Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 24

< January 23	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 25 >

24 January 2008

Extreme Teabagging

extreme teabagging should be allowed it own page on wikipedia and is not a nonsense article as extreme ironing has its own page so other unusual sports should also be allowed their own pages and there is quite alot the extreme teabagging relates to such as projectile physics and the chaos theory as well as tea(obviously) and if allowed to remain on wikipedia the page will be an immformative page on the margin sport of extreme teabagging and will promote the sport. and the other type of teabagging has its own page which frankley i find vile as it is frankly disgusting and there is a link to a list of shock sites allowed as weell so how does a harmless non mainstream sport get banned yet these obseneties are still allowed on your site?

Endorse deletion of utter crap. I'm sure that Jimbo didn't create wikipedia to showcase videos of spoof sports where people chuck tea bags into a cup. I don't mind if someone comes and closes this as an abuse of process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatass

This page has been redirected to Obesity for months, but MZMcBride (talk · contribs) decided to delete it, the reason for the deletion was because of vandalism. But it was all wrong. It should never have been removed, instead it should have been a protected redirect. Please don't close this discussion until it's time, there really need to be a discussion on this. People looking for fatass would expect to find information about obesity, can I also remind you that there are redirects out there that are redirected from bad words, or offending words? See also: Ass fucking and Human Shit, those are redirected from offensive terms, so I see no reason why Fatass shouldn't redirect to obesity. My vote is Revert back to the redirect and protect it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has never deleted that page. You appear not to have tried talking to the administrators who actually did. Please try talking to them. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, but he did protect it from recreation. That's the reason why I told him to come here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I did do what you told me too though. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the admin who most recently deleted the article (and I believe I protected it from being re-created as well). I believe Ass fucking redirect should be kept (though the argument for it is marginal) but I see no need for Human Shit although Shit is fine because it is an article about the word, not the stuff itself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of English slang and there is no need for fatass, lardass, lardbutt or blimp as redirects to Obesity. Of course, I will abide by the consensus of this deletion review but that's my perspective FWIW. --Richard (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm almost certain that nobody looking for fatass would expect to find information about obesity, otherwise, they'd have looked for obesity. And per Richard, there is no need to keep a compendium of slang at Wikipedia. --Kbdank71 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:202.76.162.34 (closed)

Jawahar Shah

There were 7 votes to keep the Jawahar Shah article and 6 to delete it, and yet it was promptly deleted. Jawahar Shah is a homeopath that is known world-wide for his lectures and writings, and has created educational CD-ROMs and software for practicing homeopaths. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The correct close would have been no consensus (though I myself said a weak delete). There was the interesting question of whether this Indian homeopath was notable within the group of his colleagues, or whether orthodox US/UK publication standards should apply. I can see it either way, & it needs further discussion. DGG (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion most of the keep voters didn't meet the sourcing concerns, instead voted keep because of a grudge with the nominator. AFD isn't a vote Secret ^account 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist No consensus was apparent to delete. —Whig (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the delete !voters didn't back up their opinions with realistic arguments. Corvus cornix_talk 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, there were more voters to keep this listing. I voted after the vote ended without notice...I sought to add to support for keeping this listing. Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the 'keep' voters arguments were poor and didn't demonstrate current notability, and didn't address the points raised. The 'delete' voters generally made good arguments. The article was correctly deleted per WP:Notability, WP:Prof, etc --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the 'keep' voters where mainly "I don't like Adam, therefore this article should stay". The deleting admin noted this and made it quite obvious in the closing arguement. Perhaps the POV pushers need to understand the process of AfDs which isn't about "votes" but rather about the quality (in this case the complete lack thereof) of the article. This relisting should be seen for what it is, which a WP:GAMEing of the system, something other POV pushers are pushing right now throughout several noticeboards in WP. Shot info (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion An AfD isn't a popularity contest, and the deletion rationales were correct and well argued. The oppose opinions were mostly "I don't agree" or "he might be notable one day" kinds of arguments (go and look, this is flagrant paraphrasing on my part). This does appear to be a gaming of the system, no new keep arguments have been presented, and the delete arguments were good and still stand --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist with an eye to keeping and improving the article so it conforms to wikipedia notability standards. Abridged ^talk 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Dislike of the nominator is not a reason to keep. --Kbdank71 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]