Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 21 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 23 >

22 July 2008

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Khorne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Clearly no decisive consensus to delete this article, which was nominated by a block evading sock account, and given that the article has been redirected, request undeleting the edit history, but keeping the redirect as a compromise. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion We've already established at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 21 (twice) that this is not sufficient reason to overturn. Pagra shtak 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Restore history due to merge. While the stated nomination is still not a sufficient reason to overturn, GFDL compliance is. Pagra shtak 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It's not just that the block evading User:Killerofcruft nominated the article, but also if you look at the discussion that considerable amount of editors in good standing argued to keep. It may not be a vote, but such strong support does suggest a lack of adequate consensus. Plus, I'm not asking for a "keep" closer, merely undeleting the history and keeping the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Why do you continually bring that up? The editor's former username has no impact here. It was already made clear that the block evasion has no impact here, yet you felt the need to bring that up as well. The "good standing" of editors has no impact here. A long-time editor can make a bad argument, and a new editor can make an excellent argument. The closing admin made it very clear in the closing statement that almost all keep opinions "did not address the policy-based issues raised". Please stick to the pertinent facts and quit trying to distract us with these irrelevant issues. Pagra shtak 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • It matters, because it suggests that the account's purpose in nominating the article is highly suspect. And the facts are that the keep arguments presented valid reasons for at least causing a no consensus closure and again if the article is good enough to redirect than undeleting the edit history and maintaining the redirect is a fair compromise. After all, the "delete" arguments included such comments as "Consolidation to a single article" (a merge and redirect rationale) or claims of being " unnecessary" (an argument to avoid as it is mere opinion what is and is not "necessary"). The word does it at least a couple Google news hits, as well as mentions on Google books and Google scholar. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Deletion Complete merger. Consensus was judged by appeal to policy and guidelines. The status of the nominator ex post facto has little to do with the community decision. I can't comment on the propriety of a history recovery and subsequent redirect. Protonk ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Updated to note evidence of an attempted merger by Snidely Whiplash...errr, I mean Allemantando. Unless of course we are going to revert that because he's horrible and evil and awful.  ;) Protonk ( talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Deletion, per the discussions of July 21. As for the history-only deletion, a huge chunk of it is the same as what can be found at [1], plus there's some more content from [2]. -- Stormie ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. Restore history per the merger (maintain the redirect). The closing admin's argument is cogently given, i.e. none of the "keep" arguments (barring one of them) addressed the issue of notability of the article, but appealed to "usefulness", gave "other stuff exists" arguments, or vague generalities asserting notability without evidence to support this claim. (Of course, one editor also voted "keep" twice.) As stated above, the previous DRV's of July 21 concluded there were no compelling reasons to reverse or relist those nominations based on the status of the nominator, as the reasons for nominating those articles weren't addressed in the AFD or fixed in the articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion; obviously valid closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn deletion Given the lack of consensus in the AfD, I think that restoring the history, but keeping it a redirect for the time being, is an excellent suggestion. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, obvious consensus to delete. With respect, LGRdC's repeated listings here when deletion discussions on fictional topics don't go his way are beginning to be disruptive. Stifle ( talk) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorese a relist I agree that this was nomination by a clear SPA, intended to delete as many articles as possible, probably as a good hand/bad hand account. The work done by such a disruptive account should be undone, and discussions started over free from the consequent prejudice. DGG ( talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think a discussion was prejudiced by the nominator being an SPA. If the SPA had nominated an article on a truly notable subject for deletion, it would have been kept by consensus. Stifle ( talk) 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion the keep opinions did not address the problems of the article. The fact that the nominator is a block-evading SPA isn't relevant given that there was consensus to delete without them. Hut 8.5 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Even though the nominator of the article was a sock/banned user/whatever and discounting his opinions, the consensus of the AfD was still to delete. I don't think that these sorts of nominations need to be necessarily overturned or relisted, but only reviewed in case the information causes the consensus of the discussion to change ('course, if it was that borderline it probably shoulda' been no consensus anyways...). I'm completely willing to userfy this article for anyone interested, however, and I think it might be useful to merge slightly more of it to Chaos (Warhammer). Cheers. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: AfDs may not be a vote, but for sake of argument, we had two arguing to redirect, ten arguing to keep, and only seven arguing to delete. Two of those arguing to keep produced some sources and even the nominator and some others saying to delete actually indicated merge/redirect locations/possibilities. In no way can that possibly be so decisive of a consensus to delete that we can't undelete the edit history, but maintain a redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • So now it's not about the nom, you just don't like the close. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • You just don't like the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • No, I don't. But where do you see my "endorse deletion" here?
          You've shifted your reasoning (and stated goal!) a number of times. The close was against the nose count but we don't count noses. The close was against your argument because the closer didn't think it held any water. The nom was a blocked user but we don't overturn AFDs because the nom was blocked for unrelated reasons. And above all else, you came to DRV for a userfy when you could have left a note on pretty much any admin's talk page (and even if they said no you could have asked someone else). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • You say it's not a vote, but then you treat it as such—"only seven" for delete. It only takes one. Do we need to go down the keep arguments? First: "Keep I personally find having seperate articles is fine, because I hate having to look at somthing that I don't want to..." WP:USEFUL. Second: "Keep - It's a good article." WP:ILIKEIT. Third: "Keep - What's wrong with having fictional content on Wikipedia?" WP:HARMLESS. Fourth: "Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience..." WP:VAGUEWAVE in combo with WP:JNN. I could just as easily say "Delete per Wikipedia:Five pillars (no notability to a real-world audience..." with equal effect. Fifth: "Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry?" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Need I go on? Pagra shtak 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • And, to be strict, there's "only" nine 'keep's since once editor voted twice. I mean no disrespect to said editor, but should both those votes should be discounted as (s)he couldn't "be bothered" to check that (s)he had commented already? I mean we can keep going back and forth like this for ages. Could this be closed yet? --Craw-daddy | T | 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • We can do the same for the deletes that are merely the reverse of the above, which is why they are challenged enough to allow for a redirect with undeletion of the article history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Not all of the delete comments were compelling, no, but as I said—it only takes one. Here is my own comment from the AFD in question: "Delete—The article has no reliable secondary sources to assert notability. I have not been able to find such independent sources. Thus, I must conclude that this article does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. Many of the keep statements are assertions of usefulness, but do nothing to address the concerns of the nominator and are not grounded in Wikipedia policy." Go ahead, tear it apart. Pagra shtak 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I am not saying the close should be "keep", but that we should respect the redirect and merely undelete the edit history leaving the possibility for a merge available should anyone wish to do so and allowing for the public who argue in RfAs to see the edit history that as far as I remember was not libelous content that must be hidden from public view. Given all the keeps and varied nature of them, I see no real reason why undeleting the edit history and keeping the already in place redirect could be a problem. And as one hopefully final comment about the whole blocked editor thing, why in some instances, such as say here in an article I nominated for deletion, a blocked editor's comment is removed from the discussion, and yet we're not willing to discount blocked editors elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
            • We are. Even if you discount his opinion, there are still other delete opinions. You can't throw them all out. It looks like this whole thing is moot due to the merge now in any event. Pagra shtak 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). The decision to discount the anonymous and non-policy-based opinions was well-within accepted practice and standards for closers. This left a majority of opinions for straight "delete" and a minority recommending "keep as redirect". The final call was within reasonable admin discretion. I find no process problems in the discussion nor any new evidence here that would justify overturning the decision. (To address one of the comments above, DGG is a solid editor. I'm willing to give him/her the benefit of doubt that the double-vote was an oversight. That factor does not change the conclusion, however.) Rossami (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. While I might have !voted to 'keep' this one myself (not being able to see the article, I can't be sure), the closure looks valid to me - the 'keep' arguments presented were mostly pretty weak, while the 'delete' ones mostly conformed to Wikipedia policy. If you want access to the history of the article in order to merge it (or rewrite it into a version that would pass AFD), that can be done by making a request to any administrator, but it's not necessary to undelete the article to do so. Terraxos ( talk) 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - if there is useful content that could be used to flesh out the entry on the redirect's target page (ie conduct what is basically a merge) then undeleting the history sounds reasonable. This is particularly the case because the GFDL requires the history of contributions to be available, so performing what is effectively a merge of the content from that article without undeleting the contributions would probably violate that. I did not take part in the original AfD so I'm not sure how much worthwhile content was there; it's quite possible that little or none of it is worth saving anyway. ~ mazca t | c 09:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Aw hell, I shoulda' looked at the history sooner. There was a merge, by the nom of the AfD. Looking at the current article, some of the content is still around. So, while it may make some people kinda' mad, I gotta' go restore the history for GFDL reasons. This doesn't change my !vote above, but I think Le Grand Roi has gotten his wish on this one anyways. Cheers, everyone. -- lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • While I cannot agree with the nominator's reasons for seeking an overturn, Lifebaka's quite right that we need at least to restore the history per GFDL. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - close was correct, that the nominator is a sock is again, irrelevant. I have no opposition against a restoration of the history for GFDL concerns. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pokémon types (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) closed just as additional sources were found and therefore I at least request userfying the article in question to add these sources. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment by the closing admin: To be more precise, the AfD closed before a number of links were posted on my talk page by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Accordingly, I can't see which procedural error in my closure we are supposed to review here.  Sandstein  19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Colbran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I request a review of the deletion of the George Colbran article. There was no decisive consensus for deletion, with a number of editors voting to keep. Some editors had expressed a desire to change their votes from "delete" to "keep" if new and relevant information could be added to the article. Seconds after new info was added, the article was deleted. There is still more work that could be done on the article.-- Lester 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Public Information Research – If you're not requesting undeletion then there's no need for a deletion review (I see one person is, but DRV is not a "second chance saloon", and they raise no new information that wasn't covered in the debate, which would be the only reason to revisit the debate's substance). -- bainer ( talk) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Public Information Research (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD 1| AfD 2)

Before anyone freaks out: This is not a request for undeletion

How can we have four articles, Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, and Scroogle, which are all products/projects/whatever of PIR, but claim PIR itself isn't notable? From an organizational standpoint, the information that was on PIR was.. well.. crap. I don't think we should undelete that article. However, if you were to merge content from those other articles, or at least give them some form of summary that would lead into their full articles, you'd clearly have good content with the necessary sources.

I can't stress enough that this isn't about Brandt or causing drama, or anything like that, but this AfD leaves a lot of lose ends. In any other situation, say a company with multiple notable products that had articles, I doubt we would have even considered deleting the company article. Even if there wasn't really anything to actually say about the company itself, it wouldn't make sense from an organizational standpoint. I really believe that the participants in the AfD were too focused on how to steamroll the AfD for fear of drama to consider these very basic concepts. I don't mean that to insult anyone, but it's true. None of us want this to be a headache, the content sucked, so you keep your eyes forward and run for it. It's pretty clear that is what happened from the AfD discussion.

We don't want drama, and we don't want the crappy article that PIR was. Some of those four articles I mentioned probably shouldn't even be full articles, but we don't even have a logical merge point. So here's my proposal: Allow a brand new draft for the PIR article in userspace, most likely with merged content. Given the nature of the PIR/DB situation, I figured it would be best to make a formal request for a draft. I'm not sure if DRV has been used this way in the past, but I couldn't think of a better discussion venue. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd be more willing to nominate most if not all of them (have to look at them on a case by case basis) for AfD rather then encourage yet another article on this. The AfD was clear that PIR is NOT notable under WP's core policies. I don't think at least a couple of the articles mentioned above qualify either. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced the AfD showed that PIR was a topic isn't notable. I think the AfD showed that we had a crappy PIR article. PIR actually passes WP:CORP, but like I said, the version that went up for AfD was.. crap.
In any case, my logic here is in anticipation of those four articles getting AfD in some point in the future. Individually, PIR and at least some of those four don't have much in the ways of valuable content, but collectively I think we would have something reasonable. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, allow recreation if it deals with the issues in the AfD, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Seriously, If you think you can recreate the article up to standards, addressing the concerns brought up in the AfD then all the power to you. I however agree more with SirFozze that the other articles are probably in need of scrutiny. This deletion was just fine. Chillum 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I read it, no need for big bold words. You did mention other articles existing, I responded to that. You also mentioned a brand new draft of PIR, I responded to that. Despite your lack of challenge to the close, other people are challenging it so I am endorsing it. Chillum 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Then what is the point of bolding "Endorse" and citing OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I even point out that some of them probably should not be articles, because they are "crap". My argument is that collectively they might make a much better article, not that they justify each other's existence. Making these kinds of comments gives the wrong impression of where this discussion should be going. It needs to be very clear that this is not an undeletion request. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Ned, while I am the first to agree you are not requesting deletion, another editor is in this very same debate. I am responding to that. Sometimes a debate goes beyond the scope intended by the initiator. My response is not an attack on your nomination, in fact I support your idea of creating it in the userspace in a manner that deals with the concerns in the AfD, no prejudice against recreation. I bolded Endorse because it is traditional to do so, I chose that word because someone was supporting overturning it. Chillum 05:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That citation you gave is an excellent example of a "trivial mention". It in no way makes it clear who the author is, and by reading the content I am led to believe it was written by the group being described. It reads "pamphlet" or "press release" style, it does not seem to be an independent or reliable source when it needs to be both. This was precisely the issues regarding the sources that led to the deletion in the first place. Chillum 05:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The claim that the Online article "was written by the group being described" is conjectural and proof-by-assertion. Attribution to an individual author is not required to establish reliability when an article appears in a reliable source. Furthermore, favorable, yea, even laudatory material is not unreliable per se. John254 05:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, are you saying that you don't need to know who the source is to determine if it is a reliable source?? Of course you need to know that to know if it is a reliable source. Just because it was published in a magazine does not mean it is not an editorial, or a paid piece, or a press release, or even reliable. A publisher is not an author, it may be in a magazine, but who wrote it? I am saying it seems like it is written in a self-aggrandizing fashion, I can't prove it, but I don't see any proof it was by an independent party either. Chillum 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well the portion in the preview seems like it was written by a marketer, not a journalist. If the rest is different, or at least makes clear who wrote it I can reconsider. Chillum 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can tell, there's nothing more to it. The free-trail of HighBeam.com doesn't show anything more, nor can I even find PIR being mentioned in Online's past issues [4]. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_22&oldid=1144626094"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE