Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 23

< November 22	Deletion review archives: 2007 November	November 24 >

23 November 2007

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted

See TfD. Closing admin's reasoning is based upon a false dichotomy. They suggest that since there is no one infobox that can replace this one, it should stay, and that having a fundamentally flawed infobox is better than not having one at all. These arguments were not even raised in the TfD discussion. {{Infobox Criminal}} is more appropriate for convicted criminals (this hasn't been disputed). Fugitives who have not faced trial can use {{Infobox Person}} (or another if more appropriate). In the discussion, no-one addressed the undue weight that the FBI template places on the FBI's allegations. -- Mark Chovain 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems more of a manual of style issue than a deletion issue. Predominate facts about a person have been used in templates. For example, {{Infobox President}} as seen in the George W. Bush article puts "43rd President of the United States" below his photo. The color scheme and placement of banner text in {{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} seems to give too much emphasis and conveys tabloid sensationalism, but that should be fixed through a manual of style consensus discussion on the template talk page, not through deletion of the template. -- Jreferee t/c 07:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circles (comic book)

Request email of source and usernames of significant contributors (or the entire history list) for attribution purposes. I am not currently contesting the deletion of this article, but I would like to merging Wikipedia's article onto WikiFur, as the deletion suggested it had some substance to it, and ours does not. GreenReaper (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (closed)

Interac (Japan)

I think the discussion in the deletion AFD was flawed, and the decision should be overturned in favour of delete. J (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in what way? there seems to have been a good deal of irrelevant discussion, but the consensus of the more to-the-point comments seemed to accept the notability. DGG (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not notable, the g-hits alone showed that. J (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This quote from DDD DDD sums it up best:

"The fact that there is so little information available about a company that does indeed plays such a large role in the education system here in Japan is troubling." J (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! That was me arguing in favour of not deleting. Initially, I was arguing vigourously in favour of delete. However, over the past few days, my position has changed. Interac IS large here in Japan. I've always known that. And somehow, it seems, the company is able to create white noise around itself. That IS troubling. Very. My quote above was saying just that. To use my quote in favour of a delete is misconstrued. I was unsure as of two days ago. Now, it's an endorse keep. DDD DDD (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep. I see nothing in the discussion that indicates any manipulation or other defect. I think the close as keep (rather than no consensus) was also valid. —C.Fred (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - They've been around since 1972 and they are over in Japan, so there likely is reliable source material but in Japanense publications. Keep an eye on the article and if no reliable sources are added by 22 February 2008 (3 months from AfD close), list it again at AfD citing lack of reliable sources. That usually carries a lot more weight the second time at AfD if the first AfD is close such as this one. -- Jreferee t/c 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - there is no indication of any problem with the manner in which the AfD was conducted; discussion went on for quite some time, the article was edited and improved throughout the process, and the debate was closed in a fair and timely manner. This is now the fifth attempt by "J" to delete this article. The user has also unilaterally tampered with the posted AfD results on the article talk page and the AfD discussion page, changing "keep" to "no consensus" with the edit comment "fix the lie". --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "This is now the fifth attempt by "J" to delete this article." What Links Here only shows one AfD. Would you please post links to the other four attempts by "J" to delete this article. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 07:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - here are the links for the deletion attempts (dates based on UT):

"db-spam" template (13 September 2007)
1st "prod" template (13 September 2007)
2nd "prod" template (14 October 2007)
AfD request (16 November 2007)
Deletion review (23 November 2007)

--Ckatz^chat_spy 07:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep - Jreferee....I checked and I think the article had been deleted but was re-created on 12 Sept 2007. I know there had been an article there before...very strange... it's not an article that I normally watch but I will do so now. User:GreenJoe had placed a proposed deletion box on the discussion page here [1] on 13 Sept 2007 a day after the page was re-created. I find User:GreenJoe's modification of the AFD result from keep to no concensus here: [2] extremely problematic and honestly it's the first time I have ever seen a user do so. I feel notability has been established and I already added a reliable source and will continue to do so. Statisticalregression (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]