Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:16, 7 July 2006

3 July 2006

Robin Fletcher

I assert that this person is notable. He's the second person in Australian history to receive an extended supervision order (preventative detention for sex offenders). I'd at least like it to go through AfD rather than speedy deletion, as I originally invited. - Richardcavell 00:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified CambridgeBayWeather of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The extended supervision order may be notable enough to note in an article covering Australian law on sex offenders, but I would doubt that the first person it applied to was notable (except as a mention in the aforementioned theoretical article as an example), let alone the second. Certainly the article did not assert that this event was particularly significant, which leaves us with his crimes, and raping children is not a claim to notability. Hence, valid speedy. Further, "he made sex slaves of two 15 year old girls, using black magic"? Really? The reference was a dead link, incidentally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted because as mentioned above the link was dead. And sex offenders are hardly notable for being sex offenders. Even if he was the first or second person to be given an extended supervison order, that is not a claim of notability either. Keep deleted CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, unsourced article, valid speedy deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing it isn't the problem - [1], [2], [3], [4] - It's notability that the naysayers are worried about. Richardcavell 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 -->
-====[[Mark Steere]]====
-The subject of this article has expressed an interest in appealing the closure of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Steere|this AFD]] and has asked that the deletion be reviewed.  There was a strong consensus to delete the article, so I am bringing this here as a matter of formality without prejudice against reinstatement should new evidence be brought to light.  [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me]] 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''', valid AfD, and the article was also userfied. If [[User:MarkSteere]] wants to blank his user page, that's fine, but the article clearly doesn't belong in the articlespace. If the user has additional information that wasn't considered in the AfD, that may be grounds for an overturn, but from the information I've seen, there is no reason to overturn at this time. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 03:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse Closure''' - Proper closure, autobiographical article, little/no evidence of notability. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 03:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Reinstate Article.''' I wouldn't call it a "strong consensus."  It was 11-4 in favor of deletion.  Shouldn't the administrator's role be to consider the subject article's compliance with Wikipedia standards, rather than just tally the votes?  Some of those against the Mark Steere article were obviously career "deleters," whose votes should probably be weighed much less heavily.
-:I believe that Mark Steere is notable because he is a published author who has won multiple awards and received multiple independent reviews for his invented games, as per the Vain article.  One Wikipedian felt that Mark Steere is notable because a number of programmers have elected to program his games for online play and for download. One of his games, Tanbo, is very well known among players of abstract games.  There is a Tanbo article on Wikipedia, created by someone unknown to Mark Steere in 2003, said article containing an open link to "Mark Steere." Entering "Mark Steere" or "X game", where X is a Mark Steere game (Quadrature, Tanbo, Impasse, Byte, Diffusion, Cephalopod, Copolymer) into Google will generate hundreds of relevant links. Virtually every list of abstract game inventors on the Internet includes the name Mark Steere.
-:Again, I was disappointed in the administator's decision to simply rely on the majority rule of a group partly comprised of "deletion yahoos."  If you consider the Vain and Bio articles (as the administrator should have done, in my opinion), there is plently to be found in favor of keeping the Mark Steere article.
-:By the way, a long list of sources for the awards and independent reviews appeared in the article but was then deleted by Percy Snoodle.  The information should still be visible in prior edits of the article. - Mark Steere
-** '''Comment''' - please consider signing your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - it adds a date stamp and turns your name into a blue link, making it easier to track the discussion.  Let me ask you one question - what are there in the way of verifiable resources of information about you personally?  (You said that there were sources and reviews, but were they about your games or about you?)  In other words, if I wanted to create an article about you, is there enough information out there that I can do it without talking with you?  If not, it would be hard to create a useful article. If the only information is self-provided or self-generated, it likely does not meet [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and is not generally considered to be a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. I would also suggest, for the moment, since your notability claim is based on creating games, that instead of looking at just the individual notability standards, you also consider, [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)]].  Under this standard, would you as a game producer be considered notable?  If not, then I would have a hard time considering you to be notable since your notability is derived from your creation of the games.  [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-:*'''Response.''' Just spend a moment on Google and your questions will be answered.  Enter "Mark Steere awards" and the first three items to appear pertain to my recent winning of the 2006 Parents' Choice award for Cephalopod.  The fourth item pertains to my winning of the 1993 Mensa Award for Quadrature.  Enter "Mark Steere reviews" and you'll see a number of reviews of my games, most numerously and most recently for Cephalopod.  Of course the reviews are of my games and not of me personally.  A person is not reviewed; a person's accomplishments are reviewed.  The entry "Mark Steere" returns a number of non-self-generated references to me as an inventor of abstract games. - Mark Steere
-::*This is information that you already presented in the AfD. This information was considered by people who contributed to the AfD and still decided to delete it. Please note that DRV is about discussing whether the proper process was followed when the AfD was closed, or whether there is information that is not available in the original AfD that would likely change the results of that AfD. Neither is true for this DRV, and therefore the original DRV should not be overturned. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-::*Here is the beginning of an email I got from the administrator who deleted the Mark Steere article: "Yes, there is an avenue of appeal.  Please do not shoot the messenger, er, administrator as I was merely carrying out community consensus."  That's not a process.  A process would be, for example, reviewing the article in light of the Vain and Bio articles.  I very carefully read the Vain and Bio articles, and I believe the Mark Steere article was in full compliance.  The only specific reason for deletion given in the AfD was that the notability claims were not sourced in the article.  Immediately after I listed the sources in the article, one of the detractors deleted them.  Evaluating an article on its own merits is a process.  Tallying votes is not. - Mark Steere
-::*Most of the hits from googling Mark Steer awards [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Mark+Steere%22+awards] look self-generated.  The link to parentschoice itself [http://parents-choice.org/company.cfm?the_co=6849&from=Cephalopod] provides no actual information.  Can you provide any sources that do contain actual information sufficient for writing an article about you? [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure'''. Valid AFD. There is a process which was followed, whether Mr. Steere likes it or not, and it came to an ordinary and reasonable conclusion, whether Mr. Steere likes it or not. And Mr. Steere demonstrates why [[WP:AUTO]] exists -- a guideline he ought to become familiar with before presuming to lecture us on his self-serving interpretations of long-standing Wikipedia policies, guidelines, precedents, and procedures. I will give him points for the pure ''chutzpah'' of ''Some of those against the Mark Steere article were obviously career "deleters," whose votes should probably be weighed much less heavily.''. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''', the AFD was properly conducted and closed, and there is no new information that justifies relisting. - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 12:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment.''' The only test the article failed was a popularity contest conducted by a gang of deletion yahoos such as Calton and RFerreira.  The "Auto" citing is referred to as a "soft rule" in the literature.  It would be very easy for me to have a colleage resubmit the article, if that's really the problem.  As I said in the AfD, Mark Steere made “a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.” And he is a “published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work.”  "Vain" and "Bio" were the rallying cries of said deletion yahoos.  I'd like to know specifically how the article failed to meet either of those two standards. - Mark Steere
-** Please read [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CIVIL]], and [[WP:AGF]].  Your comments about other users are not appropriate. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 14:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-** They're not personal attacks.  These people brag about their deletion proficiency on their user pages.  Calton, how many articles have you recommended for deletion and how many for approval?  Yes, when a user's sole activity on Wikipedia is attempting to add more notches to his "deletion belt," I think that user should not be taken real seriously. - Mark Steere {{Unsigned|68.121.222.198| 17:46, 4 July 2006}}
-:''These people brag about their deletion proficiency on their user pages.'' Really? The only thing I brag about on my userpage is ''It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical'' -- are you suggesting a correlation here? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Deletion Yahoo - definition:'''  A person whose entire reason for being is to get on Wikipedia every day of the year and berate potential authors.  Why?  I shudder to think of what profound inadequacy they may be compensating for.  These are Calton's four most recent remarks in the last two days: "Delete. Unsalvagable UNBELIEVABLY long (about 38,000 words, maybe half-a-book in length) OR mess." . . . "Delete. I'd say "vanity and free PR", my self [sic]." . . . "So, you're admitting upfront that this bit of nonsense is brand-new and no one's noticed it yet? That sounds like it's, hmm, non-notable." . . . "If I could, I'd vote to delete it purely on the basis that it's the stupidest analogy I've heard all year, but fortunately I can urge delete on the grounds that it's an utterly non-notable stupid analogy."  I see a monumental self-loathing erupting, nay *exploding*, outward. And these are the people who decide what stays and what goes?  I hereby call for a *major* policy change.  - Mark Steere
-:*Hmm, not content with self-servingly reinterpreting or ignoring existing policies and terms, you've decided to take the next step and '''make them up out of whole cloth'''. NOw THAT'S ''chutzpah''!
-:*''These are Calton's four most recent remarks in the last two days...'' And I stand by them. Yes, I know, I had some nerve pointing out that [[Skull and Bones historical connections]] was 38,000 words long, offending...well, somebody, apparently. Or documenting that [[Ann Coulter]]'s "[[Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory]]" is this year's current champion on the Stupid Analogy front -- though [[Tony Snow]] has been offering stiff competition on that front. In any case, I'm not sure what the point of this particular bit of sputtering is about: tell us, Mister Textual Analysis, what these examples signify, other than demonstrating that you can cut and paste? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-:*''I see a monumental self-loathing erupting, nay *exploding*, outward.'' As I suggested on the AfD, I'm thinking you might want to look up [[psychological projection]] when you get the chance. Also, [[narcissism]]. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''The point''' is that your whole existence is '''negative.'''  Those four quotes were the only the first in an endless stream of negativity.  When have you ever '''supported''' an article?  Classic deletion yahoo. -[[User:Advocron|Advocron]] 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-:*While you demonstrate aptitude as a writer of fiction, as a researcher or someone with decent reading comprehension? Not so much. That probably requires a translation, come to think, so here it is: wrong.
-:*Oh, and "classic deletion yahoo"? How can anyone be a "classic case" of something '''you just made up'''?  --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''The review process''' here is totally ridiculous.  Almost every article up for deletion review is tagged with a flood of "me too" delete statements care of the Deletion Yahoo Club.  The only exceptions arise from obvious sockpuppetry where one inidividual is posting a string of "keeps" in favor of his own article.  Then a so-called "administrator" comes along and judges the "consensus."  The most absurd part is not the articles you're keeping out but the articles you're '''letting in!'''  A new page is added about every thirty seconds, and that rate will only increase over time.  The deletion yahoos can't keep up with them all '''now.'''  What are you going to do when a page is added every second?  Ten per second?  Wikipedia is doomed to become a gargantuan repository of incorrect, incomplete, irrelevant, and '''totally useless''' information.  Ever been to someone's house that's so cluttered you can't set a soda can down?  Because if there was such a location available, someone would have already set something down there?  And when you do set something down, it causes a rubble avalanche?  And trying to find anything is totally futile?  It's not a matter of '''if''' - it's only a matter of '''when.''' -[[User:Advocron|Advocron]] 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-:*''Shrug''. If we had to deal with fewer tireless narcissists than we do now, I'm sure we could keep up. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 04:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Wikipedia.''' I found out some interesting information about Wikipedia today.  First up was the obvious lack of credibility, since you actively discourage experts and base notability on the number of TV appearances.  I found the discussions of Jimbo particularly interesting.  Apparently he personally deletes articles with no reason given.  What an ass!  Like the snotty kid who says "this is my game and we're going to play by my rules."  By micromanaging the editing Jimbo discredits himself and by extension Wikipedia.  Also interesting is the common perception of the AfD editors as utter buffoons!  Of course I knew that already from my limited experience here but it's nice to know I'm not alone in my observations.  I actually want my article to be removed now.  I have a sterling reputation in the gaming community and I don't want you clowns to accuse me of assassinating Kennedy or some such nonsense. -[[User:Advocron|Advocron]] 06:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-**'''Comment''', [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=587896 Hmmm... your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.] - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 10:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-***'''Just''' get on Google and type "wikipedia failure." That should keep you busy for a while. -[[User:Advocron|Advocron]] 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-*[[Image:ThereIsNoCabal.svg|50px|right]]'''Move for early closure of discussion''' as the discussion has moved away from acutally reviewing the deletion to one of personal attacks and deletion [[WP:CABAL|cabal]] conspiracy theories.[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)<br clear="all" />
-**I second this motion. This review is rapidly degenerating into basically a personal attack of everyone who disagrees with him. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-***Not to mention, sockpuppetry, spamming [[Talk:Jimbo Wales]] and [[Talk:Wikipedia]] with his grievances, and such.  Take it to Wikipedia Review.  '''Speedy close'''.  --[[User:EngineerScotty|EngineerScotty]] 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-****Yeah, I think the consensus has been more than formed already.  Including me saying "I actually want my article to be removed now," a couple of paragraphs back.  Your two cents isn't going to make a whole lot of difference at this point.  They'll get to the review when they get to it.  Don't be such a baby.  This hardly qualifies as sockpuppetry.  I've made it real clear who I am.  As far as the Wales and Wikipedia discussion pages, I was discussing Wales and Wikipedia.  How is that spam?  Put a lid on your unwarranted, crybaby accusations. -[[User:Advocron|Advocron]] 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Strongly Endorse'''' both the closure of the Afd and of this discussion - it has become longwinded and pointless--[[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 10:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
-**As though your comment makes it any less long winded.  Or less pointless than your pitiful, stalker existence. -[[User:Advocron|Advocron]] 12:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
-***Hey, cool it with the personal attacks, there. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''', valid per process and per policy.  Advocron is an admitted sockpuppet, there are others.  [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 08:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Robin Fletcher]]====