Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23: Difference between revisions
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
</div></noinclude> |
</div></noinclude> |
||
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23|23 February 2007]]=== |
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 23|23 February 2007]]=== |
||
====[[Daniel Brandt]]==== |
|||
:{{la|Daniel Brandt}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Daniel Brandt|restore]]<tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
|||
Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by {{user3|Yanksox}} with a deletion summary "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?" |
|||
I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria. |
|||
--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====[[World Trade Center in film and media]]==== |
====[[World Trade Center in film and media]]==== |
Revision as of 13:56, 23 February 2007
- Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria.
--Cat out 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- World Trade Center in film and media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
While the nominator is under no obligation to notify the article creator, it really would have been helpful if someone notified me about this AFD when it was posted back in November. My watchlist is massive, thousands of pages, so I missed this one. The AFD wasn't a unanimous 100% delete. 2 of 6 said keep, and I would have said strong keep, and then it would have been kept as no consensus. The subarticle was created per WP:SUMMARY to keep the "film and media" section in the main article pared down to ~two sentences. Since it was deleted, trivia is starting to creep back in and becoming a nuisance to maintain. Someone even started re-adding a list of films with the WTC in them, and was "offended" when I cut it out. (See the top of my talk page) As primary maintainer of the main article and creator of the subarticle, I strongly prefer having a subarticle where people can put stuff like this, as it makes maintaining the main article more manageable. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, the WTC article is getting to #5. We need to go back to #3, with just a very brief summary in the main article. At some point, as the main article reaches featured article status, I would go through, cleanup, and pare down this subarticle if we could have it undeleted. Please let us have our subarticle back. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please restore per my nom. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse since AfD is not a vote™ the addition of another keep argument would have changed the result only if it was persuasive. Instead of restoring the highly problematic old list I would suggest simply recreating a list with clear and exclusive inclusion criteria. The "we don't want this material in our article so we need a place to put it" argument is generally unpersuasive. If it is unencyclopedic it should be excised not quarintined. Eluchil404 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse The two keep comments didn't provide any arguments to why the list should be kept. So they had almost no weight in the discussion. Also AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has been deleted for prevention of recreation. The single has been confirmed. A music video has been released and the single as already started charting. What more is there to say. This page should be unprotected and recreated for the benefit of fans and other artists etc. User:Zz128 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, agreed as per nom Lord Metroid 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse again, for the same reason as on 11 Feb. What's changed since then? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Opinion on Feb. 11 was "Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)". That DRV closed as request withdrawn. GRBerry 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I would strongly suggest endorse deletion but as my userpage states I'm extremely repulsed by any rap/hiphop song so my endorse vote would border COI. So no opinion here. Wooyi 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ahem: rap song is a tautology. Not sure why the C is silent in rap, but a song has a tune. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, I'm sure you meant oxymoron (or more precisely contradiction in terms) rather than tautology. -- Ben 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did indeed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wooyi, someone I greatly respect, C. S. Lewis, wrote (among other things) book reviews, but declined to review mysteries, saying that because he disliked the genre he could not fairly judge whether any given book was a good or bad example of it, and he wished not to write any unfair reviews. It's nice to see that you share the same scruple. -- Ben 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn The video has been released; "Go too far Jibbs" gives you something like 230,000 ghits. And, btw, this is not "gangsta rap" - this features a member of the Pussycat Dolls and is strictly tame suburban rap/r&b - this would not sound out of place on a KISS-format station. --Brianyoumans 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ghits? I think you need to look past the google test and find some evidence that proves this is notable. Lots of ghits justify a redirect for reader convenience, not an article. For that, we have WP:N and stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:GHITS? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Image was deleted for not complying with Fair use, although it did comply, and it is needed as a citation. TheGreenFaerae 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
The deletion of this list was discussed with two marginally related pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3. The conclusion "delete all" didn't take in account that some opinions favoring deletion very mainly about Deaths in Final Destination 3 and opinions for keeping specially the above list weren't examined. -- User:Docu
- Overturn as per above. -- User:Docu
- Relist while delete may well be the correct ultimate outcome, the balance of arguments at the AfD suggest that this article needs to be considered seperately. Eluchil404 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relist due to the fact that most of the opinions for deletion either didn't take Lists of deaths in the Friday the 13th series into account (for example, they noted the over-the-top plot summary nature of the list--while the Friday the 13th list was very brief and matter-of-fact) or they expressed an opinion to keep the list. I think that this list, being very different from the Final Destination lists should get a chance to be deleted or kept on its own merits. janejellyroll 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother going to the link, someone has started a new page with the same name. The AfD was a very weak delete with no consensus (5 to 4 by my count) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars My particular objection is that that that article was on my watchlist and yet the AfD notice did not appear in it, which I check every day. Also the deletion summary was not filled in thereby forcing me to do a manual search for the AfD debate, which is a waste of time. Greglocock 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and re-deletion as G4. AfD is not a vote, and the delete arguments pretty clearly demonstrated that the subject inherently requires subjective judgment. If we can't possibly write an article without original research, we can't write that article period. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- While a vote may not be mandatory, a consensus is, by my reading. I see no consensus. Also I have checked my watchlist for that date, and taken a screenshot of it. No proposal for deletion was posted on that page, so far as I can tell. Greglocock 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- An AfD notice would've been posted there, but you'd no longer see that. Since the page was in fact deleted, its history would be gone as well, and not show up on your watchlist. An administrator could look at history of the old page and verify that the AfD notice was posted. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Drawball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD 2)
I recreated this after searching for the original deletion reason. The only thing I could find was that it was frequently vandalized and that nobody could be bothered protecting it. I don't believe that this is a valid criteria for deletion, otherwise we would have deleted George W. Bush some time ago. It seems like the beginning of a reasonable article on a notable enough subject (an example of web 2.0 emergent behavior) to me so I recreated it. Seraphimblade speedied the article pointing out that it was probably deleted for a reason. The AFD was "No consensus". I originally searched for Drawball on Wikipedia as I had read of it elsewhere and wanted to know more. This seems like a good criteria for an article to me. AntiVan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Notes and clarifications It was actually Lectonar who deleted the article, though I did G4 tag it (and Coredesat who closed the AfD). I'll notify them of the DRV. Also, while the first AfD was indeed a no consensus result, this did not lead to deletion-no consensus results default to keeping. It was the second AfD which led to deletion, this time on the basis of lack of notability due to no reliable secondary sourcing available. I endorse deletion unless those sources now are available and can be cited, but am willing to change my mind if they are. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Seraphimblade for incorrectly attributing the deletion to you, and thanks for notifying the others. Obviously I am not familiar with this process. In support of secondary sources I offer these: SmartMobs, The Wilx Collection & AdRants. I appreciate these are not the same as a front page story in the Times, but I feel it should be enough to support a little stub of an article. Thanks, AntiVan 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, blogs tend not to count as reliable sources, due to lack of editorial supervision. ColourBurst 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, the most recent AFD was valid. I have linked it in the nomination statement. Blogs are also generally not considered reliable sources. --Coredesat 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Materialization (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Materialization (science fiction) just redirects right to teleportation, but that is not always how it's used in sci-fi; there are examples of materialization of matter from energy or from nothing, for instance the replicator (Star Trek), the Grails from the Riverworld novels, in the tv series Ark II, a major plot point from one of the Tom Swift books from the '80s, and probably a lot more that I've forgotten. It deserves its own separate entry, I think. -- Noclevername 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be a deletion to review here. The old article went through Votes for Deletion but was closed with no consensus. You can simply replace the redirect with new text. —Celithemis 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Article had an AfD with a clear consensus to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist Deletion was out of process. It had survived a fairly recent AfD. JuJube 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment logs say it's an A7 speedy deletion (doesn't seem to be related to the AfD decision). The last AfD was almost two years ago; consensus may have changed so relist it. ColourBurst 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article had no sources and claim of notabily, the deletion wasn't really out of process as I doubt the admin who speedied knew about the AFD so JuJube please WP:AGF. The prior AFD or VFD when it was called back then also wasn't fairly recent, it was over a year and a nine months ago. AFD had much weaker standards back then, same with sourcing, so that VFD is moreorless moot. Endorse Deletion. But if any valid, reliable sources can be found for notabilty, than I would think over Jaranda wat's sup 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse speedy. The article states in two lines that it is a webcomic, who writes it, when he started, and how often it's updated. In between, the entirety of the article is a description of the comic's content. No sources are given other than a link directly to the comic itself, and no claims of importance or significance are made. This is a textbook A7, and even if it had a claim to disqualify it as a speedy, I would remove the bulk of the article as original research. The vfd is ancient and the opinions given not based in any sort of policy, even as it existed then. As usual, nothing's stopping anyone from creating a new article that either meets WP:WEB, or at least contains the barest minimum hint that it might possibly. —Cryptic 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)