Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:40, 28 December 2006

< December 27	Deletion review archives: December	December 29 >

28 December 2006

FLPC21112242212.jpg

I've been unable to find any free use images to illustrate 2006 New England Patriots season, thus this and two other(so far) fair use images. Situations like these are what fair use is for: Wikipedia is non-profit, no other images are available, so i'm at a loss here. All I want is for that article to become featured, and I don't think it can happen without pictures. Just H 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators

The article was kept after extensive debate around a year ago. Since then the list was extensively improved by a large number of experience wikipedia editors and admins. Over 120 sources were provided, a working definition of dictator was decided upon. Editors painstakingly manipulated font sizes to make the article read well. A system was worked out by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters for discussing controversial entries. Discussions were always productive and lead to quick consensus. The article remained amazingly stable for around a year.

The article was a remarkable resource. And a Google search for "list of dictators" shows what a void has been created in the internet itself.

The article comprised hundreds of hours of work by dozens of editors working in good faith. Tens of thousands of words of discusions about the article have also been deleted.

All this on the whim of an admin who knew of the extensive history of the article UserDoc_glasgow. Active contributors to the article such as myself and Lulu of the lotus eaters were not informed of the AfD, which was timed for the holiday season and we were unable to vote. Despite this there were 11 votes to keep against 4 to delete. A strong consensus to Keep.

Admin Doc Glasgow decided to delete in spite of the strong contrary consensus and making no reference to the previous titanic deletion debate in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. That debate was on a far inferior article which had no sources. The article that had just been deleted was possibly the best sourced article in wikipedia with over 120 sources.

Doc Glasgow along with his friend desysoped former-admin User:172 were active in the previous debate. User:172 spammed over 50 wiki users flattering them and asking them to help him out with the vote. Doc Glasgow was well aware of the previous debate, well aware of his own opposition to the article in that debate. He was also well aware of the immense effort put into improving the article, the relative stability of the article, and its extensive sourcing.

Despite this, he overruled wikipedia policy deleting an article as an admin that he had previously been involved with. Not only did he not recuse himself but deleted the article against the consensus of the vote, using the exact same rationale that he used in the debate a year previously that had been rejected by the community then and now. His remarks in deleting the article are:

The result was DELETE. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this.

With this glib, unprofessional tirade he deleted the hundreds of hours of work against consensus, without declaring his own previous involvement in the article and without noting the immense improvements. The contributors to this AfD and the previous one in fact addressed that very point. It would therefore no be reasonable to delete against consensus because it "offends against a core policy" since that was the very crux of the discussion between experience users and admins.

I implore wikipedia to restore this article its former state. When people contribute to wikipedia they to so from a point of view of one who wishes to share their own knowledge - to codify the knowledge that we all posses. The glib and haphazard erasion of their contributions by admins who do not respect that beautiful impulse which has made wikipedia great, damages wikipedia immensely. If people are not convinced that their work will be considered in a fair and broadly democratic way then they will stop contributing. That is why I also implore wikipedia to strip the deleting admin of his adminship. He did something outrageous, he knew exactly what he was doing, he should of recused himself and shouldn't have deleted the article in any case. juicifer 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

juicifer 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Great Powers

The debate on whether the page should be kept or deleted was ended too soon. It was open for about a day, there were many other editors concerned who did not even know it was up for being deleted that would have wanted to express their opinions. I'm asking that the debate be reopened so that more people can express their opinion on the subject matter. Plus, 3 of the 4 people who voted said deleted and only one said keep. Not enough was said on whether it should be kept or delete for the discussion to have ended when it did. I am not asking the outcome be swayed, just that there can be allowed more time to talk about things. Angel Emfrbl 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure even though I too disagree with the CA's reasoning of no consensus. The AfD was open for 10 days, longer then the 5 day minimum that is required and proper noticed as placed on the article[1] and WP:AfD [2]. The AfD was also listed on the anime and manga's deletion sorting page on the 22nd[3]. Lack of knowledge about an AfD is not a legitimate grounds to reopen the debate if the debate has been properly noted on the article and WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that there were two merge votes, which are treated as keep in determining AfD outcomes. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I do not see any reversible error on the part of the closing admin; a no consensus close was well within reasonable discretion for this discussion. Merge and redirect is always available as an editorial decision. And after a decent interval (a couple months) another AFD could be done. GRBerry 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, AfD rarely produces a definite result with fancruft (or articles entirely relating to fiction if you must), and seeking consensus for merging and/or redirecting is far more productive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Philippine High School

Restore. Deletion log states "Once this is done (with the blessing of WP:SCH, leave me a message on my talk and I'll delete." ... No blessing from WP:SCH has been attained. Further, deletion of the template has caused errors in various pages. For instance, Xavier School. { PMGOMEZ } 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name the errors and it shall be fixed. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find them. Point is, no blessing from WP:SCH was attained. { PMGOMEZ } 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the errors? Point is, it was deleted already and you created a new template, Template:Infobox K-12 School. --Howard the Duck 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer bringing it back for the sake of other Philippine High Schools. { PMGOMEZ } 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for tracking all my contribs, even if they have no relation to the point at hand. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your new infobox looks exactly like the one that was deleted. And yeah, that's why the Watchlist lets you see other people's contribs. Nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, click "the" on my sig and tell me what appears. --Howard the Duck 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never knew newly created templates could instantly be added to one's watchlist. At any rate, the new infobox solves the prob. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, but you see other people's contribs. --Howard the Duck 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. A TfD does not need the "blessing" of a Wikiproject to be enacted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per Amarkov. Naconkantari 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Seems fun. Let's just delete, delete and delete! :) { PMGOMEZ } 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin: The key part of Martinp's closure summary was "after anything from this template worth keeping has been merged into {{Infobox Secondary School}}, and all uses have been migrated". At the time of deletion, no articles transcluded this template. Xavier School's infobox was changed well before anything was deleted, so saying that errors were caused by the deletion is simply false. The consensus down at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Deletion of national secondary school infoboxes. was that the extra features in the Philippines infofox weren't needed, so I deleted it. -- Steel 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really doesn't matter now, since the nominator of the DRV endorsed deletion. And oh, he created a new template, in which only Xavier School uses, too. ~~210.5.88.138 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)~~(Logged out, for some reason... --Howard the Duck 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism

Article was speedy deleted even though I had put a "{hangon}" on it, and was drafting the justification for its preservation. Briefly, the wikipedian who placed the speedy delete did so less than two minutes after I created the article. That is counter to policy, or at least it was the last time I looked. The instructions say I am supposed to advise the administrator who performed the deletion, but they don't say how to determine who that was. Geo Swan 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It was deleted for A1, meaning that it had no context. You did not address that anywhere in your justifications. It should probably be history undeleted, though, so we can see if it was a valid A1. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what you are talking about more fully. -- Geo Swan 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter anymore. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged within one minute of creation. WP:CSD - "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." Obviously appears to be the case, and it has context and would have been a valid stub had the formatting not been so empty originally. Overturn and allow Geo Swan to finish it up if he's still interested (and who could blame him if he's not), and AfD if necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am still interested, thanks. I hope I don't have to wait too long though. -- Geo Swan 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick tip: Open a page, like User:Geo Swan/Jamaat, and complete as much of the article as you can between now and the end of this. When the new AfD opens/when this concludes, place the completed text into the article so people know what they're dealing with. As long as it's well sourced, you shouldn't have any problems, and it's obvious you're a prolific editor on this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Thanks for the advice. I am working on it at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. -- Geo Swan 19:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. It wasn't a valid A1, and A7 doesn't apply. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on AfD was tagged for CSD A7 and deleted as CSD A1, neither of which really apply here. Could be written into a decent article. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list It was me who originally marked it for an A7 (at the time I viewed the article it contained nothing that appeared to me to assert notability of the subject), but I am certainly not opposed to having the author attempt to improve it in light of the fact that he attempted {{hangon}} and had it deleted anyway. As the one who originally nominated it for deletion, at this point I propose a speedy close to the Review and overturn/list. Tarinth 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Overturn of AFD on Moondance magazine article.

New rewrite is in place. Please review. Am trying to follow all admin suggestions carefully. Want good standard to be encouraged and article to be saved. All thanks. --Lysanzia 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moondance magazine is still ongoing, so this is a bit premature. No need to panic. ^_^ As I said at the AfD, though, I support a relist at the moment for further consensus and to allow more time for sourcing. Shimeru 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close the deletion review. Because the AFD is still open, there is no closure for us to review. GRBerry 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 **Yes, I am still interested, thanks.  I hope I don't have to wait too long though.  --  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 ***A quick tip: Open a page, like [[User:Geo Swan/Jamaat]], and complete as much of the article as you can between now and the end of this.  When the new AfD opens/when this concludes, place the completed text into the article so people know what they're dealing with.  As long as it's well sourced, you shouldn't have any problems, and it's obvious you're a prolific editor on this subject. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
+****Okay.  Thanks for the advice.  I am working on it at [[User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism]].  --  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 19:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn and list'''. It wasn't a valid A1, and A7 doesn't apply. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 *'''List on AfD''' was tagged for CSD A7 and deleted as CSD A1, neither of which really apply here. Could be written into a decent article. <tt>[[User talk:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Kimchi]].[[WP:SG!|sg]]</tt> 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)