk · contribs). And the best part of this article? Percy Nobby Norton is a "19th century Australian folk artist" who "has devoted his time to re-developing his music career." Could we please add him to Category:Supercentenarians? Aecis 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You should create the article in your own subpage (for example) User:Enknowed/Sanfbox, work on it there until it is complete and can stand scrutiny and not look like a hoax, and post it as an article. The whole point of the speedy deletion process is to delete articles speedily and not leave them lying around hoping that they will get better. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion and keep protected This has surfaced before. Each occurrence has included nonsense claims, totally unverifiable, as well as less than pleasant behavior by some of the article editor(s?), as evidenced in the AFD discussion. Way too much time has already been wasted on this one. -- Fan-1967 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and protection Deleting it had nothing to do with "numerous editing in a small time period" and everything to do with being a painfully obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per above reasoning. More than enough time has been wasted on this nonsense. Guy 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Overturn Shame on your close-minded power freaks. I have said it over and over, this is legitimate and I wouldn't waste my time if it wasn't. Why bother trying to pass a hoax under the up-turned noses of the Misplaced Pages elite? Hoaxes and genuine articles on unsung heroes are quickly and speedily deleted by the Wiki-admin. Show a compassion and humanity by allowing the Misplaced Pages users to expand your closed minds. This article shows promise and was sound from the word go when it was created on the 2nd. Enknowed 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim Cavanagh

Article seems to have been hastily A7'd on October 20th. I'm not sure if it was vandalized and stripped down to a single sentence or something first, but in its original form, it asserted notability. The individual is a common guest on the Bob & Tom radio show. --Czj 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what happened -- the version I speedied contained only a single sentence. I'm not sure it'd survive an AfD; but speediable, she ain't. Since I was the admin who screwed up, I'll just overturn it and call it a day. Pow - article restored. -- Merope 13:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The World's 100 Most Powerful Women

Article was deleted without due process, citing a false claim of copyvio. If the list of the 100 most powerful women per se should not be included, it could have been removed from the article. The article text was original. However, I strongly doubt it constitutes a copyright violation to include the list of the most powerful women as the Forbes Magazine see it. For the people included, the Forbes Magazine also wrote more extensive reviews. Which person who were considered most powerful has public interest. If this is copyvio, our list of Nobel Prize laureates or recepients of various other prizes are copyvios as well. Childrenoftom 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion we have quite enough listcruft of our own without importing other people's. Guy 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure - I deleted the article. It's a subjective list of people created by a copyrighted entity for their paying customers. It's Forbes magazine's intellectual property, and we have a history of deleting such items, like Guitar magazine's top 100 guitarists, etc. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jordan Maxwell

Mr. Maxwell is a highly respected researcher of the arcane and the occult, of theology and the astrological symbolism found therein (astrotheology). Among other works he is the author of

Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy Symbols, Sex & the Stars That Old-Time Religion Matrix of Power

and he has produced the following DVD documentaries and lectures:

Ancient Religious History & The Dark Side Basic Slide Presentation Egypt in the New Millenium: Jordan Maxwell Magic Dominates the World Private Interview with Zecharia Sitchin Secret Societies and Word Meanings Signs of Destiny II Sons of God & Maverick Award Show The Bible, End Times & Prehistory

On top of that he has been guest to many nationwide radio broadcasts.

Also there is a lot of Jordan Maxwell to be seen on Google Video

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-293722740290609247&q=jordan+maxwell http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-4063351610980261831&q=jordan+maxwell ... ...

Tourettes guy

This article has been deleted and protected. I believe it should not be protected and be put back up because it is a popular comedic website, and not an attack. Many articles on wikipedia are just like this one; they are comedic websites that happen to be about a man with tourettes. I will admit it is inappropriate and sort of mean to those with Tourettes, but i believe these type of websites should be allowed on wikipedia, it has its sources, and many people go on the site to watch the videos. There is even a petition to get it back on wikipedia. So please reconsider deleting and protecting this page. Thank you for your time. Sportsguru9999 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Beach Recordings

This article was entered yesterday, and was erased by this morning. It was tagged as spam. I am not sure why it was tagged as spam. It was my first time writing for Misplaced Pages and perhaps I did something wrong. Hidden Beach is a real record label, and the information I included was not spam. I looked at the enteries for a number of other labels in order to get an idea of what to write. Like I said, I am new at this and would appreciate any guidance about why it was deleted and what I can do so that the article can be restored. You can find the article on the delete log. Thank you RebeccaSinger 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. For the benefit of Rebecca, the relevant deletion criterion is WP:CSD G11: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Paragraphs like "Philosophically, Hidden Beach is akin to a mythical place…that actually exists; a place where innovation and originality are valued and encouraged" and a section written in the first-person entitled "What we believe" copied from the label's website mean this article definitely meets that criterion. (Copying from the website also violates copyright, but that's a side issue - even if properly licensed the text is manifestly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.) There is no prejudice against an encyclopaedic article being written in its place, preferably one that uses third-party sources to demonstrate that the label meets WP:CORP.
I would recommend that deleting admins link to WP:CSD in their deletion summaries so that new editors can more easily find the policy 'their' article was deleted under without having to ask here. --Sam Blanning 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. I try to remember to do that myself, it takes a couple of seconds only. Guy 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Endorse Sam but add that whilst there is no prejudice against an article there is strong prejudice against anyone from Hidden Beach writing that article - Rebecca carefully omits to declare in what way she is connected to the company. I deleted it and OK, he says wearily, perhaps it would have been better to put "]" than plain "spam". -- RHaworth 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Webzo

November 2nd 8:28pm Hello. I have been using wiki and decided to add an article for the first time. The article I added was about a company that has made great contributions to the flash world. I did not post any products they offer, just about the company its self (example being when it was founded and by who). I am not the owner of Webzo, I am just a user who is from the flash community.

Why was this article removed?

Thanks.