Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 158.64.52.114 (talk) at 14:45, 2 February 2010 (→‎Judicial Shamanism II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2010 January 31
2010 February 2 >

1 February 2010

Category:Operalia

Category:Operalia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The outcome of the discussion was not clear. Also, music competitions are not prizes and do not fall into WP:OC#Award-winners. Karljoos (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&action=edit&section=T-2[reply]

Both. Both categories were included in the same CfD. I am not so concern about Category:Operalia though.--Karljoos (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sket Dance

Sket Dance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the AfD, the manga series has one won the 55th annual Shogakukan Manga Award,[1] which now allows it to pass WP:BK. Request the article and talk page be restored. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vid Belec

Vid Belec (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Vid Belec is a young player of Italian Serie A club Inter, he's in the first team as you can see from the official Inter website, the article is definitely notable. Ekerazha (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that he still hasn't actually played at that top level I'd have to agree that he still doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. We'd need a source that he'd actually competed at that level, not just that he was on a roster.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant. It's not notable because he meets WP:ATHLETE, it's notable because he's listed as professional player of the first team (1st or 4th goalkeeper is also not relevant at all, he's a team player, stop) of one of the most prestigious football clubs in the world... that's very notable, WP:ATHLETE is not relevant here. Ekerazha (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the link helps. I do think the issue we run into is appearances. According to the stats section of that website he hasn't made one. Consensus has been that an actual appearance is needed. Without this, even if it were recreated it's likely fail to pass an AFD again. Unless there's more in the way of newspaper/magazine articles or the like I'd suggest waiting for him to make an appearance.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is the first team page from the official F.C. Internazionale website [3] Ekerazha (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion doesn't matter if he is listed in the first team (as a fourth choice goalkeeper, btw), the only relevant thing is that the player has never appeared in a competitive game at all with any first team, including Inter, so failing WP:ATHLETE. This is the rule of thumb that has always been agreed in plenty of AfD cases, so contesting it for a lone case makes little sense. --Angelo (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete, based on the properly formed view that the subject failed WP:ATHLETE. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was before he joined the first team, things are changed now. Ekerazha (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was actually already listed in the list of first team goalkeepers at the time of the nomination, so your remark is just wrong. --Angelo (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was not, you are plain wrong. Ekerazha (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - longstanding consensus over hundreds of AfDs is that a sportsman has to have actually played at a fully professional level to satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE, not merely been added to the squad list on the club's website. Nom seems to be claiming that WP:ATHLETE can be ignored in this case as being named as Inter's fourth-choice goalie makes the subject inherently notable by that fact alone. Sorry, I don't agree at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and improve to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE before coming back here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the long standing consensus that a player must have made at least 1 appearance in a competitive match before they meet WP:ATHLETE. This person has not done so yet and no compelling reason for notability on other grounds has been made. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Shamanism II

Judicial Shamanism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Ok, so the same without remarks about the educational background:

I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism was not factual. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, and did not provide any serious reason for deletion. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:

1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139

2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html

3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris.

4) A chapter at the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234

5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24

6) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge.

7) The conception of judicial shamanism is introduced at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra.

8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo.

Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against.

Dear The Hand That Feeds You, my point is not an appeal to authority. The admin who deleted the article ignored the 8 reliable sources that I gave without explaining why, according to him, they are not acceptable. Each my point is supported with a link. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Shamanism (closed)

T:cite news

T:cite news (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(1) Main argument given for deletion, WP:CROSS, gives specific exception for intended use. Redirect was created in accordance to WP:namespace article: WP:namespace#pseudo-namespaces indicates "T:" as the correct shortcut. (2) Closing admin Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) says it was based on consensus. Vote that was based on 3 total votes 2 to 1. Not enough for consensus, relisting for more input in order, or no consensus. I also contend RfD should not be reduced to a vote in this instance.

Related deleted pages are T:cite web, T:cite paper, and T:cite book. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without opining, those interested may find this discussion relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me; RfDs often get fairly weak participation and the consensus there seems comfortable enough. I wouldn't object to relisting the discussion for more opinions if it really is this contentious, but I don't personally buy the argument that just because one single person finds a cross-namespace redirect useful we should keep it. I'd probably have closed this the same way, and hence I endorse the closure as sensible. ~ mazca talk 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nominator comment) In my opinion, recently created cross-namespace redirects should default to delete unless shown to be beneficial for the project. For example, I find Speedy Delete beneficial since new users presumably type that into the search box. I believe this to be the community consensus as well, so to keep an XNR from main space there would need to be an explicit case for inclusion.
    The only reason you gave is convenience. I've given you an alternative in the form of browser bookmarks. If you prefer using the keyboard, you can add keywords to most browsers that you can type into the address bar that would bring you straight to your desired targets; you also have my blessing to create shortcuts in project space, eg. at WP:T:cite news. But for mainspace, we'd need to have a better argument for inclusion, and I don't see that it could be made for those targets. Amalthea 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you against the CAT pseudo namespace as well? What rationale? How can one be for one but not the other? How does deletion help? This is a case of demolishing the house before it is built. There is a problem and a solution given as prescribed by WP:Namespace. You would delete the remedy and leave the problem without a solution. You feel the redirect should not be there; I feel it should. The difference is the deficiency I'm addressing is pretty clear. Typing out template in full is an inconvenience. I don't know what deficiency your deletion action is supposed to address. This is a case of WP:Overzealous deletion. You say this is consensus? Default to delete for a redirect? Point to the Wikipedia policy that says so. BLPs are extremely contentious but even they are default to keep. Lambanog (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I personally am opposed to any new cross-namespace redirects from mainspace, yes, since they are blurring the lines between the encyclopedic content and the maintainance frame, and since it's absurd that a reader searching for e.g. dyk is left with T:DYK, Saints/DYK/8, T:DYK/Q, T:DYK/C, P:AU/DYK, T:DYK/Q2, T:DYK/Q4, T:DYK/NN, T:DYK/P1, T:DYK/N, T:DYK/Q1, T:DYK/Q3, T:DYK/Q5, T:DYK/Q6, T:DYK/P2, T:DYK/P, T:DYK/Q7, T:DYK/N/C, and more. Deletion helps with that. I've given you three ways to have shortcuts to citation templates that don't pollute main space. There are even more ways. If you're still not happy, find consensus to establish a proper namespace alias, I'd welcome and support that. Amalthea 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't get what your point is with that list. I did not come up with "T:" out of a hat. That is what is indicated in WP:Namespace which I was merely following when creating the redirects. You are claiming consensus to support your view and point to WP:CROSS—but WP:CROSS is ambiguous at best for your position. I can even claim it supports my stand over yours and if that is the case that leaves you with no guideline supporting your position. Lambanog (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable close that reflected the consensus in the discussion. The arguments for deletion were more compelling than the arguments for retention in that the redirects interfere with the mainspace. Lambanog (talk · contribs)'s argument for retaining this as a useful shortcut is significantly weakened by Amalthea's proposal of creating shortcuts in the WP namespace instead. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Truth universe

The Sword of Truth universe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as "no consensus" by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I believe there was a consensus to delete, largely because the arguments to keep were exceptionally weak and should have been ascribed less weight. The arguments for deletion were grounded in policy. The main argument to delete was the lack of evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources; those arguing to keep failed to refute this argument. One "keep" voter contended that third-party coverage was not necessary, an argument that conflicts with the guidelines at WP:N and WP:WAF. Another argument to keep was that sources might exist – an assertion that was not backed up with any evidence. The remainder of the arguments to keep were arguments to avoid, including WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BHTT, and WP:USEFUL. In contrast, votes for deletion were rooted in policies like WP:NOT and WP:V (in addition to the notability guideline). All things considered, the article should've been deleted; however, Kurykh stands by his close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to delete- I firmly believe consensus should be determined by strength of argument and not solely by strength of numbers, and that the stronger arguments were on the "delete" side. Reyk YO! 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - I really don't see an overwhelming consensus to delete this page, and simply listing off abbreviated policies/guidelines/essays gives the impression of an AFD take 2, which is not what DRV is to be used for. Deletion should occur if the page is completely non-salvageable, and I don't see that upon even a cursory look at the article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Very few of the keep arguments addressed the nomination of to a lack of secondary sources discussing the article's topic. Without such sources it was argued that the article fails any number of policies (verifiability, reliable sourcing, notability) and I do not think that these arguments were given sufficient weight, especially against keep arguments that inadequately address these concerns. While it was asserted by Nefariousski that these sources exist, no reliable secondary ones were provided during the debate. By a nose count this is a non-consensus debate, by strength of the arguments it should have been closed as delete - Peripitus (Talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "No Consensus". DGG's argument, that as a sub-article this does need to have the independent sources called or by WP:N and can be reasonably sourced to the primary material is not so unreasonable that it should be discounted. Guidelines are just that, not inflexible rules that must be obeyed in all situations. As such there are reasonable keep and delete arguments balanced in number so that No Consensus is a reasonable close. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete DGGs arguments were so weak (and these were backed up by Edward321) I can only assume that he had not analysed the debate or studied the article in sufficient detail. To create a separate article because the primary article did not have enough space to incorporate the "in-universe" stuff is a terrible precedent because in doing so wikipedia can no longer be an encyclopedic account of the external world and it turns it into a collection of indiscriminate information or fancruft which is lamentable per WP:NOT. Not a single one of the keep voters managed to refute the deletion rationales which were based on policy such as WP:NOT. Therefore this is a poor close. The argument seems to be partly based on the fact that spin off articles do not need to meet notability guidelines and that sources could be found in the future. This is so weak all keep votes could be ignored. Moreover the debate was still very active at the close with a significant amount of information coming very late with no chance for editors to respond. With keep votes lacking any arguments based on policy this should have been a clear delete or a relist pending any keep votes that could be based on policy. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not surprisingly, I think my view , so far from being absurd, is now mainstream here, as the reasonable compromise. It is not common sense nor is it policy nor is it a guideline to think that everything mentioned in an article must be notable. We need some way of dividing a long article. Or do you oppose any mention of things in a fictional universe? that;s a very extreme position indeed. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure was not deleteThere was no consensus. Consensus means most people are appeased, not that most arguements are most legitimate within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Besides, it remains just as prominent as any other fictional world, it just needs more work. Simply deleting a page because it is not "there yet" seems a little ridiculous. What about articles like List of Forgotten Realms characters? should we automatically delete a page, or should we put a in universe style template at the top and allow for change to come. Or look at Middle Earth even, they establish the real world briefly before going into a much broader in world perspective. Leave the page. The tag has only been on it since October, give people a little time. 4 months is not enough. Sadads (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also the head of the Sword of Truth Task force. I will spend some time estabilishing real world content in the coming future.Sadads (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to Sadads but this is a taste of the AfD keep arguments all over again. Mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "it can get better" and "give us some more time and we will prove the notability by finding the sources." Clearly not based on policy unlike the deletion rationales. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To this, I bluntly cite WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again in Wikipedia "policy" = guidelines subject to consensus, not "policy" = consensus subject to guidelines. This is a judgement call, and the judgement call by the consensus was that it is too rash of a move. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but in AfD admins are urged to give less (or no) weight to arguments that are not based on policy. In this debate I count 6 for deletion (including nom) and 4 keep. However, I see no keep argument based on sound policy guidelines and no clear refute of the deletion arguments. When there are more for delete than keep and the keep rationales are this weak no consensus is an incorrect close. In this case WP:IAR is overruled by the fact that there are more editors voting delete. We should certainly not ignore the rules in a case when it is clear that there are more people who don't want to ignore the rules than those who do. Polargeo (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NC Closing this as no consensus seems well within admin discression. Some admins may have closed this differently, however it doesn't look so out of process that it should be overturned. Allow some time for article improvement. At a later date if you still feel it merits deletion see if a second AFD can gather a stronger consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than a third of the debate came within the last 24 hours of the AfD. To close as no consensus, defaulting to keep, when the keep arguments were so weak and in the minority seems wrong anyway but this was a highly active AfD. If the admin had wanted to give the keepers more time to find some policy, or a source to hang their arguments on a simple relist would have done this. Polargeo (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also using "within admin discression" as an argument to maintain a judgement is not fair as it makes individual admins more powerful than they should be. This is a place where there should be unbiased judging of what is the correct close for this debate. Not whether the admin was within some poorly defined bounds of their discression Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe admin discression is the heart of what DRV is and DRV is not. Some afd's are clear cut, others fall into gray areas where admins must make a judgement. DRV is used when the close was against policy, not just because you disagree with it. I look at this AFD discussion and see a discussion that could reasonably called no consensus. Others may see it different, but that doesn't mean that no consensus was clearly wrong. It doesn't mean biased vs unbiased, just that there's not always clear black/white yes/no decisions. It falls into that area where we have to respect the close, and move on. As I said, after a respectable period of time you can try again.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it was a correct close or not? I believe it was not. Shutting down the argument by saying it is "within admin discression" "we have to respect this and move on" without reviewing why you think it is within this discression means little. Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you think the keep arguments have some limited merit based on policy? This would be a possible reason for a no consensus to be within admin discression. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not AFD2. That means that endorsing a close is not the same as adding a keep arguement. AFD analyses the article, DRV analyses the AFD. That said commenting on the afd I don't feel that the keep arguements fall into a category of completly ignorable. These aren't SPA's saying "PLX KEEP MY BAND. I NEEDS WIKI". I don't think it's unreasonable to give them enough weight to call this no consensus, even if not enough to call it a straight keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as "no consensus". If we went by strength of arguments, I suppose, we wold go with a "keep" close, because there does not appear to be any actual reason to delete in this case, but a fair conclusion would be "no consensus" and as such, there is no reason to challenge that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While I can see another admin closing this as delete, there was no clear consensus either way and there are probably too few no consensus closes. A child article on an in-universe piece is a reasonable fork that will be less likely to have real-world sources and is something accepted as a rule. There was no policy violation here that justifies overturning the decision. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i think you mean, that you did not agree with them personally. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Within administrative discretion. Respectable arguments were offered for keeping. It is much better and less dangerous to err on the side of "vote-counting", which gets criticized too much, than to err on the side of substituting one's own judgement instead of reading consensus.John Z (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&oldid=341480917"