Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rikki agarwal (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 20 May 2010 (→‎Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images (closed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2010 May 18
2010 May 20 >

19 May 2010

Donkey show

Donkey show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should have been no consensus, or should have been relisted for more votes. "Original research" was used as a delete vote, but no new conclusion not in the original was reached by the article, which is the definition of original research in Wikipedia. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. 3-2 headcount. Delete !votes based on policy (succinctness does not mean badly reasoned). Keep !votes asserted notability on mere mentions: it is open to make those assertions but they aren't overwhelming arguments. Unless there's something highly unusual, a delete close in these circumstances is within discretion. It was also open to the admin to close rather than relist for a second time. 5 contributors is enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: this was a bit premature. As the DRV nominator suggests the concerns of the delete !voters were not well-founded, us humble non-sysops will need to see what was actually deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, I have restored the article temporarily for the course of this DRV. I closed essentially per the nomination: after looking through the sources, I saw nothing reliably sourced that could lead to an article of any substantial length. In addition to seeing no sources of substance, I also noted that the vast majority of edits to the article fell into two categories: listings of trivia ('in popular culture') or vandalism. I'll also point out that another editor had asked me about userfying it four days ago; I declined pending the discovery of reliable secondary sources, which the editor is looking into but has not yet found as of this note. Shimeru (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm troubled by the fact the nomination was more or less "this doesn't exist, so notability doesn't exist either," which most of the !delete votes tended to fall towards. Non-existence does not automatically mean non-notability. I would like to point out the ability for this article to be sourced -- google book searches reveal quite a bit of information to those willing to do research. For example: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+mexico&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+tijuana&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+sex&btnG=Search+Books riffic (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From these particular searches: Nor-tec rifa!: electronic dance music from Tijuana to the world, Cassell's dictionary of slang, Border transits: literature and culture across the line. riffic (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable conclusion based on the strength of arguments. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that was probably a reasonable close. As a small learning point for the closer, when closing against the apparent consensus as you did in this case, a more detailed closing statement explaining your reasons is helpful, particularly to newer editors.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. As Richard Arthur Norton points out, the deletion rationale of OR is not supported. Sourcing is borderline (which makes it more defensive as an argument), but considering the subject and the sources, adequate. The Cassell's Dictionary of Slang is a RS, and the entry shows the practice exists. Los Angeles Magazine is also a RS. Headcounts, especially with an extremely low sample !voting population of only five, are not a viable reason to endorse (or to delete), since we should be discussing thoughtful reasons to support a particular position that constructively adds to the discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse either numerically or by strength of arguments, the outcome was clear either way, and it had already been relisted once. As an aside, I did have to chuckle at the fellow who wanted to keep based on mentions in those acclaimed journalistic documentaries, Bachelor Party and Clerks II. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to no consensus but no trout for the closer. I was the first to question this close and I was satisfied with Shimeru's answer and think the close was within admin's discretion as it could have gone either way. However, as long as we're here, I'll !vote to overturn for the reasons I gave on Shimeru's talk page linked above. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC as I don't see consensus in that discussion for anything. At the least the sources found by riffic are enough to justify a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that asking for a userspace draft, which I might normally be inclined to do in a situation like this, is difficult as the closer has refused to provide one to riffic. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC, possibly relist. Discussion didn't show consensus and delete !votes didn't really say the truth: There are RS in the article and the OR arguments are unfounded in the revisions I can see. The first keep is weak but the second is right. Should have been relisted. --Cyclopiatalk 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse proper judgment of policy-based consensus. WP:ITSREAL is not policy and neither is WP:THEYSAIDITONSOMESHOW. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or possibly no-consensus (which pretty much amount to the same thing in practice). The delete arguments were either: 1/ that it might not actually exist--but it does not in the least matter, since WP covers fictional subjects also; or 2/ that the sources were inadequate, but those arguments either ignored the fact that the re actually were sources--in which case the arguments were contrary to the plain facts of the matter, or the arguments saying so meant inadequate to prove real existence, which again is not a policy based argument. What the admin has discretion to do in an unsatisfactory argument is either to add their good arguments to the discussion and let someone else close, or, if they close, to decide between NC or relist. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete votes are pure policy, and seem accurate given a review of the article and it sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/overturn to no consensus per DGG. The main thrust of the discussion seemed to focus on an irrelevant point, whether the topic actually exists. There was no meaningful argument made by either side related to policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither of the two non-nominator delete votes say anything about the topic existing or not, and whether the topic actually exists was only one facet (and certainly not a main thrust, more of a "and furthermore" type statement) of the nominator's statement. The deletion votes were based on notability and original research concerns, not existence concerns. Only one keep vote even addresses existence as an issue (and does so very ineptly). I do not know how one can read this AfD discussion and conclude that the main thrust was an argument over whether the topic exists or not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although some other issues were mentioned, they did not become a focus of the discussion because nobody provided arguments for or against anything. "Keep notable Delete not notable" isn't a discussion of any kind. While some of the votes named policies, none offered a reason to believe that those policies were relevant to the discussion: at no point did a keep voter provide a reason to believe the topic is notable, nor does anyone offer a reason to believe that it is original research (especially given that every statement in the article had an identified source) or non-notable. There's no arguments either way, just unsubstantiated statements of opinion. Given the lack of a compelling argument, there would need to be a substantial preponderance of opinion to warrant deletion, and 3-2 is not that. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was really just taking issue with your apparent assertion that the discussion was mainly, primarily, whatever-ly, about whether or not "it exists," which seems to me demonstrably false. Beyond that, my own opinion is that claiming that an article utterly devoid of sourcing reflective of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is "non-notable" is all the argument one needs to argue that it's non-notable. I, for one, find that to be very compelling. Does someone need to literally type out the referenced policy in order for it to become an argument? I think you are drawing an unnecessarily fine line. But, all that said, I can certainly respectfully "agree to disagree" on this! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images (closed)

let me debate what you people are saying WP:COPY, WP:COI:It is an 100% original article with no copy from anywhere.If you can prove that i have copied from somewhere with line refrences that will be great.COI is impossible if i havent copied it

WP:Spam:Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services. Spam costs the sender very little to send -- most of the costs are paid for by the recipient or the carriers rather than by the sender.http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml


Tell me one thing have i created 1000 article on digito? and have i flooded it?.How can you earn from open source software.Digito is not dubious just do a little google on it .

WP Guide:tell me one thing have i written how to use digito.I just wanted list down features that it is offering--Rikki agarwal (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_19&oldid=363135792"