Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 27 - 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 Starblind (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 27 July 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:12, 27 July 2007 by Starblind (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< July 26 Deletion review archives: 2007 July July 28 >

27 July 2007

Chocolate Rain

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

Currenly the most popular video on youtube, and like it or not people want to know about it. If you really care about wikipedia, don't delete the chocolate rain entry. It informs those who read it (self-included, after I googled the cache), and harms no-one who doesn't.

If a group of vigilant wikipedians really wants to prevent other people from accessing this page and learning from it, they'll probably succeed. But before you go down that path, ask yourself- why? What purpose does it serve? If people are truly so uniformly convinced the topic doesn't matter, they simply won't request info on it/ask it in the first place.

Bottom line: Chocolate Rain is all over Youtube and has been featured on nationally syndicated radio shows, and thousands of people are coming to wikipedia for info on it. "Noteworthy" is of anything, a gauge of what people are interested in reading about. And regardless of what self-appointed tastemakers think, Chocolate Rain currently fits that criterion.

I restored this article because it had the info I wanted about this song. Misplaced Pages let me down for the first time in a long time by refusing to provide me with information about this widespread internet fad. I and countless thousands of others were relying on wikipedia to provide us with information on this admittedly stupid internet fad. I see no reason why the hard work of fellow contributors written to address this topic should be deleted by third parties that think they know what I, and thousands of others, should and shouldn't care about, and should or shouldn't deem "noteworthy"

I've seen the video, I know it sucks, and that it won't be "noteworthy" in 6 months. THATS NOT THE POINT. A main reason wikipedia has an advantage over regular encyclopedias is because it covers this type of thing, good or bad.

Work on wikipedia with the aim of providing information, not deleting other peoples work because it isnt "noteworthy" in YOUR opinion. -jjrsJeffjrstewart 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlexPorusCoin.JPG

Image:AlexPorusCoin.JPG (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin closed the debate with the following rationale: 'However there is no information about how rare this coin is, where any samples are located, whether any can be photographed, etc. Because of this, the image can not be seen to pass NFCC #1. Further, there is no information on the source or copyright-holder of the photograph, so NFCC #10 fails as well. Sorry.' However, on the talk page itself is the answer to this very question: 'CBM (the nominator), for your information, most of the coins from the "Indo-Greek" series that you tagged are unique specimens, which are located at the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, where it is not allowed for the general public to take photographs of them'. This is a request for review on procedural grounds. I feel as though the admin did not take into proper account the information within the discussion, and that the second guideline that s/he gives can be remedied rather than used as rationale for deletion. Therefore, please review this deletion, as well as the related coin image deletions. CaveatLector 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's Monsters

Muhammad's Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was nominated for deletion (see discussion here) on the basis that it failed notability guidelines as it lacked non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. the arguments for "Keep" asserted that because the author- David Bukay (and other authors used by him within the book) was notable, a seperate article on one of his publications was thus also automatically notable. the discussion was later closed as no consensus (default to keep), though still i believe the fundamental lack of any substantial reliable source coverage cannot be ignored. i raised the issue with the closing administrator, but as he disagreed, i decided i ought to run this case by other experienced users. ITAQALLAH 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


  • I summed it up in the comment I left for the nominator: It's not a "vote", so a 4-2 count isn't overly relevant. Similarly WP:BK is a guideline, not a command. Legitimate arguments were made in good faith on both sides by very established editors who with one exception (not a "keep" voice) have literally thousands of edits on Islamic topics - neither side of the debate's position was so overwhelming so as to demonstrate that the community's consensus was to delete or keep, hence "no consensus". Although not raised as in the debate there is a tendency to keep compilation works where the contributors include several notable people: when two or more notable musicians collaborate on a project/album/song or as here, a book with essays (chapters) by several independently notable contributors. Again, I could see no obvious consensus to either keep or delete.
  • In short, I saw no consensus, but now we can have many more people see whether I ought to have seen one. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This should have been deleted anyhow, because there are no sources. "Default" should not be, let's violate policy until we have a superconsensus not to.Proabivouac 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What policy? What the WP:DELETE policy says regarding deletions based on no sources is: "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". If the mere fact of no cited sources permits deletion, I'd like to see that clarified here, because there are thousands of articles currently lacking sources: July, for one example. Other than Haaretz, mentioned by the nominator and Amazon.com are sufficiently reliable sources for the existence and identity of the authors of the book, which could be placed in a reference section. The question here really is whether there was consensus regarding notability. Carlossuarez46 04:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I, too, think it fails the notability requirements. --Aminz 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Article should be kept , this book contains the writings of very notable experts on the topic.--CltFn 11:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist there was no consensus, but there might have been with a longer argument. I !voted to delete, on the grounds that the book itself was important. The !votes for keep were on the basis that the authors were individually notable. The relative importance of this was not addressed, and I do not want to decide it here. There is a valid question about the applicable policy. DGG (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sin Sizzerb

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

Meets WP Music,WP:N HarryHall86 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)