Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:40, 11 November 2006

< November 5	November 7 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

6 November 2006

Pingus

Pingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD) This article was deleted in spite of having five votes to delete and five votes to keep; thus no consensus was reached, thus the article should have stayed. I don't have any vested interest in the article, aside from playing the game it talks about, but I felt that it was unfair that it was deleted in spite of no consensus being reached. --Stevefarrell 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion without prejudice Keep in mind AfD is not a vote when determining whether there is a consensus or not. While I don't feel the software is notable enough, if there can be other reliable sources to prove me otherwise, I'd support relisting. Wildthing61476 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote and closing sysop may choose to close in a way that overrides the weight of numbers. In this case verifiability is paramount; the fact that the game is significant in the FOSS community doesn't excuse the article from having to cite multiple reliable sources that feature the game. Kavadi carrier 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy, the article did not assert its notability and there were not enough reliable sources in support of that. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera

This article was speedied as Advertising after being listed on AfD; I felt it should have at least gotten a full 5 days on Afd. Also, User:Duhman0009 kicked this off by objecting to it to me during unrelated conversation. He'll be by as well. humblefool ® 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G11 being as contentious as it is, can someone undelete and protect the article temporarily so we can see whether it is really unsalvagably spammy? Unless I can see the article my tentative comment will be keep deleted. Kavadi carrier 03:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted after looking at deleted version. Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB in current form. Kavadi carrier 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless there are multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources. This article has no references and no evidence of significance per WP:WEB. Guy 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not too happy that we're essentially running an AfD here now, but oh well. Overturn G11, not a spammy gush article ← Done. Now → Delete unless independently sourced, zero Newsbank hits, no evidence it meets WP:WEB. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunnel Rats

This article was speedy deleted by User:Vegaswikian claiming the page's content was NN. I discovered it missing whilst carrying out a research program on fringe sports in Australia. In brief, as discussed with the person in question on their talk page [1] I outlined that the group consists of 2,000+ members and is thus a very large organisation. The group is the largest urban exploration group in Australia and possibly the most centralised group in the world. The group has a large web presense and is number one ranked in many searches in relation to urban exploration, urban spelunking and sub-terrainian exploration. The group has made front page news in Australia and had much media coverage promoting the sport of urbex. Many websites link to the wikipedia entry, which is how I stumbled here in my research, furthermore many pages ON wikipedia rely on the article as a 'see also' or a reference. The group is also the fastest growing social network of urban explorers in the southern hemisphere per my research. I would like to see the article deleted due to the fact I wish to use it as a resource in my research and further may be able to add to the article. 211.30.71.59 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist / undelete as above, obviously. 211.30.71.59 06:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support listing on AfD if there were some evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will userfy to allow addition of said sources if anyone wants me to. Guy 12:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, another issue I touched on with Vegaswikian was that there are numerous other organisations of the same type, from varying countries, that have Wiki entries. Many of which are insignificant small groups. So we need some consistancy, it'd be like having a heap of small political parties listed in wiki but dropping the largest party in the country as not-notable. 211.30.71.59 02:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existance of other articles isn't evidence that one should be kept; we just haven't gotten around to deleting them yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who tagged this one for notability originally, because the group seemed to actually be nothing more than a web forum inaccessible to unregistered members. I couldn't find any evidence that they actually had any real world activities involving the thousands of people claimed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the extensive photo archives? The reason the forum was taken down and the site was locked to members only was due to them being front page news for a week or so as being arrested and mislabelled as 'terrorists' because the Australian government can't tell the difference between combat webbing and abseiling gear. :) Something I was looking forward to adding to the article, too. 211.30.71.59 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 21,680 hits from Google, the group is on the first search page for the keywords 'urbex', 'urban exploration', 'subex' and other keywords for the sport of urban exploration. I'd say apart from infiltration.org, this group is the possibly most significant urban exploratory group (and advocates thereof) in the world. Jachin 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Tunnel Rats do seem to be a notable group in the urbex community. While one must register to veiw the groups webpage (which I did not bother to do), in searching several other urbex groups' pages, I found that most linked to the tunnel rats' page. They have also gained some newspaper notoriety for having a member recently arrested (on charges that are unrelated to the groups activities, or so it seems). Blueboar 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth reviewing, there are instances here in the UK of the group being discussed by similar organisations here.ALR 08:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The group seems notable, but the article is nonexistent to and therefore can't be viewed by non-admins. AFAIK, there's nothing preventing simple recreation (as opposed to relisting via debate), so maybe it should simply be recreated, and not actually put into an article namespace until the sourcing is solid, as it seems that the original deletion was based on a lack of secondary material. MSJapan 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
-====[[Locksport]]====
-{{la|Locksport}}
-This article was deleted despite having seven keep votes and only three delete votes, all keep votes had reasoning that responded to the delete votes. The claims that there were no reliable secondary sources is false and was proven to be such. The term may not be in widespread use but that fact does not make it invalid or a neologism. The article was unfairly deleted.--[[User:What aka Kevin|What_aka_Kevin]] 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)(I am new to Wiki formating so please excuse any errors.)
-:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locksport]]
-*Iffy situation, from where I stand. This is obviously a topic that can be covered, considering the ABC News link and some others that I came across in a quick Google search, but there was some question in the AfD about whether this was a neologism or a valid sport to be covered. I can't see a lot of uses of the word "locksport" that don't reference the association, so I'm going to have to say '''endorse closure''' but with no prejudice to the article being recreated in the future if the term takes hold independent of the organization. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-:#Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] a democracy.
-:#A neologism on Wikipedia is defined as a term recently created that is not yet in widespread use.
-:*Anyway, after reading the linked articles, they don't appear to be using the term "Locksport".  I suggest that the authors attempt to create an article about events like the Norwegian competition in the main [[lock picking]] article, or perhaps [[competitive lock picking]].  --'''[[User:Humblefool|humble]]'''[[User talk:Humblefool|fool]][[Special:Randompage|&reg;]] 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', there appear to be no non-trivial sources independent of the subject. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''comment''' It seems that there's no doubt that lockpicking as a source exists and has sufficient sources to write something about it, so why can't this be restored and merged to the [[Lock picking]] article as a section on sport? [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Gyr: the distinction between the two articles was made by my first post in the AfD. [[User:What aka Kevin|What_aka_Kevin]] 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Pingus]]====