Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 23: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Inhuman (webcomic)]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
→[[Pick-Up Mastery]]: closing (del endorsed) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
====[[Pick-Up Mastery]]==== |
|||
:{{la|Pick-Up Mastery}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pick-Up Mastery|AfD]]) |
|||
Deletion without Reason [[User:DanTolumbro|DanTolumbro]] 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Overly rapid deletion without thorough review. Lucky 6.9's unprofessional reason given for deleting was literally "Oh please..." Nothing else. This is an informative article on an social skills company which is all over the internet. There are other dating companies who have articles up such as [[Real Social Dynamics]], [[Mystery Method]], [[David DeAngelo]] and [[Lance Mason]]. If there is something that needs to be edited, I should be told that, but quick deletion is unreasonable. |
|||
*'''Comment''' The merits of the (ostensibly speedy) deletion notwithstanding, ''oh please...'' is not only less-than-civil but not particularly constructive; I imagine that [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] meant to suggest that the article failed [[WP:CSD#General criteria|G11]] or [[WP:CSD#Articles|A7]], but I hope he'll clarify his intention straightaway. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' the subsequent recreations and deletions seem to describe the situation from the deleting admins point of view. "Reposted Spam", fails [[WP:WEB]], [[WP:CORP]] reads as advertising copy. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
** Oh and statements like " He has admitted taking heavy influence from [[Tyler Durden]] on these matters." - guess would create an "oh please.." reaction in me also. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***Yeah, that's probably fair to say, although content can be entirely silly and wholly worthless and nevertheless not speediable as ''patent nonsense'', such that one might properly react with an ''oh please'' even where speedy is not appropriate. That aside, though, ''oh please'' must be one of the most benign edit summaries ever offered by a spent [[WP:NPP|new page patrol]]ling-admin, and so I surely don't mean to suggest that there was any breach of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] here—my ''less-than-civil'' was probably unnecessarily harsh. :) [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. I apologize for my less-than-professional summary (it's been a busy night on NPP), but this was plain old link spam as it stood. I'm not opposed ''de facto'' to a version without the "adspeak" and with verifiable sources reinforcing notability. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 07:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''', self-promotional spam.-<font face="cursive" color= "#808080">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</font> 07:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' Pgk is quite right; I rather overlooked those subsequent "reposted spam" deletion reasons, which seem readily and properly to explain the speedying. In any event, Lucky's surely correct; the nature of the article as G11able adspam notwithstanding, there appears to have been no assertion of notability (a quick search leads me, FWIW, to belief that nothing reliable toward notability per [[WP:CORP]] can be adduced), such that A7 properly entails. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 07:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''', blatant spam. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' as extremely blatant spam (founded by Dan Tolumbro and posted by a user named DanTolumbro). If the poster cannot bother with even the slightest attempt to obscure the fact that this was clear and shameless self-promotion, I don't see why we should bother wasting extra time on it either. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Brent House]]==== |
====[[Brent House]]==== |
||
Revision as of 16:53, 28 November 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
23 November 2006
Wrongful deletion of informative article Tomthebombsears 04:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) The article created about Brent House is an extension to an Article about Trinity College School, and it further explains the concept and life of a private school boarding student. This article which was deleted was incomplete at the time, and with more information, would be a very valuable resource for Wikipedia to host. This article about Brent House also hosts history of the residence, explaining its founding and the man who it was appropriately named after. Brent House need not be world famous to exist on Wikipedia, however it has, in its time, had many worldly people come through it. There was no basis for a speedy deletion of this article as, at the time it was proposed for speedy deletion, was just started. --User:Tomthebombsears
- Redirect to Trinity College School and add the information there. (Radiant) 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Individual houses are not independently notable, and the author has a clear conflict of interest (see the vanity namecheck in the article). The chances of anyone looking for this rather than the school are remote. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion per JzG. Naconkantari 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to write an article if you can indicate how this place is notable, but remember that the bar is pretty high for houses. Start it in your userspace and don't post it in the article space until it's ready to avoid a half-finished entry being deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- endorse deletion. Articles on individual houses do not really belong. A subsection on the parent article about the college is OK, but there is no evidence of this house having notability outside of the context of its university. --Jayron32 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)