Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 13

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

13 November 2006

Wall-E (film)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall-E (film)

Wall-E (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This film, less than 2 years in the future, appears to have gotten its article deleted so quickly as if it were indeed just a rumor. Study various Disney/Pixar web sites and how many will mention this film?? Georgia guy 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for the time being. Feel free to write a new article when more is known about the film. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing was out of proccess in that AfD, the consensus found it was not verifiable yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain. Do people who write info in blogs often lie?? Georgia guy 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is explained in the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite honestly, it's impossible to verify if they lie or not (more likely, they repeat stuff they hear from "around" which isn't a reliable source of information either). So they're not reliable enough. ColourBurst 03:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: People who write in blogs do often lie, but they even more often repeat rumors found in other blogs. There is no thing to discuss until someone else, with accountability, writes about it. Geogre 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Too far into the future. No guarantee that this film will be released at this point. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bwithh 09:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Less than two years into the future? And there was I thinking we were an encyclopaedia, not a crystal ball. Guy 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean less than 2, or 5?? How many articles on upcoming films does Wikipedia have?? Georgia guy 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Too many, most with more rumors than facts. Fan-1967 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the AFD I closed on this movie. No confirmed information, and we're not in the crystal ball business. --Coredesat 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Mario series items

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario series items

List of Mario series items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently got this page restored, but it seems to have been deleted again. Again I must explain the reason we need to keep this article. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. An encyclopedia cannot think, so it is immune from bias and prejudice. Deleting this article is a bias, who says that we can't keep things about video games. One person said, "Wikipedia is not an instructions manual." Who are you to judge? Wikipedia is a free encylopedia. You are being bias about not letting an article in, because it informs you about the items in a video game series. Mario is now a pop icon, you can see 1-Up mushrooms on, shirts, cars, tattoos. It is recognizable and should be restored.

• Endorse deletion. Yup, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. WP:NOT is where you find the bit about not being an instruction manual (or indeed an indiscriminate collection of information). Accusations of bias are offensive and unnecessary, try taking the comments at face value rather than imputing motives. We have an enormous number of articles on video game topics, it is fatuous to suggest that this was deleted because it's about Mario, rather than because it's a random list. Guy 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Procedurally sound and only one Keep. Accusations of bias are also used mainly when an article clearly does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as this one doesn't. JChap2007 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, this is not negotiable. WP:NOT explains the fundamental policy. ColourBurst 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wiki is not an instruction manual, as stated numerous times. If certain Mario items have cultural significance, then add them to [[1]] The Kinslayer 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Good judgment is part of keeping the project on-track. Suggestions that we should not use any judgment at all in order to avoid bias misunderstand what an encyclopedia is and what is needed to give it quality. --Improv 15:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yehuda Zisapel

• Yehuda Zisapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehuda Zisapel

How can you have an article about Paul McCartney without having an article about John Lennon? I was in the process of massively revisioning the Yehuda Zisapel article, but it was deleted before I could say a beep! This kind of behaviour is like a thug behaviour. If Zohar Zisapel was accepted, there is no reason for not having one for Yehuda Zisapel. Indeed, the initial article was badly written, but as I CLEARLY stated, I deleted the bad text and started to create an encyclopedic entry!!! User:Ixfd64 behaved like a bully in my view, having no real knowledge on the subject and without paying attention to my notes on the article's discussion page. I recommend revoking that user's Admin ("Ixfd64") status. —comment added by John Hyams^(t/c) 18:06, 1 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

I've added a link to the article and to the AfD. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Having one thing is no reason for having another. And neither are McCartney or Lennon... Endorse deletion. If you can write a well sourced article which states the notability then please do so - AFD isn't salt the earth. Thanks/wangi 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh really?? You would have a Bill Gates article but not a Steve Balmer article? Anyway, your answer is not to the point, because, as I said, and I will say it again, the article was indeed bad, and today I started to totally revise it, but they didn't give me time to breath, and it was deleted before I could even make the required changes and additions. Again, if someone says he/she is working to amend a bad article, you do not delete the article before he/she posts the revision. And this was done on the same day. Undelete - I need to post that corrcted article!!
    • Please stop making wild assertions and address the issues raised at the articles for deletion debate and by Wangi above. If you genuinely believe the two are indivisible, why not expand the existing article to include both? Guy 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't quite get it Guy, since I addressed a very important issue: I was disturbed while I was in the process of revising a to-be-deleted article, which is basically an essential one. Your comment above appears to be patronizing. Please talk to the point —comment added by John Hyams^(t/c) 18:06, 1 November 2024 UTC [refresh]
      • I suggest you write the article in your userspace, for instance at User:John Hyams/Yehuda Zisapel. That way you can rewrite the article in peace and quiet, and when you're done we will have something substantial to judge. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • An essential article? You don't think you might perhaps be overstating just the tiniest fraction? Coming along invoking Paul McCartney, describing articles as "essential" and calling for the desysopping of admin who called a perfectly proper close on the basis of the deletion debate, bears all the hallmarks of excessive involvement with the subject. I think you might need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down before you consider climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. In a word, chill. There is no deadline, after all. Guy 12:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse until reliable sources are found. If X has an article, so should Y is not a valid keep reason. We're all humans - does that mean every single human should have an article even if the vast majority of them don't have enough sourced information to fill a thimble? John Hyams, the problem was not with the tone of the article (which could be fixed), but lack of reliable sources, and the fact that when it was challenged, it still could not come up with them. ColourBurst 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost (2nd nomination)

Actuarial Outpost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The fact that three people who voted keep are members of the forum is irrelevant. No sockpuppetry occurred, and as mentioned at length, the niche that actuaries as a whole occupy makes the standard Alexa/Google ranking inapplicable. Further, there were 7 votes for Keep and 4 for delete. Even if you completely discount the three of us who are members of the AO (which I maintain is both inappropriate and insulting), it is still 4v4 which is no consensus. I would have closd this as keep (7-4) but felt although a sysop, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I am afraid that W.marsh went too far the other way, and am requesting review for undeletion as keep, and at the very least, no consensus. Thank you Avi 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the second AfD, as that AfD led to the deletion of the article. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- Avi 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, for one thing a conflict of interest is a valid consideration. However it appears their opinions were not regarded with as much weight due to their lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. I see nothing out of line with the closing of this nomination. I see you used the word vote, we don't vote we discuss. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are pages and pages in the RfA talk archive about that But the term "vote" was used by the closing admin; perhaps you should let him know that too ;) Ya think there was an abuse of process, for someone to use the term vote and close an AfD?!?! (JUST KIDDING) -- Avi 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin said Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums, in fairness some people were voting, instead of discussing(Not pointing to anyone specific). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I said "vote" in somewhat an ironic sense, since I was rather sure it would be coming to DRV because I wasn't closing it like a vote. I may use the word vote because it's grammatically convenient, but it would be pure semantics to argue that I actually think we "don't vote we discuss" just because I said the word vote. --W.marsh 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• As HighInBC said, there was a clear conflict of interest. At any rate, as I've said before, if WP:WEB (and to some degree, WP:V) are to mean anything, we have to actually enforce them, even if it's a site we've heard of that's being considered. Actually, especially then. The nomination above contains nothing about reliable sources, and everything about letting us vote to include stuff sourced to forum postings. --W.marsh 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, it doesn't matter how many people come along and assert how great the subject is, without non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources we can't have an article without violating fundamental policies. Guy 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am extremely displeased that my "vote" was completely disregarded without comment. I am sure anything I say here will be disregarded as well. I have seen debates with much stronger consensus to delete closed as "no consensus", but a WP celebrity closed the debate and WP celebrities are endorsing it, so this DRV amounts to pointless wheel spinning. At this point my disillusionment with AfD could not be greater. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is regretable you feal that way, but if you think of AfD as a democracy where every vote counts then you will be dissapointed. Each point a person makes is weighed based on it's merits. Even a strong consensus cannot go against wikipedia policy, and those who argue with policy in mind will do better than those who argue in a fashion incompatable with policy. Sorry if you are disillusioned. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The clue here is in the word "vote". AfD is not a vote. All valid arguments will have been weighed in the balance, but in the end WP:ILIKEIT is not policy whereas WP:V is. Guy 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I endorsed deletion in the Afd debate (I believe I originally brought up the WP:WEB concern in a prod). I did not look anymore at the article after that, but if the references from multiple third-party authorities in the actuarial industry were indeed added, I would lean towards undeleting it. --- RockMFR 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They each ammounted to a casual mention of the site, just using information from those sources, the article would be lucky to be a paragraph long. --W.marsh 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The references from the two main United States actuarial professional organisations were sufficient for the article to be kept in my opinion. I have concerns with the attention to detail of the closing admin, his responses here and in his closure of the AfD appear to be hurried and contain typos. Catchpole 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

However slowly I type, I tend to produce typos. This is the result of bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand (hurrah for Firefox 2 and html form spell-checking!). Does that mean I should never close an AfD? I have no problem with debating the merits of the closure as a closure, with reference to the weight of arguments, but can we please leave personalities out of it? Thanks. Guy 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm dyslexic? I dunno. I've never been attacked for my typos, except on Wikipedia Review once. What's next, the closure was invalid because I made a formatting mistake? I'm good at those too. Anyway, like I said, if the article was written from what can be attributed to reliable sources, it couldn't be more than a paragraph long, based on the 3 references given. This is why WP:WEB wants more than just passing mentions. --W.marsh 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep The criteria for notability shouldn't be "is this famous", because if it were world famous it would already be in a regular encyclopedia. Wikipedia is better than a regular encyclopedia, because it has answers that regular ones don't. The criteria for notability should be "can I imagine someone looking this up on Wikipedia to find out what it is?" And the answer is: yes. Because frankly, if I saw "Actuarial Outpost" anywhere else on the web, my first instinct would be "What is that?" and I would turn to Wikipedia for the answer. Wikipedia begins to loose its purpose if it deletes unusual articles, because Wikipedia is all about tapping into the knowledge of the world, to write articles not just about famous things, but also not so famous and infamous and niche things too. *jb 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No one said the question is "is this famous", the point is that nothing non-trivial has been written about this by reliable sources. They often write about decidedly non-famous and downright obscure things. --W.marsh 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Those references are listed below. Enjoy. -- TheActuary 15 November 2006
    • == References ==

• "A Guide to Working Abroad with Actuarial Outpost references". The Future Actuary from the USA Society of Actuaries. June 5, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-06.

• "Outpost as a source of life insurance principle-based reserves, risk-based capital and meeting reports discussions". MIB Group, Inc., an association of over 500 U.S. and Canadian life insurance companies. January 30, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-06.

• "Candidate Liaison Committee". Alphabetical List of Committee Descriptions. Casualty Actuarial Society. 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-07. The committee monitors the Student Discussion Forum on the CAS Web Site and the Actuarial Outpost to help identify student concerns.

• Marler, Carol (November 16, 2001). "One other item Steve omitted (Why the Outpost was created #1)". Actuarial Outpost forums. Retrieved 2006-06-25.

• White, Steve (November 16, 2001). "Have we dropped our history from the syllabus? (Why the Outpost was created #2)". Actuarial Outpost forums. Retrieved 2006-06-09.

• ""Lucy"'s response to "Brad" (Why the Outpost was created #3)". Actuarial Outpost forums. February 16, 2004. Retrieved 2006-06-09.

• Endorse Keep - Consensus was reached in the discussion, and that consensus was keep. It shouldn't have been overturned. Notability in general may not be a good guide here, because the field itself is rather obscure, and because Wikipedia is striving to become a comprehensive source of knowledge. How obscure does a field have to be before notability within the field does not apply? I'd venture to guess that if the field was notable enough to include in Wikipedia, that anything notable within that field to the community of members of that field is also notable enough to be included in Wikipedia (in some form - if not in an article of its own, in a more general article). Therefore, the article should be retained, and if some editors still feel that the topic is too obscure to have its own article, they can propose a merge. Template:Smi  The Transhumanist   10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be discounted the conflict of interest involved in this consensus, most of the people stating keep were saying so due to their personal enjoyment, wheras notability is established through independent sources, not personal preference. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the people in the consensus stating 'keep' had no 'personal enjoyment' as they were unrelated to the Outpost. Many of those people are speaking out above. You yourself weren't even sure of whether to keep or remove, as you deleted your first vote. Deleting this was the wrong decision, as the Actuarial Outpost is *the* meeting place internationally for actuaries, with several international actuarial societies acknowledging that fact. TheActuary 15 November 2006
• Endorse deletion - W.Marsh's closing statement said, "...no evidence was presented that this meets WP:WEB, non-trivial third-party coverage". It is well within admin discretion to close as delete for such a reason. The arguments for notability didn't consist of anything more than vague personal statements and none of them was backed up with anything close to a non-trivial reliable source. Wickethewok 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Uniquehomestore.com

This page was deleted today by Cholmes75 for reason g11. The page was deleted in the past for reason g11. We followed the same guidelines that all other businesses have used to create our Wikipedia page. We would be willing to make changes and discuss but the page was just deleted. We are a valid U.S. corporation, with multiple retail stores. Last night we created the page and listed it under Massachusetts businesses. We would like to start the process of having our page restored. Finally, any business page could be deleted for reason g11 why is ours being singled out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaveRunr (talk • contribs)

• The article was probably deleted because of some advertising lingo in the article. The nomination otoh seems to have been based on the Alexa ranking (594,883). This doesn't meet the notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Endorse deletion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per AECIS. ccwaters 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The use of first person pronouns is, I'm afraid, all we need to know here. WaveRunr, there is strong resistance to autobiography, including corporate autobiography. It's very difficult to be adequately dispassionate about your own company, even if you do pass our guidelines for companies. Guy 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not every business could be deleted under G11, as volunteer, third-party editors write neutral articles about businesses in which they are not involved. See the fine article on Starbucks, for example. JChap2007 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Or the featured article Bank of China (Hong Kong). Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful languages

This page was nominated for deletion by Crzrussian, and speedily deleted on the same day by Chairboy.

I am not sure that the article ever qualified as a speedy candidate. The grounds suggested in the nomination, that it was "inherently POV", are not grounds for speedy deletion last time I checked.

I am also not convinced that the subject is entirely valueless - Jacques Barzun opined that the most beautiful English word was cellardoor - or that the last contents were so worthless as to be unusable. It mentioned a poll taken that claimed that Norwegian was the most beautiful European language, which suggests a sourceable statement. Some notice could also be taken of the cultivation of some languages, notably Italian, for music outside of the areas where they are spoken as native tongues. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. Bad-process deletion, but in its current form, totally useless and no chance of surviving an AfD. Let whoever really wants to have an article there just write a better one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not certain what part of the process was "bad" per Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk •  contribs)'s comment above (please elaborate), I speedied it under WP:CSD A1 with an uncited modifier, which is reflected by the deletion log. Ihoyc's comment that I speedied it because it was inherently POV is simply not true, but I happen to agree that there's absolutely no way to make an article on 'beautiful sounding languages' recoverable. That wasn't the criteria I applied, though. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that - wasn't sure I understood the very brief comment left when you deleted it. (The letters CSD might have helped :-). At any rate, the last version of the article had three paragraphs, and was reasonably clear what it was trying to be about, ao I'm not sure that it qualifies under WP:CSD A1 either. I will have to sit down with Mario Pei's One Language For the World one of these evenings; Pei did a great deal of editorialising about the aesthetics of both natural and artificial languages as they existed in the late 1950s. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless we have a valid objective definition of beautiful. Which of course we don't because it's inherently subjective. Guy 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence with this: "Inherently POV" in this instance means "essay" or "original research." Essays that are direct confessions of an author's point of view can be awfully like tests. However, it was an improper deletion. That said, the article pretty much has to fail the deletion policy, and I'd rather see the linguistics interest expressed in a more mediated, cited, and cooperative, and far less idiosyncratic form and don't know that going to AfD will accomplish that. Geogre 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion An article on this subject is probably impossible and should certainly be at a less POV title like Phonoasthetics of language or something. Eluchil404 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not having seen what was deleted, can whatever was trying to reference this article be sent to the rather impressive cellar door article instead? -- nae'blis 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Family tree of Umar

This article was nominated by user:Jersey Devil, together with 30+ other articles a few month ago. In the afd User:Lambiam characterized it as User:Lambiam/Jersey Devil's crusade against Striver. So much for context. Now, for my arguments for undeleting:

1. I, the creator, was not informed of the afd, in violation of policy and guidlines. If i had been, i could have argued for keeping the article. Also, note the without me, it is one arguing to keep the article, and three arguing to delete it. Consensus to delete would not have been reached if i had been informed.
2. Considering that other higher profile afd at the same time was kept, Family tree of Ali and Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan and Family tree of Abu Bakr, you have 3 of the four Rashidun having their family tree kept, while this one had it deleted.
3. Umar is considered royalty, thus, the arguments for deleting does not apply.

I would request for the article to be undeleted, or at the very least renominated. Thanks.--Striver 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• undelete --Striver 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• undelete & relist -- couldn't hurt. This time, perhaps at least a link to who Umar is would help clarify things. As written, I had thought this was just some nn geneology. Mangojuice^talk 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Agree that Umar is an important dynastic figure. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, allow userfication to fix up. Entries included:

Paternal grandmother: (insert name)

Paternal grandfather in law: Umar ibn Nufayl (not a mistake)

Uncle: Umar ibn Nufayl (not a mistake, married his mother)

...

Sister Fatimah bint al-Khattab (Not sure if they have the same mother)

and so on. This article was in dire shape, badly formatted and covered with editorial markings like the above. Guy 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy per Guy. JChap2007 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: It wasn't discursive at all. It was literally what the title says: a family tree. It had no context whatever, no discussion whatever. It had this little paragraph pointing us to an Islamic website to tell us how to manage marrying a non-Muslim. Other than that, it was undigested data. Wikipedia is not a host for random data, and this was presented exactly as random data. Geogre 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, and pledge to bring article up to standard - Let Striver work on the article to bring it up to standard, in article space where the piece belongs. Striver is an editor in good standing who created an article in good faith, who in turn was not accorded good faith by the one who nominated the article for deletion. Striver should have been notified, and I believe the article would not have been deleted if he had been. And Striver, if you are reading this, keep in mind that raw data is subject to being deleted in the future, so the article should be expanded on to actually cover the ancestry represented, and their significance, to some degree. That the Umar comprise one of the four Rashidun might be a good place to start. So, give it a lead paragraph, and how about a see also section listing the other Rashidun. I pledge to look in on the article should it be undeleted, and will bring it up to standard myself in the event that Striver does not.  The Transhumanist   11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice. The consensus on the AfD was clear. I suggest userfying the content, to let Striver work on it. When he's confident it's ready to be moved to the article mainspace, he can bring it up here again. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like this article to be undeleted because I think the main reason for which it was deleted (that it was unsourced) no longer applies. Please see the Hungarian version of the article (from which the English one was translated), the author listed all the sources. Also, the article was originally planned to be a trivia section of the revolution's article, but that article was long enough in itself and in HuWiki it already has several sub-articles, so we thought why not have a separate article for this too? They are interesting, they are true (and now referenced) and tidbits like this help bringing history closer to the average reader. (I know the title was unencyclopedic but it can be changed.) – Alensha ^talk 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per my nom. – Alensha ^talk 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I agree with User:Alensha. --Hkoala HU 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I believe the article, in its deleted form was a WIP, and would have evolved into a useful subarticle of the main 1956 article - a section of stories and anecdotes (of which there are many) which may not be quite as sourced or NPOV enough to fit in a FA article, but is certainly part of the story, this may also serve as a staging article for materials which may become better sourced, referenced and put into an objective (historical) form to be shuttled into the FA article. The article should also be renamed "Anecdotes of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956". István 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - This really doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article. Anecdotes, tidbits, and "special moments" are not really encyclopedic material. I would support userfication for extraction of encyclopedic content of course. Cute stories/anecdotes don't need their own article. There are, of course, verifiability concerns too, which is why it probably shouldn't be directly restored to the main space anyway. Wickethewok 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rename, pretty much for the same reasons already stated. We're working on a whole bunch of articles eventually to become a comprehensive survey of everything about the 56 revolution and the anecdotes will be nice to have. :) K. Lastochka 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I agree with User:Alensha. Nyikita 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I agree with User:Alensha. --nagytibi ^{! ?} 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Trivia are generally not expelled from wikipedia. I would regard it as a problem if they would be, while I would not think it a problem if an article is readable, though that often triggers suspicion as I have experienced. The article is a sidebar to the main article about Hungary's revolution and in my view its content is more than just anecdotes. These are facts and events which are worth knowing if you want to get a clear picture about Hungary's 1956 revolution. Don't we want to present information worth knowing in the encyclopedia? As for sourcing, anybody who wants full sourcing in English must wait for another 50 years or more (I myself will lose interest by the end of that period). Regards, --Korovioff 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, trivia should be "expelled" from Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles, as it is, by definition, trivial. And, no, this does not mean trivia should instead be in separate articles. Wickethewok 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies what you are saying is just the opposite of what is in your link. As for trivia sections developed further, please search on "Lists of trivia" and you will see that there is no such principle in the English wikipedia which you referred to. Only one of the many examples: List of Events and Trivia on Get This Regards, --Korovioff 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rename I think this is important summary of that revolution. We can find another suitable name.
  • Hints: List of the... Timeline of the... Caracteristic events in..., Main moments in..., etc.

--hu:Rodrigo 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I agree with User:Alensha. This is an article in huwiki hu:Az 1956-os forradalom különleges pillanatai. --VinceB 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per above. --mathewguiver 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rename per Rodrigo. NCurse _work 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - not the kind of stuff for wikipedia. We're not a memorial. --Improv 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: "Special moments?" That's so riven with a particularly undocumented point of view as to make it intractably off the mark from the start. These are valuations that are not part of an encyclopedia's business. Historians can talk about the high points and turning points, but they are writing history. Our aim is less controversialist. Geogre 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: I'm pretty sure no one would complain if we changed the title to something a bit more encyclopedic! :) I think "special moments" was probably a clumsy translation, and I agree it sounds pretty silly. K. Lastochka 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: As the original author of the articel I would be completely content with a changed title. Apologies for the original title which only reflect my lack of experience. But please, please do not repeat that the story is undocumented - every bit of it IS documented, pity that this is about a subject from a not English-speaking country. The new title could be "List of trivia on..." or something like that. Whoever still want to keep this story deleted should also propose the deletion of the numberless trivia stories in enwiki. (I would personally regret that.) Regards, --Korovioff 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as the original nominator on AfD. Having checked the hu: version, I agree there are sources over there, including even some decent ones, but still I believe it is impossible to turn this into a NPOV article, which means it should remain deleted. At any rate, the title is very badly biased (as it is on hu: also). Yes there were some bits and pieces that could possibly be included somewhere – but they didn't deserve their own article. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if someone comes up with a title under which this could be turned into a fairly NPOV article, but I have tried to make up such a title and just couldn't. KissL 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment I understand your concern, Wikipedia really cannot disintegrate into pieces of random collections of facts. Still in my view rules should not be applied too rigidly, otherwise they will get to killing real content. It happens that a subject is surrounded by a big number of worth-knows which you cannot merge into the main article because it will become too long or unfocused. Look at the John Lennon trivia article - no one ever nominated it on AfD and that's right. I don't want to bore you with other examples. The deleted article IS well-sourced, therefore I don't see why it is not NPOV. I admit, the title can be misleading. What about "Hungary's 1956 uprising trivia" or something like that? Regards, --Korovioff 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • We're an encyclopedia though -- we're not here to house random collections (there *are* other websites on the internet), we're here to build an Encyclopedia. Trivia doesn't fit in that goal. --Improv 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

another comment I agree with Korovioff. I can also understand the concerns of those who warn against letting Wikipedia degenerate into endless collections of useless facts--I agree with that. However, I do think that anecdotes and trivia are not always useless or irrelevant. In this case, IMO, the anecdotes from the Revolution would be first of all, just plain interesting, but also useful as they could help provide a more vivid picture of what actually went on in 56. K. Lastochka 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - If Hungary's 1956 uprising wasn't trival, then its details should be presented. Isolating details and calling them trivial isn't appropriate here as it is the sum of the details (included in both this and the parent article) which comprise the whole historical account. Special moments help to put events into historical context.  The Transhumanist   11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Crash_My_Model_Car

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash_My_Model_Car

Crash_My_Model_Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

article had AFD discussion months ago, which decided to keep the article, and has been deleted with no notice by administrator. Stephenmcleod 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

* Undelete; admins who don't know how to behave properly are a bad problem, as in the case of Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Waiting4 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Waiting4 (talk · contribs) (probably a sockpuppet) has been indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse as A1: It's a predicate nominative. If the band is at all worth knowing about, then the authors should say something other than, "This is a band." It's a real problem when people will write more in the DRV entry than the article itself. Geogre 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or relist. The final version was the result of a massive blanking by 88.107.53.175 (talk · contribs) in the last ten minutes of the article's existence. The original version was a lot better, and would definitely not have qualified for A1. Perhaps for A7, but more likely for prod or AfD. BTW, the AfD resulted in no consensus, not in keep. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, possibly speedy if Daniel Olsen agrees as this seems to be purely a mistake over the blanking. The version before blanking did have a claim to notability - being signed to first one then another notable record label. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but allow recreation, IFF reliable sources are cited. Every one of the sources in the article were to myspace, the group's own page, their record company, and fan pages. There were no neutral third-party sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - it can always be nominated for deletion again in the future if the citation problem isn't fixed. In the meantime, it should be made available for the benefit of readers searching for this topic. I don't believe we should willingly leave holes in Wikipedia's topic coverage. The article may not be perfect, but it's better than having nothing at all.  The Transhumanist   11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: Sam Blanning is correct about the page blanking. I have no problem with having this undeleted, but I'll send it right to AfD. Even before blanking, nothing meets WP:MUSIC. --Daniel Olsen 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was deleted for being "not notable". Wikipedia apparently insists that it keeps nonsensical articles on every elementary school, and then deletes a prestigious university founded in the 18th century by Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. The hypocrisy of the deleting admin was well illustrated when he closed several votes for deletion debates on similar articles that I was forced put up to illustrate a WP:POINT. Then, as if to further illustrate my point about incompetent censoring admins, my first attempt bring this to wider attention was vandalised from this page. Here, my hard work to bring this article to the attention of the world needs to be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6ofthebest (talk • contribs)

Close this and recreate the f*ing article already. As has been repeatedly pointed out to the original author (and to his sockpuppets), it would have been far less stressful to all parties involved if they simply re-created the article with only that tiny bit more substance that distinguishes a solid stub from an A7-deletable substub. There's no need to undelete anything, the article only consisted of the following tautology: "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

^^^ See what I mean? There are important considerations here, such as admin accountability and whether they should act in accordance with established rules, and community consensus, not bite the newbies, and not get overly emotionally involved. I have seen no reason why User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the article, nor why he should be trusted with any sort of admin responsibility. 6ofthebest 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as A1: Here is the whole of the article: "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA." X is X? That's what you consider an article? That's actually less than a Yellow Pages entry, since it merely defines its subject in terms of itself. "The big oak tree is a big oak tree" is not an addition to the sum of human knowledge. If you don't actually know anything about the seminary, then don't fight for your simple sentence. If you do, add it. Geogre 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion per A1, as outlined by Geogre. See below. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no content. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, Fut. Perf. is bang on the money. What is the point of expending more effort on arguing than on the article? Valid speedy under A1, A4 and A7 - an empty article which in as much as it contains anything has only a restatement of the title with no assertion of notability. WP:CSD being an established rule, the claimed accountability issue is baseless. I suggest we close this since the deleted content is worthless and a new article will require a separate debate (and that only if it is also deleted). Guy 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Future imprefect is an rogue admin. The idea that is has no content is a barefaced lie. The content is more than that; it contains one external link. If you want to expand it, expand it. BUT DO NOT DELETE OTHERS WORK. IT IS RUDE. 26something 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If it contains only one line of text and only one external link, it qualifies under A3. But either way, do not recreate deleted content, but await the outcome of this discussion. I have redeleted the article and the two redirects you created. If you create them again, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. Either something is notable and it deserves an article or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, as you are trying. 26something 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, as I said, the easiest solution, spilling the least ink, is this: [2]. Hope you don't mind me recreating it now by an act of slight IAR, after Aecis had actually deleteprotected it. I just added barely enough encyclopedic content to make it stand as a stub. Can we now close this "review" here? Whoever wants to expand it let them expand it; whoever wants to delete it let them propose it for deletion (if there are genuine notability concerns, that is), and we can all live in peace again... Past.Impf. ☻ 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Future Perfect's article, but suggest slapping 26something (talk · contribs), waiting4 (talk · contribs) and 6ofthebest (talk · contribs) with a wikitrout for recreating a deleted article verbatim, trolling, WP:POINT-violating votes in other reviews and possibly sockpuppetry. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Close discussion The new article is significantly better than and significantly different than what was there before. No point in wasting more bytes on this discussion. GRBerry 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I maintain my endorsing of the original deletion, so no strike-through there, but I endorse the new article. Still, there is some bell going off in my head telling me that this seminary has more interest even than what has been written up so far, that there is some role it has played in history.... Still, our nasty friends are on blockable ice with these tactics. Geogre 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, endorse blocking of the offensive User, but the article has been recreated to be something meaningful, so this DRV is moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Close discussion per GRBerry. Apparently he or someone else decided to just create a better article. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GFP Personal Finance Manager

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GFP Personal Finance Manager

GFP Personal Finance Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems like a piece of genuine English-language software to me, check project link [3]

* Undelete - I believe it used by the good Christians at Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Waiting4 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: Valid AfD closure. It was unanimous among signed and registered accounts. The "two wrongs" argument was irrelevant, as it always is. Geogre 12:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as noted in AfD therer is no substantive evidence for anything more than mere existence. Just another SourceForge project. Guy 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reliable sources and proper AfD procedure followed

Newport University (California)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport University (California)

Newport University (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a for-profit[4] unaccredited[5] "school" fails WP:CORP and lacks WP:V As the closing admin said, "I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits" when so many of the google hits are unrelated. Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers" that include "Keep per Silensor" and were thoroughly refuted.

This is for-profit and two newspaper sources[6] have a trival mention of this place that questions its academics.

The most serious argument to keep is the California bar lists it as a "Registered" (note to be confused with the institutions its accredits). According to the bar it "cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." And the California Bar does not "approve or accredit correspondence schools"-- which is Newport.[7]

Hence, we have an article about what it is not (unaccredited) with what its website claims. With the sole reason for keeping this on wikipedia is the California bar lists it, but won't accredit it and can't comment on its academics. And we have two trival mentions that call it a business and question its academics. Wikipedia is not an ad space for unverifiable businesses. Delete per WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Arbustoo, DRV is not AfD take 2. One really needs a process based issue to overturn an AfD- a plausible result is generally endorsed (and rehashing the exact arguments of the AfD isn't really the place of DRV). JoshuaZ 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per my nom. Arbusto 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry that my closures seem to be taking up the majority of DRV lately... but that's what you get for closing the tough AfDs I guess. I dunno, this was a tough call. But it didn't seem to fail WP:V, and WP:CORP was debatable, JJay said that "the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah" which would do a wards meeting WP:CORP. Anyway... just did not feel that there was consensus to delete, or enough of a case to override consensus for WP:V reasons. --W.marsh 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, this is not notable like a real university such as Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Waiting4 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. What consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (My standard is abuse of discretion, not de novo review, because DRV is not AFD round two.) There is no requirement that reliable sources be available online for free. Nor is it even required that they be online. The AFD nomination introduced one reliable source. Jjay showed multiple others. That, in and of itself, is enough to meet WP:CORP. As there were enough sources referenced to meet WP:CORP, and there is no overwhelming policy argument on the delete side (that is not refuted by the company passing WP:CORP), there is no abuse of discretion. I also note that the school was founded in 1976, so it is safe to assume there is print coverage that is not available online. GRBerry 13:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, there was nothing wrong with the closure here at all. FWIW, I also think notability is clear here, no good reason for deletion. Mangojuice^talk 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. There seems to be considerable confusion in that AfD about a number of things that matter enormously. One is the "registration" issue; note that the Oregon accreditation office (the standard-bearer in the field) says "Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi and California have either no meaningful standards, excessive loopholes or poor enforcement owing to local policy or insufficient staff." The other is the ".edu" domain, which is essentially meaningless; such domains can be bought and sold like any other. Given that most of the votes to keep are based on misunderstandings of these things, I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus. Chick Bowen 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Escuse me if I am misinterpreting, but it seems your arguement is that the people who voted voice an opinion to keep where confused and got it wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My argument is that insufficient information was available during the initial debate to arrive at a consensus. Please remember that AfD is not a vote. Chick Bowen 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I found nothing to indicate that I was misinformed, or had a lack of information. I didn't mean vote when I said it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist leaning to overturn and delete One source appeared to be about this school and others. The other sources were about the school's graduates. It fails WP:CORP. The discussion was lengthy but the !voters seemed to misunderstand crucial matters, per Chick Bowen. JChap2007 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I see nothing out of proccess, I see a lack of consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure AfD closed properly by my view. VegaDark 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. An obvious no consensus result (that some people seem to have difficulty accepting) properly closed by the administrator. The nom here states that: Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers". That is clearly contradicted by the closing admin's statement, which specifically refers to arguments. I might feel differently if User:Arbustoo had contacted the closer prior to taking this to DRV, or had some other evidence to justify his assertion, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead, the nom here seems to want to re-argue the merits of the article. After an excessively long 7-day AfD discussion, with broad participation and 29 posts from user:Arbustoo, I don't think that is necessary. It is also not the role of DRV. I will say, though, that characterizing a 2,500 word article focused on the school, that includes interviews with Newport's founder and various employees, as "trivial" is a bit of a stretch. The description of the registration process with the California Bar is also highly misleading, given the strict criteria applied by the Bar. However, that was all discussed ad nauseum during the AfD debate. In short, I agree with User: Chick Bowen, who argues to overturn the decision, but concludes his post by writing: I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus. The discussion did not have consensus, which is why it was properly closed as "no consensus" --JJay 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not the point to rehash the AfD discussion. JoshuaZ 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the helpful words. Please add the comment to the top, right below User:Arbustoo's 200 words on trivial coverage, academics, the California Bar etc. --JJay 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not necessary for secondary listings on AFD. Yamaguchi先生 21:35, 14 November 2006
• Endorse closure I advocated deletion but if the closing admin thinks that the keep arguments were strong enough to make it a no consensus that's the admin's perogative. As observed by Yamaguchi, there is no rule against listing this again at some future point. JoshuaZ 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse closure the no consensus result should be obvious really Yuckfoo 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)