Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 2

< December 1	Deletion review archives	December 3 >

2 December 2006

TS-MA2 Moebius

conversation seemed to be one sided. the article was removed because of in universe techno babble but we have other articles on scifi and fictional equipment that have content only fans will know and i see no resion to go on a witch hunt on pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion. The nomination seems to imply that AfDs with a clear consensus one way with next to no dissenting votes should be overturned due to one-sidedness, which would be scary. Also, note that this is not AfD round 2; you shouldn't come here without bringing up information that was not considered in the AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion A one-sided AfD discussion is otherwise known as "consensus". Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. A one-sided AfD debate usually results in a pretty one-sided review too. Chris cheese whine 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A discussion about the deleted redirect has been speedily closed (see above). The discussion about the main article is ongoing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pear Cable Audio Cables

Notable Company that is not a Spam Entry. I would like to request that Pear Cable Audio Cables be considered for undeletion. The article was deleted, then reposted with the addition of 3 links to point out the notability of the company. This repost was also deleted. To address the complaints specifically: The page is factual material that does not make any biased claims whatsoever, ie the article does not state that Pear Cables are the best, or anything of that nature. The company is notable due to the fact that it has been written about by multiple independent organizations (3 links were provided). If Pear Cable Audio Cables does not qualify for notability, then virtually every company on the High-end audio page should also be deleted except for perhaps a couple of publicly traded companies. The complaint posted by Tubezone that complains about the price of 1 product sold by Pear bears no relevance to the subject of deletion. However, it does exhibit a bias that is exhibited by some who do not believe that high-end audio cables are worth the money they cost. This opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinion of virtually all respected high-end audio publication reviewers, but more importantly bears no weight on weither companies should have articles in wikipedia.

Be bold and recreate it. The second speedy was inappropriate on two counts, and it obviously did not fulfil the requirement for G4 speedies. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most (but not all) of the companies on the High-end audio list are companies of long standing with plenty of notability outside the high-end stereo press clique. There are only two cable companies listed, one is up for AfD, the other is an iffy call for encyclopedic notability, none on the list qualify as a notable players in the wire and cable industry, rather, they're cable assemblers for the niche market of high-end audio. Tubezone 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to TubezoneThere is no age requirement for a company to be considered notable. A company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Pear Cable Audio Cables as well as Nordost (the other cable company you reference) both meet this requirement. Personal disagreement with a certain industry is not justification for removal of pertinent information. Your removal of a perfectly justified link to a white paper published by Pear Cable Audio Cables on the High-end audio cables page, but the keeping of a link to another manufacturer's white paper, is further evidence of a personal bias that seems to exist either against Pear Cable Audio Cables, high-end cables in general (as Belden is generally not considered a high-end manufacturer) or both.
- Or maybe he simply feels this one is not notable? Assume good faith please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My biases are not up for debate here. I made an observation that the cables made by Pear and Nordost are pricey, and they are, but that in itself is not a reason to delete, nor was it given as a reason. My contention was and is that this company (Pear) fails notability criteria, no evidence or references have been brought forth to dispute that. Your say-so doesn't count, and I am not the author of the article. A company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." OK, so what are these multiple non-trivial published works? If I were you I would follow Amarkov's advice, Be bold and recreate it, with proper assertions of notability and references to document that. The best defense against an argument of non-notability is to document that the subject of an article is notable. The linkspam you are inserting into High-end audio cables is a sales presentation for Pear, and does not belong linked to a WP article. See: WP:EL.

Lastly, I am not an admin, it's up to them, not me, to decide whether an article remains or not, and judge whether the arguments given for deletion or retention are valid. They aren't going to be persuaded by comments (by me or others) on the price or worth of the products. Tubezone 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSo now I do not know what the protocol is here. I reposted the article again on Dec. 2nd with 3 links to non-trivial independent writings about Pear Cable Audio Cables. This was deleted again by the admin. 2 people here are suggesting that the article be reposted. So, should I repost the article now, or wait for this undelete process to go on?Apblake 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate it, as long as the sources were not in the original article. And mention that to the admin who last deleted it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article has been recreated with 3 links to show notability that were not in the original article. All 3 sources are completely independent from Pear Cable Audio Cables
I don't see any pressing reason why this can't go to AfD, given that there seems to be at least some claim to notability, even if it is considered questionable by some. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal

Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism. ThisIsOnlyMe 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Who would look through old LTA cases to find how to combat vandalism? Just add any good advice somewhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original MfD, I assumed due to the lack of the link that there wasn't one. I think it should be deleted, but not against a lack of consensus. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original MfD, which was no consensus. Not a speedy candidate, if it's that important to get rid of, send it through the proper channels. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Comment.~~ Weak endorse MfD ~~Not sure how to go on this one.~~ KV has become active in the last hour or so, but it is most likely passing copycat vandalism. I agree that it probably should be deleted, but WP:DENY isn't really an argument for deletion. Put back through MfD if it is felt necessary. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion nominators only edit is to try and recover this, whilst the vandal (or imitator) has apparently become active again, right. The vandal in question blanks pages and adds image of a kitten saying that if it is reverted he'll kill a kitten (or along those lines), there is nothing subtle about this vandal, not information on the page helps anyone notice this any better or revert it any better. Don't feed the trolls. --pgk 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF. Even if he is the vandal or an SPA or something else, he's still not wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AGF is not a call to shut your eyes and hope, or a suicide pact, a brand new account turns up requesting undeletion of a page coincidentally at the time when vandalism of that type is recurring after an break, this is exactly what WP:DENY is about. "He's still not wrong" - so he says "Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism" what useful information do you think it contains? I describe the vandalism, you don't need a page for that, see someone blanking a page and replacing it with an image (irrespective of threats to kill kittens), revert it, this isn't rocket science, there is no subtlety just bog standard vandalism. If ever a vandal was merely trying to get attention it's this one. --pgk 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Vandalism is obvious and does not require documentation to counteract, we do not keep trophy cabinets for vandals anymore. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No new information/evidence has been given to undelete this article: deletion was warranted. --SunStar Net 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "No new evidence" only applies when we're reviewing a discussion. The discussion resulted in no consensus, and then another admin deleted it per WP:DENY. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was still in the same mindset as to when someone requested that Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels was undeleted - they had given no specific reasoning as to why it should be undeleted. Anyway, I endorse the deletion, it was necessary. --SunStar Net 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a good suggestion for when people bring up Wikipedia:Long term abuse/X pages/templates on DRV??:

Salt the page to prevent re-creation, but perform a history-only undeletion so that people can look back through the page history if they really want to read the old pages.

I wonder if this is a fair enough solution for such pages: this way it should keep both sides satisfied. --SunStar Net 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Fantastic solution, that way the page cannot really incur WP:DENY or WP:BEANS, but people who are perhaps new to countervandalism can view the history. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment doesn't work for me, many of the LTA pages were deleted not as such for WP:DENY or WP:BEANS reasons but because they were simply junk. (I'd say this was one of them), they don't help anyone detect or deal with this type of vandalism any more, or less, effectively since the vandalism itself is so blindingly obvious and the "details" of the vandal are so generic as to be meaningless. Since then after discussion and agreement, WP:LTA now has a definition of when a subpage could be created, merely being prolific at obvious vandalism isn't one of them. You can sum this vandal (and many of the others) up in a sentence or two and add it to the list on WP:LTA and that's where it should go (if it should go anywhere that is). --pgk 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My own opinion on this (Sun Star's already heard it) is that either the page contains useful information for fighting the vandal, in which case we should keep it somewhere, or it doesn't (as in this case), in which case prurience isn't a good reason to keep information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - About the only relevant LTA pages are: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis - since these users are more than vandals. --SunStar Net 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]