Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:27, 16 July 2006

9 July 2006

Fucked Fucked Company

Was speedily Deleted within hours after multiple requests for deletion by a few Admins and finally deletion by admin User:Redvers. We had a lengthy chat over this on his talk page and he has been good to tolerate me and hear me out. I am a new user and recreated the article several times before I found any discussion or comments from redvers. As far as I knew someone was just deleting the article I created for no reason. I checked the Discussion page, put a hangon and explained my reasoning as did three other people. But this was deleted. I did link to the talk page but only to help clear up that it was legitimate. You see the original reason for proposed speedy deletion was: "no value, obscene and threatening" and I wanted whoever proposed deletion to see that this was not just an obcene joke and to try to present value. I appologize for the re-creation, however, as a new wiki user I believe I did well in finding this place and initially following the directions to place the hangon tag and to post my reasoning in the disscussion page.

Here is my response to three cited reasons:

OBSCENE- This is the name of the forum and the site. The place it came from Fucked Company also has an existing Wiki page and has been up for years. Other than the word "Fucked" which was used only in the title, I cannot fathom how it is obcene as such. I thinkt his is the most troubling of all the accusations and a blatent falsity. Apparently the admin who proposed it did it as a knee jerk reaction to the word "Fucked". This is precisely the reason why there should have been a two way discussion about this before the speedy deletion.

THREATENING- What is threatening about the entry? I cannot understand how it is threatening to anyone except peoploe who are afraid of uncensored disscussion and perhaps the word "Fuck" used in the title of a place. Will the original admin calling this threatening explain? If you find the article and forum threatening, can you please explain how it differs from the article Last Measure which is about browser bombs?

NO VALUE- Ok. Maybe there is some truth here. As far as I can tell this is the only one of the reasons for speedy deletion which MAY be valid. However it is a subjective decision. Note that the forum is 99% people that came from Phillip Kaplan's Fucked Company message board which he shut down June 6, 2006. One might question why a place almost exactly like the listed Fucked Company is not noteable or worthy of a listing when Fucked Company is. Particularly when Fucked Fucked Company now gets more user traffic. At minimum I think this is worthy of a debate and consideration. Really this is all I asked for before the article was deleted. Just soem consideration and a chance to be heard rather than a knee jerk reaction. MrGorman 22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Fits into speedy deletion criteria G1, A6 and A7. David | Talk 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion clearly fits criteria for speedy deletion A7 (no assertion of notability), plus its a non-notable website, failing WP:WEB. The reason Fucked Company deserves listing is it was widely quoted by independent reliable sources. I've seen no evidence that Fucked Fucked Company has reached the same level of notability. If it does then we'll get a Wikipedia article on it. Process was followed correctly. Gwernol 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Despite reasons given above, the article was deleted by me and the other admins (three in total) for CSD-A7, plus being either CSD-G1 or CSD-A6: it was either an attack article on the forum, or it was patent nonsense (a mixture of both was also possible). The article failed to assert notability for this forum. It did assert notability for Fucked Company, but being the claimed successor or heir of that forum isn't an assertion of notability: notability, other than in royals or US presidents, isn't inherited, it's earned. And this forum hasn't yet earned any. But I'd be happy to see it back when, like the claimed predecessor, it has gathered news coverage of its own of note.

Also, I should point out that MrGorman is working from what the original nominator gave as reasons for deletion. This is fine, but it assumes that I, and the two admins after me, didn't have our own opinions. All three of us did and we didn't cite what the original nominator did, per se; we cited CSDs A7 and G1/A6. The opinion of the nominator is unimportant compared to the actual reasoning of the deleting admin (the same applies when an admin keeps a CSD-nominated article too). The article was deleted 4 times by 3 different admins, having been nominated for deletion by 3 different editors whilst the original author admits to asking on the forum in question for other members to come to the talk page and "vote" for the article to be kept despite Wikipedia policy. Nah, that won't do. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how you know for sure I made any direct requests to submit votes? To the contrary, I asked people to give their opinion. Full disclosure: http://bbs.whofailedtoday.com/viewtopic.php?id=31814 the first post and the second reply are mine. The others have been made by other people. As I explained I was not requesting votes, rather just trying to show that the page was not a joke and allow discussion. Any other comments were not done by me. If you look you will note there are over 77 users there, thousands per day. I'm not responsible for what they do. Regarding it being an attack on that forum, understand that this is why discussion was needed. No we actually call each other those things. It isn't an attack, it is simply how the place is. But you would have to be an insider to understand. Anyway, I just want the matter to be seen and considered. I honestly don't know who the other admins are and you are the only one I have been able to contact. I left notes on discussion page, but no one answered them (instead admins apparently deleted them). Nor did anyone but you leave anything on my talk page until probably the third time I recreated the article. To be honest, I had no idea why the article was being deleted. It was really hard to get a hold of someone. Anyway, is this even the issue? I just want people to be able to consider the request. I hope I'm not on trial and I hope neither are you here. I thought the point was to discuss the article and the speedy deletion? FWIW, to be honest I might see how it might not be noteworthy under your criterium. But I'd still like to see this process play out. Especially considering that I do not see it as obcene or threatening at all. Thank you. MrGorman 23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also here is the post I did on this review: http://bbs.whofailedtoday.com/viewtopic.php?id=32075 I am the Original poster not the replies. I do not see anything wrong with it. If any forum members are part of the wiki community, why shouldn't they be allowed to express their opinions? I am not trying to hide anything here. I am trying to be civil here. Please do not think I am insulting you or putting you on trial, Redvers. To the contrary, you have been nice to listen to me. Please take care. MrGorman 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion per Gwernol. Naconkantari 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and protection, valid speedy, multiple re-creations validate the protection. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse everything, we don't need this crap. Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for all reasons above. Athenaeum 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but without prejudice against recreation when substantial third-party coverage can be cited. Were there multiple recreations by various users that may have been vandalistic (as is common with web forums), or just by MrGorman before he understood WP policies? Barno 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, per all above. Unverifiable piece of nonsense. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' per above. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 05:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion''', per all above. Unverifiable piece of nonsense. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Terence Ong|nce Ong]] <sub>([[User talk:Terence Ong|Chat]] | [[Special:Contributions/Terence Ong|Contribs]])</sub> 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-==== [[List of commercial seduction teachers]] ====
-Deleted by me in a fit of pique, I will attempt to be more circumspect in the future.  However, it is a crock of shite and it stinketh, and even my process-following self jumps balks at diggin it up to bury it again.  Brought here for trout-slapping instead. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}'''</sup> </font>]</span> 15:05, 9 July 2006
-:the article is stil protected. how can users review it if they cannot see it?<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.225.184.6|70.225.184.6]] ([[User talk:70.225.184.6|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.225.184.6|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
-::Administrators can see the article. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-::Deletion review is not about the content of the article, it is about process, and it is only necessary to see the content in special cases. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-::: However, as the comments below are about the content, it's fair enough to request to know what we're on about.  Edited version reproduced below. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}'''</sup> </font>]</span> 03:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-<div style = "font-size:75%">
-::::: The following is a list of some of the prominent commercial seduction teachers whose weekend seminars and workshops typically cost several thousand US dollars:
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Badboy]]  </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[David DeAngelo]]  </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Neil Strauss]] </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Doctor Love]] </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Ron Steele]] </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Juggler_(Seduction_Community)|Juggler]]  </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Erik von Markovik|Mystery]]  </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Real Social Dynamics]] </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Ross Jeffries]] </nowiki>
-:::::Other commercial seduction teachers:
-::::: (Here there were <div style = "font-size:85%">'''fourty-four'''</div> external links)
-::::: == See also ==
-:::::* <nowiki> [[Seduction Community]] </nowiki>
-:::::* <nowiki> [[alt.seduction.fast]] </nowiki>
-:::::<nowiki> [[Category:Human sexuality]] </nowiki>
-:::::<nowiki> [[Category:Folk psychology]] </nowiki>
-</div>
-*'''Endorse deletion''', cut into small pieces, burn, bury and salt the earth.  Then throw the rotten festering carcass of a Wikitrout in on top of it to deter anyone from even looking for the body.  We know ''exactly'' what that article is about: the vainglorious self-promotion of certain individuals.  [[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?]] 16:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''': valid application of [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]] A3 because the article consists of external links and attempts to correspond with the people mentioned. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' a list of <i>WHAT?</i> I can't think of any good reason why this would be in any way of encyclopedial worth. [[User:CharonX|Charon]][[User:CharonX/Userboxes|<font color="Black"><b>X</b></font>'']]/[[User talk:CharonX|<i>talk</i>'']] 17:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''':  Attempt to communicate and very slimey.  Now ''why'' do people want to seduce commercials?  In United States, commercial seduces ''you.''  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''' [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', but only by [[WP:SNOW]]. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Overturn''' and restore.  While "fit of pique" accurately describes much of the editing and behavior at wikipedia, it does not describe any of the deletion criteria. The deletion process exists for a reason. Administrators should follow that process or be demoted. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-** After one mistep, that I brought both to wp:an and here, you mean?  That seems a bit harsh. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks"> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}'''</sup> </font>]</span> 03:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-** Is there something factually inaccurate in my statement? Because if not, I don't see the point of your comment. If harshness bothers you, consider how the editors who contributed the article felt when you deleted it without following process or providing a reason. They deserve to be treated fairly - that is the underlying logic of the whole deletion process- not harshly like vandals or thugs. If harshness bothers you, consider taking a different approach the next time you engage in the "brutal elimination" of article links [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AExternal_links%2FExternal_links_policy&diff=61941322&oldid=59420827],  or article references. Consider using talk pages to explain the reasoning behind your edits and to build consensus. If harshness is a concern, ask yourself how you would feel if I described your contributions as "a crock of shite and it stinketh". No contributor here should have to bear the brunt of another user's "fit of pique" and this is even more true for administrators. This is a multi-user project and all contributors deserve a minimum of respect. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-::*''If harshness is a concern, ask yourself how you would feel if I described your contributions as "a crock of shite and it stinketh".'' Well, then that would be simply inaccurate -- as opposed to this particular collection of crocks, where it '''is''' accurate.--[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-::*It would also be a violation of WP:CIV, but don't let that bother you --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 10:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-:::*I prefer accuracy to smarm -- and I can see which side you fall on in ''that'' debate -- but don't let that bother you, either. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-:::It's a ''huge'' link farm.  Do you really believe that the people who put it together were innocent, interested in a ''discursive'' encyclopedia article, and not motivated by a desire for lucre through Google page rank boosting?  If so, I think it might not be soft ''heart''edness that you're exhibiting. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-::''Do you really believe that the people who put it together were innocent, interested in a discursive encyclopedia article, and not motivated by a desire for lucre through Google page rank boosting'': see WP:AGF for my answer. Furthermore, considering that DRV exists to review process and that by the deleting admin's own admission no process was respected, what exactly is the point of this DRV? I have not looked at the content nor do I even care. That is not the issue here. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-:::You should care, because you're commenting on "abuse."  Aaron is ''wrong'' about his own actions being wrong.  Spam is a speedy delete criterion, and this article (contents are above, if you look up a bit) is no text but links.  There are some 20+ external links.  We are not a web host or a page rank booster, and the authors here were not going to get their feelings hurt by mean ole' Brenneman because they don't care about our welfare to start with.  AGF is only valid until the other party amply demonstrates bad faith, which they did.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-::I suggest you immediately review [[WP:CSD]]. Spam is not a speedy deletion criteria. In fact, the policy states: ''Advertisements or spam: These may be subject to deletion, but not speedy deletion. There is often a chance to replace them with an NPOV version instead.'' User:Aaron Brenneman was wrong. When he realized that his "fit of pique" was wrong, he should have followed process by restoring the article and nominating on AfD, the proper venue for discussing article content. Alternatively, he might now, retroactively argue for a speedy A3. However, given that the potential merge targets and the fact that we have bios of the people on the list, I see that as a stretch. Prod might have been an option (if not previously prodded). But there are certain users/admins who feel that they are not subject to the policies/guidelines. I object to that. Put simply, users who do not understand or make up or refuse to abide by policy should not be enforcing policy.--[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-:I have reviewed it.  It is category A3.  If you need that restated for you, here it is:
-::"No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages."
-:And this article was nothing but links elsewhere (outside).  A proper CSD.  Now, worrying about the ''feelings'' of the people who come here to advertise for profit is a little too far of a push for "AGF" for me.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-User JJay might also want to review [[WP:Not_a_crystal_ball#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_rule_making|Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy]], [[Wikipedia:Use common sense]] and [[WP:IAR]]. Users who mistake an encyclopedia for a game of process, who mistake the map for the territory, should discuss elsewhere -- not here-- the important issues of exactly how many angels can dance on the head of pin. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 01:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. High serum-porcelain content, to use the medical slang, and part of a festering [[walled garden]] of the "Seduction Community". --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse deletion'''.  Note that my endorsement might involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons.  It's the only way to be sure. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 13:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', sometimes, things you do in a fit of pique might still be correct (hasn't happened for me). --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. Someone needs a trout-slapping, but not brenneman. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', speedy A3 applies, and multiple parts of [[WP:NOT]].  The presence of bio articles for people such as Badboy and David DeAngelo does not imply keepworthiness for this list; instead it tells us that those articles should be reviewed for verifiable third-party coverage (which excludes advertisements), and that those articles not meeting [[WP:V]] should be deleted.  This certainly appears to be part of a walled-garden attempt to use WP to give legitimacy to a fringe, regardless of what one thinks about the ethics of the underlying concept.  [[User:Barno|Barno]] 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', deny Aaron his requested trout-slapping, as his actions do not merit a trout slapping but rather a barnstar. A barntrout? Whichever. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)