Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 10: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MartinRe (talk | contribs)
3,207 edits
→‎[[King's Highway (Ontario)]]: closing moribund debate
Line 5: Line 5:
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
-->
-->
====[[King's Highway (Ontario)]]====
:14:41, 10 July 2006 Royboycrashfan (Talk | contribs) deleted "King's Highway (Ontario)" (R3 content was: '<nowiki>{{db|R3}}</nowiki>#REDIRECT [[List of Ontario provincial highways]]')
I don't understand this. Presumably [[User:Royboycrashfan|Royboycrashfan]] was simply assuming good faith on the part of the person who tagged it R3 ("implausible typo"). But these highways - or rather the ones with low numbers - are known as King's Highways. Who tagged it and can someone speedily undelete it? --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:Restored as a perfectly good redirect. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


*'''Object''' to restoration. There are no roads in Ontario known as "King's Highway". They are all known as "Ontario provincial highways", as anybody who had actually driven on one would know. They were devolved to the provinces over a decade ago. This was a [[WP:POINT]] creation by SPUI as part of his argument at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 8#Category:Ontario provincial highways to Category:King's Highways of Ontario]]. It is a very unlikely typo, and it has no basis in reality. Kill it, quickly. The folks in the CfD debate request it. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*:Without taking a position in the above referenced CfD matter, a quick check of [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22King's+Highways%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Google for "King's Highways"] would reveal that the term has historical legitimacy. I don't see why it needs to be deleted. I also don't see any "requests" in the CfD to delete the redirect. Indeed, I see one person pointing out that while they don't think the category should be moved, that it was at one time correct terminology. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*::That was a long time (decades) ago, although there is a site (you found, and that we all found earlier) complaining that Ontario officials began removing the old signs circa 1993. You won't find the term on the official Ontario government site. The creation of this redirect was a few minutes after the CfD nomination, and was quickly noticed by the CfD participants. But heck, redirects are cheap, and I'll just slap an Unprintworthy on it in the meantime, and see whether we should take it to RfD. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
* This is an unnecessary redirect. Though it's true that historically it was the proper name of the system, in common parlance today, ''nobody'', but ''nobody'', ''ever'' calls them that anymore (not even the [[Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)|Ministry of Transportation]]), and ''nobody'', but ''nobody'' is ''ever'' going to type the phrase "King's Highway (Ontario)" into the search box. And there's been no demand for it, either; if you check the "What links here" at [[King's Highway (Ontario)]], you'll find that ''every single page'' that actually links to it is a less-than-two-day-old discussion ''about'' the appropriateness of the redirect itself — not one single solitary article has ever felt a need to link to that title. To all available evidence, SPUI is trying anything he can to get ''around'' the fact that he hasn't been able to build consensus for what he feels is the correct titling and categorization of Ontario highways...and considering that SPUI actually tried to get away with retitling [[Thousand Islands Parkway]] with a highway number that was ''removed'' from it almost ''40 years'' ago, I really think he'd best step away and let the people who actually ''know'' something about the state of Ontario's highway system decide what's best here. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse restoration''', perfectly reasonable redirect. Is there any reason not to say that a certain road was "previously designated as a [[King's Highway (Ontario)|King's Highway]]" using "(Ontario)" to distinguish it from, say, [[Kings Highway (Brooklyn)]]. I think [[King's Highway (Ontario)]] should eventually be a separate article discussing the historical usage of the term, but a redirect is best for now. — <small>Jul. 11, '06</small><tt> '''[10:14] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]&#124;[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
* '''Endorse keep''' per [[User:Freakofnurture|freakofnurture]]. [[User:Jgp|jgp]] ([[User_talk:Jgp|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]) 10:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*Endorse restoration/keep, why this was deleted, or even considered for deletion, in the first place is beyond me. Its outdated terminology, which is why the article shouldn't be at that title, so a redirect ''makes perfect sense''. Sheesh.--[[User:Sean Black|SB]] | [[User talk:Sean Black|T]] 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
**It's a term which is ''never'' going to get typed into the search box by ''anybody'', and is ''never'' going to get linked to by ''anybody'', because ''nobody'', not even the provincial [[Ministry of Transportation (Ontario)|Ministry of Transportation]], calls them that anymore (and even when the Ministry ''did'' call them that, they were the ''only'' people who did; nobody in Ontario who wasn't an MOT employee ''ever'' called them King's Highways.) It was created by an editor who appears to have the intention of using the existence of the redirect to justify moving the article to that title at a later date ''even though he can't get a consensus for that''; he's been subject to ''arbitration'' in the past for ''doing exactly that very thing''. It was, quite simply, a bad faith creation. Even the Canadian roadgeeks on Wikipedia have ''never'' felt it was necessary — and if the people who are ''most'' familiar with the topic, the people who know better than ''anybody'' else how best to organize the relevant articles, don't think it's needed, then that should settle the matter right there. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse Restoration''': for crying out loud, our article at [[List of Ontario provincial highways]] ''says'' "The primary routes are designated as King's Highways"; how much more do you need. This all smells of anti-SPUI [[WP:POINT|POINT]]-making. —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 10:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
**The article was utterly wrong, I've updated with legal references (dating back to at least 1990, earlier isn't yet on-line). I see that both SPUI and FoN are in the recent history. FoN should have recused himself. I didn't know he was an involved party. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Endorse restoration''', per Sean and Phil. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Update''' Subsequent to the above restoration after the R3 speedy, the redirect was nominated for deletion via rfd. This [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#King.27s_Highway_.28Ontario.29_.E2.86.92_List_of_Ontario_provincial_highways|rfd debate]] was closed after less than six hours as a keep as a "misguided or bad faith nomination." ([[WP:SK]] would suggest that even bad faith noms should be left to run if other editors vote delete, as happened here). No personal opinion on the existance or not of the redirect, but I would point out that it's turned a little chaotic if it results in two deletion reviews in parrallel for the same article (one re speedy, one re rfd) - it may have been better to allow the review of the speedy to finish before taking action reversing it, perhaps? Regards, [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
**Sorry, SPUI brought it here, while I brought it to RfD after my speedy R3 was restored. I thought that was the process, and didn't realize that it needed to sit here for a week before it sat there for a week and then sat here for another week, as the whole point was '''speedy''' deletion. But all is not lost! Just consider this the appeal of the early RfD termination, too! --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Restore''' per freakofnurture. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' -- apparently, some folks are confused about the usefulness of such a redirect.
*#There isn't "'''A'''" King's Highway in Ontario. There are '''hundreds'''. It just means "a road where the government has exercised [[eminent domain]]." It applies to little bitty dirt roads, roads built for logging, even private industrial roads. There are "King's Highways" in Quebec ("Chemin du Roi"), New Brunswich, Prince Edward Island, etc. Thousands of them.
*#In this context, "highway" doesn't mean "important road". It means "bigger than a cow path". All vehicular roads are "highways" -- and at least in one case, actually used to be called "King's Path".
*#Think "National road", or "Road that received national funding". We wouldn't have a redirect [[United States road (Michigan)]], or [[National road (Michigan)]], or even [[State road (Michigan)]], because there are many such roads, and it isn't a useful search term, and there's no good place to redirect it.
*#That's why Bearcat is so emphatic: it's a term which is unlikely to be typed into the search box by anybody. Especially as it has Ontario in parentheses. Nobody accidentally types parentheses. This is exactly what R3 was meant to handle.
*:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 06:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*::Seriously, what the devil is the harm in this particular redirect? It's not misleading, it's one kilobyte somewhere on a Wikimedia server, it might serve a purpose, it might not - but this just smacks of pushing buttons just for the sake of pushing them. Choose your battles. This is not one that makes any sense at all to be fighting. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 08:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It was created in an agenda war by an editor who's been subject to ''arbitration'' in the past for conducting exactly this very type of agenda war. Fighting it is worth ''exactly'' as much as doing it in the first place ever was. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 00:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Relist on rfd''' When DRV decides a speedy deletion was incorrect and overturns it, this does not mean that the material is immune for deletion on the appropiate *fd, as the criteria for deltion via csd and *fd are very different. On hindsight, I believe that once overturned and rfd'd, the review of the speedy should have been closed, and the rfd discussion allowed to take place, which would have saved a lot of confusion. As it stands now, it is unclear what this DRV is discussing. Whether the speedy should be overturned? Whether the rfd closure was correct? Both? Can the redirect be rfd'd if the speedy is overturned, or will it be also speedily closed? In my view, the only way to sort this out cleanly is to have a fresh relist on rfd which is allowed to run out its full time. Regards, [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


====[[A Course in Miracles (book)]]====
====[[A Course in Miracles (book)]]====

Revision as of 22:37, 16 July 2006

10 July 2006

A Course in Miracles (book)

This article was deleted even though the outcome of the AfD discussion was "nomination withdrawn." —Antireconciler 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the AfD, take a look at the second nomination (below the first), it looks like this was renominated but, for some reason, placed in the same page rather than in a new page. I don't have time to split the histories and bring the second nomination into a seperate page, but perhaps another admin has the time and knowhow to do so. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 1#Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways

The closer was heavily involved in the discussion, and failed to take into account that CFD is not a vote. The current title is misleading (see limited access road), and the only non-ambiguous terms brought forward with the correct scope were "freeways" and "freeways and motorways".

Here is a breakdown of the "votes":

--SPUI (T - C) 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-list without William Allen Simpson's participation. He closed it as keeping the status quo, however, it is readily apparent that he is the only user in favor of the status quo. — Jul. 10, '06 [15:51] <freak|talk>
  • Comment: I've notified William Allen Simpson of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, considering that there was approximately 2:1 in favour of not renaming the category, a "no consensus" decision should definitely have been left up to a neutral admin. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woops, amazing what a word will do to an argument. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I have no opinion on the underlying topic, but it's generally inappropriate for those involved in a debate to also close it. Nandesuka 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted as requested.
  • Comment -- also worth noting for the record that SPUI wrote the article limited access road (he cited above) after the discussion began, and no professional in the field agrees with his definition; nor his re-write of freeway this week, either. It's very hard to come to consensus when one of the disputants is re-writing the underlying articles at the same time. --William Allen Simpson 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"no professional in the field agrees with his definition" - what the hell are you talking about? Do you have a custom JS that disables citations? --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law School Ranking deletes

I am not sure how to do this, but Crzrussian has deleted some great information that I posted regarding law schools. I was posting the US News Ranking and the Brody and Associate Ranking of numerous law schools. I believe this information to be extremely important. I understand that Crzrussian may have deleted my post because he is a current law student and may have a bias on this issue. I would like the postings to be reviewed by a non-law student who will be able ot be more objective about the usefulness of this information. I do not use this website often, so I am hoping that someone will tell me if I am doing this wrong. Thanks for your time

That information is surely copyrighted by their respective developers. And please sign your posts with four tildes - ~~~~. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been debates (and more of them) about "rankings." Essentially, the only thing everyone has agreed upon is that a magazine's rankings are copyrighted. Therefore, we can't repeat anyone else's rankings without infringing on copyright. If we can't repeat a magazine's rankings, then any rankings we do provide tend to be POV and original research, so.... That's where everything falls apart again, but the short answer is that it was a proper deletion for copyright violation. Geogre 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, apparently within process and policy, per Geogre. Barno 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_10&oldid=64185474"