Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 18: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:32, 23 June 2006

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Improv 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning above: NOT a vehicle for self-promotion. Fortunately Sam, reconstructive surgery can work wonders for damaged limbs. Doc Tropics 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Sam's arguments. The closer could have been a bit more tactful in writing up the decision but the decision is well within normal administrative discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - arguments were made that he was notable within his field that were not rebutted, but were not considered by the closing admin. If he's started two companies and runs a popular blog, I think the article deserves another look.--SarekOfVulcan 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting companies is trivial in developed countries - you just need a small sum of money and to fill in some forms. And getting a blog requires nothing. Of course, starting successful companies, let alone notable ones, is a lot more harder, ditto writing a popular blog, but I've seen no evidence that either the blog or the companies are notable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist -- Well, I'm exasperated that the commenters here have no knowledge of the industry in which Fred works, no knowledge of the size of his successful VC-backed companies (Yoyodyne -- inveted direct-marketing on the internet, bought by Yahoo, etc. etc.), and no interest in actually reading the article they say should be deleted. Mcenedella 23:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). Charon X/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mi r a 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and Userfy Will (message me!) 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, deleted by a revoked CSD. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and userfy per above. --Coredesat 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - Admin's action was correct. Comment - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) Doc Tropics 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of opinions of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice. It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 *'''Endorse Deletion''' - Admin's action was correct.  '''Comment''' - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc Tropics]] 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Endorse closure'''.  While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of ''opinions'' of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice.  It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-==== [[Dirt pudding]] ====
-[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding]]
-*'''Undelete and comment''' The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. [[Baked Alaska]]).
-*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted.'''There is a consensus&mdash;one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus&mdash;that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is ''not'' comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in ''most'' comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11043/11043.txt at least to 1921]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the [[WP:V]] and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Baked+Alaska%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 1210 pages] on Baked Alaska and [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Dirt+pudding%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 six] on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Closing admin''': I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to [[b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding]], and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under [[WP:CSD#A5]]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] [[Special:Emailuser/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&spades;</font>]] 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure, keep deleted'''. Consensus was not to keep. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''': The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks.  There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Closure''' Corect judgement of consensus in my view.  I count 3 transwiki and delete, one transwiki (implied delete), my no vote, and one keep.  That's a reasonably clear consensus to delete. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)