Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4 - 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 Nyttend (talk | contribs) at 01:24, 5 January 2013 (→UFC 157: Nothing wrong with undeleting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:24, 5 January 2013 by Nyttend (talk | contribs) (→UFC 157: Nothing wrong with undeleting)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2013 January 3 Deletion review archives: 2013 January 2013 January 5 >

4 January 2013

UFC 157

UFC 157 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I had considered taking to DRV shortly after the closure, but decided against it. However, the more I think about it, the more I find it hard to accept that deletion was the consensus in this discussion. If anything, the consensus was a clear keep and, with no offense meant, this closure seems very much like a supervote. I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as he had already discussed it with other editors and also indicated that he would not be offended if it was taken here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C)

  • To clarify — what I've asked is simply to undelete it and leave it at its current location. I wouldn't put it back in mainspace without Kww's agreement or without consensus from other people. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think anyone reviewing the AFD will agree that I have explained my close rationale in excruciating detail. I carefully weighed each argument against policy, and took over an hour dealing with this close. It was carefully considered, and well within policy.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    I appreciate the time and effort you put into your closure (I don't know if I've ever seen a more thorough close), but it still seems to me that the consensus was to keep the article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The way we deal with MMA articles on Misplaced Pages is frankly crap. Looking at the articles in {{UFC Events}}, we've got UFC 120 and UFC 148 as GA nominees, UFC 36 at AfD, UFC 140 at peer review, UFC 158 at deletion review just below, and a substantial number of them have been AfD'ed, particularly since June 2012.

    Black Kite said it well back in June in the AfDs for UFC 2, UFC 3, UFC 4 etc.: "it is clear that the relevance of this type of event to the guideline needs to be re-assessed". That re-assessment is underway at an RFC here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Event Notability. Once we actually have proper consensus-based guidelines in place about how WP:SPORTSEVENT interacts with MMA, then there will be some point in reviewing past discussions. Until then I would suggest deferring individual discussions such as this one. However, even though I feel this discussion should be deferred, I can see no consensus in the discussion that's the subject of this review. I acknowledge KWW's commendably thorough closing statement but I would suggest that it sees a policy-based consensus where none exists.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Oskar's declined my request for permission to undelete his userspace page. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse- I find it hard to argue with anything in Kww's lengthy closing rationale. This is a clear example of strength of argument outweighing strength of numbers. Reyk YO! 22:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Congratulations to Kww for grappling with this beast and surviving to explain his every move but along with S Marshall I have not spotted the policy-based consensus myself. Oskar says the article is incorporated in its entirely in the newly created 2013 in UFC so I hope that can be accepted and no one will begrudge UFC 157 redirecting there. Restoring the history behind the redirect would preserve attribution. Is there some way of getting to this position? Thincat (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There was a recent discussion at WP:AN (section "Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?" of AN archive 243) precisely about this. Most people (including me, admittedly) supported the idea of redirecting pages instead of deleting them and/or freely undeleting the contents of redirects, as long as there's nothing bigtime wrong (e.g. copyvio or blatant attacks) with the content. There's nothing outright wrong with the deleted revisions (i.e. we wouldn't mind random Internet users seeing it), so there shouldn't be anything wrong with undeleting the history. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request restoration of article twice deleted by editor/adminstrator Nyttend. Article was deleted on Sept 28 with edit summary "deleted page Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content). IMO, that was invalid, the Speedy deletion of "No content" was not justified. I requested copy to my userspace, subsequently developed it further and restored it to mainspace. Second it was deleted a month later, on Oct 28, with edit summary "deleted page Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)", and Nyttend subsequently refused to even share a copy of the deleted page.

The first deletion was discussed 28 September 2012 at Nyttend's Talk page (halfway down within archived section User talk:Nyttend/Archive 24#Hobart Welded Steel House Co. articles and other Ohio NRHP articles). He had deleted this plus 3 covered bridge articles, all Ohio NRHP articles. I believed then and now that all 4 deletions were invalid. However I discussed them pleasantly IMHO, obtained Nyttend's restoration of them to userspace, and I edited all four further before restoring to mainspace. It was an accomodation to Nyttend that I developed them further using a source that he seems to like. I also edited mention of that source into general resource wp:NRHPhelpOH. I was trying to be nice.

The second deletion was discussed in now-archived User talk:Nyttend/Archive 25#please provide copy of page you just deleted. The reader must "unhide" section hidden and labelled as "Copyright infringement is illegal, and attempting to convince me otherwise is unwelcome." and must unhide section hidden and labelled as "TLDR". Please, Nyttend and others, read those. In these sections two editors, Cbl62 and Mercy11, disagree with Nyttend and ask him to restore the article. Reference was made to a previous discussion at Talk:C. Ferris White, where Nyttend had unusual views on copyright, and editors Moonriddengirl and Dirtlawyer1 commented. I tried to be nice and explain further how I was seeking some compromise with Nyttend accomodating to his concern about quality of articles in his domain of Ohio and Indiana, and I suggested i would drop it for a while until a deletion review would be necessary. It was ended, i guess, by Nyttend closing it up with "too long didn't read" summary.

This is related to similar DRV, non-yet-closed, at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29#House at 1022 West Main Street, where 7 editors have so far called for Overturn of Nyttend's similar deletion of other Ohio/Indiana articles/redirects created by me.

This DRV, anyhow, to discuss restoration of this article, please. (Side question on process: is it appropriate to copy the deleted text to here? I don't see how this DRV process works if all cannot see the deleted item.) doncram 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Endorse. A substantial amount of Doncram's text was a nonfree quote being used gratuitously; it easily could have been rephrased, so it was an unfair use of nonfree material, and thus a copyvio. In response to the complaints about TLRD — note that most of this section is unrelated to the question of this article being a copyvio. Finally, remember that nonfree material is not permitted outside of mainspace, so the page may not be copied here. You can find the quote in question at this page in the bottom of the "Old Bartlett and Goble Store" section; the rest was The Old Union School, located off of OH 314 in Chesterville, Ohio, was built in 1860, and has since been converted into a private residence. It includes Greek Revival architecture. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. According to the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary, "." It has overall architecture that is Greek Revival, but Italianate detailing around its windows. The school is one of several academic buildings that once existed; earlier ones have been lost. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Struck per my comment below. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, I am unspeakably angry at you so I am biting my lip hard. Undelete the obviously no G12 page now while I work on an interaction ban proposal. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse The G12 was fairly accurate -- if you take out the direct quotes and the too-close paraphrasing, there's very little left. However, trout Nyttend for the original A3. Didn't even come close to applying.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Chronology: (1) Doncram creates substub. (2) I delete it under A3. (3) I realise that I shouldn't have deleted it under A3. (4) I undelete it. (5) I move it to Doncram's userspace. (6) Doncram expands the userspace page. (7) Doncram moves it back to mainspace. (8) I delete it under G12 for the aforementioned reasons. "...moved it to mainspace" was a mistake; I meant to say "moved it to userspace". Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Overturn and take article to AfD. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    Partially copied from my talk page WP:CSD#G12 allows speedy deletion of "unambiguous copyright infringement". The definition of unambiguous is that it is not open to more than one interpretation. Cbl62 did not believe it was a G12, which means it was most definitely not unambiguous. The instructions for the speedy deletion criteria I linked clearly say that you should have used {{copyvio}}. Removing only the infringing material was certainly an option. Being unable to see the stub, but based on your comments at the DRV, there appears to be enough free material that G12 didn't apply. Sarek of Vulcan contradicts himself when he says the A3 didn't apply but the G12 "was fairly accurate". If the A3 didn't apply, at an absolute minimum the article should have been restored to that point. WP:CSD#G12 requires that earlier versions without infringement are maintained. Refusing to correct this error is the behavior I expect from Nyttend, but not the behavior I expect from an administrator. Ryan Vesey 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All that DRV could theoretically do here is make a finding of fact: Did all revisions of the article contain an unambiguous copyvio? If the answer is yes, then DRV will endorse Nyttend's most recent deletion. If no, then DRV will overturn it. In neither case is there anything to prevent a non-violating version of this article from being created; alternatively permission to use the copyrighted material could be granted via the OTRS system. I see that this title is not salted, and I would remark that DRV is not in a position to help with any conduct issues or animosity between users.

    It is, however, impossible to make the necessary finding of fact because the contested material has been deleted and DRV's rules prevent it from being restored. I don't think this is very fair on doncram, but it is how it is.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • As I just said at Ryan Vesey's talk (several minutes after his last comment, but without knowing about it), I can undelete the pre-quote revisions and move them back to Doncram's userspace. According to the final comment in the "Doncram creating unacceptable articles in mainspace again" section of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, the blocking admin here says that a major reason for the block in question was that he was repeatedly transferring the contents of another database to Misplaced Pages, and that's all that remains of this page aside from the quote; it wouldn't be helpful to undelete a page and leave it in mainspace when that page is seen as being disruptive. I'll happily do that, and now I realise that you're right in saying that this page shouldn't have been deleted. Please don't undelete it; I'll take care of it once others give input. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nyttend shouldn't have deleted this article, but taking it to AfD wouldn't resolve the situation. The deleted article was a P-O-S, containing very little meaningful content (other than the copyvio sentence) and some bad excuses for reference citations (e.g., "another book preview snippet available in Google search results"). Converting it into a halfway-decent policy-compliant stub (using non-copyvio words and citing actual references) should have taken the article creator no more than 5 minutes, but it appears from the article history that he was doing anything but that (in order to spite Nyttend, perhaps?). If this goes to AfD, I predict that: (1) the AfD discussion will be lengthy and contentious, (2) the article will survive because somebody will go to the trouble to fix the problems with the dern thing, (3) Doncram will declare victory, (4) Nyttend will be castigated for being petty for having deleted the article in the first place, and (5) anyone who points out that the true root cause is the creation of scores of similar petty sub-stubs (I have a collection from 2011, most of which still are awaiting repairs) -- and defiant refusal to acknowledge the problems with them -- will be similarly castigated. If Nyttend were a saint, he wouldn't have deleted the article. Too bad, but apparently he isn't a saint (none of us is) and I bet he made a similar prediction of what would happen if he went to AfD with this thing. --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Keymon Ache

Keymon Ache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This show is notable after the release of movie in theatres:

http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k12/nov/nov62.php
http://www.exchange4media.com/48689_nick%E2%80%99s-keymon-ache-to-make-its-movie-debut.html
http://www.tellychakkar.com/releases/keymon-ache-release-70mm

Please decide. Thank you Forgot to put name 10:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure. That discussion could not have been closed any other way, given that it was unanimous. As for the sources above, they are not sufficient alone to determine notability as they are all essentially reprints of the same copy and therefore count only as a single source. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Remember that deletion at AFD doesn't condemn the article to enternal nonexistence. You may write a new article about it if you can demonstrate its notability. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse but allow re-creation. AFD was unanimous and I'm not of the opinion that simply being shown in theatres is an automatic guarantee of notability (I don't know how it works in India, but in the US most theatres can be rented for a smallish fee and you can show pretty much anything you want in them, such as a business presentation). That said, though, this appears to be a cartoon that's lasted more than one season on a fairly major network in a very major country. That sounds solidly notable to me and re-creation with reliable sources should be fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)