Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 9

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 9 February 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:39, 9 February 2007 by Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< February 8	Deletion review archives: 2007 February	February 10 >

9 February 2007

Space Cat

Talk page says "nominated for deletion March 1, 2007." Huh? It looks like a very clear delete for a student-run comic. In fact, it's nearly a speedy delete for an A7, but, even if it isn't, it seems like perhaps there was vandalism of a delete discussion? If it has really been argued and decided for keep, that's fine, but I couldn't make sense of it. Utgard Loki 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List of fags

List of fags – It is not censorship to remove a contentious slang term where a formal one exists. – Guy (Help!) 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This redirect was listed on RfD by admin Bearcat and immediately speedy deleted by the same. After some deep thought I have decided to bring this up since Misplaced Pages is not censored. I understand that "fag" is a derogatory term, but we have a redirect for ~~List of Nazis~~ List of nazis. I could potentially use the mentioned deletion as a precedent to delete ~~List of Nazis~~ List of nazis on the grounds that I find the term Nazis offensive. It should be noted that List of fags was deleted without debate. Qarnos 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Firstly, I did not list it on RFD; it was listed by User:Dave6. Secondly, Misplaced Pages does have precedent for offensive terms in an article or category name being speedy deleted. Third, "Misplaced Pages is not censored" applies to sensitive material that is directly relevant to the content of the article, not to non-contextual use of derogatory terms for social groups — this would be the equivalent of having "List of n*ggers" as a redirect to List of African Americans, which needless to say we certainly don't have (and which would also get speedied on sight if somebody tried it). And fourth, you might want to consider coming up with an analogy that isn't a redlink — let's just say it doesn't really help your argument to claim that we have an offensive redirect that we don't actually have. Oh: and SNOWBALL, for good measure. Bearcat 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) A couple of apologies are in order from me - first, you are correct. Dave6 listed the redirect - I mis-read the proposal. Also, sorry about the redlink - wrong capitalization by myself. It has been corrected. Finally, there may very well be a precedent for offensive terms being speedied - but you mentioned in your deletion notice that in is not WP policy, which made me think. I have no problem with this page being deleted - but I think discussion is not a bad idea. -- Qarnos I will also add, after reading your edited response, that I don't have an "argument" here. I listed the redirect here because I was concerned there may have been a knee-jerk reaction causing the speedy delete. Getting angry isn't going to solve anything. -- Qarnos 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of fags – It is not censorship to remove a contentious slang term where a formal one exists. – Guy (Help!) 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

This redirect was listed on RfD by admin Bearcat and immediately speedy deleted by the same. After some deep thought I have decided to bring this up since Misplaced Pages is not censored. I understand that "fag" is a derogatory term, but we have a redirect for ~~List of Nazis~~ List of nazis. I could potentially use the mentioned deletion as a precedent to delete ~~List of Nazis~~ List of nazis on the grounds that I find the term Nazis offensive. It should be noted that List of fags was deleted without debate. Qarnos 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not list it on RFD; it was listed by User:Dave6. Secondly, Misplaced Pages does have precedent for offensive terms in an article or category name being speedy deleted. Third, "Misplaced Pages is not censored" applies to sensitive material that is directly relevant to the content of the article, not to non-contextual use of derogatory terms for social groups — this would be the equivalent of having "List of n*ggers" as a redirect to List of African Americans, which needless to say we certainly don't have (and which would also get speedied on sight if somebody tried it). And fourth, you might want to consider coming up with an analogy that isn't a redlink — let's just say it doesn't really help your argument to claim that we have an offensive redirect that we don't actually have. Oh: and SNOWBALL, for good measure. Bearcat 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of apologies are in order from me - first, you are correct. Dave6 listed the redirect - I mis-read the proposal. Also, sorry about the redlink - wrong capitalization by myself. It has been corrected. Finally, there may very well be a precedent for offensive terms being speedied - but you mentioned in your deletion notice that in is not WP policy, which made me think. I have no problem with this page being deleted - but I think discussion is not a bad idea. -- Qarnos

I will also add, after reading your edited response, that I don't have an "argument" here. I listed the redirect here because I was concerned there may have been a knee-jerk reaction causing the speedy delete. Getting angry isn't going to solve anything. -- Qarnos 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Mrs. Puff

Mrs. Puff – relisted, marginally valid WP:CSK, but the objections here overcome the marginal validity – GRBerry 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mrs. Puff (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Please review this afd. The keep votes came with the reason that it is a major charachter but, even if that was true, according to Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) even major characters should be kept within the main article, and only given a separate article if "encyclopedic treatment" can be extended to it, which the article had none of. But it was speedily kept. I don't understand what happened. 650l2520 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn and relist. This is why there's a rule against non-admins speedy keeping stuff, people. There is no reason whatsoever to close this as a speedy keep. Oh, and either way, "the main page is getting too big" is not a valid reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted, especially an unsourced one. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn and relist Appears to have been speedy closed by non-admin against process (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions). No explanation given and no obvious reason for speedy keep after 5 hour listing. Bwithh 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn and relist, do it speedily if possible. This is a clear process violation, and there's no chance for any other result from this DRV, so speedy per WP:SNOW. — coelacan talk — 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Comment. AfD closed with no delete vote, clear consensus to keep. "the main page is getting too big" is a perfectly usable argument to keep an article, please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Misplaced Pages. Lack of references is an invalid reason to delete an article. Anyway, the article now properly cites its source, added by User:AMK152. Ultimately, I take the view that reviewing this AfD isn't needed Pea ceNT 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Obvious relist, speedy closures aren't useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mrs. Puff – relisted, marginally valid WP:CSK, but the objections here overcome the marginal validity – GRBerry 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Please review this afd. The keep votes came with the reason that it is a major charachter but, even if that was true, according to Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) even major characters should be kept within the main article, and only given a separate article if "encyclopedic treatment" can be extended to it, which the article had none of. But it was speedily kept. I don't understand what happened. 650l2520 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and relist. This is why there's a rule against non-admins speedy keeping stuff, people. There is no reason whatsoever to close this as a speedy keep. Oh, and either way, "the main page is getting too big" is not a valid reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted, especially an unsourced one. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and relist Appears to have been speedy closed by non-admin against process (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions). No explanation given and no obvious reason for speedy keep after 5 hour listing. Bwithh 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and relist, do it speedily if possible. This is a clear process violation, and there's no chance for any other result from this DRV, so speedy per WP:SNOW. — coelacan talk — 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. AfD closed with no delete vote, clear consensus to keep. "the main page is getting too big" is a perfectly usable argument to keep an article, please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Misplaced Pages. Lack of references is an invalid reason to delete an article. Anyway, the article now properly cites its source, added by User:AMK152. Ultimately, I take the view that reviewing this AfD isn't needed Pea ceNT 12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Obvious relist, speedy closures aren't useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

SanDisk Sansa

SanDisk Sansa – Overturned by deleting admin as a mistake, nothing more to do here – Amark moo! 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SanDisk Sansa (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Page was mistakenly deleted instead of Sandisk Sansa e260, which is now a redirect to the deleted page. Take note of the fact that the deletion log does not correspond to the article that was actually deleted Alethiareg 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Endorse deletion, I'm going to tag the other for speedy. An article under a different name is still the same article, and the AfD is still applicable. -Amark moo! 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Argh. So it turns out that this is a seperate article. In that case, speedy undelete, ~~but someone should really AfD it.~~ -Amark moo! 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC) If it was a procedural error on my part, please feel free to undo my actions. I am on a semi wiki break with very limited time. If there is anything that I need to answer or any questions directly regarding this, please let me know and I will try to answer as quickly as possible. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I had a few minutes so I looked into this. It appears that sometime after the AFD started, User:Veesicle was BOLD and changed the article to a redirect]. When I closed the AFD, I made the mistake of not noticing the redirect and deleted the artice to be merged into. As a result of this investigation, I will undelete SanDisk Sansa as it has not undergone an afd and shows no cause for deletion. For the record, the afd in question is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandisk Sansa e260. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

SanDisk Sansa – Overturned by deleting admin as a mistake, nothing more to do here – Amark moo! 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Page was mistakenly deleted instead of Sandisk Sansa e260, which is now a redirect to the deleted page. Take note of the fact that the deletion log does not correspond to the article that was actually deleted Alethiareg 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, I'm going to tag the other for speedy. An article under a different name is still the same article, and the AfD is still applicable. -Amark moo! 04:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Argh. So it turns out that this is a seperate article. In that case, speedy undelete, ~~but someone should really AfD it.~~ -Amark moo! 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If it was a procedural error on my part, please feel free to undo my actions. I am on a semi wiki break with very limited time. If there is anything that I need to answer or any questions directly regarding this, please let me know and I will try to answer as quickly as possible. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I had a few minutes so I looked into this. It appears that sometime after the AFD started, User:Veesicle was BOLD and changed the article to a redirect]. When I closed the AFD, I made the mistake of not noticing the redirect and deleted the artice to be merged into. As a result of this investigation, I will undelete SanDisk Sansa as it has not undergone an afd and shows no cause for deletion. For the record, the afd in question is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sandisk Sansa e260. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Bottle Square

Why did this page need to be deleted? J19086 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering it was deleted three times by two different admins as being either patent nonsense or having no content, I think the question you need to answer is "why does this page need to exist?" Endorse deletion barring any sensible sources appearing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Extreme endorse deletion per the article itself, which starts out: "Bottle Square is a game played at Strath Haven High School during the three lunch periods. Bottle Square was created during the 2004-2005 school year." and actually goes downhill from there, right down to a list of participants and even a list of bottles used!! Blatant WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse, Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse per above. If it goes downhill from there, I'm almost glad I can't see it. Trebor 15:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Last For One

Page was deleted due to CSD:A7; however, the deleted article did contain an assertion of notability; namely, the first sentence of the article stated, "they have been recognized as a worldwide known name and a contributor to the Hanryu wave". Nchaimov 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn. I challenged it on Alkivar's talk page, he's gone now. Definitely not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn. No sources =/= no assertion of notability. -Amark moo! 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated hyperbole is not a claim of notability, nor is winning a competition where just about every winner is redlinked, nor is it partiocularly plausible that a breakdance crew would be notable. List on AfD as a courtesy and because the article has some history and is of more than the usual one paragraph length, but this was not an especially problematic interpretation of A7. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it was. A7 asks for assertions, this had it, and it was ignored. This is exactly what's problematic about A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Jeff, the assertion of notability was in terms of "if you believe that things like this are notable, then this is notable". It was unsubstantiated, weak and not especially plausible. I'm all for sending things to AfD if people genuinely want to contest them and they have at least some merit, but I am absolutely not goign to join a witch-hunt against admins who look at a subject while clearing a massive backlog and say "Feh, no credible claim of notability". You appear to be assuming bad faith here. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is three bad A7s in a row by this administrator, there is a greater problem at work, for sure. What was so incredible about the claim, especially since we have an article on the tournament in particular? It's not a witch hunt to expect competence when working with a controversial speedy deletion criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

List once we reach the point here of discussing whether winning a particular international competition makes them encyclopedicly notable, we definitely have an assertion of notability. As their official site is in Korean, I would bet that almost any sources would be in Korean. We might be better off finding a way to get the Korean wikipedia folks to tackle this. Is there an article on them there? Can they dig up and translate some sources for us? Would they prefer to translate this onto their Misplaced Pages and bring it back when it is in better shape? Unfortunately, I don't know how best to contact them. GRBerry 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)