Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:27, 27 December 2006

< December 26	Deletion review archives: December	December 28 >

27 December 2006

LudumDare

The deletion seems to be based upon the criteria that the LudumDare.com website is not notable. The LudumDare is an event rather than a website. The competition itself has occured 8 times, The fact that the competitiion occured twice while the LudumDare.com website was unavailable distinguishes the two clearly and dmonstrates that the event is notable in it's own right. The Ludumdare is one of a class of peronal challenge competitions that includes the NaNoWriMo and the Seven_day_roguelike. 218.101.24.51 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist, I'm not convinced it got enough discussion. Anyway, a little late, aren't we? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable sources for the claims of notability? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Flight Entertainment

I didn't create the article for it to be deleted. I even said on the article's talk page that I understood that the article was liable for speedy deletion, and I even rebuttled with a statement on the article's Talk Page. My article was titled "Cosmic Flight Entertainment," I cannot type out a whole perfect article that you might expect at the moment, especially when it was about 3 AM whenever I was typing it. This has been at least the third time that I have tried and created the same article, but you ignoramoses keep deleting it.

Your next step is deletion review. I didn't delete Cosmic Flight Entertainment because it was imperfect or unfinished, but because it failed to assert notability.--Kchase T 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand that. As stated before, I did intend to further develop my article, so that it may meet the specific guidlines.

Putting "assertion to notability" more bluntly: why should anyone care about this group? Why do they merit an article? What makes them important or significant? Answer that question and you may have yourself a good reason to head to DRV.--Kchase T 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I feel that their background needs to be told, I've seen dozens of articles that render the same thing that I am trying to accomplish, and even those, I love reading through. This article is basically for informational purposes, which is what, I think anyway, Wikipedia should be. Yes, you may not understand what I am getting at, but if you un-delete the article, I will show you that I can create an article that "asserts notability" by updating the article with current projects, news, etc. One such article that I belive deserves to be deleted more than my own article is Mondo Mini Shows, just off the top of my head. I mean, even I am willing to create a more relevent article than that, and I will create a more relevent article than that.

Need I say anymore? Un-delete my article.

My speedy deletion was the third one on A7 grounds. Other than that, I don't have much to say about the whole thing.--Kchase T 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Based on the answers.com mirror, I see no assertion of notability. Author can offer no claim to notability at the moment, but promises some will be forthcoming at some point in the future if the article's undeleted? I don't think so.Fan-1967 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your comments to yourself, the information that the page you linked to was not what I had on the page, anyway. And if the page was restored, I would be able to prove that.

Endorse deletion. If you feel that you need to preemptively fight off a speedy, it almost certainly is a speedy candidate, and this is not one of the exceptional cases. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you would just Restore the article I will be able to edit it to it's full potential. I shouldn't have to prove anything, especially whenever there was nothing wrong with the article that I submitted. There was a reason why I put the "hangon" message at the begginning of the article, so that it wouldn't be deleted immediately. As mentioned before, I said that I would edit and update the page on the article's talk page. I had some valuble information that I had put on that page, and now cannot retrieve. If anything, could you send me the transcript of the article so that I may have it filed in my system? This is not what I expected from you, Wikipedia, I thought that you would at least have administrators with the slightest decensy to respect others.

George Nozuka

4:3 is not consensus. (I hesitate to add that the article passed the criteria the nom used as grounds for deletion.) Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion The links provided in the AfD [1] [2] [3], would seem to meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC (multiple non-trivial sources), and much of the discussion about them occurred after the argument was added. Though the nominator's view didn't change, the only !vote after that was keep. Consensus can change based on new information (though it's still possible that the others !voting delete saw the dialogue and it still didn't sway them).--Kchase T 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. It's not a vote, but there still wasn't consensus as to whether or not WP:MUSIC was met. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master E.K.

My article on Master E.K. is deleted and protected by Admin Zoe. I have provided enough third party links to establish notability and also links to the directly related websites. I have described the article in my own words with a couple of lines still needing rewording. I request any other admin to look into this and help with restoration. This is a genuine article and the links I provided in the deleted page will prove it. Admins please look into this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalamani (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

Although the person is a non-notable guru, the most recent reason for deletion was because the article was a copyright violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not unlock it so it can be restored? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do we want a copyvio restored? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - From what I'm reading, he's not planning on posting a copyvio. Alternatively, if he wants to send me the sources, I'll be glad to post the article, but I see no reason not to assume good faith here - he's a new user who may not have understood the copyvio situation. Now he does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The matter is not just about a copyvio, although in fact it has happened twice. It is that the user doesn't understand repeated requests for reliable sources, none of which have been forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Not having reliable sources isn't a CSD, but I probably would have done the first few speedies on A7 or spam grounds. That said, it might be worth unsalting so this can get a trip to AFD and be put to rest for good.--Kchase T 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list, it doesn't look like a speedy candidate to me. Also, it's nice to be able to G4 things. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You want us to overturn a copyvio? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, well, endorse deletion if every version was a copyvio. Otherwise, just don't restore the copyvio versions. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as copyvio. However, an unprotect might be warranted. If he's a new user, a third chance isn't too much to ask, I think. Constructing the new article in userspace would work too, but he might not know how to do that. Shimeru 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuildCafe

AfD is a discussion not a vote. None of the individuals indicating the article should be kept actually provided any material which would show the article meets WP:WEB. Tarinth claimed to have found some via google, but no google searches I did provided any non-trivial coverage of the site outside a bunch of rehashes of the press release which WP:WEB clearly addresses as not being enough to satisfy the criteria for notability. In fact a search is here [4] which shows their home page, a blog, wikipedia, a forum thread, and then the start of a bunch of mentions of the press release. If there IS non-trivial coverage, great. I'd just like to actually see it. Crossmr 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Discounting the absurd slippery slope argument, there was obviously disagreement as to whether the coverage was non-trivial. "AfD is not a vote" doesn't mean "I can ignore disagreement if I'm obviously right". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is rather clear on what non-trivial coverage is, and reprintings of the press release are not it. Outside of that and forums/blog coverage there didn't seem to be anything else and nothing else was presented. Disagreement doesn't give license to keep articles simply because enough people disagree with its removal if the basis for their disagreement is unfounded. That is a rather slippery slope for a group of editors to show up and use WP:ILIKEIT arguments to keep any article under the sun simply because they disagreed with its removal. Claiming a trivial mention is non-trivial is no different than any other argument presented there.--Crossmr 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were other things presented, you just thought they weren't reliable sources. Obviously, people disagreed. If WP:WEB could easily be unilaterally applied correctly, we'd make non-notability a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WindowHome

WindowHome template is widely used in Italian Wikipedia. I found nothing similar in English one. Of course, if any is available, I will be glad to use it. Otherwise I would appreciate if you could keep it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 14:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this used? I don't get it from the deleted history, and the TfD was only based on the lack of pages using this template. Tizio

I began to use it in my User page (which is now garbaged) and I planned to use it in my contribution after some minor refining (as adding an icon in the top bar) since it allows to create a box with an header, a footer, and other features. You can see it in [5], for example. It is very useful and I see nothing similar here.--Dejudicibus 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted so your user page looks proper again. I recommend publicizing it, for instance on WP:VP, otherwise it should be substed into your user page and redeleted. Templates only make sense if they're used across pages. ~ trialsanderrors 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JasperReports

Chuck E. Chaos

This is an appalling decision after all the work I did sourcing the article. I firmly established notability with the work I did, and I was told only 24 hours ago that it wasn't enough - a point I strongly dispute, and barely enough time for that point to be sorted out. No one told me what was wrong with the article in more specific terms so I could address it. Saying that it failed WP:NOT and WP:BIO without specifics is not enough and I firmly believe it does NOT fail WP:NOT. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now the article has re-appeared while I posted the above, and yet the AfD discussion still says delete??? CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, keep undeleted, whatever. Sources came late, obviously meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: despite being closed as delete, logs (so far as I can see, anyway) do not appear to indicate that deletion was ever actually carried out. Serpent's Choice 14:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Even after the sources were added, deletes came in, and the only extra keep after that was "speedy keep, bad faith nom", which is entirely inapplicable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov I did request more information to back up the claims made in those post update delete notes - and the bad faith nom did have a supporter (and I support the point as well if you check the history of the nominator - I disagree that it is inapplicable because it would create a serious precedent). That's why I say the action was premature because the AfD was closed too soon after my requests for specifics so I could either act or debate the point - whichever would have been appropriate. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Professional Football League

This page was listed under Articles for Deletion (see AfD above template), and the majority of users who voted said Keep. However, the admin (Samuel Blanning) deleted it anyway, which I think is an abuse of power. I left a message warning him and informing him that if he did it again, I would inform the proper admins to investigate as to whether he should be desyssopped (did I spell that right?). I think that should be reviewed, as the decision did not reflect the consensus. Tom Danson 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the closing admin said verifyablity is non-negotiable. If the league is covered in reliable sources then an article can be recreated citing them. If not, it should stay deleted. Eluchil404 07:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The league and teams' websites are listed on their respective pages, aren't they? They have news stories and original photos, don't they? How more reliable can you get than that? Tom Danson 07:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: AfD is not a vote. None of those commenting addressed the issue of WP:V, and that, as Sam said, is non-negotiable. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Keeps seem to be based on the misperception that notability means a free pass on verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as there were no links to verify the league or the teams, but there are sufficient Google links to reliable sources that the articles can be recreated. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W00t

Clear consensus was not shown for deletion. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the term is notable enough to deserve its own page, as do leet and pwn. I don't even LIKE modified text that much, don't give it much attention at all; but w00t I know and love. The fact that a person who isn't all that aware of such language, and in fact abhors it is defending the word should be some indication of its notability, as were the citations on the now deleted page. If Wikipedia is a big enough tent for overlong fancruft like this; we certainly have room for w00t. Thank you. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 02:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment w00t may be somewhat comparable to pwn/pwn'd but leet is the name of the whole style of language Bwithh 02:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beware of the Pokémon fallacy - crz crztalk 02:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Beware the fallacy of rules. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inappropriate selective notification!! - crz crztalk 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - crz, I don't recall getting notification of your intent to AfD the article. I'll assume good faith, and guess that it was lost in the mail, yes? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notification of AfD is nice, but not required. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Is "selective notification" a violation of policy or procedures? Is ANY notification required? Please let me know if I've erred, and I won't make the same mistake twice. crz: you found the DRV in a timely fashion, did you not? Did I cloak the DRV is some way that I was unaware? Did I not inform the deleting admin, per policy? I'm not sure what crz's accusation is here...and make no mistake, there is an accusation (by him, of me) here of bad faith. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 05:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Notifying editors with a plea to keep or delete or notifying only editors with a known position is strongly discouraged per WP:SPAM. ~ trialsanderrors 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        *Cough!*. Seriously. How many different ways should I inform people? Yes, I only sent personal messages to “keep” voters; but I posted about the DRV on the talk page of the AfD, where ALL could see it, right? In fact, if I'd sent a message to ALL, then I would have been SPAMing. Where is the line? What is the standard? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, *cough*. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I think the closure was completely valid. By my simply head count, there were 9 keep !votes, 14 redirect !votes, and 6 delete !votes. Aside from redirect getting the plurality (which, I agree, is not consensus), some of the keep !votes were "keep because I like using w00t" or "keep but source" (but, of course, if an article isn't sourced, it isn't an article). This wasn't the neatest, most clear-cut closure ever, and I certainly see why Weirdo (great name, BTW) brought this to DRV, but I don't think the closer was at any fault, considering that a strong majority (20 vs. 9 = 69%) did not feel that the word needed its own article. I !voted redirect, though I have no problem with w00t as a word nor with internet slang terms having their own pages, but regardless of my opinion, I agree with the closure. -- Kicking222 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And now I'd like to amend my statement to note that I feel we should restore the edit history per everyone below. Of course, there's a huge difference between keeping an article and creating a redirect but deleting the history outright. -- Kicking222 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was there a compelling reason to delete the edit history? A delete and redirect is usually only performed if the old article and the new redirect are unrelated, are if there is objectionable content in the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I noticed that as well, when I went to try and expand the entry here, using the old entry. Very odd, indeed. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely as notable as other internet slang terms with their own article. Heck, I've heard it used more than half of them. Slicedoranges 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Kicking222 Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endore redirection, but restore history behind redirect. Presumably, the article discussed the slang term as mentioned at the new target, so there's no reason we have to discard the GFDL information, and should further sourcing arise in future it will simply the resplit. Serpent's Choice 06:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete but keep redirected. There was no reason at all for the deletion, and it crushes the possibility of a merger if things are verified. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be restored in userspace; as of now it stands as unencyclopedic and the information that is available about it over the internet is on research articles dealing with l337 speak. And, uh... by the way, the deleted edits can be restored when "the stuff" is verified and notable. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, the article can be restored. In fact, that's why I said "Undelete." But you're missing the point that regular users won't be able to see it when it's deleted. I don't know if you're aware, but regular users can research and insert footnotes, too. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute?
Undelete but keep redirected. Deleting the history serves no purpose, and removes the accessibility of GFDL information that could possibly be cited and included a some point in the future. --Delirium 09:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think undeleting the history is controversial, so I am doing it. - crz crztalk 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Like someone said, its as notable as any other leetspeak term and a scandal that it was ever deleted. If someone finds some verified research then we have an article. --Mozman 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (redirection, whatever), keep the history. No reason to remove it, because it wasn't terrible, but notability is not a free pass on verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. It's rather baffling that people think arguments for keeping like "I love the word w00t" should be taken seriously. No reliable sources were found... internet "I like it" bias lost for a once, let's move on. --W.marsh 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, you ARE baffled if you believe such an argument was made here. Please point to such a statement. Thanks. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a copy and paste of a comment from the AfD, the closure of which is what we're reviewing here. --W.marsh 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does it strike you, weirdo, that you're being ridiculously confrontational? Please relax. Not overturning the w00t AfD will not be the end of Wikipedia. - crz crztalk 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I really, really hope that you are making a bad joke, crz. In this thread alone, you've accused me of a baseless made up violation, and now you are calling ME confrontational? I suppose I should count my lucky stars that you haven't stalked me offline again, or Googled more photos of my acting career. Physician, heal thyself. Decaf, dude. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :Keep your comments to yourself, the information that the page you linked to was not what I had on the page, anyway. And if the page ''was'' restored, I would be able to prove that.
 *'''Endorse deletion'''. If you feel that you need to preemptively fight off a speedy, it almost certainly is a speedy candidate, and this is not one of the exceptional cases. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-:Look, if you would just Restore the article I will be able to edit it to it's full potential. I shouldn't have to prove anything, especially whenever there was nothing wrong with the article that I submitted. There was a reason why I put the "{{hang on}}" message at the begginning of the article, so that it wouldn't be deleted immediately. As mentioned before, I said that I would edit and update the page on the article's talk page. I had some valuble information that I had put on that page, and now cannot retrieve. If anything, could you send me the transcript of the article so that I may have it filed in my system? This is not what I expected from you, Wikipedia, I thought that you would at least have administrators with the slightest decensy to respect others.
+:Look, if you would just Restore the article I will be able to edit it to it's full potential. I shouldn't have to prove anything, especially whenever there was nothing wrong with the article that I submitted. There was a reason why I put the "hangon" message at the begginning of the article, so that it wouldn't be deleted immediately. As mentioned before, I said that I would edit and update the page on the article's talk page. I had some valuble information that I had put on that page, and now cannot retrieve. If anything, could you send me the transcript of the article so that I may have it filed in my system? This is not what I expected from you, Wikipedia, I thought that you would at least have administrators with the slightest decensy to respect others.
 ====[[George Nozuka]]====