Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:34, 27 January 2007

< January 25	Deletion review archives: 2007 January	January 27 >

26 January 2007

Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)

Adam Keller court martial

(1) The court martial is notable because (a) Court matials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years, (b) the court martial was covered in all the main newspapers in Israel at the time including the English language Jerusalem Post and the Arabic Al-Ittihad and was recently referred to by the British Guardian.

(2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."

The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse deletion~~ for now, unless you can present some solid evidence like citations that this was actually covered in major papers. That was brought up in the AFD, but ultimately there wasn't evidence for it. I recognize many of the other participants arguing for deletion as AfD regulars whose opinions necessarily count in determining consensus, even if we were to disregard the nominator. I agree that notable content should be fixed rather than deleted, but you've got to prove it's notable first.--Kchase T 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. The problem is that the court martial occured in 1988, before papers had archives on the internet. The bigger libraries in Israel would contain hard copies of back issued of the relevant issues, and I hope that given time, some of our Israeli editors will dig out concrete citations. In the mean time we can start with the following article in the Guardian [[3]]. Abu ali 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's an article that might help: [4] --NE2 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The link NE2 provided gives a number of citations: Jerusalem Post Dec 19 1995, Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988) and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Dec 1, 2004. Many thanks to NE2! Abu ali 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a valid closure, but more sources is enough to permit ~~relist~~ing for discussion in the proper forum. Given Keller's history of writing about himself, this will probably need to be policed for sourcing to make sure nobody inserts their own memory of the events in question.--Kchase T 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I provisionally restored and compared diffs. The subject wrote virtually all of the content and all the other editors just made minor changes. The single reference was added in the last edit to the article. Whatever salvageable content exists should be replaced when someone re-writes this with a proper range of sources. I return to endorsing deletion.--Kchase T 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But if I or anyone else recreates the article, it will probably be speedily deleted according to policy. Or am I misundersanding the policy here? Abu ali 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You should be ok. The existence of this DRV insulates you some from that. G4 doesn't apply to content that is "merely a new article on the same subject", and I think we're establishing here that it actually is notable, even if the AFD was valid.--Kchase T 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Some referencing was added on the 5th day of the AFD, and not discussed by any of the delete opiners (the only later one said "delete per all", which is useless. More newspaper sources found and mentioned here, one of which has "155 related", so clearly got widespread coverage at that time (but I'm not going to pay to read all those to see whether it was a single wire story covered widely or several wire stories, or actual articles by each paper). Relist for an evaluation of the sources in the proper forum. GRBerry 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. The closer properly determined that the argument that this is vanity spam to make a point was not refuted. The fact of some coverage in a newspaper is not a requirement that an article be kept (if it is, we will theoretically eventually end up with literally a million articles on passing events). I did not comment in the original AfD but this article is clearly way, way too much information about an ephemeral event and was close properly in my opinion. Herostratus 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as process was properly followed, and besides, the right thing to do from an editorial standpoint is to let someone who is not Adam Keller write this article. JChap2007 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly endorse deletion (process was apparently carried out reasonably), without prejudice against WP:NPOV and WP:V recreation by someone who isn't Adam Keller nor someone acting on his behalf (nor someone acting against him). I would be in favor of a Relist if the closing admin finds the new sources sufficient for that. I don't know many of the facts, especially whether major magazines have included featured coverage that shows probable "lasting influence" as compared to "only passing attention". Wikipedia is not Wikinews and doesn't need to cover every once-a-decade controversy unless the topic has significant historical effect upon its field. Barno 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmm. I think that a brief article on this subject could be supported, based on the few available sources that satisfy Wikipedia rules. The article in the form that was deleted was not acceptable because it did not pass the verifiability rules. Mr Keller's personal recollections are interesting, but we are required to only add material that comes from published sources and cited so that other people can check those sources. I would think that a new article which obeys the rules would probably survive deletion attempts. It would be much briefer though. Incidentally, here is the complete text relevant to the Keller case that appeared in JP 19 Dec 1995, p6: "According to Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988), Peace Now activist Adam Keller vandalized Israeli army tanks during his tour of reserve duty, to protest Israel's presence in the territories." It isn't any use for article writing, and isn't even acceptable as a source in my opinion because it is actually a letter to the editor from the chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel. There seems to be a much more useful article in JP, 25 Feb 1990 but I can't read it due to a database error. --Zero^talk 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Court martials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years" - if this were true, either the IDF must be by far the best-disciplined military in the world or observance of IDF regulations is very lax. However, even leaving aside the other violations of military regulations that one may be court martialled, being court martialled for conscientious objection while a member of the IDF is a much more frequent event than is suggested by the petitioner. According to the Courage to Refuse campaign over 280 IDF members who are part of the campaign have been court martialled for refusing to serve in occupied Palestinian territories since 2002 Bwithh 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama

The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, AfD was perfectly proper. This is an encyclopaedia, not a television schedule. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Check your facts, a list of syndicaters is not a television schedule, get your facts straight, otherwise your vote doesn't count. Suoerh2 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia intends for people to follow it's policies, then deleting this article sends the wrong message. Pretty soon people will not want to split off sections from long articles into new articles for fear that some Wikipedian who has no idea what he is talking about finds the new article, thinks its "trivial" and deletes it. Sometimes, with summary style, your going to get article that aren't full of a huge amount of content, but that is just something you have to live with if you want to use the summary style. If nothing else, then please restore the text of the article to the Futurama page (where is lived for a long time with no problem) and let the editors of that page decide if the information belongs or not, not some elistish snobby Wikipedians who troll deletion review (thats what they are). Suoerh2 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please be reminded that Deletion review is not AFD round 2. The deletion review is more about judging process than result. Could you indicate why you believe that certain processes were not followed properly? Is there any information that was not considered during the AFD? A ecis^Bravado 10:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This reminds me of arguments against deleting fancruft which follow the lines of "But we split this out from the main article, so it must be good!" -Amark moo! 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion per unanimous AFD. --Core desat 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD. Not a TV guide was the prod reason. After you had the article undeleted as an after the fact contested prod, you should have improved the article to address the concern. This was not done in the fortnight after the article was restored, the AFD was unanimous, and the argument offered here does not constitute a reason for keeping the content - it is either appropriate for an encyclopedia or not, and whether it started as a separate list or was spun out from the main article isn't relevant. Content that won't survive spun out as a sub-article probably shouldn't exist in the main article either. GRBerry 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. The nom offered WP:NOT, which is core policy, as a deletion reason and it includes TV guide as one of the things that Wikipedia is not. (WP:V seems invalid, as this information would be easy to verify through TV listings) However, it would make me more comfortable if the nom had noted that "TV guide" was the specific thing that WP was not and if all of the !votes had not been "per nom." JChap2007 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Poindexter

Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [5] Notability was established at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter

MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It was a legitimate G5 when the sock made it, who initiated the creation after that, because those G4s are a problem for me. If it's not a sock/banned user who recreated the G4 deletions, undelete. If it was, can I request userfication to clean it up and make it legit, since "notability" appears to be established in the linked AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our DRV nominator has done all three recreations. I have no basis for an opinion whether G5 would still apply, although I can see that others are suspicious, I don't have the knowledge base to tell myself because my mop is still too clean and shiny. If you think notability was shown, I hope that means the AFD revealed adequate sources, and you could just use them. GRBerry 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong undelete. G4 does not apply to speedies, and if it did, it certainly would not apply to a speedy criteria that doesn't even judge the article. -Amark moo! 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was one of the deleting admins. I have a very strong suspicion that MrDouglass is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, Mykungfu, since he showed up less than 24 hours after the article was first deleted and the then-most-recent sock of Mykungfu was blocked and re-created the article. That's not a coincidence. His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK). I have no objection to undeletion per se, but to another attempt by Mykungfu to game the system. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is bad, it won't survive an AfD. If it is not, surely it shouldn't matter who you suspect wrote it. -Amark moo! 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it does matter. Banned or blocked users are not allowed to create articles; it's speedy deletion criterion G5. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well MrDarcy has now listed MrDouglass as a sockpuppet of Mykungfu. [6]

Lets see if there is any valid proof with this one. 172.164.250.29 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite fortunately, G5 does not apply to suspicions. If it is established that he is a banned user, it's different (although I'd likely just ditch G5 then, since it looks decent), but suspecting who a user is is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Proof by contributions is more than sufficient, and the user's contribs have made it clear to me from day one that it is Mykungfu. Proof by checkuser is not required, and in this case, since Mykungfu and all of his socks use AOL, it's not possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete just so other users know what G3,G4 and other terms are.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion . If MrDarcy suspects me to be racist. Simply go thru my edits and see if you find any racially biased edits. Also, i thank everyone who will supports this articles undeletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDouglass (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- But now I don't want your thanks. Where in the world did you get the "I'm being accused of racism" card from? -Amark moo! 04:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from "His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK)." of the above opinion. MrDouglass 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to undelete, just a short paragraph with a lot of weasel words and sourced solely with questionable copyright material from skipmason.com via the Google cache. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MrDouglass has been indef-blocked as a sock of the banned user Mykungfu (not by me). This DRV should probably be closed on that basis, but since I was the admin who originally deleted the article in question, I'm going to recuse myself. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 *Weakly '''endorse deletion''' (process was apparently carried out reasonably), without prejudice against WP:NPOV and WP:V recreation by someone who isn't Adam Keller nor someone acting on his behalf (nor someone acting against him).  I would be in favor of a '''Relist''' if the closing admin finds the new sources sufficient for that.  I don't know many of the facts, especially whether major magazines have included featured coverage that shows probable "lasting influence" as compared to "only passing attention".  [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] Wikinews and doesn't need to cover every once-a-decade controversy unless the topic has significant historical effect upon its field.  [[User:Barno|Barno]] 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Hmmmmmm'''.  I think that a brief article on this subject could be supported, based on the few available sources that satisfy Wikipedia rules.  The article in the form that was deleted was not acceptable because it did not pass the [[WP:V|verifiability]] rules.  Mr Keller's personal recollections are interesting, but we are required to only add material that comes from published sources and cited so that other people can check those sources.  I would think that a new article which obeys the rules would probably survive deletion attempts.  It would be much briefer though.  Incidentally, here is the complete text relevant to the Keller case that appeared in JP 19 Dec 1995, p6: "According to Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988), Peace Now activist Adam Keller vandalized Israeli army tanks during his tour of reserve duty, to protest Israel's presence in the territories." It isn't any use for article writing, and isn't even acceptable as a source in my opinion because it is actually a letter to the editor from the chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel.  There seems to be a much more useful article in JP, 25 Feb 1990 but I can't read it due to a database error.  --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' ''"Court martials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years"'' - if this were true, either the IDF must be by far the best-disciplined military in the world or observance of IDF regulations is very lax. However, even leaving aside the other violations of military regulations that one may be court martialled, being court martialled for conscientious objection while a member of the IDF is a much more frequent event than is suggested by the petitioner. According to the [http://www.seruv.org.il/english/movement.asp Courage to Refuse] campaign over 280 IDF members who are part of the campaign have been court martialled for refusing to serve in occupied Palestinian territories since 2002 [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama]]====