Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Ellman (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 19 April 2007 (Added a comment regarding Still Pending review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 16 Deletion review archives: 2007 April April 18 >

17 April 2007

Satellite images censored by Google Maps

Satellite images censored by Google Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "it's interesting," "it's well-trafficked," "featured on Digg" etc. which fails to address the fact that the page is in violation of WP:NOR, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We also have list of censored (challenged) books, so we can keep this too. --helohe (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, most keep !votes are by IPs, and among all keep arguments, most are WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT, or do not address the fact that the article was original research. --Coredesat 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sustain and keep the article. The debate was properly closed; there were reasonable arguments presented. As I said at the time, the article is not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship . N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as being an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. W.Marsh objected that if it was "an indication of the extent of censorship it would be "drawing original conclusions from a primary source" But its not the editors who are drawing the conclusion. the reader, using the information assembled by WP , will draw his own conclusions. That's the purpose of all our articles, to provide information. selectivity is necessary, but that isn't OR either--it's needed on all articles.
While useful isn't enough reason for keep, being useless is reason to delete, and therefore explanations of its usefulness were also appropriate. DGG 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no objective criteria for usefulness, which is why explanations of usefulness aren't appropriate. See WP:USEFUL. Furthermore, Google Maps is not a secondary source in an article about Google Maps. The article itself revolves around the claim that Google blurred the images, which is only supported by the secondary sources regarding the images in Basra and India. The rest is simply POV speculation that is drawing original conclusions (that the images were intentionally censored by Google) from primary sources (Google Maps), and the Keep !votes at the AfD for some reason didn't seem to think that's original research. - Chardish 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If I can get a source for the Basra entry I made in under 15 minutes -- I think others can find some outside sources for the rest of the list. MrMacMan Talk 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Question/Comment I want to point out that the user that started this deletion review has also started a image for deletion which seems to be the only image used on the article. MrMacMan Talk 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Stricken because lacked real relevance to case at hand. MrMacMan Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only other thing thats used on the page... and it too is up for deletion (also happens to have been posted by yourself as well). MrMacMan Talk 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page isn't up for deletion. Deletion review is a judge of the AfD discussion and a referendum on the decision to close the AfD. If the AfD was closed incorrectly, the page will be deleted, but that's because of arguments that were already made, not because of new voting. - Chardish 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what deletion review is... perhaps I brought up something not in the pervue of the review, sorry. removing. MrMacMan Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I am unsure on whether this is a worthy topic, but my review of the AFD displays some rationale with merit on the "keep" side as well, by Edison and JWSchmidt among others, providing some sources and arguing why they believed this was not original research. There were a lot of poor reasonings on both sides of the debate, but the end result was well within reasonable bounds. I am not ruling out the possibility of a re-nomination in a few months, but this one does not need to be overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and delete per my arguments in the AFD. Wikipedians looking at an image they found on Google maps and claiming it is evidence of censorship is really not good. The only reason this was kept instead of any other potential "things I saw on Google maps" article is that people liked this one. It is the duty of the closer to take such things into account especially when verifiability issues are on the line. --W.marsh 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember that... "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." I feel that many editors in the AFD didn't express their views properly, but that consensus was reached. You had problems with WP:OR -- I agree -- we need more sources, but it's not a reason to overturn. I think people can make this better and I think I did with a very small amount of effort when I added a link -- I backed mine up with an article about the problems with Basra and since the publication the Basra image has been censored. I know even that addition needs more work... but it's something that can be worked on. MrMacMan Talk 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more carefully... I know what DRV is and I objected to how the closer closed the AFD. Sometimes more needs to be done than a head count. --W.marsh 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware wikipedia is not a democracy and that Polling is not a discussion and WM:PIE. It's just that you referred to your opinion in the AFD and the most prevalent issue you had in the AFD was your concern for WP:OR... which is not something that a deletion review should be considering. (and I will again say that yes, this article needs more sources... but thats not the issue at hand) MrMacMan Talk 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And original research/verifiability is one of the things that can overturn the raw numbers at an AFD. The closer, in my opinion, should have taken that into account. I don't really appreciate you trying to make my comment here invalid... this is argumentative. Why aren't you challenging people who've made other comments that the decision was okay/not okay? --W.marsh 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not trying to make an administrators comments invalid! That would, honestly, be a really bad move on my part. I hope it doesn't feel like I'm picking you out individually -- your the only one responding to my comments so its hard to ask other people about their views if they don't respond. I hope my comments aren't mean spirited or put down your opinion... I've always tried to better understand policy and people's opinion without losing my cool. If I have crossed the line - I'm sorry. MrMacMan Talk 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MrMacMan's argument here and Ttiosw's argument at the AfD. It's already partly sourced from BBC, Telegraph etc., and more sources are easily available. Here's one from Australia [1], here's one from Malaysia [2]... It's a notable issue all over the world. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. AfD is not a poll is a fine slogan, but it is not a realistic standard for contentious AfDs. The fact is that a supermajority of the participants did not agree that it was OR. Moreover, the closer did not explain his/her reading of the consensus, so we are just speculating that it was closed by a simple headcount. In my opinion, there was no other way to close the debate because it was just an "Is!" "Isn't!" shouting match, and the "isn'ts" shouted louder. Maybe a future AfD debate will not go so poorly, or WP:OR will be clarified, but in the meantime there are 6,907,146 - 1 other articles to edit. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Reservations (film) (closed)

Still_Pending

Still_Pending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New information about the band, not available at the time of the AfD discussion, is now available.

  • Comment: I agree on the point of citations in the first section. Without them, that section reads like promotional material. I assumed the citations at the foot of the article were sufficient. I added specific citations to that section which should make it more clear that this is quoted from the article. If there are other sections that do not appear neutral or have proper citations, please let me know. I'm still learning. Stampsations 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion which means "keep" now that the article is back, Undelete talk page - The article is now back, so the talk page should be undeleted. Now then...I believe that although the article has room to improve, it doesn't seem like promo material. There was no apparent consensus on the AfD IMO; 2 people plus the nominator do not establish a consensus to delete or even speedy delete.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope I'm doing this properly. I copied the comment format from above. I have tried to remain out of this discussion since I am the father of one of the band members. I realize that this could appear as biased. All I have done to date is upload photos I have taken of the band which I thought would be useful for the article. I will refrain from commenting with an endorse or overturn, but I would like to bring to light some additional information which may assist others in deciding how to proceed. Today we were contacted by NAMM. The band will be interviewed tomorrow by Radio Disney KDZR in Portland for a 30-minute broadcast about the Wanna Play? campaign that is mentioned on the article. This interview will be aired on Sunday, April 22. I don't know if Radio interviews are acceptable as references, but this appears to be a notable event. Second, the band's original song, Stop Spinning from their CD was played on Portland's 105.1 The Buzz this afternoon. This was the first radio air-play of one of the band's songs. David Ellman 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CARICOM national leaders

Category:CARICOM national leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

These were the quasi-cabinet members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) organisation. a.k.a. CARICOM's decision makers. CARICOM IS- the heads of government and one Secrtary General and his small support staff. Hence why it moves so slowly because if a Prime Minister in any territory gets voted out, it is considered a referendum partly on his CARICOM agenda. Example. The Bahamas. I don't know who changed the CARICOM article but CARICOM is not led like the EU. When a leader takes over the presidency. It just means they get to interject their territories agenda. But they have no "EXECUTIVE" power over the whole thing. CaribDigita 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of megachurches

List of Megachurches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New Precident If a list of all the churches in a small town can be saved why not a list of ones that each on their own could merit articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.101.179.35 (talk)

I believe our IP nominator meant :List of megachurches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD). I note that no editor at Megachurch has chosen to merge any of the list content into the general article, see discussion at Talk:Megachurch#Redirected from List of megachurches. (I have that article watchlisted.) GRBerry 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, no deletion took place, AfD does not make binding decisions on merges, any editor is free to revert the redirect if they can get consensus to do so on Talk:List of megachurches. I note that no content from the list seems to have been used in Megachurch, so a second AfD could legitimately result in a delete decision, but again, relisting is up to individual editors. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. AfD was valid, close was correct in my view, and the deleted article was essentially a link farm since most did not have articles and probably never will. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: I have no objection to useful reorganization of Wikipedia. A sprawling disorganized tree is not what we're looking for. Organizational principles should be upheld. Given the redirect and advice to go ahead with using the related category instead, I don't have an issue with the findings of the AfD, except insofar as I wouldn't call the actual consensus particularly easy to call. Even majority or supermajority is difficult to call. --MalcolmGin 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repudiate close but do not relist. The debate clearly had no consensus. I've absolutely no problem with the merge and redirect and the use of a category, but that's an editorial decision which should be discussed on the talk page and done if consensus emerges (or done unless reverted). However, there is no consensus for that in the debate and allowing the closing remarks to stand effectively means that a consensus is required to undo the merge, when in effect the status-quo is to leave the article unmerged and seek consensus to do otherwise. So the close should be read as 'no consensus' and editors are free to relist, keep or merge as they see fit.--Docg 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_17&oldid=124007946"