Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[WP:WPMOVIE]]: del. overturned
→‎[[Frederique_Constant]]: closed as new draft permitted
Line 141: Line 141:
|}
|}


{{drt|[[Frederique_Constant]]|New, sourced draft permitted, moved from userspace. AfD on new draft remains at editorial discretion, as it is fresh content.}}
====[[Frederique_Constant]]====

:{{la|Frederique_Constant}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Frederique_Constant|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Frederique_Constant}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederique_Constant|AfD 1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stas|AfD 2]]<tt>)</tt>
:{{la|Frederique_Constant}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Frederique_Constant|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Frederique_Constant}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederique_Constant|AfD 1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stas|AfD 2]]<tt>)</tt>


Line 154: Line 155:
:Noted on [[Wikipedia:autobiographies|autobiographies]]. Believe [[User_talk:Pcstas|drafts]] show [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] text. Please feel free to adjust. Listing [[Frederique_Constant]] is primary aim, fine to merge additional text there. [[User:Pcstas|Pcstas]] 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Noted on [[Wikipedia:autobiographies|autobiographies]]. Believe [[User_talk:Pcstas|drafts]] show [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] text. Please feel free to adjust. Listing [[Frederique_Constant]] is primary aim, fine to merge additional text there. [[User:Pcstas|Pcstas]] 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Looking for various watch brands to prepare for Basel watch fair. Found many but missing Frederique Constant and then stumbled on this page. Company very known here in Netherlands, in my opinion they should have an entry. [[User:Hwilli|Hwilli]] 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Looking for various watch brands to prepare for Basel watch fair. Found many but missing Frederique Constant and then stumbled on this page. Company very known here in Netherlands, in my opinion they should have an entry. [[User:Hwilli|Hwilli]] 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}


====[[List of abbreviations for names]]====
====[[List of abbreviations for names]]====

Revision as of 14:41, 9 April 2007

< April 3 Deletion review archives: 2007 April April 5 >

4 April 2007

Scary Movie 5 (closed)

  • Scary Movie 5 – Recreation permitted, article unprotected. Note that previously-deleted edits have not been restored, as they amount to nothing more than old speculation. Since DRV concludes that new sources have emerged, use them to write and source the article. ~~~~
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scary Movie 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Overturn Numerous sources cited on the talk page that this movie is IN PRODUCTION (including IMDB), and confirmation of actors who have signed onto the project Sumnjim 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article deleted some time ago when there was nothing but speculation concerning this, once again no discussion with deleting admins first as mandated before deletion review. Personally pretty neutral as to the outcome of this discussion. That said the "numerous" source cited about this being in Production appears to be one, IMDB. Similarly the "actors" again is of the non-multiple variety i.e. one. So the verified article from the sources provided so far, are it is in production, due 2008 and will feature Leslie Neilsen as the president. --pgk 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-redeletion until it's been released and we can write a proper encyclopedia article about social impact, reach, etc with multiple non-trivial sources. Until then all we can write is either a regurgitation of new stories or future speculation. We have no need to scoop anyone here at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that no movie deserves to be on wikipedia until it's physically been released to theatres? Sumnjim 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems fair. Rumour site <> encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • rumor site > encyclopedia is a possibility? Herostratus 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMDB is not a rumor site. To reiterate, this article was deleted a long time ago, when not much info was out on this movie...however if you read the discussion page there are numerous sources documenting that this movie is now in production, which means that it should be undeleted. Sumnjim 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, it is. IMDb allows anyone to edit. They do employ a few fact-checkers and have some social controls on editing but not all edits or contributions get properly vetted. IMDb should be used as a source only with great caution and with significant cross-checking of the facts. Nevertheless, my core point is that we can't write an encyclopedia article solely based on the information findable in IMDb. Proper encyclopedia articles focus on the context, impact and social analysis of a film, not a mere regurgitation of the actors, plot and release rumors. Rossami (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete plenty verifiable information is available about this movie.  Grue  16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per verifiable information en masse[1]. Matthew 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be the one to tell you, but not everything you can find in google is considered a reliable source. The article was deleted pending availability of reliable information so far that information is still pretty lacking. --pgk 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sonny Moore (closed)

Delphine Records (closed)

WP:WPMOVIE (closed)

Frederique_Constant (closed)

  • Frederique_Constant – New, sourced draft permitted, moved from userspace. AfD on new draft remains at editorial discretion, as it is fresh content. ~~~~
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frederique_Constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1, AfD 2)

Insufficient Notability

After this discussion was closed, Kinslayer proposed to change his opinion. Asked if he could review new drafts, but did not receive answer. Believe notability of Frederique Constant as Watch Manufacturer was established and accepted, please see draft and [[2]].

  • Undelete Frederique Constant, it's a notable company and IMHO passes WP:CORP. Merge Peter Stas there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the deletion discussion needed wider participation--there were only 3 voices: the nom, 1 ed., and the closing admin. The correct thing to have done would have been to relist for further discussion. DGG 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration of both AfDs, I see that issues related to this were discussed more widely, albeit in a rather confused manner, involving both the company, and Peter Stas, the proprietor. I can only guess that a reasonable close would have been to keep one of the two article. As the other one has been deleted, this one might stay--and appropriately, for I think the company is the more notable. Whatever COI might be there can be removed. I comment, of course, without having actually seen the articles. It would greatly clarify DR if the items in question were made visible to all participants. DGG 07:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have previous articles either. Anyhow, please see drafts for what I suggest to be neutral text referenced with various sources. Pcstas 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closures (keep deleted) but no prejudice against recreation from verifiable sources if written by someone without the inherent conflict of interest. First, not only was the originally deleted version flagrantly advertising, it was also a copyright violation. I can not endorse the undeletion of the 2005 versions of the page. Second, the versions created (and deleted) in 2007 seem to be governed by this second AFD debate. The second debate got plenty of participation and still closed with everyone except the article's author (and subject) arguing to delete. I find no process problems in that second discussion either. There was some evidence presented late in the discussion that the company might be approaching WP:CORP's standards for notability, although some of the references appear to be mere reprints of press releases. I do note, however, that none of the participants in the discussion actually changed their opinions. Even Kinslayer's subsequent comment is ambiguous. The real deciding factor for me, though, is that autobiographies are bad for the project. If you and your company are really notable enough for coverage in an international encyclopedia, then let someone else write the article. It is impossible to be sufficiently neutral when deciding to write about yourself. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted on autobiographies. Believe drafts show neutral text. Please feel free to adjust. Listing Frederique_Constant is primary aim, fine to merge additional text there. Pcstas 10:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Looking for various watch brands to prepare for Basel watch fair. Found many but missing Frederique Constant and then stumbled on this page. Company very known here in Netherlands, in my opinion they should have an entry. Hwilli 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of abbreviations for names

List of abbreviations for names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Seems to have been speedied. Reason given as "recreation", however, I was not aware of any previous version of the page, created it completely from scratch, and fail to see how it merits deletion. — Swpb talk contribs 12:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason is probably that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The actual article is here, in our friendly neighborhood wiktionary. We do appreciate your enthousiasm. >Radiant< 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of wiktionary, but this list is not a definition. Someone researching old documents and looking for the name corresponding to an abbreviation, or vice versa, would not likely look first in a dictionary, but in an encyclopedia, as Newyorkbrad seems to concur. I'd like to know if there is a formal process to review the merits of inclusion of this article, rather than immediately speedying it because a previous incarnation was AfD'd. I'd also like to note that I'm a fairly experienced editor, and I'm bit offended at your (seemingly) patronizing tone. — Swpb talk contribs 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a prior AfD, the link to which is above. For what it's worth, had I seen the AfD I would have voted "Keep", as I think this is useful encyclopedic rather than just dictionary content, but I don't believe we have a process for reviewing a deletion just because of disagreement with the result, where the result correctly reflects the consensus that existed at the time. (As difficult as it might be to believe that deletion, the most over-rule-governed part of the project, is missing a process!) Newyorkbrad 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looked like a substantially similar article to the one already deleted, which is at wikt:Appendix:Abbreviations for English given names. I would invite you to work on the article at Wiktionary; we'd be happy to have you. Dmcdevit·t 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm. This was speedied as a recreation. However, the spirit of CSD G4 is mainly directed toward intentional recreation of a known deleted article, I think. The article is substantially the same as the deleted version, so the AfD for that version may inform us. It was a proper close, BUT... the discussion was awfully weak. Comments such as "Who's to say that "Henry" should be abbreviated "Hy." rather than "Hen."..." indicated that the person doesn't know what's going on; the other comments were mainly very short, of the "WP:WINAD" variety and not showing a lot of depth of thought. And while it's technically true that paper dictionaries might contain this type of material and paper encyclopedias may not, we living here in the bold future of the 21st Century are not necessarily tied to conventions of paper media: there's no reason it can't be in both places. So while not saying the close was actually improper, I'll WP:IAR here and say Overturn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I put in a Soft redirect, how's that? >Radiant< 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the AFD and the speedy-deletion as reposted content. There were no process problems in the deletion discussion. The decision was consistent with standing precedent that those kinds of pages are better handled via the appendices in our sister project, Wiktionary. (The soft redirect is useful.) Rossami (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove (closed)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

My interpretation of this debate is that we should leave the Word Association sandbox game, and remove the subpages as being a violation of Wikipedia is not a social network. The so-called Sandboxians re-created them a few times, and now I see that Grue has taken it upon himself to undelete all the variant games and the template which promotes the variant games. There are a number of pages including:

If someone would like to spend a moment convincing me of the encyclopaedic merit of inventing and promoting, particularly through use of a template, novel variants of word association, I'd be grateful. I can't say I'm especially happy that I only found out about Grue's undeletions when he told me not to delete them again; he did not tell me he had undelete dthem the first time, so I nuked the bluelinks in my deletion log because the "sandboxians" had re-cerated them under "much better titles" a few times since. Grue undeleted them again and left me a note saying not to "unilaterally" delete them again. I do not consider this particularly constructive. I am open to debate, and deletion review is here to challenge a deletion. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep undeleted the debate was closed with the result "delete the archives, keep everything else". Instead, JzG took it upon himself to delete all subpages, without any discussion supporting his actions. I restored pages to their status quo status after discussion was closed. Wheel war ensued. I believe my actions were supported by community consensus, while JzG's were not.  Grue  11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you really went out of youre way to discuss it before starting a war, didn't you? Oh, wait, no you didn't even leave a note on my talk page. Thank you so much for that token of respect. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted no evidence these have caused any harm or disruption; I read the MFD and there doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete, and I can't see any specific policy they violate. On-wiki games don't use enough server space to be worth worrying about, and since all Wiki editors (except a few Foundation employees) are volunteers, they deserve the right to engage in such pastimes if they so choose. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helpful in building an encyclopdeia, and per the MFD. >Radiant< 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Reluctantly, I agree with Grue on the interpretation of the MfD, although I'll note that Grue only undeleted some of the variant games so even he apparently sees the worthlessness of many of them. Most of these games don't play differently but simply have different formatting, so really I think they should all be deleted with maybe one or two exceptions. —Doug Bell 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the most obvious of linkclutter.--judging on the merits of the pages. Its not the space I object to, but the insertion of extraneous and irrelevant links to articles . The closing summary, which was fair enough, was to keep the main page and delete the archives, but did not mention the subpages. DGG 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted. My reading of the MfD was that there was a concensus that all archived games should be deleted, I'm not convinced there was a concensus to delete the spin-off games in the subpages. Perhaps a fresh MfD to determine the outcome for these- some subgames look pretty trivial while others may be worth keeping. WjBscribe 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted as Grue's actions do seem to be consistent with the consensus at MfD; however, I agree with the nom that Grue should have notified him the first time to avoid provoking a wheel war. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_4&oldid=121428397"