Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:24, 3 September 2006

< August 28	August 30 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
 -->
-====[[Joe Siegler]]====
-I have reason to believe that the AfD debate for this article was somehow rigged due to comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADopefish&diff=71682335&oldid=69938759 this] repeatedly being left on the talk page of the user that the article was about.  The article was the subject of repeated vandalism in the form of libelous additions the same day as its AfD nomination, and it was nominated for AfD during a brief period of time in which it was only a stub after being blanked to help stop the problem.  As such, this decision should be overturned due to the evident tampering with the AfD and the inappropriate circumstances under which it was nominated. [[User:TerminX|TerminX]] 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-*AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Siegler|here]]. Also notified closing admin. [[User:Whispering|Whispering]]<sup>([[User talk:Whispering|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Whispering|c]])</sup> 04:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-**That's the first AfD, which was withdrawn.  The one that got the article deleted is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Siegler 2|here]]. [[User:TerminX|TerminX]] 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse closure'''.  I see no process problems in the second deletion discussion.  The consensus was clear that this article failed to meet the recommended [[Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies|criteria for inclusion of biographies]].  (I counted 18 to 3 after discounting two suspiciously new users.)  Reviewing the comments in the discussion and the contents of the unvandalized versions of the page, it appears to me that full weight was given to all the available evidence and users still argued to delete the page.  The [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] comments made on the subject's User and Talk page are disturbing and may be grounds for actions against those users but they are not grounds to overturn the deletion of the page from the article-space.  <br>By the way, has anyone offered to move in as the user's UserPage?  I see nothing that would cause objections if such a move were requested.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''': while it is perhaps a little fishy, not enough to undermine the result. [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', yes, that comment wasn't exactly in good taste, but the AfD itself seemed valid nonetheless. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''', I trust Danny.  --[[User:Cyde|<font color="#ff66ff">'''Cyde Weys'''</font>]] 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' - This one is problematic is ways unlike any other one I've voted on.  This guy is known specifically for being on the Internet basically.  His notability comes from blogging and posting to forums, and moderating, etc. etc.  so he gets an unusally high number of google hits.  Still eighty-one thousand seems fairly high to me.  Do we have rules for notability for internet people? [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-**Unfortunately, no.  [[WP:MEMES]] was rejected, and the current conventional wisdom is that people can't actually be "notable" if they're only on the internet.  It's twisted logic, but that's how it currently is... --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-::* No, it's not "twisted", it's perfectly reasonable to require reliable secondary sources, policy says we must do just that. And anything that vanishes when the power goes out is ephemeral :-) [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-:::*No, you're right, and it's a similar mistake I make when discussing this particular issue.  It's not ''what'' we need for sources that's the problem as much as our general distrust of sources not located on dead trees.  It's a deeper issue that won't be solved here or anywhere anytime soon. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' I don't see a connection between the talkpage insult and the AfD, which was properly closed. Most of the voters were longstanding AfD participants, i doubt the would engage in that kind of activity. On people only existing on the internets, we have [[Silke Fritzen]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''endorse''' this closure consensus existed to delete it [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)