Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 5

< September 4	Deletion review archives: 2008 September	September 6 >

5 September 2008

User:Pulsifer

The deleted material was the first draft of a new article that was being composed in the user's own space, as suggested by the wikipedia developer's guide. The page was deleted almost immediately after it was created. The material was all factual, well-sourced and had a neutral POV. It provides factual information about a topic that has been extensively covered in the news. The administrator who deleted the page did not cite any policy or reason for the immediate deletion of a page that is actively being drafted in user's own space. This would however appear to be a violation of the wikipedia policies. The delete log is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=chrislk02&page=user%3Apulsifer&year=&month=-1. Further discussion appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_review_of_userspace_deletion_regarding_Sarah_Palin Pulsifer (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and undo deletion. Editors can work in a sandbox or userspace to draft an article. After it was completed and put in mainspace it could then be AFDed if it was not up to Wikipedia's standard. We should follow regular Wikipedia procedure. Editors have every right to create new articles. QuackGuru 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an elaborate attempt to prove two points by inference: (1) that the Alaskan Independent Party is a subversive organization, and that (2) Palin supports that subversion. All this despite that lack of any evidence that (1) Palin had very much to do with the organization and that (2) the AIP or AKIP or whatever has violated any laws. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As deleting admin. The userpage article was an attempt to create a fork of material that was declined to be inserted into the Sarah Palin article. The content made some fairly intense assertions based on questionable sources. The fact is if the content was not suitable for inclusion in the article, circumventing the process by creating a userspace copy (that will obviously not be copied to the mainspace) is just trying to push the point. I am trying avoid usage of BLP but I think this is a potential example. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the content on the deleted page is very similar to multiple attemps by pulsifer to enter this material into the main Sarah Palin article. FOr example [1] and several other attemps. Each time it is a bit different or rearranged but the same point. It has been removed by multiple editors. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BPL policy specifically states: "In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV.". The material Chrislk02 deleted was compliant with that policy. He has not articulated a valid basis for deleting draft material in a user's own space. Pulsifer (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping stuff like that in your subpage, knowing it hasn't a prayer of being approved due to BLP concerns, is against the rules. You could always keep it in a notepad document on your PC until you've got it the way you think it would have a prayer - then propose it on the talk page and see what happens. And I assure you, if it doesn't refute the two concerns I raised above, it will be rejected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both above delete comments has nothing to do with Wikipedia procedure. The article was not finished yet and was not in mainspace. There was improvements being made. You can AFD it once it is in mainspace. Let's do this right. Editors can work on a draft. Once it is in mainspace then we can debate the merits of it. A draft or sandbox should be encouraged on Wikipedia. A draft is a great way to improvement articles. QuackGuru 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's inflammatory, BLP-violating material. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No claim had been made that that the material is inflammatory or defamatory, so the point you have just made does not apply. Pulsifer (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is a BLP concern here, which there is, it doesn't matter where it is. The Wikimedia foundation can still be held liable, and there is too much media attention on this subject to risk leaving this up, anywhere. If someone wants to write an article and not have it deleted, take it somewhere else or even offline. Anywhere but our servers, thanks. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Aquatique, in order to material to be defamatory, it must be factually incorrect. Please state what item in the material was factually incorrect and I will be happy to correct it.

Up North (book)

None of the earlier delete opinions made any arguments beyond bare assertions of unnotability, and the one given after references had been added to the article admitted that the editor hadn't looked at the sources, and gave the completely out-of-policy reason "article is ordinary". This should at least be relisted as there were no valid delete !votes after article improvement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & relist depending on the state of the improved article (I can't see it). It seems that the improved article did not get a fair shake here, the only delete voter after the improvements thankfully admitted that they didn't check the refs. --Rividian (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Sources added were not properly considered at the AFD so the article should be relisted to allow the community to form a view on whether they are sufficient for notability or not. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out

Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This debate appears to have been closed abruptly, while the vote was still an even one, and the article pencil-whipped through deletion, before I even had a chance to obtain sources as requested, by the last voter. Meanwhile Lots42 appeared willing to vote, but the article was already gone. (Please see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Enemies_of_the_Secret_Hide-Out.) I think Stifle acted just a little too hastily on this deletion, not to mention unfairly. I cry FOUL. Undelete this article, I say, and let the debate continue. (At least until I can visit a couple libraries?!) Zephyrad (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources, let's see 'em. Wikipedia takes a pretty dim view of ye olde "I swear I left the sources in my other pants!" gambit, as we've all seen it before. The AfD was also a total mess, with at least one very likely sockpuppet and both Zephyrad and the nominator taking amusing but highly uncivil pot-shots at each other. Despite all the bad behaviour I'm inclined to think there's hope that an article on this book could exist, but we'll see. Consider this a vote for endorse deletion if no reliable sources show up by the end of DRV (without sources a delete result is inevitable no matter how many times the debate runs), and relist with a fresh start if sources do show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: links added. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion per Andrew Lenahan. The deletion was hardly abrupt — AFDs normally only stay open for 5 days — and it's not a vote anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was not closed excessively early and with no reliable sources found during the AFD which was pointed out by those who supported deletion, see no other closure could have been appropriate as AFD discussions are based on policy. Of course if some good sources are produced at any time would be pleased to reconsider. Davewild (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]