Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 21: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:54, 26 July 2006

< July 20	July 22 >

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

21 July 2006

Roger Maloney

Roger Maloney - Someone deleted this page without warning or discussion or stating reasons and should be reviewed and dealt with properly. Based on comments looks like a group of people are working together to interfer with certain specific editor's work User:WikiWoo.17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

Comment. The history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Maloney certainly seems to show an article nominated for deletion on 7/15 and deleted six days later, with several editors participating in the discussion. Fan-1967 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Comment That was a prior article that was completely rewritten to eliminate each of the noted objections. How do I get the last article back that was a complete rewrite? Do I need to start agains from scratch? Seems like a waste of lots of good work.21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The log only shows it being deleted once, at 06:57, 21 July 2006, the same time the AFD was closed. Did you create a new article, or edit the existing one, while the AFD was still open? Fan-1967 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I waited five days and then published a new article. The AFD applied to the earlier work which was no longer up. Can you see the last version posted? Maybe you can get it back up for me.WikiWoo

I'm not an admin, so I have no access to the deleted article. Someone else would need to check the history. However, you need to be aware that if the AFD is still open, and you make changes to the article, you need to notify people that the article has changed. That AFD shows that most of the comments were on the first day. Nobody was informed the article had changed, and the closing admin had no way of knowing. (Admins closing AFD's do not have time to check each article before closing to see if there are significant changes.) Fan-1967 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get attention from and Admin in this case?WikiWoo 02:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: Is your request for review that the second iteration requires a new AfD for deletion? The article is a rather obsessively detailed and thorough discussion of a single regional official's career, with nothing really showing his significance above and beyond the regional governmental level. He worked there 30 years. He resigned. Someone else came in. <shrug> I don't think it will pass a second AfD, but if that is really what you want, then list on AfD for a second time. It really doesn't do a great deal to establish that this figure is notable, and you don't even know what nation he's in until the 4th paragraph. Geogre 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that the last version of the page was a complete rewrite to address all of the comments made by the votes for deletion. I lost that work without having a chance to have people vote on it or make any comments at all on the final new article that was there when it was deleted. I think this is a new user error for not checking whether the AfD was still on or not. If Template:Someone can get the last page up there we can then see what the community has to say and even go for a vote on the new article.WikiWoo 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, as I said, an undelete and relist would be my vote, but I should warn you that the fate will likely be the same. Geogre 12:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, appears to be part of a POV-pushing campaign by WikiRoo (talk · contribs) aka WikiWoo (talk · contribs) aka WikiDoo (talk · contribs). No independent sources, valid AfD result and no evidence of notability: generic regional functionary. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as AFD closer, valid AFD Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Maloney had plenty of time for discussion, so without warning or discussion or stating reasons is hogwash. Copyvios can be deleted speedily, so there wasn't even a real need to keep it around that long. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Government officials in charge of such large regions and departments are always notable. Whether or not the article was vanity, can be corrected in talk. Anyone in charge of a one billion dollars budget is certainly far exceeding the level necessary to be notable. And notability is not a grounds for deletion. Notability is a guideline, not a policy. Wjhonson 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion concurring with JzG's comments on the POVpushing. OzLawyer 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse copyvio deletion, copyright violations are non-negotiable on Wikipedia. If the original author can come up with a non-copyrighted version (I suggest working on it in your personal userspace), I think the article can then be relisted on AfD so we can determine how notable the subject is, but for now, I endorse the deletion as a copright violation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Jimbo makes mistakes

Zoe keeps speedy deleting this page over and over. CSD criteria she has helpfully let me know about include "rant", "POV", "attack page", and "hey look, something shiny!" None of these are valid CSDs for the Wikipedia namespace-- she needs to take it to MFD. In any case, let's imagine that I was trying to write an attack page about Jimbo. Is "Jimbo makes mistakes" really the worst I can do? I think I can reasonably expect more from myself. At least, "Jimbo is a poopypants" or "Jimbo's mom sleeps around." In conclusion, the Power Rangers are a lot like Beowulf because they're both superheroes, and please restore my essay. Ashibaka tock 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Not seeing how this is an attack page (which is a valid CSD, btw, just not in this case); it's calmly argued, and merely critical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restore at Wikipedia:Jimbo's mom sleeps around~~ Restore, but only in Ashibaka's userspace. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on MfD Don't think most of those are CSDs. I'm not an admin and so can't see the page content, but I suspect this isn't uncontroversial enough to be a speedy. --ais523 11:16, 21 July 2006 (U T C)
Endorse deletion. (Note to Zoe. "Rant" is not grounds for speedy deletion, although it is grounds for deletion. "Attack page" is grounds for deletion.) (I am now an admin, and my first use of admin powers was to view that page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, borderline attack, disruptive. No prejudice against trying again in less loaded terms, but experience indicates that invoking the cult of Jimbo is not considered productive. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me where I am trying to be disruptive Ashibaka tock 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Questioning our infallible leader will only cause trouble and strife. Clearly this is a case where common sense, policy and decorum must be set aside to protect his delicate sensibilities. --71.36.251.182 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List on MfD, rant and POV is not patent nonsense, it looks more like a skeptic's essay to me than an attack. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and if you really don't like it take it to MFD. Attack pages are speedyable in ns:0 (even if isn't listed on WP:CSD that way, WP:SENSE applies. "So-and-so is a fag that likes to beat children." should not have to spend days on MFD.), but this was not an attack page. At worst userfy it. Kotepho 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
undelete again and ask Zoe to cut that out- she's now deleted it several times, undoing the undeletion of two different admins. We need to collectively stop treating any kind of criticism like it's an attack. Immediately deleting anything that can be viewed as critical only lends creedence to the accusation of cabalism. We should all make an effort to decrease wikidrama, not increase it. Friday (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
undelete again again as per Friday's very cogent remarks. Themindset 22:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed what I can only assume was the objectionable sentence. Is this alright with those who'd previously been concerned it was an attack page? Friday (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UNdeleted the current version looks fine and not an attack page, although perhaps it could be less personal like "Wikipedia makes mistakes" to get outside of the "Cult of Jimbo". Either way I like it and don't see a problem with it. RN 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say list on MfD, but I see that's already occurred: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Jimbo makes mistakes. BryanG^(talk) 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel wars are bad stop undeleting/redeleting. MfD is correct. Phr (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete as per RN. We all make mistakes. That's what makes us human and even better human beings when we learn from our errors. As Jimbo created Wiki, it would serve both Wiki and Jimbo well to keep this article. Lennys 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this DRV, the MfD has reached its final conclusion with the article being moved to where it belongs: in the userspace. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion: "please restore my essay" says it all. Wikipedia is not the place to publish an essay. Move it to the userspace or blog it externally and link it off your userpage.--Isotope23 12:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Project space oftentimes is the place for essays about Wikipedia. We do have the {{essay}} tag for a reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 *'''Endorse Deletion''': "please restore my essay" says it all.  Wikipedia is not the place to publish an essay.  Move it to the userspace or blog it externally and link it off your userpage.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 12:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 **Project space oftentimes is the place for essays about Wikipedia. We do have the {{tl|essay}} tag for a reason. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Teutonic thrash]]====
-;* See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teutonic thrash]]
-I think this sub-genre is notable. First off there are more than three bands in this genre which the [[thrash metal]] article mentions. Those three are just some of the biggest names within this genre. Secondly, the genre has some close ties in German culture and history. Lastly, there are some differences between this genre and the East and West Coast US thrash metal scenes. --[[User:Pinkkeith|Pinkkeith]] 17:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-: '''Keep deleted'''. This is not a notable genre - if it is a genre at all. Three (or even two) thrash bands (Kreator, Sodom and Destruction) from Germany are by far the best known - most other german bands are rather obscure. Then, the terminology is a neology (small number of google hits, e.g.) and rather awkward and confusing. *if* restored should be named German thrash metal. Moreover, the question is whether this deserves an article or can be a part of [[thrash metal]]. I suspect that this article shall not grow beyond a small paragraph and a list of bands and therefore is best fitted in the thrash metal article as a paragraph itself. [[User:Spearhead|Spearhead]] 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-:: '''Comment''' This is a notable genre and historically recognized in the thrash metal scene. [http://www.hardradio.com/history/part4.html] [http://www.metal-reviews.com/tgos/042303.htm] There are many bands that are known, especially in Europe, to be a part of this genre: Assassin, Coroner, Darkness, [[Destruction (band)|Destruction]], Holy Moses, [[Kreator]], [[Sodom (band)|Sodom]], [[Tankard (band)|Tankard]], and Vendetta to name a few. To call it anything else then [[Teutonic]] would be misleading and historically incorrect. During the mid 80s when this genre was popular that is how it was referred. You couldn't pick up a heavy metal magazine during that time without reading about the teutonic thrash metal scene. To not talk about this genre would be ignoring an important part of heavy metal history and German history. If the fear is that this article will not grow into an article, the [[New York Thrash Metal]] article should also be deleted. It has been two sentences and a list of three bands (one that isn't even from New York) since April 2006. Yet, I don't believe that a feeling should be grounds to delete an article. --[[User:Pinkkeith|Pinkkeith]] 00:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-:::[[New York Thrash Metal]] prodded. [[User:Spearhead|Spearhead]] 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-: '''Keep deleted''' and redirect to [[thrash metal]] as per Spearhead. Who knows, it may gestate there and grow into a real article. [[User:Themindset|Themindset]] 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''':  Might I suggest that the author create a subhead in the thrash metal article and say, "One subgenre, called Teutonic thrash includes such German language bands as...?"  Why a separate article for a sub-sub-sub-genre that seems to contain only a few bands?  I have no doubt that rock critics have used this term before, but I have no faith at all that they mean the same things by it.  It would be like saying "angular guitars" is a genre.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-:: '''Comment:''' I still have to disagree with this notion that there are only a few bands under this genre. Having this would also be consistent with other musical categories. Take for example [[punk rock]]. In the information box there is a regional scene category which includes [[Punk rock in Belgium|Belgium]] and [[List of Brazilian punk and hardcore groups|Brazil]]. I don't know as much about punk rock as I do about thrash metal, but I also thought that the British punk scene was the most popular and influential, but it is not listed. Then there are other regions that are articles, but not listed: [[Argentine punk|Argentina]], [[Australian hardcore|Australia]], [[List of British punk bands|Britian]], [[Greek punk|Greek]], [[Celtic punk|Irish]], [[Italian hardcore|Italy]], [[J-Punk|Japanese]], and [[South Wales hardcore|South Wales]]. There are also city/small regional listings like there are in the [[thrash metal]] articles (New York and Bay Area thrash scenes): [[Boston hardcore|Boston]], [[Chicago hardcore|Chicago]], [[Detroit hardcore|Detroit]], [[Minneapolis hardcore|Minneapolis]], [[New Jersey hardcore|New Jersy]], [[New York hardcore|New York]], [[North Carolina hardcore|North Carolina]], [[Texas hardcore|Texas]], [[Umeå hardcore|Umeå]], and [[Washington, D.C. hardcore|Washington, D.C.]]. I’m sorry, but to say that teutonic thrash metal is comparable to an angular-guitar genre and to say that there are only two or three bands that are under this genre is to show ignorance about the thrash metal scene, especially during the 1980s. --[[User:Pinkkeith|Pinkkeith]] 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endrose deletion''' per above. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 09:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)