Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pan Dan (talk | contribs) at 15:22, 13 July 2007 (add Barnraisers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 12 Deletion review archives: 2007 July July 14 >

13 July 2007

Barnraisers

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

After the AFD this was recreated twice. The authors appear to be attempting a DRV given the tag at the top of the article but failed to list it, so I’m doing it for them. But don’t worry, this is not one of those “procedural listings.” I do think the administrator who closed the AFD came to the wrong conclusion.

First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight.

I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obesanes

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

This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor

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

A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 3 actually, including the nominator. In my opinion, three unopposed delete votes is pretty much consensus to delete. If this fails, I will happily restore everything and start a third AfD to gain better consensus. —Anas talk? 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The nom would have us restore a non-notable article on a technicality and the idea that there's a quorum at AFD. We're not a bureaucracy. Is there any evidence to contradict the strong 2nd AFD nomination? I note that strong AFD noms tend to result in less participation, as no one really can refute them, and if the nom says it all a lot of people don't want to just say "delete per nom". --W.marsh 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per lack of reasoning. AfD has no quorum, and 2 votes (3 counting the nom) counts as consensus. Besides, while their votes may have been weak, their reasoning was strong and grounded in policy (non-notability and lack of reliable sources). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story

Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, as I can't see that there is any new material here like a third-party taking note that would put us in a position to write about it. I'm not even sure what the DRV rationale is supposed to be, here. Maybe the G4 issue? As for other Wikipedias, they aren't sources nor necessarily trailblazers for us. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AFD consensus was clear. Neither recreation satisfied the concerns, and all but one of the sources are either the film's Wikia (which it shouldn't have, given its limited scope, but that's a matter for Wikia) and IMDB, which is not a reliable source as its information is contributed by the people who post there. --Coredesat 10:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Any movie about Wikipedia that doesn't include me must be extremely non-notable. Ok, ok... endorse per strong AfD consensus. An article on a non-major movie that far from release is really unlikely to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still do not understand exactly why this has been deleted repeatedly. However, it is clear that the consensus favors deletion, at least until the film is released. I would favor waiting until the film is released, then using this material to recreate the article. Surely then the article would not be subject to deletion.--Filll 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime_South

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

Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (my) deletion Well, where shall I start? The article was previously deleted by an AfD, to begin with. It's substantially similar to the old article, and the dredging up of some newspaper human-interest pieces and blog posts doesn't really change that. It's also an ad, which one might not be surprised to see from the evident conflict of interest here. The AfD concerns really aren't addressed-the newspaper pieces tend to be substantially about other topics, and use the convention as a "springboard" into those, and are human-interest pieces which provide little of substance. The rest of the references are bare lists or anime fansites (except the first, I have no idea where that came from or what source published it, it looks like a press release). Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and Salt. Also there is a serious issue with WP:COI. Not sure why you recreated the article (04:44, 13 July 2007), then open a Deletion review case ( 05:06, 13 July 2007)?? This is a little disturbing also Wiki Edit War in Full Bloom--Hu12 07:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have deleted the article again as G4, but restored the history behind a {{drv}} tag. Anyone can go in and view the history to compare versions. --Coredesat 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Endorse deletion I probably would have voted to keep this, but the AfD consensus was clear. Besides, apparent WP:COI issues are very worrying indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loserz

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

I am only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question.

The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:

In this page's defense, I'd like to point to the fact that there is a webcomic section. This is a popular comic and it deserves a page to explain about it's origins, characters, plot and creator. It is no less than comics like Control Alt Delete, VG cats and Penny Arcade who still have pages on Wikipedia.

This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:

a7 nonnotable webcomic, no sources

As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Loriendark also posted this on the talk page of the aforementioned article:

This page was posted for speedy deletion by someone who clearly does not understand the Webcomic section, is infact.. for webcomics. He did not give reason for its deletion. Could not backup why it was deleted and why other comic pages still exist. This is not about destroying an entire section, it is about improving Wikipedia as a whole. Not taking from it. This is utterly a disgrace.

—Kurykh 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_13&oldid=144413609"