Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
NBGPWS (talk | contribs)
1,647 edits
Line 88: Line 88:
*'''Sustain''' the deletion. Perhaps the closing admin should have documented his rationale more extensively, but the closing was still delayed for several days during which I do not doubt much deliberation took place.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Sustain''' the deletion. Perhaps the closing admin should have documented his rationale more extensively, but the closing was still delayed for several days during which I do not doubt much deliberation took place.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Sustain''' If the anon's are removed, there was wide concensus to delete. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Sustain''' If the anon's are removed, there was wide concensus to delete. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' : '''Please note that even this review is being targetted by an organized effort from the politically motivated deletionists.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GabrielF/911TMCruft Deletionists] [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:35, 22 October 2006

< October 21 October 23 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

22 October 2006

Nigerian Yellow Pages

Request relist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Yellow Pages. On my count, the discussion has 3 keeps (excluding IP and new accounts) and 3 deletes (including nomination). --Vsion 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary Edit summary[reply]

  • Endorse deleton, WP:V needs to be paid attention to. The Keep !voters never proved notability or verifiability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, so no argument to overturn the AfD has been presented here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macau categories

To overturn Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 15#People_by_nationality_sub-category_pages concerning Macau. Macanese often refers specifically to natives in Macau with partial Portuguese parentage. People from Macau is broader than Macanese people. - Privacy 13:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush as Hitler

I started an article: Documenting the global phenomena of comparing President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Ted Rall (cartoonist and writer)

In January, 2004, Ted Rall asked "Is Bush a Nazi?" and seemed to conclude that Bush is worse because at least Hitler was elected: Bush as Hitler

"Lately we're being told that it's either (a) inappropriate or (b) untrue to refer to Bush's illegitimate junta as Nazi, neo-Nazi or neofascist. Because, you know, you're not necessarily a Nazi just because you seize power like one, take advantage of a national Reichstag Fire-like tragedy like one, build concentration and death camps like one, start unprovoked wars like one, Red-bait your liberal opponents like one or create a national security apparatus that behaves like something a Nazi would create and even has a Nazi-sounding name. All of those people who see a little Adolf in the not-so-bright eyes of America's homeland-grown despot are just imagining things. Me, I'm catching it for this week's cartoon for daring to suggest that, well--you know. Of course, there are differences. Hitler, for example, was legally elected. And he had a plan--not one that I like, but a plan--for the period after the war. I'll be happy to stop comparing Bush to Hitler when he stops acting like him. " Bush as Hitler

People keep deleting it. It was to be a scholarly tome about this growing worldwide phenomena! Why isn't it an appropriate subject? NBGPWS 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn see how it fares at AfD, but G1 is clear that even partisan screeds aren't speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, realizing that the above is the whole article, I'd say G1 (incoherent) and G10 (attack) apply. This is a notable enough phenomenon that an article on could feasibly be written, but the above isn't it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT. It was a STUB! I couldn't write one sentence before the bookburners started deleting it. Every article has to start somewhere. NBGPWS 19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, having seen the content. This supposed "global phenomena" (ahem: phenomenon) extends to two examples, Thomas Walkom (who called it a gross exaggeration) and Ted Rall. This might just merit a short sentence in Ted Rall, but even that probably fails Godwin's Law. I'll undelete the history and leave delete-protected so people can see what the fuss is about. Guy 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Has no place in an encyclopedia, and is just downright flaimbait. No factual backing, all opinions. Piuro 08:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This is an essay, not an encyclopedic entry. That is why I speedied it earlier during this conflaguration. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Nothing but an essay, as per Chairboy. Philip Gronowski Contribs 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, besides being a partisan screed, it's almost nothing but the single quote, which makes it a copyright violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion as above. Incidentally: Is Bush the Churchill of the 21st century?. Apparently a comparison not confined to the likes of Anne Coulter and those criticizing them[1] Bwithh 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. It was a STUB! I couldn't write one sentence before the bookburners started deleting it. Every article has to start somewhere. 'Two people' ? Bush as Hitler Suuuuuure. LOL ! NBGPWS 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think all Hitler comparisons should probably be redirects to Godwin's Law or Reductio ad Hitlerum. Bill Clinton has quite often been compared to Hitler (so has Hilary), as has Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. It's too common a comparison. Bwithh 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT. You might be right. We can 'flesh out' the Reductio ad Hitlerum article with a whole section on President Bush. NBGPWS 19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain Deletion No place for it on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadmire

I request this article be undeleted. I came to Wikipedia looking for detailed info about the book for a school project, only to find the article had been recently deleted. After reviewing the persons involved in the debate, I believe meat puppets and sock puppets, on a jihad against the author of the Dreadmire book, are responsible for the DELETE decision by the closing Admin. The book meets the requirements, albeit barely, at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I believe the article can be revamped to make it less of an advertisement and more of a encyclopedia entry, which was the original complaint. Provided the meat puppets do not vandalize the article, I think it can be repaired. The author Randy Richards is notable too, as he was involved in a legal dispute with another publisher (Necromancer Games), over the Dreadmire manuscript. The notability of all, via popularity, high quality, infamy, and/or controversy of both the book, Dreadmire, and the author, Randy Richards, make the article a necessity for Wikipedia.--RJMalko 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I moved this request here. It had been incorrectly placed under another section of this page. Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Overturn I am the creator of the original article and I have not now, nor ever, used sock puppets. I believe if you check the IP addresses of everyone involved with the debate, you will find there is no sock puppetry on my part. I cannot speak for everyone. I do believe there were meat puppets on both sides of the debate (not of my doing) called in by new user Quode, or my newest stalker Pascal.Tesson. My original idea was to create a rundown of what the book was about (perhaps I got too carried away), then create articles on the author and publishing company, in the same format other books of a similar nature are entered into Wikipedia (i.e. Eberron, Greyhawk). Precedent for this kind of article has already been set, all forms of puppetry aside. And given the legal notoriety of Dreadmire, as noted above, as well as the notoriety of the author, I think at the very least ONE ARTICLE explaining about the book, its author, and publisher is in order.--Cryogenesis 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As your newest stalker, I would like to point out that your reaction to all of this was to place prod tags on 6 different established articles, including a WikiProject and to add Dreadmire to the list of requested articles. Pascal.Tesson 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thats the pot calling the kettle black. Merely continuing your work. Trying to be a service to Wikipedia. Nothing more. Don't be a hypocrite, or you'll start to look like you have ulterior motives.--Cryogenesis 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. Edit histories are public for a reason. ~ trialsanderrors 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I have already made my points. At this time any response would just extend the cycle. As Quode I stand alone, I fought alone, and I hope my integrity speaks for me. The others who stood against him did so of there own free will. Randy hates anyone who stands against his will. He cannot answer an honest question, cannot stand for honest debate. Its all smoke and mirrors, accusation without any factual information, conspiracy for no gain. Without the Dreadmire article Randy will still be the same person, he looses nothing, gains nothing. Is all this chaos worth it? We see Cryogenesis pleading for a scrap, please let him leave the table hungry but maybe wiser for it. Quode 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)>User:Cryogenesis|Cryogenesis]] 06:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion and kudos to the closer for going through this mess. ~ trialsanderrors 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Wow, that was one mess of an AfD discussion to read. I see no process error - closing admin did well to discount likely socks and make judgment call based on available arguments. GassyGuy 07:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I also deleted Randy Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was being used largely as an attack. It was tagged WP:PROD by one of the involved parties as harrassment, which complaint was made in a civil manner, but the editors of this article continued to edit-war over the tag and add apparently defamatory material. I have no idea what is going on here, but it seems to me that the subject is more trouble than it's worth. Guy 08:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion What started as a simple act of author generated [Cryogenesis] self-advertising on a minor work has digrressed into name calling and puppetry that is really more trouble than it is worth for either the Wiki or Mr. Richards. Perhaps at a later date and after more time has elasped. At this point, there seems to be no point. -- Ifuwantitlikethat
  • Agreed. Its called a smear campaign and Wiki vandalism. Thank you, and at the very least this attack was identified by a neutral party for what it really was... harassment. Thanks for the validation.--Cryogenesis 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, for reasons stated by Pascal.Tesson.--Robbstrd 18:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xplicit

I believe this article was unfairly deleted there are plenty of sources showing he is a real rapper/producer, just look Masta Ace's and Large Proffesors' albums! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebo Thug (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion Hoaxalicious. One funny thing: this user uploaded an image called Image:Me -8.jpg with the caption "photo of xplicit for a magazine article". He did not even bother to change the name of his lousy webcam capture... Pascal.Tesson 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This was a by the book AfD. Do note that I started the deletion process if I'm not mistaken. Erechtheus 03:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lebo Thug (talk · contribs) is not helping his case by responding with crude vandalism[2] [3] [4]... Pascal.Tesson 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stephenson

With all due respect to User:Naconkantari, the debate over the deletion of this article was contentious enough that I don't think it's appropriate to say that a consensus to delete was achieved. The debate was also unfortunately marred by politicized campaigning on other sites, both to keep and to delete, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no consensus. VoiceOfReason 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the deletion. Even discounting every account that anyone said was a sockpuppet or SPA, there was at most a slight preponderance for deletion, hence no consensus. JamesMLane t c 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn result of debate was no consensus. Catchpole 14:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion. Meets WP:BIO. No consensus for deletion. More extended comments here. Comments NBGPWS 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain the deletion. Non-notable person that violates WP:BLP. Spammed massively by outside websites but still non-notable.--Tbeatty 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Tbeatty. --Strothra 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain the deletion. Perhaps the closing admin should have documented his rationale more extensively, but the closing was still delayed for several days during which I do not doubt much deliberation took place.--Rosicrucian 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain If the anon's are removed, there was wide concensus to delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Please note that even this review is being targetted by an organized effort from the politically motivated deletionists. Deletionists NBGPWS 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_22&oldid=83055387"