Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 20

20 November 2007

Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery

Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

Only reason given for delete is "precedence" (all other "votes" for delete cited nom). Collaboration (which no one challenged) seems more important than following a dubious precedence, as precedence seems to be just another name for WP:ALLORNOTHING in this case. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Define "collaboration."--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See collaboration. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Define collaboration in the context of a Wikipedia category such as this without blue-linking me to an article. You have chosen a position with which to justify your stance; let us see you defend it in your own words if it means so much to you.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I thought it was crystal clear. Collaboration in this context refers to editors in wikipedia working together to improve articles related to issues that members in the ACM can be expected to have expertise on. Is that clear enough now or do I need to define "context", "editors", and "improve"? I apologize for being somewhat snarky, but I fail to see how this wasn't clear from the outset. You've been here long enough to know what collaboration means, haven't you? (On the off chance that you don't know what those articles might be, I'd recommend that you read the Association for Computing Machinery article and visit the ACM themselves.)Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist- Wikipedia:Overcategorization was put forth as a basis for deletion, but I couldn't determine from the discussion why this category was Overcategorization. "Other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted" is not a good reason to delete. More discussion was needed to determine a delete consensus. Relist with a nomination that is focused on Wikipedian category points to be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nom obviously doesn't know how WP works. In addition to nothing be wrong with the AfDs...everything he is proposing is in violation of some policy...whether it be ownership of an article, conflict of interest, not adhering to a neutral POV, etc. --Smashville^BONK! 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PAWNGAME

Pawn (MMO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Pawn Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD | DRV)

Pawngame.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

PAWNGAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Pawngame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I (Firstmate) represent Pawngame as a mod, and I feel your deletion of the page should be reconsidered. The reason being that the previous writers did not consult the pawngame staff and rashly made the page. And because of this happening so many times, Texas Android deleted the page. Another reason that was provided for the deletion was that we were trying to promote the game. That is not true, like said above, the article would have been much better if done from a mod or admin's view. Not only that but the article is purely meant for people who may wish to learn more about the game. IF you do decide to undelete it, please notify me so that I can post the article instead of letting someone else. This may be in the wrong format, and for that I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmate22222 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I note that other forms of the article title are protected titles after repeated deletions and a full AFD. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive307#PAWNGAME reveals that the article was repeatedly attacked by anon editors and had to be semi-protected during the AFD. GRBerry (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the AfD, as an improper nomination. The AfD seems to have been interpreted properly (don't see how it would've been speedied otherwise). It also mentioned the author may be a single-purpose account, and their blank contribs seems to support that. I'd like to see the page histories temporarily restored so this can be confirmed. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The nominator of this review has no deleted contributions and has not participated in any of the previous versions of the articles - at least under this ID. Short of CheckUser, there's no way to tell if this was the same person under a different ID. Nothing in the pagehistories shows any evidence either way to the SPA question. Rossami (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deletor.Was deleted as an A7, still is an A7. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously given that it's been through AfD at least twice and in each case the decision has been unanimous that it be deleted, I don't see this coming back, ever. And don't bother re-creating it under different titles, that's not exactly fooling anyone, you know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, two unanimous AfDs, one unanimous DRV to keep deleted. Provide reliable sources as to its notability, write a version in your User space, and then come back here for further consideration. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)