Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 17 March 2008 (Adding History of For Better or For Worse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:18, 17 March 2008 by Black Kite (talk | contribs) (Adding History of For Better or For Worse)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< March 16	Deletion review archives: 2008 March	March 18 >

17 March 2008

History of For Better or For Worse

An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent. Black Kite 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin (closed)

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin – Divisive and inflammatory userboxes are always liable for deletion. This is no different. A userbox attacking another user is completely unacceptable. ~~~~
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin (edit \| ] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` It's a sad day when Misplaced Pages has to quash freedom of speech in order to "uphold policy". —Remember the dot 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC) You seem to have confused wikipedia the project to build a 💕, with wikipedia the experiment in personal expressions of free speech. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Keep deleted: Freedom of speech is (1) not an absolute, and (2) doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:Free speech). Userboxes that attack an individual are most emphatically not permitted under our policies (which DO apply, while freedom of speech does not). Further, the userbox was replaced by one that does not identify a particular person, though it is polemical (and userboxes have been deleted on that basis before). See User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin, which makes this DR pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin – Divisive and inflammatory userboxes are always liable for deletion. This is no different. A userbox attacking another user is completely unacceptable. ~~~~

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

It's a sad day when Misplaced Pages has to quash freedom of speech in order to "uphold policy". —Remember the dot 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have confused wikipedia the project to build a 💕, with wikipedia the experiment in personal expressions of free speech. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep deleted: Freedom of speech is (1) not an absolute, and (2) doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:Free speech). Userboxes that attack an individual are most emphatically not permitted under our policies (which DO apply, while freedom of speech does not). Further, the userbox was replaced by one that does not identify a particular person, though it is polemical (and userboxes have been deleted on that basis before). See User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin, which makes this DR pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Darren M Jackson

If you ignore the extra keep vote by User:Diamonddannyboy, the multiple comments by him, and the comment by the single purpose ip of 90.208.51.74, then there is indeed a consensus to delete. Furthermore, nearly all of the keep votes admit that there are no reliable sources for the subject of the article. RogueNinja_talk 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The original editors who put it up for deletion even came to its rescue, it has five keeps by indepentent editors, not to include those by User:Diamonddannyboy but five from others, notablity was proved under WP:ATHLETE 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was added by User:Diamonddannyboy - RogueNinja_talk 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the AFD entry page there is Five keeps indepentent of daidannyboy and four deletes and one weak delete. why is put up again for a review. This again due to it being part of the Romany project. 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

As the closing admin, I endeavored to clean up various repeated comments by Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) and sort these things out, I obviously missed one bolded keep, but that didn't affect my close decision. My close was based on a few things...I don't count votes when I close AfDs, but I can't help but notice there are six different editors that registered some form of a "keep" comment and five going the other way. If I was a countin' type, that's a no consensus for sure. As noted in my brief closing comment, "Keep working on WP:BIO sourcing", I was aware of the general concerns brought up and sympathize with the arguments that the current sourcing is gray-area for notability guideline purposes. I took that into account as I viewed the large changes that occurred over the course of the AfD (compare: before/after and the addition of several references). These changes, and the comments from later in the AfD leaning towards keep (weak or otherwise) indicated to me that there was a trend of improvement within the article that merited a no consensus decision to allow further progress. I stand by my close, obviously, and also add that reference and notability tags may be appropriate for the article, and an AfD renomination--after vetting the new references--is a perfectly valid option (though I would hope substantial improvement time will be allowed). I would, naturally, have explained all this to RogueNinja if it had been brought up to me first... — Scientizzle 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sustain keep a reasonable close;; the article was improved during the afd, and most of the keeps followed that improvement. DGG (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rnb

The template was deleted without any prior discussion or voting about this template. There was a voting about the project page connected to it, but NOT about this template. If there was any discussion about this that I didn't notice, please inform me. This request also concerns the subpage Rnb/button. Free style 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a previous deletion discussion which was closed as "Userfy" - that is when material not suitable for the main namespaces (article, template, wikipedia etc) is moved to the userspace rather than being deleted. The Random Button was deleted because the creator moved the template back into the Misplaced Pages namespace. The nominator was well aware of this prior discussion - he took part in it, after all, but for the benefit of others Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Random Button. I'm also a little disappointed this was brought to deletion review by the nominator without any discussion, I was never asked to undelete or explain the deletion first. That's just not cricket, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This template was deleted also without giving me (one of the main contributors) any notice or a chance to give my opinion prior to deletion, so I recognise this disappointment in a way, although you didn't quite put hours of work in deleting this template as I did making it. Still I do agree with you that it would've been better if I'd came to you before starting this request. Sorry about that.

As I said the discussion that took place earlier was about removing the project page connected to this template. I can see that having a project around a template would be not wanted, but deleting the project page does not grant the right to delete the template alltogether. At least I was not aware that the discussion was about the project page and the templates. This should have been made more clear by the nominator at the time, and I seriously doubt this was clear to all other voters. I think this unclearness might even be the reason why it has been put back in the first place. Free style 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages:MFD#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Random concludes with the project being kept, I'll restore the random template into your userspace. Nick (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SwordSearcher

It's not about having the close changed but rather I don't understand what the closing admin wants me to do. I'm not sure if they're notable, or s/he simply wants me to unbundle and renominate them or...? I'm not fluent in Wiki and I haven't heard an answer to my question. I don't want to do the wrong thing, but I don't know what to do. There doesn't appear to have been any consensus so judging from that doesn't help me much. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. As for your question, I didn't see it for some reason, I must have missed it. As for the close, there were some that may, on their own, achieve a consensus to delete, but the articles as a bundle did not. So, if you feel that some are less notable than others, I would recommend renominating them individually to get a clear picture of what should stay and what should go. Does that help? Again, sorry for the confusion. Keilana|

No worries. Just saw your note now on my talk page, but replying here to keep it all in one place. I wasn't aware that a whole bundle needs to go one way or another, I thought they could be considered together to avoid the same arguments copy pasted in several AfDs and cluttering the page but that individual articles could be kept or deleted. My mistake, I'm still learning. Thanks for the clarification. TRAVELLINGCARI_{Tell me yours} 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)