Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:39, 8 July 2006

8 July 2006

Template:unblockabuse

This was improperly speedy kept and I was threatened with a ban for reverting it, despite serious problems with the template. --SPUI (T - C) 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Speedy Keep per the speedy keep reasons --Digitalme 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which of the Speedy keep reasons does it satisfy? --SPUI (T - C) 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to assume good faith on the nom, but based on your past record of trolling, I really cannot, so WP:IAR and WP:SENSE apply here. There was only one real delete vote, as the other just got kickbanned from #wikipedia for trolling. Even if the TfD had gone for the full 7 days, all you would have gotten would have been a pile on of keep votes.--Digitalme 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Holy crap, you really love to assume bad faith. --SPUI (T - C) 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except he's still not wrong. If he didn't nominate this, I was going to, so if it helps you at all, assume I'm the one nominating it here for the sake of actual discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Reopen. Speedy keep was uncalled for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - well within admin discretionary power. It is unlikely that the TFD would pass anyways. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Keep per above. --Pilotguy 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy Keep per above. --GHe 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the last three: based on what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy keep because it was a silly nomination made by an editor with a known history of deliberate disruption, who is currently subject to two separate probation orders. Next silly nomination will lead to a brief ban from Wikipedia under his first probation until he stops. Continuation may eventually lead to a ban from xFD and WP:DRV under the first probation. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closure Is the policy that I closed this under, whether the specific terminology of speedy keep is correct or not. pschemp | talk 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Per above. — Fire Fox 17:16, 08 July '06
Relist. Good faith nomination from a good contributor acting within policy and process to address what he saw as a bad thing. Does not meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Haukur 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the reason for deletion of this article, as it was a prod candidate. I object to the deletion based on the following two reasons: Firstly, there has been a timely and justified objection to the deletion, albeit by an anonymous user on the talk page. Secondly, because I can fully follow his arguments. Freebording is one of the most popular skateboard downhill sports, next to downhill longboarding, and imho deserves an article. -- Ravn 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a PROD; see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. There were five days to object to the deletion and nobody could be bothered. I personally couldn't care one way or the other; I'm just the guy clearing out the category. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone objects to a prod, even after the deletion has happened, we undelete. If anyone still wants this deleted it should be taken to deletion review. Does anyone mind if I undelete this now and close the discussion? Haukur 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity

The List survived a vote for deletion, but someone deleted it anyway. It was a heated discussion, so someone may have become overzealous. All the links to it still exist in other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd (slightly more recent) AfD here, where, just bean-counting, there does seem to be a consensus to delete. The second one did start only just over a week after the first ended though. Maybe they remembered to pay the "Inclusionist Wikipedians group" a kickback the second time around. --W.marsh 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, it wasn't "just deleted", it was AFDed and deleted. It looks like the AFD was conducted properly too (unlike the first AFD which was subjected to mass spamming of Inclusionists by the DRV submitter User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )). Anyway, I don't see any reason to overturn this AFD on the grounds of process and there's no new information. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having closed the first AfD (after someone else did, so I reverted myself), I think I'll just make a comment. I thought that spamming inclusionists to get this kept was extremely tacky. I didn't care either way whether this article is kept or deleted, but what I wanted to see was a real consensus for this article. The second AfD was nominated very soon after the first one, but it's not so bad for a "No consensus" AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vokzal

Deletion out of process. User:Mikkalai deleted the article with its edit history and immedietely re-created it as a redirect (although, wrong). The deleted article's edit histery contained an informative version which should not be deleted without discussion. Besides, the article is necessary for describe Russian railroad transport features in numerous articles.--Nixer 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have notified User:Mikkalai of this DRV. --W.marsh 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. It is an ordinary Russian word that happen to have several translations. Railway station, bus station, riverboat station. If a user wants to describe Russian rairoad transport, they better write an article Railway stations in Russia. We don't create article magazin, gazeta (wow! who would have known there is one), khleb, kolbasa, palto, obschezhitiye, etc., to describe shops, newspapers, bread, sausage, coat, dormitory, although all these things have Russian peculiarities not found elsewhere in the world. `'mikka (t) 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article

There has been much discussion in support of this template. The GA process and project is now firmly established and there is no reason not to allow articles that reach that level to be recognized with a symbol on the article page. Most users were in favor of a green star. No recognition until FA is achieved can discourage users from putting in effort to get past the stub page. FA has both the star and talk page template and that pattern should be allowed for Good Articles. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_establishment#Good_Article_Symbol Rlevse 12:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) PS:I did not know of prior debates when I created the template.[reply]

Support undeletion - The system is now fully accepted and established, and GAs should have the same treatment as FAs. Seeing as the Featured article system uses this method, I can see no reasonable argument against this applying to Good articles. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 12:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a debate at Template talk:Good article -- GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a TfD discussion in March which resulted in 'delete', a close which was almost unanimously endorsed here at DRV in April. Today I speedy deleted a recreation of this template and salted the earth (it was the third recreation), as the local discussion that has taken place at the GA project does not overturn the previous centralised discussions. I've argued against this template before (with, I admit, unnecessarily dismissive wording), but the speedy deletion was a technical matter, carrying out the results of two discussions closed by someone else, and my personal opinions did not enter into it.
I'm neutral at the moment on whether the template should, in fact, be recreated following a proper centralised discussion (this one). I want to know what the new evidence is that should overturn the two previous discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the policy is to keep metadata out of articles, why is the FA star there? The exact same arguments for the FA star can be made for a GA star. And if GA not part of policy, where is this policy and where is the discussion/process whatever, to make GA part of policy that would then permit a GA star in namespace. Expecting editors to go from Stub to FA with no recogniztion is self-defeating. The GA project is certainly now an established project and process. Rlevse 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted; regardless of whether GAs should have a tag in the corner (which should properly be decided in a general discussion, not by huddling around the deletion pages) the use of substantially the same image as FAs use is a clear attempt to mislead readers as to the quality of the articles in question, and needs to be killed before it spreads. Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- and are sufficiently different for users to be able to tell the difference. Failing that, we could always use . --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not unless they already know there are two different reasons for the stars. If someone has been told that "a little star in the corner means the article is featured", they're not going to realize that a star of a slightly different color may mean something utterly different. As far as crosses, go: as I said, this isn't the right venue for a general discussion on little corner tags. Go forth and get a consensus that GAs should be tagged, or something ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is about whether a template should exist or not. I don't see why that can't be decided at "Templates for deletion". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was already discussed on TFD, which is why it is now here on DRV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted. We already have all kinds of "bad article" tags. If an article is bad, just label it so: "expand", "NPOV", "expert", "cleanup", &c, &c. `'mikka (t) 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template/undelete This is not a bad article tag and it is not an attempt to mislead readers about an article being FA vice GA, it is an attempt to show readers an article is GA and any attempts to claim otherwise are highly misguided. And yes, this is the ONLY place we're now allowed to discuss this is a central forum. So we have to discuss here. Rlevse 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / undelete Its about identifing the articles that are well written, well referenced. FA is waste of time for the majority of articles on wikipedia, GA is a realistic alternative that covers all articles. Gnangarra 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 *'''keep deleted'''. We already have all kinds of "bad article" tags. If an article is bad, just label it so: "expand", "NPOV", "expert", "cleanup", &c, &c.  `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Keep template/undelete''' This is not a bad article tag and it is not an attempt to mislead readers about an article being FA vice GA, it is an attempt to show readers an article is GA and any attempts to claim otherwise are highly misguided. And yes, this is the ONLY place we're now allowed to discuss this is a central forum. So we have to discuss here. [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Keep / undelete''' Its about identifing the articles that are well written, well referenced. FA is waste of time for the majority of articles on wikipedia, GA is a realistic alternative that covers all articles. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)