Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 26

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) at 13:04, 27 February 2007 (→[] and non-deleted others). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:04, 27 February 2007 by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) (→[] and non-deleted others)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< February 25	Deletion review archives: 2007 February	February 27 >

26 February 2007

Nicked!

There is a legitimate reason to have a page of this title, for it was an episode of ITV's Police Camera Action! made in July 2002. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't have an episode of a TV show that is clearly notable, even if the title has been deleted several times. sunstar net 23:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion and salting None of the other Police Camera Action! episodes have articles. Why should this one, especially right after a wave of vandalism? Melchoir 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
They will have episodes soon, I've just got to find sources for them. --sunstar net 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have actually started creating episodes for them.... see my contributions list. --sunstar net 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It's been unsalted. Unless you actually made the episode page before, there's nothing more to do here. -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture

Editted and renamed article can be viewed at List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

This article originally contained a sizable list of movie adaptations as well as a list of popular culture references. Since several AFD comments suggested the adaptations should be kept, User:Stbalbach renamed it to List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray (and, I assume, trimmed it to do what it now said on the tin). The closing administrator deleted the renamed article with the comment "Interestingly enough, the keep arguments provided just as many reasons for deleting as the delete arguments". I don't see how the AFD discussion can be interpreted as a consensus that we shouldn't have a list of movie adaptations of Dorian Gray. —Cel ithemis 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Note from closing admin: To expand on my statement reproduced above, the primary keep argument from Stbalbach (talk · contribs) (and used as the keep per basis of most of the other keep opinions) uses as it's primary argument the following statement:
No one is going to actively engage in edit disputes on a daily basis trying to keep popular culture junk out of articles, it is not worth the time or effort - in reality, no one does it and so the popular culture sections just keep growing like weeds. The only solution is to segment this stuff out and keep it out of the main articles. IMO the real problem here is people trying to delete the "in popular culture" articles over some idealistic notion of what Misplaced Pages should be, without taking into account pragmatic realities.

That rationale is not a basis for keeping the article—it is a basis for deleting it. —Doug Bell 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Undelete the adaptations page; that is a reasonable topic for a subarticle. The AFD doesn't provide support for deleting that page; indeed basically everyone who commented on the newly scoped page, including delete voters, supported it. The discussion was obviously misread. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your statement regarding comments on the editted page are misleading as only one person who had previously commented on the AfD commented on the editted version. That person changed from arguing weakly for delete to advocating keep. —Doug Bell 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, four people supported removing the pop culture while keeping an article on adaptations -- R. fiend, Otto4711, Hoary, and Walton monarchist89. In any case, the important point is that there is zero support for deleting the adaptations article, either in the AFD debate or in general policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Christopher Parham represents what I said correctly. (Sorry, I'm too busy/lazy to check how he represented the other three people.) -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711 seemed to support deleting the article and allowing recreation of a sourced list of adaptations, but Mangojuice and I both supported keeping adapations as well. And I really don't see how the "keep per stbalbach" !votes could possibly be interpreted as delete arguments for the list of adaptations.

Does anyone think that the list of adaptations would not survive AFD if listed on its own? —Cel ithemis 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't got around to looking at the edited version. OK, I am now looking at it. It needs more work, but it's worthwhile, and I'd unambiguously vote "keep" on it. -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and list the adaptations page. If a page is changed like that, it needs a full discussion, free from comments on the earlier version. -Amarkov moo! 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
comment I think from the recent AfDs on this and similar that there is no concensus in general about the handling of the "in popular culture" articles. I have seen perfectly good arguments both ways, and myself am torn between saying that they are generally non-encyclopedic and that they represent an essential safety valve to permit better editing of the main articles. In that situation there will inevitably be contested closings, inconsistent results, abd the opportunity to reverse from repeated AfDs. In this case, I can't see the article, but I accept Hoary's statement that it's now acceptable, and we should overturn the deletion so people can consider it and edit it, though i expect it back on AfD sooner or later. DGG 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Question - seeing as how my name is being bandied about in this review and since I didn't get a look at the re-done Adaptations article, is there a way for me to see it so that I can make my views clear on it instead of having others try to do it for me? Otto4711 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the link above to the renamed article. —Doug Bell 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Overturn deletion of the Adaptations iteration of the article. Otto4711 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think overturn and relist is the appropriate suggestion given the significant changes to the article that occurred late in the AfD cycle to address concerns. —Doug Bell 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Query? Since Doug agrees to a relist and there are no otstanding arguments in endorsement, can this be speedy closed and relisted? It seems like further discussion at AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg and others

The images are needed for illustrations in an article and there wasn't even a discussion about them. No one informed me of wanting to delete them and I don't know who deleted them. There are needed in the article. Chuck Marean 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Deletion logs show they were deleted as replacable fair use. It shouldn't be hard to visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. The possibility of someone doing so makes these replacable fair use. GRBerry 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion Invalid fair use claim; easily replaceable, or just use images from Commons. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue_Eyed_OS

The article was deleted under the misguided notion that vaporware does not merit an article, which is simply untrue in wikipedia, as there are many articles about vaporwares. Taku 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion unless notability is shown with reference to non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you just do a bit of google search? I found . Need more? -- Taku 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. We need multiple reliable sources (meaning that you could write the article from them). Only one of those could actually source any content; the rest are passing mentions, and one is even a forum post, which is certainly not reliable. And my search didn't turn up anything better. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
okay. If this is the way wikipedia is going to be, then I can live with that. But the implication means we have to delete lots of articles like this one. -- Taku 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. If you have any in particular to point out, I'll do some research and nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan and non-deleted others

Cfd: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_9#Category:Settlements_in_Kurdistan

Category:Cities in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (19 articles 1 sub category)
Category:Villages in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (2 articles)

Ignoring the additional content issues and pov issues completely (which plagued the cfd). I believe these categories fail to meet WP:V.

--Cat out 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you determine what falls inside Kurdistan and what doesn't in a reliable and verifiable way? I challenge anyone to provide this information, otherwise I can't see how the inclusion criteria would be inline with WP:V. --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Renamed to make clear this is multiple categories, and moved within the day's log to put it immediately above the review to undelete the categories that were deleted. This is the review to delete the ones that were kept, down there is the one to get back the ones deleted. GRBerry 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Strange, isn't it? --Cat out 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This nomination had been sitting without being closed for over a week after the normal discussion period. I looked over the comments provided and felt that there was not a consensus to support keeping or deleting. So I closed the nomination as no consensus. In removing the nomination templates, I decided to speedy the two that were empty and are now listed below for recreation. I did update my closing comments to reflect this fact. While there was no consensus, I did suggest a possible rename from the discussion that I thought might be able to reach consensus if it was proposed. I still feel my close was proper and that maybe this discussion can move the issue to some form of consensus. Vegaswikian 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure and speedy close. Nothing in the nomination concerns to the CFD close, so what, exactly, are we supposed to review? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure per Angus. Nom gives no rationale for review.--William Thweatt | 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. I respect that you believe they fail WP:V, but there was no consensus to that effect. DRV isn't XfD round 2. -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well... I do not know what more to say. I Gave a lengthy rationale and people hesitated to vote. I gave a short one people complained. I am not sure what more to say. I even provided 4 completely different maps of Kurdistan to demonstrate the WP:V problem... --Cat out 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I interpret this listing as essentially an opportunity to see the general picture, and can be closed when we have decided the case below.DGG 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Closure -- except as I comment in section below re the deleted categories. --Diyarbakır 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan and others

Improper deletion. Category was depopulated during a no consensus CFD. --Diyarbakır 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Not, strictly speaking, a WP:CSD C1 candidate, but what is DRV expected to achieve here? You may recreate the category if you wish as CSD G4 does not apply to speedy deletions. However, dispute resolution would be a more appropriate way to resolve the underlying conflict. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
A dispute resolution was attempted but was ignored: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan --Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment merged both categories, identical nominations and commentary to date. GRBerry 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. - Francis Tyers · 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Still fails to meet WP:V. This is not how we categories elsewhere. --Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Other similar noms: #Category:Airlines_of_Kurdistan_and_Sub-category_Airlines_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan, #Category:Current_governments_in_Kurdistan --Cat out 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment 2 This is the review to get back the categories deleted as empty that were mentioned in a CFD. Immediately above is the review to delete the ones that were kept from that CFD. GRBerry 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I was the administrator who closed the main discussion as no consensus. When doing that these two categories were empty and apparently had been for a while. As a result, they meet the C1 criteria for speedy deletion. That is what I did instead of removing the CfD notices and leaving the empty categories around. Since they were speedy deleted as empty, anyone should be able to recreate them if there are valid entries for those categories. But as I suggested to the editor who first discussed this with me, it might be better to get a new name resolved before doing a recreate. Vegaswikian 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. I've seen this issue being debated in a number of places, but can't remember all of them. I'd argue that 'in Kurdistan' needs to go, but 'in Kurdish areas' would be acceptable. Somewhere I thought there was a proposal to rename the categories. Can anyone who has been following the issue add some information about the debates elsewhere? EdJohnston 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, since they were only speedied as unpopulated. But it really would be best to address the issues first. -Amarkov moo! 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn - These may have been legitimately deleted due to being empty, but my purpose in bringing this here is to review the fact that the categories were improperly emptied during the CFD (and was discussed there) and thus their empty state was the problem; deleting them after such poor conduct encourages the tactic of depopulating categories during CFD. --Diyarbakır 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Ivies

At the time this article was deleted, it was a freshly coined term that had not yet taken off. Yet, it is clear that this term has been since adopted by the universities described as well as the education community. A simple Google search for "new ivies" or "new ivy" reveals coverage in sources like college newspapers, blogs, etc. I think it has entered the cultural lexicon and probably merits an explanation. Andre (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question. Are there any sources for the term (as opposed to just usages)? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow recreation. A quick search reveals one source and evidence that another exists (evidence for even a third source, but rather garbled, is also available). --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ASCII comic

Seems like outlandish deletion to me. Overwhelming consensus to keep during AfD (remember, Merge is basically keep). The closing admin claims that "no reliable sources provided", which is completely false if he had bothered to read either AfD or the article itself. Totally pissed off, Grue 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. - Francis Tyers · 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask why? Grue 14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the content wasn't merged, it should have been. But I understand the content was merged. This topic does not have enough reliable sources to stand alone as an article, it is better placed in ASCII art. - Francis Tyers · 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't merged, and afaik GFDL requires that merged content is not deleted from history. So, undeletion is needed regardless of whether the article was merged or not. Grue 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Actually, it should simply redirect to ASCII art, as that's what it is basically. bogdan 11:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Most of people who participiated in this AfD seem to think otherwise... Grue 14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and relist. I'd say to merge, because I believe that is a different, and valid, outcome. With so many people saying to merge it, it shouldn't have just been deleted. The issue is, nobody gave any reason why it should be merged. So relist and tell people to actually say why. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
overturn From the discussion, I see it as no consensus, just as the previous AfD. It was not a correct closure. Then, if people want to debate the merge, they don't need to do it on AfD. DGG 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hengband

User:Luigi30 deleted this article on an open source video game (a popular Angband variant) citing only 'spam' and further explaining himself that 'it read like an ad'. Is this guy for real? Anyway, it was a genuine article on a notable subject, it was not spam, it was by no means an ad, and the delete was completely uncalled for and the work of this man alone. Call it abuse of rights or whatever, this article needs an undelete, and then, perhaps if one finds it necessary a minor rewrite. IDX 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging solely by the cached version on Google: This looks borderline for a speedy, but there were no sources and no assertion of notability. I don't think it would've survived an AFD, and a casual search didn't turn up any news coverage that could be used to improve it. -Hit bull, win steak 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It shan't be too difficult to cite sources. I admit this was a failing of mine. However, I still assert that Luigi's decision was misguided. If it were undeleted I'd find sources myself (there are plenty). There is an article on ZAngband - which going by this website is now less popular than Heng/Entroband. There are articles on the most minor of open source games on Misplaced Pages. I don't see why this is not notable - and if properly sourced, can't be an article. And there are still broken likes around IDX 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Bear in mind that some of those open-source game articles might exist simply because nobody's noticed them and had them deleted yet. It's always better to make a case for an article on its own merits than to base that case on other articles. -Hit bull, win steak 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion: The claim to notability is that it is based on something else. There is nothing that establishes that this game is downloaded/played, and the list of "roguelike" computer games is enormous. What sets this one apart from the mass? Well, the article gives the update list. It lists the features. It doesn't read like an ad so much as it does the version history from the download. Geogre 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a roguelike aficianado. I'm aware of Hengband's existence, but not of any evidence that it is "popular" (and, popular compared to what?). If you can find reliable sources demonstrating that, an article might make sense. But there, are as notes somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, "1001 Angband Variants!", and being one doesn't automatically make one worthy of an article. Nandesuka 22:54, 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, trialsanderrors 07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Angband, problem solved. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, no evidence that this is more notable than any other freeware game. No opinion on redirect. --Sam Blanning 13:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Swastikas in popular culture

Closing admin based the closure on an inaccurate and unsupported generalization that there is "recent community consensus against 'in popular culture' articles" (there is no such consensus, more than 50% of pop culture articles are surviving AfD and there are no specific policies about in pop culture articles) - and also the closing admin called it a "mess" which is a personal bias. Request a neutral closure. Please close based on the specifics of the strengths of the arguments. In this case, WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish the entire article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale, many of the entries are perfectly valid for Misplaced Pages. Stbalbach 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn clear consensus to keep on AfD. The opinion of closing admin shouldn't matter really. Grue 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse my own deletion. AfD is not a vote and acting in accordance with policy is not personal bias. Nor are different AfDs closed by different people in the least bit relevant. A list where no-one knows what it's supposed to include (due to the confusion between its use by the Nazis, Indian religions, Oriental religions and numerous others) and is entirely based on random primary sources clearly violates policy, and the fact that including something on a list of "People and organisations who have used a Nazi symbol in their work" has the potential to be an extremely virulent accusation only leaves us less margin for error. --Sam Blanning 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. There was a clear consensus to keep (or at least merge) the content. In addition to the fact that each article should be judged on its own merit, there is no "recent community consensus" against 'in popular culture' articles. Please see such discussions as: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hawking in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Piano in popular culture, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture. If the problem was unsourced content, then unsourced statements could have been deleted and a merge performed of the remaining material performed. -- Black Falcon 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
overturn as an incorrect closure. It that closure it was stated that it was being done on the basis of the merits of "in popular culture" in general, not of the specific article. The result of the discussion was to keep, as justified in this instance at least. DGG 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion as nominator. The keep !votes were supported by such comments as "I've seen far worse" and a desire on the part of some editors (including the initiator of the DRV) to keep the trivia from being transplanted into the featured article Swastika. "I've seen far worse" is in no way a reason to keep an article. Creating garbage dump articles to keep trivia out of the main article is not a good or a long-term solution. All it does is shift the problem from one set of editors to another. I said in the AFD that the best solution for dealing with this kind of stuff is to delete it from the main article and delete the context-free indiscriminate list articles, to which Stbalbach said that he agrees that this sort of stuff doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Given that he doesn't believe this sort of information belongs here, given that he was unable in the course of the nomination to refute the specific allegations about the article and given that his expressed reason for wanting to keep the article is to prevent its contents from ending up in the main article, I have to wonder why he wants to overturn the deletion. Otto4711 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also say in response to the notion that 50% of "...in popular culture" articles are surviving AFD that I'm not seeing that to be the case and most of those that are surviving (as "no consensus") are doing so on the strength of the same sort of "better in this article than in the main article" argument as Stbalbach made in this AFD. Otto4711 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And (sorry, I'll shut up after this) in response to the linked AFDs provided by Black Falcon, only one of them, Wheel of Fortune, closed with a clear "keep" (and as nominator I will acknowledge that it was a poorly-done nomination, not that the article isn't still terrible). Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes have all closed in the recent past with deletes, as have a slew of pop culture-type articles that didn't happen to be called "...in popular culture" including List of fictional foods, List of fictional beverages, List of psychadelic rock songs, Timeline of Batman and a passel of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire contestants. Otto4711 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection - good call by admin.--Doc 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)