Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 16 November 2006

< November 15	November 17 >

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

16 November 2006

Spanish Gibraltarians

I would like to request this page to be undeleted.

No vote was made on its content or name at the time of its deletion. The vote having been made on Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar which was completely different to Spanish Gibraltarians both in name and in content.
The vote made on the AfD for Spanish Gibraltarians had one vote in favour of deleting - Gibnews (who is known for his POV political activism in Gibraltar related articles), and three votes against Error --Burgas00 (myself) and Ecemaml. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Originary_inhabitants_of_Gibraltar&action=edit&section=2

I cannot find the original article which was posted for deletion (by Gibnews) but it is important to say that the article was modified to the point that none of the original (both name and content) remained. The result however is that the new article was also deleted and is now protected from reposting. I called for a new vote, to which voters heeded, voting to keep, butNaconkantari, in my opinion, erroneously and prematurely erased the page.

The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. However, for User:Gibnews, the mere existence of this group of people is, in his eyes, offensive.

A copy of the deleted article is to be found on the talk page of the deleted article, albeit without its appropriate referencing.

--Burgas00 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria

A Talk subpage for List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall; CSD G8 does not apply. --Stratadrake 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete, not a G8. Kusma (討論) 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, subpages are deprecated. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Unless I'm missing something, subpages for talk pages are not only allowed but frequently used, for example, for archives and To Do lists. Preserving a set of criteria for adding to a list article seems like a legitimate use of a talk subpage to me. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton LaVey

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanton LaVey

I would like to request that the artical for Stanton Zaharoff LaVey be undeleted. I apologize for taking off the "Speedy Deletion" tag when I re-wrote the new page. However, Mr. LaVey, I should note, has become the subject of attack and harassment from the organization his grandfarher founded; The Church of Satan. Memebers from that organization have been trolling the Internet for years in an attempt to try and silence Stanton from the public. The content that was on the new page was approved by Stanton himself, and in no way shape or form was the artical offensive, or predjudice. It stated the facts as they happened, and did not "point the finger" at anyone. Thank You for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonlord66 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion of non-redirect revisions. Unanimous consensus that the subject isn't notable enough for an article; the deletion had nothing to do with some webdrama. No evidence compelling enough to overturn the AfD presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Let's preface this: this DRV request has nothing to do with the article proper, nothing to do with the administrator who deleted it, nothing really to do with the subject of the deleted article. Throw whatever biases you have out the window and actually look at what we're supposed to look at here.

Generally speaking, we do not up and delete talk pages of articles that have deletion discussion on them. CSD A8, which is what would govern this situation, is clear: The talk pages should not be deleted if "they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." The CSD explanations page goes further: The criteria "[d]oes not apply to talk pages that contain discussion useful for creating a legitimate article at that page or otherwise important for the encyclopedia." A discussion at my user talk page shows at least three admins having some issues with this deletion at the very least (and if I've misrepresented any of the three of you, I apologise in advance). .

Feel however you want to about the article or the people at the subject, or even me for all I care (you'll note very little input from me in the talk page history since the article's deletion). This, however, must be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Page is simply a troll magnet.--MONGO 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue, but you're entitled to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it deleted for the love of God How many times must we go through this? Curious as to how many AfDs, DRVs and RfAr's its gonna take before this subject is dropped? Ridiculous we're going through this again Glen 14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really only one reason this is being brought up right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Eh, like I said, didn't really seem to meet the criteria for G8 (speedy deletion of talk pages), no one is arguing that it did, the talk page really wasn't very trollish and did contain somewhat productive discussion towards creating an article that asserts meeting WP:WEB. The talk page was harmless. --W.marsh 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question CSD G8 says "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." This is a Talk page of a page that doesn't exist, and its content was, I believe, all after the page's deletion. So how doesn't it qualify? Fan-1967 15:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion about the deletion and the article's notability on the talk page following the deletion. This was all on the talk page, and thus is a talk page that "contain[s] deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I interpret "deletion discussion" to mean "discussion that was actually involved in the deletion" as opposed to later complaints about it. Fan-1967 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair interpretation, I suppose. Then again, I have my doubts that the policy was put in place to squash discussion of resurrecting a page, either, which would involve discussing the reasoning for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place for such discussion is here. Fan-1967 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, and it's not like people have been allowing a full DRV lately anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. ED shows up here regularly, and the discussions are pretty much the same every time. Fan-1967 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, but we're sliding off topic. Certainly you don't interpret G8 to stifle any sort of discussion involving the resurrection of a deleted article, right? That doesn't really mesh with the subpage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this case G8 prevents out-of-process discussion of the resurrection of the page. You're always encouraging process. Process for restoring articles is to bring them here. Fan-1967 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and process allows for the discussion of the creation of such articles at those talk pages, per the policy. That's why I came here - the page was deleted out of process. To overturn the deletion of the article proper, you come here - the CSD policy - nor the deletion policy - does not prohibit such discussions that were deleted here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific as to what policy you're referencing? Fan-1967 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD policy. I've detailed the whole thing in my original statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete per W.marsh. Kusma (討論) 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this ends up being undeleted...make sure whoever does the undeletion removes the following post from the article history...made by Ribonucleic at 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC). Otherwise I will, and you can take that to the bank.--MONGO 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If this page were restored, would it actually result in any meaningful discussion? From what I've seen in the AfD, it looks like there were no non-self-referential citations. I'm concerned it'll just end up in a flamewar with accusations of corruption and a cabal being thrown around. If they do manage to find proper sourcing, I would imagine they would be able to collaborate on their own website rather than on this one.--Wafulz 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I had read, there was some meaningful discussion. A lot revolved around the apparent growing popularity of the site, there were numerous links to news stories that referenced the site, and continued back and forth about how to make it at least meet notability standards. Don't use the AfD for much of anything, it was quite the trainwreck, this solely concerns the talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm at work right now, so I'll have to consider this and come back to it sometime tonight or tomorrow. --Wafulz 17:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seemed like there was some ongoing discussion towards finding reliable sources. There was also a lot of "where did this article go?" stuff (despite all the information at the top of the page). It seems plausible that if reliable sources did emerge, and they were mentioned on the talk page, it might facilitate creation of an acceptable article that otherwise might not happen. It's really not that big of a deal though... the odds of this article coming back seem low at this point. --W.marsh 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
- The closest I ever saw that came close was one ED sysop denying allegations and saying that no ED sysops are furries. But this sysop's statement has later been proven untrue. Anomo 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Talk page of deleted article, troll magnet. As far as meaningful discussion about re-creating the article goes, if I recall correctly it was deleted per ArbCom ruling, and isn't coming back until hell freezes over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't deleted via an Arbcom ruling, but rather an AfD trainwreck. I think the likelihood of it coming back is stronger than you think, although I wouldn't be the one to initiate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The formal deletion discussions were at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination). The exception to G8 doesn't refer to whining about G4s; it's for the ancient and obsolete practice of moving vfd subpages into the article's talkpage. —Cryptic 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfDs really have nothing to do with the content on the talk page, which falls within the exceptions of G8. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion What good does it serve? The deletion discussion is very well documented elsewhere. All we will be doing is constantly reverting trolling if we keep this for some wikilegal technicality. I notice that the nominator gives no argument as to why it is useful, only a procedural whine. We're not a Byzantine bureaucracy .--Doc^g 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What good does it serve? Perhaps the resurrection of an article that meets our standards, I dunno. Meanwhile, my "procedural whine" is entirely legitimate, givent aht this is about process and this action was, as usual, not within there. There hasn't been constant reversions of trolling on the page anyway, so that's a nonstarter. It's good to know so many admins are willing to abandon the basics here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Move discussion to apropriate venue. I've never seen the talk page, so I have no clue what was on it. But if any two users were having a meaningful, consensual, good-faith discussion, then any deletion should be done in a way that doesn't inadvertantly stifle that discussion. If the talk page wasn't the right forum for that discussion, the content of that discussion should be moved to a more suitable location, so that the parties may continue their conversation there. Not knowing the content of the page or the CSD deletion rules very well, I have no position on whether the talk page itself should be deleted or not-- just do whatever ya'll normally do in such cases. BUT-- if the consensus is that it should be deleted, then I'd hope the participants in the conversation would be temporary allowed to see the deleted version in order to salvage those parts of the conversation they felt were productive and worth keeping, so that they could move the discussion to whatever the most appropriate forum is for that conversation. --Alecmconroy 19:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arbitration Committee has ruled that all mention of ED be removed from Wikipedia. If you don't like that, take it up with them. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they didn't. They said links to the site should be removed. Big big difference, and your "as per ArbCom" isn't based within what they said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme speedy keep deleted as per ArbCom. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the exception to CSD G8 for deletion discussion not logged elsewhere is for the sake of old Votes for Deletion discussions, which were formerly posted on the article's talk page. It is not an exception for "omg undelete fuckers" trolling. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - If a talk page is persistently used for trolling regarding a deleted article then it should be salted. --SunStar Net 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree if that were true in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete them all, and redirect them somewhere to one spot - You all care so little about Jimbo. Whenever a controversial article is deleted, eventually someone locks the talk page when people complain there. The locker thinks, "Oh now by locking it nobody will complain." But what happens is that it goes to Jimbo's talk page! Brian Peppers already has flooded it and wasted his time. I've already seen Encyclopedia Dramatica been mentioned there during the time when all its talk pages were protected. Then there's the whole Gary Weiss + sock puppets stuff and it all gets removed, but then I find it on Wikipedia Review with all the sock puppets name and evidence given so hiding it here did not work and so then I see them talk and later I see the results of it on Jimbo's talk page! Anomo 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP DELETED — breeding ground for stalkers and trolls. AnnH ♫ 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdog

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesterdog

Lack of concensus

Those that voted "keep" weren't particularly good with the markup, but it was still a 5 against 4 vote. Notable with those voting "keep" is that by and large they weren't regular editors, however they all cited living in the region. As a semi-regular editor and someone who lived in Western Michigan for several years (though not for the last 5) I would tend to agree that the place is a regional icon. Quoting from GRNow:

It seems as if every city has that one signature spot where locals insist must be visited before leaving town. For Grand Rapids, that place is Yesterdog. Located in the artsy urban neighborhood of Eastown, the inspiration for 'Dog Years' in the American Pie movies has been slinging up hot dogs for thirty years.

Such sums things up well. It's probably only restaurant in the circa 1 million Grand Rapids metro area that I'd make this claim for. Scott.wheeler 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure This was a completely valid deletion. Everyone who !voted delete was an established user, and all but one of the keep !voters were anonymous IPs. Being the inspiration for a restaurant in a movie (or series of movies) does not create nor confirm notability. Hell, the cafe at my college was the inspiration for "Central Perk" on Friends, and you don't see me writing an article about it. There was no valid reason to keep the article, which is why almost all of the regular WP editors moved to delete it. -- Kicking222 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. Without any implied criticism of the closing, it was a perfectly fine closing. It is perfectly valid to ignore comments by anons without evidence, and it is not the obligation of a closing admin to personally research each and every article. That said, the article itself should be restored, as it does seem notable. The anons had valid points, they just didn't know how to document them. Google hits are mostly anonymous blogs, but not quite: the rest are still a slew, and mention with reverence. Here: Blog, but from Washington Post editor; High school paper in Wyoming; Northwest Airlines vacation guide calls it "famous"; Grand Rapids TV; Aquinas College "welcome to students" PDF calls it "iconic"; MetroTimes Detroit calls it "a city institution" AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. I probably would have voted "Keep" on this, but it does look like the AFD was valid. Perhaps it can be merged somewhere? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Actually on reinspecting it the count was 4 to 4 since the nominator explicitly disclaimed a preference. Granted, 3 of the 4 keep votes were anonymous, but they don't seem sock-puppet-ish. Scott.wheeler 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestah

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamestah

This article was deleted for non-notability a couple of months ago, but new interviews and articles regarding Gamestah have appeared since this article was deleted which could prove notability. Since deletion, we have been mentioned on the Australian TV show, Good Game 3 times, the streaming videos can be seen here, here and especially here where a whole section of the show is devoted to us. A search on the ABC site for 'gamestah' also brings up matches. Since this was the main reason User:Deville had to remove the article, I feel this evidence should prove notability. Alfreido 06:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See that word "we"? There's the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought admins of Wikipedia were meant to give productive comments. Alfreido 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's referring to WP:COI. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I realise that's what he meant, but he still could've said that instead of that useless comment. The original author of the article is not part of, or affiliated, with Gamestah, I just brought this up because he is not available at the moment. Alfreido 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The original author of the article was User:Rowan Moore, whose userpage says otherwise. Morwen - Talk 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        He was removed from Gamestah some time ago, so what I said applies. Alfreido 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Still rather misleading. Morwen - Talk 11:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure, even if, as claimed, it was the subject of an ABC program, its Alexa ranking is still 992,026. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' of non-redirect revisions. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stanton_LaVey|Unanimous consensus]] that the subject isn't notable enough for an article; the deletion had nothing to do with some webdrama. No evidence compelling enough to overturn the AfD presented. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Body-type preferences among Whites and African Americans]]====
-:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body-type preferences among White and Black people (2nd nomination)]]
-:{{la|Body-type preferences among Whites and African Americans}}
-I would like to plead for a history undeletion for the above named article, or at least a transferral of the text of the article to me in an email, please.  I have been doing some important research on the topic and I visited wikipedia later only to find it had been deleted.  Samuel Blanning I believe is responsible.  Please either send me a transcript of the article to my email or perform a temporary undeletion so that I can access the data and statistics again.  Thank you.
-User:Zerosmoke
-* Then it looks like you're interested in the content, not the history, correct? Transferred last revision to [[User:Zerosmoke/Body-type preferences among Whites and African Americans]]. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-** (Also notified by email) [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica]]====