Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 1 December 2006

< November 25	November 27 >

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

26 November 2006

Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames

This BJAODN page was speedy deleted by DragonflySixtyseven per WP:DENY due to supposedly glorifying vandals. Personally, I don't see any reason why this violates WP:DENY any more than the rest of BJAODN (which should definitely be kept). And I hate WP:DENY! So, it was listed here, and the result was "overturn". Then, it was listed on MfD, and the result was (you guessed it) delete. This should definitely be undeleted. And if you are one of those people who thought that the page was full of stupid, offensive usernames, I will replace them with funnier, less blatant usernames (like "Out of tune violin"). SupaStarGirl 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This isn't XfD round 2. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Relist, considering the arguments thaht were not brought up new evidence. Ignoring the nomination, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There wasn't a proper XfD round 1. Overturn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes there was. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You might want to read a little closer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the MfD was closed early, but there was a very clear consensus (I count 15 to 2). WP:DENY might not be quote-unquote "policy", but it's still good common sense and should be applied whenever possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to get a clear consensus in less than 24 hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering the recent MfD closed in 6 hours, no, not really. Especially when most of the keep votes don't seem to say anything but "WP:DENY isn't policy!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not much else to say. When a short-sighted essay is the reason for deletion, there's not much left to say. If people want it deleted so badly, give it a full hearing. DRV's about process, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what did this do to help build a great encyclopaedia? I can tell you what it did to encourage idiots... Guy (Help!) 22:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Okay, fine. I'll consider the arguments that for some reason were not brought up at the MfD to be new evidence, thus requiring a new MfD. I still don't like this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying that, had the MfD continued, there's reason to believe it would have somehow attracted another 30(!) keep voters and no additional delete voters? Probability-wise, I'd say that's right up there with Godzilla eating Wikipedia's servers, but you're entitled to your opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly. I'm no psychic, however, but i doubt anyone with any other argument would have a chance to see it after 6 hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. No point in wasting another week on an MFD. Naconkantari 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This implies a week was wasted to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have gotten into all these complicated discussions about MfD and XfD and "proper discussions". However, you missed the true point of why this is here. This page is no different from the rest of BJAODN in the way it violates WP:DENY. And WP:DENY is a horrible idea- yes, the trolls should not be fed, but their humor should. Everybody has the right to show their sense of humor, just not on Wikipedia. That is what BJAODN is for. SupaStarGirl 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Nothing out of process - consensus was clearly overwhelmingly in favour of deletion; the period of time it was open to discussion was more than sufficient to attract a range of opinions. Eusebeus 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is 6 hours enough time? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion pointless page, MFD outcome seemed quite clear. --pgk 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - quick closure, but didn't look like it was going any other way. There's WP:BEANS to think about to - people confusing this list of people blocked for having bad usernames as licence to pick a bad or otherwise bizarre username. Chris cheese whine 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion utterly pointles at best, and a potential incentive to create nonsensical user acounts to "make the list". Getting rid of BJAODN altogeter doesn't sound like such a bad idea either, but I'll save that debate for another day. --Sherool (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:DENY, or for those that don't like that, per WP:SNOW.--Doc^g 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, nothing violently out-of-process. --humblefool® 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep deleted per every delete comment above. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No point in wasting time on tripe like this. --Robth^Talk 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. While I no longer have access to the material I recall that a number of the usernames listed were nothing else than attacks on other users. Other usernames were plainly vandalism. The encyclopedic merit of this page was zilch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels

Overturn, vandal is no longer present at Wikipedia, good record of history, important person in WP's history. Also, copy to WP:BJAODN.

Overturn, WP:DENY is not policy and not good "policy" anyway. SupaStarGirl 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- So? The MfD was valid. There were no procedural errors. It went the full time. There was an obvious consensus to delete, and this is not MfD round 2. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I saw someone claiming to be him recently, and you seem to have no other reason. I also find it funny that you believe a vandal is so important. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid MfD, nomination adds nothing new to the debate. As per the bolded text in the purpose section "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning " --pgk 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per no good reason to overturn. Valid MfD, in the spirit of WP:DENY (which as noted isn't policy, but nonetheless a good idea and supported by quite a lot of people). Nominator's reasoning is downright silly: if Willy isn't an active vandal anymore, that's all the more reason not to keep this page around, as for "good record of history", well, somehow I doubt that "How to Vandalise Wikipedia 101" will be part of most schools' history curriculum anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No reason to keep this page around: no new information or reasoning offered that gives a reason to overturn this. --SunStar Net 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No way to even know if the original Willy has been here recently, but clearly he's got a lot of copycats. Don't encourage or instruct them. Fan-1967 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I see no errors in the MfD result and no new arguments that might have changed the outcome. Charon X/talk 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid MFD. Naconkantari 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion We don't need a long history lesson (and scertaily no "funny" bio article) to know that people who rename articles to "... on Weels!" is up to no good... --Sherool (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Can we have this for our wiki, with the full edit history, and all those other long-term abuse pages that got deleted?? Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean we don't?? I think somewhere on this site says you can use Wikipedia content... I'm correct aren't I?? --Dulcorne 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) — Dulcorne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Endorse deletion The above is not rationale for overturning the deletion, and, if the vandal is no longer present the page isn't needed Glen 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid MfD, no new arguments per Andrew Lenahan et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; like all of BJAODN this page was at best useless and at worst food for vandals – Gurch 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, for the good reasons stated above. It might be helpful to keep some kind of information on active subtle vandals whose sockpuppets require some experience to diagnose, but it was never terribly hard to spot a Willy sock and this has long since achieved the status of WP:BEANS, in my view. I almost moved this page to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 26 ON WHEELS!!!! myself :o) Guy (Help!) 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own MfD closure As I said in the original remarks, the consensus was clear and decisive; no real reason has been given to reconsider the close. Xoloz 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse - WP:DENY makes perfect sense in every regard. There is no need to let wheels gloat about a page on Wikipedia. The consensus was very clear in the MfD, please don't make a MfD just because you don't agree with consensus -- Tawker 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion ON WHEELS!!!. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Willy is not a page-move vandal any more, he's now inserting hoax information into automobile, cinema, and fast-food articles. A Long term abuse page on this guy is needed, since some people won't know it's a WoW sock inserting this hoax info.
I only know of it because a Wikiuser told me so today. --Hyulmar 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, despite WP:AGF, Wikipedians can lie. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The MfD is valid, and Xoloz presents a very good account of the various arguments and the clear consensus arising from them in closing it. Chick Bowen 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion'''. While I no longer have access to the material I recall that a number of the usernames listed were nothing else than attacks on other users. Other usernames were plainly vandalism. The encyclopedic merit of this page was zilch. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)]]====
-:{{la|Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)|AfD]])|}}
-Article was a work in progress, but it was apparently deleted due to one editor's spamming. Please restore the article and nominate for deletion so a discussion can begin. [[User:Clipper471|Clipper471]] 21:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-* [[WP:NOT]] a directory, or a directory of mall directories.  Can we see evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, please? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-**There were sources in the article that was deleted. Please undelete so the article can be cleaned up further. I had recently added it to my watchlist and it was in my plans to use the content that was there as a base for a revamp of the article. [[User:Clipper471|Clipper471]] 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-::* Two sources, to be precise: tha mall's own website and a piece apparently saying that one store was being demolished, but which is now 404 [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/cyfair/news/4298485.html]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' JzG seems to be an administrator on a rampage. He has deleted multiple such articles, in many cases abusing the [[WP:CSD]] process to delete articles without bothering to attempt to have the articles improved or attempting to achieve consensus on the subject via the AfD process. His talk page is littered with requests from users to explain his deletions and arrogant responses patronizingly ignoring the requests. As JzG seems to have extremely strong views on the subject that are way out of the consensus on this subject, and has consistently demonstrated that he will impose these views, regardless of consensus, it is hard to justify his continuing adminship. As a start this article should be undeleted, and face AfD as might be appropriate. The bigger issue is dealing with an admin out of control who has made himself judge, jury and executioner. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-:* As I noted on the admin noticeboard at the time, I was working through an apparent spamming campaign by an employee of a property company. I deleted a block of articles, several days ago, and none since. This is not a "rampage", and in any case it is over days back - you appear to be [[m:Assume bad faith|assuming bad faith]].  That said, I would defend the deletions as advertorial for the malls concerned.  All were essentially a small amount of text and a mall directory, with no sources cited other than the mall website and the property company.  If not spam then they are unquestionably in my view [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory|directory entries]], fasiling to make any claim to encyclopaedic notability.  Mere existence is not enough, after all.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::At [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:NOT]] is specifically noted as ''not'' a criterion for speedy delete. Furthermore, the CSD advertising criterion specifically states ''"Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well."'' While I haven't seen this article (and I can't now that it's deleted) there is no indication that it was blatantly advertorial. Regardless of intent, it seems clear that CSD was likely inappropriate here. The criteria for CSD are very clear and narrowly defined, precisely to avoid this kind of situation - in other words, if there was any doubt, CSD should not have been used. [[User:ATren|ATren]] 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::* w00t!  My very own [[WP:STALK|wikistalker]] :o)  G11 (spam) is a gorunds for deletion; a single account crteating a series of articles ''in alphabetical order'' all substantially copied and pasted from the promotional websites of the subjects, all linking to the same property company's website - that is pretty much the canonical definition of a spamming campaign. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-::::I only pointed out that you cited [[WP:NOT]], and that the spam argument was iffy here because some have claimed the articles were not advertorial. Candidate for AfD? Perhaps. Speedy delete? Probably not. And, no, I'm not stalking - I happened upon the debate on your talk page and I decided to comment. But thanks for [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:ATren|ATren]] 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''', probably AfD.  One thing about JzG - agree or disagree with him, and I almost always do the latter - he always acts in good faith, and I don't think this was any different.  Regardless, this is a good faith challenge in response, and I see no harm in seeing a full hearing on the matter.  Spam can be dealt with via editing quite easily, after all. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' - as far as I can tell (not having read the article), there was no blatant advertorial content, and CSD was not justified here. [[User:ATren|ATren]] 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''' JzG is one of the best administrators here, period.  Accusations against him are completely inappropriate. Indeed, the quality of his contributions is such that you can take almost as an article of faith that his actions are in keeping with general policy. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-:*Um, thanks!  I am as fallible as anyone else, this could of course be a valid ''subject'' (although no sources have yet been provided to give any indication that it is), but I don't think it was a valid ''article''. Alan's comments were a tad hasty, I think; as noted by Jeff, I was acting in good faith, as I try always to do. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''' and give the article a chance to grow.  [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted'''. If someone wants to whip up an actual article with actual reliable sources attesting to the actual notability of the subject instead of recreating someone else's spam, hey, knock yourself out. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion of spam'''  Any new version would be evaluated on its own merits, I can see no reason to restore the spam.  Anyone who wants to [[Wikipedia:Amnesia test|write a decent article from reliable sources]] won't need the spam to do it.  In the interim, not having a page is better than having spam.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 20:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels]]====