Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 10

10 July 2006

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: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
• Scott5114: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
• Freakofnurture: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
• Youngamerican: "freeways" (never responded to my question about whether "freeways and motorways" is acceptable)
• William Allen Simpson: opposed any change (and closed the discussion)
• Chicheley: "freeways and motorways"
• David Kernow: "freeways and motorways" or "expressway" (an ambiguous term)
• Calsicol: "freeways and motorways"
• Vegaswikian: "expressway" (an ambiguous term)
• Pegship: "high-speed roadways" (an even more ambiguous term)

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

• 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)
• 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)
  • Woops, amazing what a word will do to an argument. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Relisted as requested.
  • However, just for the record, the previous Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently renamed pursuant to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30, where "Freeways and motorways" was rejected in favor of the current title.
    1. Clearly, I stated Oppose.
    2. User:Chicheley clearly stated Oppose.
    3. User:Vegaswikian clearly stated Strong Oppose.
    4. There was no agreement on any other name that would encompass the category definition "Autobahn, Autoroute, Expressway, Freeway, Highway, Motorway, Superhighway, or Throughway."
    5. With the others suggesting various names and without agreement, no consensus to rename seemed rather obvious to me....

    --William Allen Simpson 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    • • You counted votes rather than paying attention to the arguments. --SPUI (T - C) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

"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)

• Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 11#Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways --William Allen Simpson 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Endorse deletion, apparently within process and policy, per Geogre. Barno 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)