Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:41, 30 July 2006

< July 24	July 26 >

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

25 July 2006

Template:User Socialist

Speedied by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), restored less than an hour later by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and most recently speedied by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).[1] The fact that the box was so speedily unspeedied indicates to me that some discussion is needed. I suspect this deletion was frivolous for two reasons: First, it cites the nonexistent CSD T2. Second, Doc glasgow has been reprimanded for vandalism lately. (He claims to have retired from editing, but hasn't.) Neon Merlin 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy them somewhere per the German userbox solution (but I endorse the original deletion). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, doesn't belong in template space. The days of arguing over templated userboxes are long past. The German userbox solution is here to stay. --Cyde↔Weys 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way that is a really frivolous, ad hominem, and ultimately irrelevant attack on Doc Glasgow. How is it relevant at all if he's made two contributions within the past month? He probably still reads articles and fix typos as he sees them, he just doesn't edit regularly anymore. --Cyde↔Weys 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at his recent contributions. He's hardly retired. He would just prefer to keep a low profile. --71.36.251.182 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's like when someone says they plan to avoid userboxes in their RfA then ends up deleting them regardless. It raises questions about how to weigh their statements & actions. It's not conclusive of anything, but it goes into the mix. --Ssbohio 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as usual. WP:GUS applies. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This happened two months ago. What the deuce? Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at Doc's recent contributions. I'm not in a position to verify that all of his recent delete & protection moves follow after userfication, but I am doubtful that this is the case. He has gone on a massive spree of template deletion and protection - at the very least, it would be wise to ensure that these are userfied boxes before the deletions were implemented. Barring that, I would ask that they all be userfied to an appropriate archive in user space. --71.36.251.182 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc's made two edits in the last three weeks and is no longer an administrator (by his request). Forgive me for asking, but you do realize this is late July, yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted and userfy code as per the German solution. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as User:Disavian/Userboxes/Socialist. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, as the only reason it was deleted was a CSD that has been revoked. Userfying is a distant second preference. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. I think this box was already userfied somewhere anyway. --tjstrf 16:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore with the understanding that process & consensus are both valuable to this project. The back & forth on the speedy of this template is evidence that its deletion warrants discussion, not unilateralism. --Ssbohio 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted unused - and already userfied. --Aoratos 01:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NDP

Similar reasoning as with #Template:User Socialist. Was undeleted after 14 minutes the first time; Sjakkalle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid his/her own deletion of the page. Finally deleted by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) citing WP:CSD#T1. I think some discussion is needed. Neon Merlin 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy them somewhere per the German userbox solution (but I endorse the original deletion). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, doesn't belong in template space. The days of arguing over templated userboxes are long past. The German userbox solution is here to stay. --Cyde↔Weys 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, of course, on people actually implementing the solution properly. Are all of the recently deleted templates userfied? --71.36.251.182 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the responsibility of the people who want to continue using them, really. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If the userboxes aren't being requested, they're not really "in demand". --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, neither divisive nor inflammatory. Userfy as a distant second solution. Note that WP:GUS is far from consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Stifle, since WP:GUS has not reached a level of consensus. Also, restore because process & consensus are both valuable to this project. The back & forth on the speedy of this template is evidence that its deletion warrants discussion, not unilateralism. --Ssbohio 00:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted or userfy is someone wants it. --Aoratos 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Allen

Stub biography on a notable and encyclopedic Australian person who is mentioned in many crime related books and newspaper articles publishing during the 1980's. Comments left when the article was proposed for deletion were This article does not establish encyclopedic notability; conviction of rape is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for an encyclopedia article; neither is allegations of murder or drug dealing. There is no evidence given for his single crime being a particular cause célèbre of the time, or having any effect on contemporary law, culture or criminology. There are absolutely no sources given, and an article such as this cannot be kept without them. References were added after being requested however the proposed deletion tag wasn't removed and the deletion went ahead. I feel this article was unfairly deleted. -- Longhair 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are deleted bcause of proposed deletion should not be sent to Deletion Review, rather they should be restored and discussion should be on AFD if necessary. I have restored it.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ 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.
 -->
-====[[Articles for deletion]]====
-[[User:Crzrussian]] closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination)]] with a result of "delete and protect". I don't contest the deletion part but I don't see that AfD giving any mandate for maintaining a protected metadata template on that page. Deletedpage templates are in every respect worse than cross-namespace redirects. They are completely useless to Wikipedians and they are completely irrelevant to everyone else. Having a metadata template at a legitimate Wikipedian phrase like this breaks our search engine. This will even get indexed by Google. If we want to clean up metadata in article space then let's not replace (marginally) useful metadata with useless metadata. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Redlink''', but if this is repeatedly recreated after that we will have little choice left.  --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-*I'm happy to oblige. It was my understand that the thing was recreated multiple times and had been subjected to two AfD's, which I why I applied {{tl|deletedpage}}. I will now delete those. Thanks. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian/Userpage|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-*:Gee, it's hard to pick a fight with you ;) But seriously, the problem here is that we don't have a built-in way to prevent pages from being recreated - all we have is this kludge where we actually create a page with a template on it and protect that. This works fine for the average vandal-creation but it does slowly pollute the main namespace and in my opinion it's a somewhat counterproductive way to fight well, main-namespace pollution like CNRs. In some cases I think repeated deletions are better than leaving a protected template - remember that you can keep a redlink on your watchlist and tackle recreations as they come in. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 23:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse, keep deleted, protect if necessary''' (and I'm certain it will be necessary). Actually, Haukur, the {&#123;deletedpage}} mechanism is much more effective against cross-namespace redirects than it is against run-of-the-mill vandalism reposts, as the actual title used for the latter is usually not a major consideration, and extra exclamation points can always be added, etc. —<tt class="plainlinks">'''[[Special:Contributions/Freakofnurture|freak]]([{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk])'''</tt> 23:44, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)
-*:My point of view is that a deletedpage is a lesser evil than a vandalism repost but a (slightly) greater evil than a CNR since it's still metadata in articlespace. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 00:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
-*Google indexing can probably be turned off by adding an html comment to the template, see [[robots.txt#Directives within a page]].  Stopping other crawlers generally requires a noindex meta tag which probably needs a mediawiki patch, but such a patch should be pretty simple to write.  I've been thinking about doing it for an entirely different reason, so this might overlap. [[User:Phr|Phr]] ([[User talk:Phr|talk]]) 01:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Leave as is or restore'''. A cross-namespace redirect we can live with, but a horrendous self-reference (having people type "articles for deletion" in good faith into the search box and being presented with a useless "this page has been deleted, go away" notice is completely unhelpful. I'm sorry, but this seems awfully [[WP:WONK|wonkish]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Template:User Socialist]]====