Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[:iLoser]]: closed as del. end. |
→[[:27 Club]]: closed as overturn |
||
| Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
*'''Overturn''' The implication of the closure is that the closer considers the material to be valid, in which case it belongs in wikipedia. In any case, there was no consensus to delete. [[User:Aviara|Aviara]] 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''' The implication of the closure is that the closer considers the material to be valid, in which case it belongs in wikipedia. In any case, there was no consensus to delete. [[User:Aviara|Aviara]] 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
====[[:27 Club]]==== |
====[[:27 Club]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:27 Club]]''' – Deletion overturned unanimously; no need to relist. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{la|27 Club}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/27 Club|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:27 Club}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27 Club|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|27 Club}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/27 Club|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:27 Club}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27 Club|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
| Line 193: | Line 201: | ||
*'''Overturn''' Prejudice decided the outcome, when it should be consensus. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''' Prejudice decided the outcome, when it should be consensus. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Discuss]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Speedy Overturn''' the latest AfD was closed as no consensus. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">''' Grue '''</font>]] 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Speedy Overturn''' the latest AfD was closed as no consensus. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">''' Grue '''</font>]] 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Brand (magazine)]]==== |
====[[:Brand (magazine)]]==== |
||
Revision as of 17:08, 6 July 2007
User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The June 22 proposed deletion of this user box was rejected (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN). I am not challenging the keep decision. I am challenging the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway. There was no consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox, for instance {{userbox|logo=[[Image:NoUNsmall.png|40px]]|info=This user wants the [[United Nations]] to be '''dissolved'''}}". Pursuant to the closure summary of User:Tony Sidaway, s/he edited the userbox and User:Dmcdevit then ran a robot that replaced the transclusion of the userbox on all of the user pages which displayed it with userbox code. Among other things, this action partially and selectively depopulated Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. I have asked both Tony Sidaway and Dmcdevit to reverse their actions as being inconsistent with the consensus of the June 22 original deletion discussion and they have refused. --DieWeisseRose 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Image:Banner_logo_campbells.gif Deleted for not having a fair use rationale. I'll write it. Kotepho 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tinfoil Hat Linux (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted on a second nomination with virtually no participation and essentially dismissing the arguments of the first debate. The second nominator, User:Chealer, seemed to think that the primary point in the original debate was whether the distribution had users, whereas in fact the debate centered on its notability as an example of secure computing. The consensus (see in particular the comments of User:Jamyskis and User:Phr) was that in fact this was indeed notable. Chealer, however, ignored this argument entirely, minimized the significance of the article's "historical value", made an ambiguous statement about Google hits, and asserted precisely the argument which I, the original nominator, had advanced in the first deletion debate (namely, that this Linux distribution is dead and therefore not notable) and which was refuted. The second debate itself attracted only two other participants, who disagreed, and the one (User:Goldenglove) who voted for deletion gave the two invalid reasons that the article was poorly linked-to, and was "not so great". I think this was an improper conclusion of consensus given the relatively active debate in the first nomination, and that the article should be undeleted. Ryan Reich 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
iLoser (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Reliable source 1 Reliable source 2 This should redirect to Greg Parker. He is not notable because of his talent, smarts, business success, inventions, or even smashing good looks, and has enemies and rivals out to get him. He is notable because of his ability to make himself notable. He is all media. And reporting on him means reporting what the media reports about him. In the iPhone coverage, the epithet "iLoser" became of rather common use to refer to him, and since reliable sources - both of which I provide do not push bias or POV - identify and report as the epithet being used to refer to him, its all kosher like Nathan's frankfurter. Cerejota 17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Boston Dynamics (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
It was flagged as a copyright violation probably because the single line description of the company comes from their website, and the bot compares the first line of the article with the first line of the webpage listed as the source. The line was referenced as coming from the webpage, and the entire article was just three sentences. The entire article reads as follows: "[Boston Dynamics is an engineering company that specializes in robotics and human simulation]. [1] [The company began as a spinoff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where Marc Raibert developed robots that ambulate like animals]. [Boston Dynamics was incorporated in 1992.]" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- List of Pentax K mount lenses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I'm not very satisfied with the discussion. 3 people say "listcruft", 2 people say "useful", all of which are apparently invalid reasons. Some people wanted it to be merged back into Pentax K mount, but the closing admin says that article is too long already. End result: deletion with misgivings. Could we possibly relist and have a slightly more in depth discussion about what to do with it? The notion of dismissing any argument of "usefulness" is just dumb. Let's find a real reason to either delete or keep it. Stevage 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Have you asked the deleting admin to consider reversing themselves and relisting the discussion? Useful isn't a valid reason to keep by the way but I agree the consensus to delete wasn't outstandingly obvious. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, crap discussion. But a valid result. The Pentax K mount is notable, but a list of lenses with Pentax K mount is canonical fancruft: of interst only to a very small number of people who probably knew it already. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn The implication of the closure is that the closer considers the material to be valid, in which case it belongs in wikipedia. In any case, there was no consensus to delete. Aviara 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
27 Club (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted for being a neologism, even though this accusation wasn't properly explained. I quote: "The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately." Actually there were no arguments for WP:NEO - it was stated, but not argued (check the log). This administrator was wrong to rule in favour of delete when there was certainly not consensus, and the delete side didn't come up with any arguments as to why it was in breach of WP:NEO. Even if you agree with that administrator's actions in the former case, I have some new sources that weren't made available in that deletion debate. Consider the below... how could something that's been talked about for over 30 years and has books, plays, tshirts and numerous articles about it be considered a neologism?
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Brand (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Highly notable magazine. It's the oldest continously published anarchist magazine (since 1898) and the second oldest in the world. Have ha several notable people writing for it like Gustav Hedenvind-Eriksson, Hinke Bergegren, Ivan Oljelund, Moa Martinson (as Helga Johansson), Harry Martinson, C.J. Björklund, Carl-Emil Englund, Erik Asklund, Eyvind Johnson, Jan Fridegård, Ivar Lo Johansson, Artur Lundkvist, Vilhelm Moberg, Albert Jensen, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Nils Ferlin, Helmer Grundström and Eva X Moberg Liftarn 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, the article didn't say of of that -- at least not in the version that was deleted. This was apparently a 2-in-one article: a single article about two different subjects with the same name. In this case, there appear to have been two quite different magazines titled "Brand": one was the anarchist magazine described above, and one a communications magazine of apparently dubious notability (or at least with very few indications of notability in the article). This page had two separate articles about these two magazines. This style used to be recommended, to avoid the need for disambiguation. I created one myself once (about 5 different early middle ages queens who all had the same name). They are no longer encouraged, i believe. To return to this article, some editor cut out most of the content on the anarchist magazine a few revisions before it was tagged foe speedy deletion, and what was left was a rather spammy stub about the other "Brand". Overturn and revert to a version that includes the full info on the anarchist magazine. Then consider splitting. This should be a lesson to admins: remember to check earlier versions, particularly when A7 is involved. Same applies to copyvios -- revert to a clean version, if there is one -- and then possibly use selective deletion. DES (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- The other Brand is as far as I cen tell not notable. // Liftarn
- Fine, then split and prod the non-notable one. DES (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The other Brand is as far as I cen tell not notable. // Liftarn
- Overturn and fix Haddiscoe 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore Mistaken deletion of an article about a clearly notable subject. Wimstead 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)