Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 25

25 September 2007

Template:Rasta-stub

Template:Rasta-stub (edit | [[Talk:Template:Rasta-stub|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was discussed months ago without resolution and then the deletion months later was slipped through with no discussion and only one pro-delete, and that personm knew their was oposition but decided not to let anyone know, just a back door deletion with no consensus, IMO. I had been expecting the fd for weeks after the discussion and then copncluded it wasnt goinmg to be deleted. it appears that knowing there was opposition to deleting this stub from 2 users that siomeone decided to wait tand thus disable the opposition in an improper way. I have no idea who the closing admin was, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, SqueakBox 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I closed resolution on the 20th (diff). The standard wait time for closure is 7 days, which would have been on the 19th. There was plenty of time for people to voice their opinions in the discussion. There was only one vote: to delete, so that's what I did. From a closing perspective, I can only look at what's in the SFD discussion. I didn't see any indication that anyone wanted it kept, so I deleted it. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More information about rasta-stub here. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The stub type was a constant problem for stub sorting, due to its ambiguous naming, ill-defined scope, and paucity of use. Those articles which did use it were not best suited to using it - most of them had little to do with rastafarianism per se, but were, rather, reggae musicians (a reggae-stub is in the process of being created to replace this template on those articles, as it better suits their subject). The name of the template was also decidedly ambiguous, as "rasta" was intended to be an abbreviation for "Rastafarianism", whereas the term "A rasta" usually means a rastafarian - and as such, this was easily perceived as a variety of biography stub. What's more, stub catgeories are only created where there is a distinct need for them and a population of existing stubs that is sufficient to warrant a split of the stub ype from other stub types - as listed on WP:STUB and elsewhere, this is taken as being sixty existing stubs. The entirety of Category:Rastafari only contains 53 articles, many of which are far beyond stub length. As such, there is no usrful purpose for this stub type at present. Once there are sixty stubs about the rastafarian movement (not about the related but different subject of reggae music), a proposal to re-create this stub type would be reasonable. But at present, even if correctly named and scoped it would be of little use to editors and actually creates more work both in terms of extra searching by editors and extra sorting by stub sorters. As for the accusation that it was somehow deliberately slipped through so that no-one would notice, only stubs which are clearly impractical or are problematic in other ways are taken quickly to SFD. It is standard practice for stubs listed on the Stub sorting project "discoveries" page to remain there for some time if it is unclear whether the discoveries will be useful or not. If, after some months, they are found to be of use, they are accepted and added to the canonical list of stub types. If they are found to be more trouble than use, they are then nominated for deletion. This is what happened in this case. As to "not letting anyone know", a deletion process notice was placed on the stub type when it was brought up at SFD - which again is standard practice. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The "grounds for reversal" here seem to rely on a huge assumption of bad faith (which seems especially egregious in this instance, given that the nominator explicitly stated that she was expressing no "!vote" -- which suggests to me strongly that there's not much prospect of an exercise in !vote-stacking, unless it's of an especially subliminal or deletion-judo sort), and amount to an apparent sense of entitlement that all potential deletion-opposers would all be actively canvassed to participate in the SFD discussion. Something being tagged for 12 days is not "back door deletion", it's at the very least evidence that no one both noticed and cared for (at least) that long. On the substantiative merits of deletion, I'd tend to agree with Grutness. Alai 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

USA BEST REALTY

USA BEST REALTY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

factual Ariverawpb 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Please review the deletion of this article. I feel that the moderator was unfair in his/her actions since many other of the companies under the Wiki heading "List of Franchises" have an informational link. No advertisement is implied here, it is just a one sentence bit of information on a viable franchise.

Thank you for your review Ariverawpb 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. All of the versions of this article (which has been deleted by more than one administrator), meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In particular G11 (as blatant advertising) and/or A7 (company with no assertion of notability). To be acceptable a new version should be based on reliable sources independent of the company itself and not a restatement of its press materials or a sub-stub that is no more informative than an entry in a telephone directory. Eluchil404 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If this is the case, than the entire "list of franchised companies should be deleted off of your site. Realtor.com, RISMedia, and Isucceed.com all show USA BEST REALTY as being a notable franchise. Even though there are reliable sources showing that it is, the fact is that the one-line informational sentence regarding a "true" real estate franchise shows absolutely no form of advertising - just factual truth. WILL SOMEBODY FAIR PLEASE STEP IN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariverawpb (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you point to the articles on the sites you mentioned? Articles on Wikipedia are written from reliable sources, otherwise they are considered original research which is not allowed. ColourBurst 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Thank You, the articles are as follows:

http://rismedia.com/wp/2007-03-14/training-business-development-for-sale-by-owners-a-rookies-best-friend/

http://www.isucceed.com/FSBO-Psychology-Get-the-Winning-Edge/real-estate-training-call/recorded/332/

Thank for your review Ariverawpb 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand you care about the article, and that's good. But please remain civil and assume good faith. Please don't shout for "SOMEBODY FAIR" to "PLEASE STEP IN". Aecis^Brievenbus 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for, first of all, shouting and also for giving NawlinWiki a hard time. I obviously have a hard time controlling myself when I feel that the principle is at question. NawlinWiki you have quite a task in store for you in monitoring all of the posts that are submitted and I apologize for questioning both your knowledge of Wikipedia laws and your past actions in regards to your articles in which you have established. I will not shout or throw pointed words at anyone anymore in Wikipedia. I know that all of you have to monitor thousands of posts per day and keeping up with trivial requests from me should be an afterthought. The fact is USA Best Realty is a viable franchise that is listed under Wikipedia's "List of Franchises" and all I am asking to be allowed to do is to submit unbiased, factual information and I would appreciate you allowing me to do this since other franchise businesses were allowed to do it. Thanks all of you for listening to me.Ariverawpb 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - There are not enough (I found none) independent (ie third party) reliable published sources on this franchise to write an unbiased encyclopedia article about it. Sorry, Ariverawpb, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a yellow pages or a publishing service. If there are other franchise businesses with articles that likewise lack independent reliable published sources, then they too should be deleted. Can you point them out for us? WAS 4.250 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a yellow pages - you did! And this is exactly the attitude I am speaking of when I scream moderator abuse. How can one assume good faith when moderators give their personal opinions. You can not find one indpendent (ie third party) sources and I gave you two. What's the problem here? As far as printing out the other franchise business articles, isn't that your job as a moderator? There are too many chiefs and not enough indians on this so-called, unbiased encyclopedia.Ariverawpb 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.184.76 (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be no hypocrisy on this site. What's good for the moderators must be good for the users. Please inspect the following before denying my submission:

The person who first denied my submission NawlinWiki who started a page called [Ice Records] which is a blatant advertisement (according to many of the Wiki moderators - including NawlinWiki) and is NOT supported by viable Third party sources. Why is this allowed?

The articles I pointed to in regards to my submission are much more credible in regards to NawlinWiki's submission.

I want what is fair and if USA Best Realty has been allowed to appear under the "list of Franchises" by Wikipedia for quite some time now, why isn't a sentence allowed to explain what it is?

Please help.

Ariverawpb 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)