Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18: Difference between revisions
Doc glasgow (talk | contribs) rv - we've done this to death. You can't have endless debates |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~ --> |
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Qian Zhijun]]==== |
====[[:Qian Zhijun]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Qian Zhijun]]''' – Close made ot perfectly plain that the procedural grounds for relisting was flawed, and that the content violates policy. A fight not worth having. – <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following 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>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Qian Zhijun|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Qian Zhijun}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun|AfD]]|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)|2nd AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Qian Zhijun|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Qian Zhijun}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun|AfD]]|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)|2nd AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by [[User:Daniel Bryant]], and then [[User:Drini]] (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by [[User:Thebainer]] as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by [[User:Daniel Bryant]], and then [[User:Drini]] (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by [[User:Thebainer]] as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
: Hmmm no jeff, wrong again. The meme meets relevant guidelines and policies, not the kid. But remember '''AFD is nto a 2nd (or 3rd) AFD''' so the things discussed on AFD bear no weight here. -- <small>[[User talk:Drini|drini]] <sup>[[:m:User:Drini|[meta:] ]]</sup><sub>[[:commons:User:Drini|[commons:] ]]</sub></small> 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**Of course. Which is why we're here - because the debate was not at all interpreted correctly, and the closure of the relistings (both by you and by thebainer) were inappropriate. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
*'''Comment''': DRV was closed by JzG [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_18&diff=prev&oldid=131786703 here] and I have reversed it. I am challenging this deletion on the grounds above, and that the discussions are not being read correctly. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:08, 18 May 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>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Template:Fur]]==== |
====[[:Template:Fur]]==== |
||
Line 42: | Line 52: | ||
*::CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
*::CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:::Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. --<small> [[User:Cool Cat|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|chi?]]</sup> 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
*:::Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. --<small> [[User:Cool Cat|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|chi?]]</sup> 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*::::''"Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria'' - No, it's an explanation as to why out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:11, 18 May 2007
Qian Zhijun (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by User:Daniel Bryant, and then User:Drini (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by User:Thebainer as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Template:Fur (edit | [[Talk:Template:Fur|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)
The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by User:JzG on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD if at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is not what was deleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you take a useful template and replace it with this nonsense? Please write proper fair-use rationales for your images. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't do anything to a useful template, and they were proper fair use rationales. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This template was a redirect to another template. Jeff hijacked it to create a supposed fair-use rationale which did not actually include the fair-use rationale, and referenced a single retailer. Jeff's version was syntactically equivalent to "this was scalped form Amazon so it's obviously fine". But it isn't. And even if it was, we would not, I hope, have a template referencing a single retailer. Plus some of the uses were decidedly dubious, such as posters. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- One of the uses was a poster, which I fixed. Second, I didn't "hijack" anything, as the redirect was not being used on anything other than two archived talk pages. Third, it referenced a single retailer that provides images that are good for fair use. Which is where these come from. Fourth, note that we're now endorsing the speedy of a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template because someone doesn't like it. That's problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- All online retailers provide images that are good for fair use, and very often the same or similar images are also available from the publishers' websites, which is obviously better as it does not endorse a particular vendor. And yes, you're right, some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like it because boilerplate fair use templates that don't include the fair use rationale and also endorse a single retailer don't seem to be that good an idea. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- No particular vendor is being "endorsed" by accurately stating where an image comes from. That's what people want to know, right? And it's not a "boilerplate" fair use, as this isn't a boilerplate and it includes an actual rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- All online retailers provide images that are good for fair use, and very often the same or similar images are also available from the publishers' websites, which is obviously better as it does not endorse a particular vendor. And yes, you're right, some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like it because boilerplate fair use templates that don't include the fair use rationale and also endorse a single retailer don't seem to be that good an idea. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- One of the uses was a poster, which I fixed. Second, I didn't "hijack" anything, as the redirect was not being used on anything other than two archived talk pages. Third, it referenced a single retailer that provides images that are good for fair use. Which is where these come from. Fourth, note that we're now endorsing the speedy of a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template because someone doesn't like it. That's problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD|DRV|Joint CfD)
Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. WP:V demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". -- Cat chi? 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Leave alone Obvious categorization criteria, despite lack of clear boundaries: the issue shouldn't be the category, but whether individual members belong and/or what geographic areas are covered, which are not issues for this forum. I'm sensing a wee bit of political axe-grinding here. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V is not a "political axe-grinding". Any categorization with this is an endorsement of Kurdistans official borders with source being wikipedia editors such as User:Diyarbakir, User:Diyako and etc. There isn't a single other example of this kind of categorization as demonstrated in 2007 March 15 link. -- Cat chi? 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- A reverse variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, then? --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V is not a "political axe-grinding". Any categorization with this is an endorsement of Kurdistans official borders with source being wikipedia editors such as User:Diyarbakir, User:Diyako and etc. There isn't a single other example of this kind of categorization as demonstrated in 2007 March 15 link. -- Cat chi? 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Enough This Kurdistan thing has gone too far. Rather than all the interminable deletion discussons - I suggest you stary a general RfC on the issue - have a debate get a general consensus, and then abide by it. Me, I don't care.--Docg 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried two general rfcs (one kinda ongoing with me being the only participant), 2 mediation cases and countless other discussion attempts. All of which was ignored. No one even cared to comment for two months on that well advertised discussion for instance. I have even taken it to arbitration committee which they declined to even hear the case. RfCs and etc is simply not working. There isn't a process I haven't used. Kurdistan thing has gone too far indeed. I have tried my best to find a solution without escalating the matter. Point me to a process I haven't used and I'll take it. -- Cat chi? 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--Docg 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. -- Cat chi? 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria - No, it's an explanation as to why out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. -- Cat chi? 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--Docg 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried two general rfcs (one kinda ongoing with me being the only participant), 2 mediation cases and countless other discussion attempts. All of which was ignored. No one even cared to comment for two months on that well advertised discussion for instance. I have even taken it to arbitration committee which they declined to even hear the case. RfCs and etc is simply not working. There isn't a process I haven't used. Kurdistan thing has gone too far indeed. I have tried my best to find a solution without escalating the matter. Point me to a process I haven't used and I'll take it. -- Cat chi? 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)