Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:45, 24 April 2009

< 2009 April 22

Deletion review archives: 2009 April

2009 April 24 >

List of topics related to Barack Obama

Yet again, a discussion in which there was no consensus has been closed as "delete". I have contacted the administrator concerned on his talk page, and he has declined to reconsider without elaborating on his reasons, so I can only presume that his reason for disregarding the consensus is based on his assessment of the weight of the arguments.

I am rather surprised that his "assessment of the weight of the arguments" is apparently "category is more appropriate", since this point was refuted in the debate—by Linguist at Large, by me, and then subsequently by DHowell and DGG.

There's a very fine line between "assessment of the weight of the arguments" and "closing administrator's personal opinion", and this DRV should consider whether it is possible that line was crossed in this case. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

As nominator, overturn to no consensus (in case that wasn't entirely clear from my nomination). I can't help wondering what's the point of contacting the closing admin on their talk page prior to opening the DRV, since I know of no case in which the closer has ever changed their mind.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus- since the reason listed for deletion is invalid. Categories and Lists can co-exist, having a category on a subject does not mean there cannot be a list. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus- Looks to me like roughly equal numbers making a roughly equal number of good and bad arguments on each side. Closing rationale picks a winner rather than reflecting a consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Umbralcorax. There were maybe ways to close it as delete, but that wasn't one. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus, I believe you'd have a hard time arguing that a consensus of any sort was reached there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn to no consensus There wasn't one. The closing admin used a reason that is explicitly false per precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a case for making it clearer to AfD posters that the perceived "choice" between a list and a category is a false dichotomy. We can have both, and in many cases Wikipedia does have both, which is a perfectly encyclopaedic way of proceeding because the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to research, verify, source, and summarise information and then make it accessible. The "accessibility" part of that means that any way of organising information that even a few end-users would find helpful is encyclopaedic.

Remarks based on this false dichotomy should surely have been disregarded, given that this point was well-made during the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus very obvious from a quick glance at the AFD. Delete in the clear minority and rest can't make up their mind in which direction to go. Agathoclea (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is a horrendous idea, but there was no consensus to delete it, so, sadly, overturn. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The closer's role is not to decide whose side he agrees most with, it is to evaluate whether a consensus exists to delete. Deviating from that standard, and deleting even if the consensus isn't there, is only correct if there is a very strong policy-based rationale to do it, and that happens almost only in the rare circumstance where the keep votes are all highly ignorant of the objections to the article. The arguments for keeping the article presented by Skomorokh and ChildOfMidnight were most certainly not ignorant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the close sounds more like an opinion than an assessment of the consensus of the discussion. The comment does not explain - or even acknowledge - why the arguments specifically given against "category is more appropriate" had no merit. Guest9999 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No Consensus There was no consensus in that AFD. There are enough reasonable arguements on each side, neither side's arguements can just be dismissed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but keep a very very close eye on the article; as pointed out, this is a coatracking magnet. Undeletion should ensure that it does not upset the NPOV status quo we're trying to hit this president around. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2009

Civony

This page was deleted within an hour or two of creation. No time was given to apply supporting references Terryrayc (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be reliable independent sources in an article when it's posted. In any case, if there are such sources that show that this game meets WP:WEB, let me know and I'll be glad to undelete. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to give Terryrayc time to add supporting references, then bring it back to DRV when he has (at which point, given decent sources, I would expect the article to be restored).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of creating this page while waiting for wife to pick me up from work. When she got there I didn't want to lose the work I had done, so I saved it by posting it, planning on continuing to work on it when I got home. Maybe that wasn't the proper thing to do, but I didn't expect it to be deleted before I even got home a few hours later! Can we reinstate the article so I (and others, at least one of whom posted in this forum already) can fill out the article to the wiki standards?

If nothing else, can I at least have it restored to my personal area as I've read is possible.

As a side note, is it standard practice to delete an article so soon after creation? It was hardly up for an hour before it was deleted. It wasn't clear to me a way to save the article so I wouldn't lose my work without posting it. If an article is going to get deleted so quickly, can we improve the wiki interface so it is more clear to the user that he/she can save the article they are working on without it being posted?

If this already exists I apologize for my naivete. But, this further strengthens the reasoning behind my request for more clear instructions on saving w/out posting.

Thanks for your consideration. DrAdamInCA (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, you can work on material in your own userspace without risk of it being deleted (exceptions would be certain violations of policy). Material in your own userspace would be in a format like User:DrAdamInCA/Sandbox, i.e. your username followed by a slash. I agree that this should be clearer to new users.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshal: Thanks for the info. I will use that in the future, but is there any way to get back what I originally wrote and was deleted. Can you use the userfication procedure so I not s.o.l. on my original entry that was deleted?

Mutoh Europe nv

Sandstein told me the page was deleted because it lacked notability. I added several sources proving the notability. The page remained untouched, until Tone deleted it again because he thought I went against the previous deletion review without a valid reason. He told me to repost the deletion review and see what the result is now. .IT (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe NV has never existed; can we get the exact page name please? Stifle (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is Mutoh Europe nv, according to .IT's deleted contributions. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion G4 was applied even though there has never been an actual AfD. While "in DRV endorsed CSD" is almost an AfD, I'm going to suggest we recreate and List for AfD to achieve closure. This is especially true if the content was significantly different (and more sources is certainly significant). Also, I've changed the header and {{DRV links}} to the right article. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Undelete and relist per Usrnme h8er. Deletion process does not appear to have been correctly followed here. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I'm not sure it'll survive AFD, but it can't hurt to do things by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, but I still see it as deleted, will it recover or do I have to enter the contents again? .IT (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "relist" is the outcome of this discussion, the admin who closes this DRV will restore it and relist it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the discussion lasts for 5 days. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Y'self

I created this article, and was most sickened to see the way it went. Sorry, I didn't see the way it went. It just got Speedy-Tagged, I had no time to edit the article to make it better, didn't even get told about the NOM. This is not allowed, a deletion like this, without warning the person. I am contesting the Delete, and definately the Speedy. Koshoes (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4. Article was userfied by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at Koshoes's request to User:Koshoes/Please Y'self. Koshoes later copy/pasted the exact text from the deleted article with no apparent changes whatsoever back into article space. Article AfD'd, tagged as G4, and deleted as recreation of deleted content. --auburnpilot talk 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid deletion. I think you know a lot more than you're letting on. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a fully valid G4 Speedy, the content appears to have been pretty much identical and the consensus at AfD was clear. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, valid application of G4 as a copy-paste job of a previously deleted article. Even if not, the arguments in the AFD lead me to believe it was a copyvio anyway, which on its own is a valid reason to speedy delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :As a general rule, you can work on material in your own userspace without risk of it being deleted (exceptions would be certain violations of policy).  Material in your own userspace would be in a format like [[User:DrAdamInCA/Sandbox]], i.e. your username followed by a slash.  I agree that this should be clearer to new users.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Black">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="black" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Black" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
+S Marshal: Thanks for the info.  I will use that in the future, but is there any way to get back what I originally wrote and was deleted.  Can you use the userfication procedure so I not s.o.l. on my original entry that was deleted?
 ====[[:Mutoh Europe nv]]====