Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:45, 25 November 2006

< November 18	November 20 >

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

19 November 2006

Category:Stub templates

Category:Stub templates (edit | talk | history | links | logs) — (CfD)

The article was speedy deleted while I was editing the Category talk:Stub templates even with though there was a {{hangon}} message placed by its creator. See that talk page for reasons to reconsider. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The first speedy made sense, empty for 4 days is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. But you can't speedy something for reposting of deleted material unless said material went through the respective XfD discussion. Especially when it was speedied because nothing was IN it, because maybe there will be things put in. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. FYI, the page could not have been empty for 4 days, since it was created on 17 November 2006. I keep track of the pages I create and there was three template pages put in the this category right after it was created. See this history entry for proof. The Speedy deletion message was posted today as was a note informing me of it in my talk page. I just had the time to put the {{hangon}} message (as suggested in the deletion template) so I have the time to explain myself. Why all that rush? This is very frustrating for users that want to improve the WP and try follow the procedures. I keep getting the same arguments on the fact that the category was previously deleted. Again, please do read my own reasons for creating the page and tell me why my own arguments are not valid instead of bringing back references on an old debate that was held by 3 users. I did my homework, please be kind and follow proper procedures. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The first deletion was back in March 2006, by a different user. That is the one that was done for being an empty category. GRBerry 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment OH!.. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up. It's pretty hard to tell since the history is deleted with the article. ;-) Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This is where the deletion log comes in handy ;) --Sherool (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the respective XfD discussion can be found here - I've modified the header of this debate to reflect that. M a rtinp23 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:CCC. ~ trialsanderrors 08:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to WP:SFD and WP:WPSS. (Radiant) 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure it should go there. It's neither a stub type nor a stub category. It's a template category. Of course, it will probably borrow some of the stub sorting structure (if too many stub templates share the same cat.) so it might be discussed in WP:WPSS, but I'm sure it would create more confusion if we treat it as a stub. Is there a discussion page for template categories ? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~: WP:CSD#C1 does not apply in this case: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories." (emphasis mine). I do not think this is a case where WP:IAR applies, as there is no obvious improvement in deleting this category. Tizio 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In this case, the category was deleted first as a CfD from here and later, by me as a receation of deleted material. It seems that, after the CfD, the category was deleted by a different admin, for being empty, only making it harder to investigate (!) M a rtinp23 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is the rationale for deletion, endorse Tizio 08:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost baptism

This page was deleted with almost no discussion. I didn't see the page before deletion, but this is a well-known idea in Pentecostal Christianity. (I think it's completely daft, but still.) A Google search suggests that it deserved a better review. Bpmullins | Talk 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article as it was failed CSD G1 in my opinion and that of others, so I closed the discussion as WP:SNOW Delete, as it was nonsense. I endorse deletion, but I'm not concerned about it being restored and relisted on AfD, if it really deserves to go through the process. The article was a sermon, typed out in full (as such, failed WP:NPOV too!). M a rtinp23 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article, as it was, was TERRIBLE. Write a better one and put that up, don't ask for the one there to be undeleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid G1 and G12 (copyvio), WP:SNOW doesn't even come into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid Speedy G1, no AfD was necessary. Any recreation needs to conform to WP standards and policies to avoid another Speedy. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion as one of the non-admins that got to see the article. It was G1-patent nonsense. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Fails multiple policies. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Some kind of sermon, without proper context or explanation. The idea probably warrants either an article or a mention at Baptism, but it cannot be brought back as it was. As an example, here are the final two lines: "He will come out of the womb! To be numbered among the blood-washed saints!". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Also, please don't write a new one. Seriously. The discussion would be at baptism, where the concept of "baptism by the Spirit" is already covered. I.e. we shouldn't be multiplying mediocre articles at every denomination's term for central tenets of Christianity, when we should have a single excellent article. Pentecostal and charismatic views can be accomodated in the pages on the beliefs without acting as one more article to watchlist to avoid sermonizing or chauvinism. We've got a lot of iffy stuff already. When I find it, I try to correct it, but I can't guess all the names people are going to have for the rites. Geogre 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion G1.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification from those who saw the article. Close this one, please. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, pure bull (nonsense). - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Freedom and Truth

This article was suddenly and unexpectedly deleted yesterday, in the midst of an unresolved debate over the copyright status of the English translation of the original Hungarian text. I understand the copyvio concerns but no conclusion had been reached one way or the other so the deletion seems unfounded to me K. Lastochka 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, if the issue of copyright is unresolved then we need to err on the side of assuming there is a copyright problem. If the copyright issue is resolved then the article can be restored/recreated. --pgk 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, this is a single paragraph of introduction and a lengthy quote from a speech - and absolutely nothing else. So even if the copyright issue were fixed, it would belong in Wikisource not here. Nor is the phrase "for freedom and truth" evident anywhere other than the article title, it's not in the quoted text. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I understand pgk's reasoning. Guy's reasoning, on the other hand, seems flimsy to me. This is a historic document and an important part of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. While I admit that the 56 article would not suffer enormously if it were gone, it certainly is enhanced by its presence.

Just to clarify I am not saying that if the copyright issue is cleared up that it currently stands as an article or wouldn't be subject to some other speedy criteria or deletion. I was only considering the copyright issue (the source of deletion) without regard to the current content --pgk 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the copyvio--if a Wikipedia editor were to make his/her own translation from the Hungarian original, would the Wiki editor's translation have any copyvio problems? K. Lastochka 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a straight translation, or even a paraphrase, would still violate the coyright. Fan-1967 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my reasoning? "Do not include copies of primary sources" or the problem that the article title appears to bear no relation to the content? Guy (Help!) 12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Wikipedia is for articles about a thing, never the thing itself. Primary documents go at Wikisource, if they're not copyrighted. In other words, the document, by its proper title, would be discussed in an article, not reiterated. Encyclopedias are discursive. Geogre 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - The article is about an historical event which contains a letter. That letter is uncontroversially in the public domain. It may also belong in Wikisource, but the issue at hand is its inclusion in the Wikipedia. The salient question is whether or not a translation of that public domain text retains public domain status. If so, then the article should be undeleted forthwith. If not, then the article may be at least recreated using a released translation from the original (public domain) source. I think some who have not seen the article in question may incorrectly infer from the above that the article is only the block of text, whereas in reality it is an important historical event, linking to the FA article Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and to István Bibó. In fact, it may be useful to relist the article so that those discussing it may first understand it. István 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Here is the entirety of the discursive element of the article: "István Bibó was the last Minister of the Hungarian National Government remaining at post. Mr. Bibó wrote the following proclamation as he awaited arrest by Soviet troops who were then occupying the Hungarian Parliament building." The lead is 'there was an uprising/revolution in 1956 which the Soviets put down.' That's not exactly a discussion or a contextualizing of the letter. If we can wonder why anyone has read the letter, the article hasn't done much of a job of explaining it. Geogre 11:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per my nomination. István makes an important point which deserves to be emphasized: this article is not and was never meant to be a stand-alone article, rather an integral part of Hungarian Revolution of 1956. There are several other such "sub-articles" which we created during the editing process, and while they may look irrelevant on their own, they were never meant to be seen on their own, but within the context of the 56 article. Also, I am still unclear about the translation issue: even if the original were not public domain, would a translation by a Wikipedian him/herself be possible to release into public domain? K. Lástocska 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple translation would still be a copyvio, as a non-wiki example I can't take the latest Harry Potter in English, translate it to French and start selling it, even if my Translation is different to the official translation (That is a slightly more complicated issue since there are issues concerning copyright of the characters themselves, but the basic principle is there. You can also see Wikipedia:Translation into English, which states "Please note that for copyright reasons, this page is not for requesting translation of sources external to any Wikipedia. The exception to this is if you can also show that the license conditions of the source page would permit its redistribution under the GFDL" --pgk 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarification...K. Lástocska 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the original (Hungarian version) is public domain? Shouldnt it work the same way as well? István 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well immediately following the part I quoted above "e.g. if the page is public domain or itself GFDL-ed, " --pgk 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think, but I'm beginning to distrust Logic itself....ugh. K. Lástocska 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gear4music

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gear4music.com

Changed article radically so it is factual only but cannot remember exactly how as it was deleted without comments about the changes, edited article format read similar to info about dolphin music in wikipedia. Thanks Sushmasspace 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion 80% is copy-and-paste identical (other than the center align), the rest is actually less encyclopedic than the first article. The AfD and .com article wasn't listed until now, so I'm relisting this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD - nothing to see, move along. - Mailer Diablo 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid AfD and clsoure.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The request is for the recreated article Gear4music. Repost or rewrite? My opinion is above, just to clarify what the request is about. ~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' - valid AfD and clsoure.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]'''  ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' The request is for the recreated article [[Gear4music]]. Repost or rewrite? My opinion is above, just to clarify what the request is about. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Anax Imperator (band)]]====
-:{{la|Anax Imperator (band)}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anax Imperator (band)|AfD]])
-Anax Imperator's page shouldn't have been deleted, as the band conforms to WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" pt. 5 and 7. The band is listed with half a page in the norwegian pop & rock encyclopedia, and was a major contributor to the industrial & goth scene in Norway.
-*<s>'''Endorse deletion''', will change to relist if you provide a source for this half a page.</s> '''Relist''', I just wanted to be sure the encyclopedia was not a hoax. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-**[http://vegaforlag.no/Product.aspx?id=6 Norsk pop- og rockleksikon]  The norwegian encyclopedia of rock and pop music, ISBN 82-92489-09-6.  Anax Imperator is reviewed on pages 22-23.  The entry has also been made [http://www.mic.no/nmi.nsf/doc/art2006042515480988730601 available online]. -- [[User:Hba|Hba]] 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''', valid AFD. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' The above-mentioned source seems reliable and was not considered in the AfD, and the debate seems closer to a no-consensus than a clear delete, to me.  (Note: I read the "comment" as supporting a keep.)  I feel a relisting to generate further consensus might be more productive in this case than simply rewriting the article with the new source in place (possibly triggering a new AfD). [[User:Shimeru|Shimeru]] 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Based on the strength of arguments (or lack thereof), rather than just head counting, I thought it was a pretty clear delete at the time. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-***I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that you'd made an error in process.  To clarify, I agree with your assessment while no sources were put forth, but I feel the source mentioned above (which was not in evidence at the time of the AfD) changes, in retrospect, the weight of the comments. [[User:Shimeru|Shimeru]] 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse deletion''', sound arguments for deletion (obscure, self-published, reportedly abysmal, short-lived, no reliable sources, clearly does not meet [[WP:MUSIC]]) not refuted.  [[WP:ILIKEIT]] seemed to be about it for the keeps. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse deletion''', obscure and likely not RS sources. Doesn't explain why band is notable - it has a list of CDs but nothing as to the success or new ideas presented. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]'''  ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-** Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "RS sources", but I guess it could mean "reputable source"?  The encyclopedia in question is a fairly definite and acclaimed source in Norway.   -- [[User:195.159.86.22|195.159.86.22]] 08:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''', without prejudice to a new article when enough information is available.  Finally, for the anon wondering, [[WP:RS|RS]].  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new talk back]</small> 08:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-** [http://www.gramart.no/gramart/hovedsiden/om_gramart/english GramArt], the Recording Artists' Association in Norway, calls the encyclopedia "an unique encyclopedia of norwegian popular music over the last 100 years" ([http://www.gramart.no/gramart/hovedsiden/tilbud_til_gramarts_medlemmer_norsk_pop_og_rockleksikon link]).  -- [[User:Hba|Hba]] 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)