Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 26

26 January 2007

Adam Keller court martial

Adam Keller court martial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

(1) The court martial is notable because (a) Court matials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years, (b) the court martial was covered in all the main newspapers in Israel at the time including the English language Jerusalem Post and the Arabic Al-Ittihad and was recently referred to by the British Guardian.

(2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."

The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, AfD was perfectly proper. This is an encyclopaedia, not a television schedule. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Check your facts, a list of syndicaters is not a television schedule, get your facts straight, otherwise your vote doesn't count. Suoerh2 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• If Wikipedia intends for people to follow it's policies, then deleting this article sends the wrong message. Pretty soon people will not want to split off sections from long articles into new articles for fear that some Wikipedian who has no idea what he is talking about finds the new article, thinks its "trivial" and deletes it. Sometimes, with summary style, your going to get article that aren't full of a huge amount of content, but that is just something you have to live with if you want to use the summary style. If nothing else, then please restore the text of the article to the Futurama page (where is lived for a long time with no problem) and let the editors of that page decide if the information belongs or not, not some elistish snobby Wikipedians who troll deletion review (thats what they are). Suoerh2 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles_C._Poindexter

Charles_C._Poindexter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [1] Notability was established at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter

MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. It was a legitimate G5 when the sock made it, who initiated the creation after that, because those G4s are a problem for me. If it's not a sock/banned user who recreated the G4 deletions, undelete. If it was, can I request userfication to clean it up and make it legit, since "notability" appears to be established in the linked AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  Our DRV nominator has done all three recreations. I have no basis for an opinion whether G5 would still apply, although I can see that others are suspicious, I don't have the knowledge base to tell myself because my mop is still too clean and shiny. If you think notability was shown, I hope that means the AFD revealed adequate sources, and you could just use them. GRBerry 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. G4 does not apply to speedies, and if it did, it certainly would not apply to a speedy criteria that doesn't even judge the article. -Amark moo! 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was one of the deleting admins. I have a very strong suspicion that MrDouglass is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, Mykungfu, since he showed up less than 24 hours after the article was first deleted and the then-most-recent sock of Mykungfu was blocked and re-created the article. That's not a coincidence. His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK). I have no objection to undeletion per se, but to another attempt by Mykungfu to game the system. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If the article is bad, it won't survive an AfD. If it is not, surely it shouldn't matter who you suspect wrote it. -Amark moo! 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely it does matter. Banned or blocked users are not allowed to create articles; it's speedy deletion criterion G5. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite fortunately, G5 does not apply to suspicions. If it is established that he is a banned user, it's different (although I'd likely just ditch G5 then, since it looks decent), but suspecting who a user is is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Proof by contributions is more than sufficient, and the user's contribs have made it clear to me from day one that it is Mykungfu. Proof by checkuser is not required, and in this case, since Mykungfu and all of his socks use AOL, it's not possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Undelete just so other users know what G3,G4 and other terms are.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion . If MrDarcy suspects me to be racist. Simply go thru my edits and see if you find any racially biased edits. Also, i thank everyone who will supports this articles undeletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDouglass (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

• • But now I don't want your thanks. Where in the world did you get the "I'm being accused of racism" card from? -Amark moo! 04:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

from "His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK)." of the above opinion. MrDouglass 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's not much to undelete, just a short paragraph with a lot of weasel words and sourced solely with questionable copyright material from skipmason.com via the Google cache. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)