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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎[[A Course in Miracles (book)]]: closing moribund debate
Line 9: Line 9:




====[[: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 [[motorway]]s".

Here is a breakdown of the "votes":
*[[User:SPUI|SPUI]]: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
*[[User:Scott5114|Scott5114]]: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
*[[User:Freakofnurture|Freakofnurture]]: "freeways" or "freeways and motorways"
*[[User:Youngamerican|Youngamerican]]: "freeways" (never responded to my question about whether "freeways and motorways" is acceptable)
*[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]]: opposed any change (and closed the discussion)
*[[User:Chicheley|Chicheley]]: "freeways and motorways"
*[[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]]: "freeways and motorways" or "[[expressway]]" (an ambiguous term)
*[[User:Calsicol|Calsicol]]: "freeways and motorways"
*[[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]]: "expressway" (an ambiguous term)
*[[User:Pegship|Pegship]]: "high-speed roadways" (an even more ambiguous term)
--[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|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. — <small>Jul. 10, '06</small><tt> '''[15:51] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]&#124;[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
*'''Comment:''' I've notified [[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] of this DRV. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relist''', considering that there was approximately 2:1 in favour of <s>not</s> renaming the category, a "no consensus" decision should definitely have been left up to a neutral admin. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
**Woops, amazing what a word will do to an argument. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Relisted''' as requested.
**However, just for the record, the previous {{lc|Freeways}} 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.
**#Clearly, I stated '''Oppose'''.
**#User:Chicheley clearly stated '''Oppose'''.
**#User:Vegaswikian clearly stated '''Strong Oppose'''.
**#There was no agreement on any other name that would encompass the category definition "[[Autobahn]], [[Autoroute]], [[Expressway]], [[Freeway]], [[Highway]], [[Motorway]], [[Superhighway]], or [[Throughway]]."
**#With the others suggesting various names and without agreement, '''no consensus to rename''' seemed rather obvious to me....
**:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 16:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
****You counted votes rather than paying attention to the arguments. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|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. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|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? --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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


====Law School Ranking deletes====
====Law School Ranking deletes====

Revision as of 22:46, 16 July 2006

10 July 2006

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]