Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 8 - 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 Dpbsmith (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 9 August 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:37, 9 August 2006 by Dpbsmith (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 7 August 9 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

8 August 2006

Dark Galaxy (Computer Game)

The article in question was deleted mainly because it was considered non-notable, and poorly written. However, the article was significantly reformatted and revamped, making the second complaint moot- seeing as many votes were cast before these alterations, it is likely that what was a tie vote to delete would have come to a different conclusion. As to the article's notability, there was considerable disagreement amongst the voters whether it was sufficiently notable to remain on Misplaced Pages and the discussion was ended (seemingly prematurely) before a consensus was reached. In light of these facts I think the article should be undeleted and relisted as an AFD until a more conclusive discussion and vote has taken place. -PhoenixPinion 23:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

BY the way, here's the AFD archive: Dark Galaxy (Computer Game) AFD

  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Only the "keep" opinions mentioned that the article was poorly written. Being poorly written was not a factor mentioned in the "delete" opinions, which mentioned non-notability and the absence of "multiple non-trivial third-party articles" about the game. The only obvious way for a rewrite to address the concerns of those arguing for deletion would be for the rewrite to include previously-uncited reliable sources, independent of the game's website, testifying to the game's importance. The rewrite did not do this; when deleted, the only references were to the www.darkgalaxy.com website itself and to an IRC chat page. In other words: with regard to those arguing for deletion, the rewrite didn't change anything. Nothing has been said by PhoenixPinion that would suggest that undeleting and relisting the article would result in a different AfD outcome. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pilcomayo Department

speedy out of process deletion. reason given by deleting admin User:SoothingR was "one sentence article", which does not mean that it can be speedily deleted. Even after discussing he sticks to the deletion. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse: Unless the sentence is like Molly Bloom's speech, it's going to be a fact. A fact is not an article. This is a valid application of the speedy deletion criterion "short, empty articles." Geogre 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There was enough context to expand the stub. SoothingR also redirected the Pilcomayo dab page. He was well aware of context, but he and now you stick to your abusive behavior. you should be de-admined for one month along with SoothinR. Of course it is a fact what I wrote. Why delete this fact speedy without talk, without letting others contribute? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, heavens! I should lose my administrator status because I disagree with you? It's abuse to hold the position that a single fact is not an article and therefore not appropriate? Golly, but that's quite a stretch you're making, there. Geogre 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • no, you should lose it because you support admin right abuse. Disagreement iss not the thing here. But hey, you have CONTRIBUTIONS in the Main space of 4000 and deletions of around 3000 or more. This could be another reason to ban you from being an admin for some time. You should learn how to CONTRIBUTE Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Leading 500-word arguments over an 8-word microstubs does not instill any confidence that this article stub will ever go anywhere. If you insist that it should be kept, write something that is keepable rather than spending your time on making as many enemies as possible. ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's make sure we don't let Tobias Condradi's rudeness detract from the issue at hand. We automatically allow articles, no matter how stubby, on towns and villages- I don't know what a "department" is, but it sounds like some kind of geographic/political unit. I think there's reasonable precedent for such stuff, so undelete. Friday (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close It took me ten minutes to create a stub that covers the essentials of this place. ~ trialsanderrors 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tobias will not be able to comment here for a while, as his rudeness has earned him another block (and me an accusation of channeling Napoleon, but I digress)... just think if he'd spent all that effort on creating a better stub... Hats off to Trialsanderrors who, despite having suffered a fair bit of abuse from Tobias in the past, and in this very discussion, went out and made the stub savable. Endorse Speedy close with a keep of the new stub, which in my judgement is now big enough to avoid the "single fact without context" criterion Geogre (monster deletionist that he is... oh the hugemanatee... has he no shame? only 4000 article edits! call a lynch mob!) references. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Close is fine with me now, but I don't want to remove my endorsement of the initial speedy deletion. Even if the subject is one that we do routinely expand, I don't support single fact "articles." They qualify under G1, but the big thing is that I have very rarely seen them expand. This is in addition to the very likely reincarnated status of our angry friend there. Geogre 11:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Duel Academy

I would like to know why the Duel Academy article was deleted. It should not have been, because it is perfectly fine to have that there. It is about a reasonable thing from a television programme. Deleting it is like deleting a character.

At least please give a reasonable explanation, because I am very pissed off about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosSorcerer91 (talk • contribs)

Tom Hess

The article about guitar virtuoso was deleted due, apparently, to it not meeting the guidelines of a notable musician, as per WP:MUSIC. However, Tom Hess has toured worldwide with the bands Rhapsody and Manowar. Their Demons, Dragons, Warriors tour of 2006 went to Greece, Czech Republic and Germany. Also, Holyhell is part of the Magic Circle Music Label, which has Manowar on it and has been around for approximately 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmeister (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion as the deleter. It is speediable as it fails WP:MUSIC, and the last sentence was "Tom Hess endorses Seymour Duncan pickups and Randall Amplifiers.", clearly an advertisement. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does NOT fail WP:MUSIC as his band HolyHell has toured worldwide and is part of a famous label (run by manowar bassist) ; Magic Circle Music Label. Many articles about muscicians mention the particular brands that they endorse (see Joe Satriani, and Michael Angelo Batio)
  • If a problem can be solved by an edit, that's better than solving it with a deletion. I looked in AMG and didn't find this guy, but if the above info is legit it seems likely he'd meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. If he's really a compensated endorser that lends creedence to his significance. I'd say undelete and give it a little time to improve. A quick google turns up plenty on this guy. I've no objection to the "common sense speedy" (I do it all the time myself) but failing to meet WP:MUSIC isn't really a CSD. As a contested speedy, I'd think it could be undeleted without having to wait here at DRV for days. Friday (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • List on AfD: The speedy was not entirely within the lines, as the application of MUSIC comes on AfD rather than CSD, but there is no way that someone this marginal should simply get a bye. Touring is not fame, unless we want to start honoring roadies. An independent label is still an independent label, no matter who owns it. On AfD, I will certainly vote to delete, but the book says that it should go there rather than speedy. Geogre 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete & list on AfD as WP:MUSIC is not a CSD. Themindset 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete & list on AfD Claims of notability above make this an AfD candidate. ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete / AfD. Vanity articles can only be speedied if there is no assertion of notability. There was an assertion here, whether or not it was flawed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD since it's disputed, but I will vote delete since the article is blatant puffery. The use of the word virtuoso to describe a shredder is laughable, as is the attempt to gain shine by associaton with the likes of Bach. Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and list on AfD (although I'll vote delete unless someone adds some verifiable source citations to mainstream sources that attest to this musician's importance. Has he been written up in a major Chicago newspaper? Mentioned in a guitar magazine?) Borderline speedy. Failure to meet WP:MUSIC is not a reason for speedy deletion and should not have been cited as such; neither is advertising. On the other hand, I'm not at all sure I see where the "assertion of notability" is in the article, "virtuoso" and "highly regarded" being pretty weak in my opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Surprise

I noticed that this article was delete on the grounds that administrators failed to find that it was not original research.WP:NOR, WP:OR. Through researching the topic of fundamental surprise on Google search I found multiple sources reffering to this term and prooving that it was not original research. For example, I found an article written by D.D. Woods and L.L. Shcrucker explaining fundamental surprise. I also found no evidence that this article involves advertising, rather it explains a vital term that creates problems in our modern world and by discussing this term, society can become more aware of possible changes and catastrophes and hence better prevent these catastrophes from occuring. --Ispivak22 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Surprise
  • Comment - I was the closer of the original AFD. (ESkog) 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion I'm not big on those NOR votes, but a cited reference search gives 5 cites total for the Lanir 1986 book and maybe 20 total for all of Lanir's contributions. This is more than obscure. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD, valid grounds for deletion, certainly if taken at face value; one comment was "Merge and redirect to Cognitive dissonance, which is roughly in the same area but is better developed" - a redirect would be fine by me. I don't profess to understand it that well. It is undoubtedly a term with very restricted currency. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)