Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 16: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Stone Trek]]: closing moribund debate |
→[[Lightsaber combat]]: closing moribund debate |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
====[[Lightsaber combat]]==== |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat]]''' |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of [[WP:NOR]] — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it ''isn't'' a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments: |
|||
** "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for." |
|||
** "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason," |
|||
** "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'." |
|||
** "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it" |
|||
** "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters" |
|||
** "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?" |
|||
** "It's interesting!" |
|||
** "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places." |
|||
** "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere." |
|||
** "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh" |
|||
** "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — [[User:WCityMike|'''Mike''']] • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete''' Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. [[User:Deleuze|Deleuze]] 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a [[Star Wars Insider]] ref and actual books ''Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary'' by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? [[User:Kotepho|Kotepho]] 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**:Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, [[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. [[User:Jgp|jgp]] ([[User_talk:Jgp|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse keep''' - there was an obvious consensus to keep. [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size="+1">''S''</font>em]] 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete''' unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in [[WP:V]], which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and close as no consensus'''. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - [http://swg.stratics.com/content/gameplay/professions/jedi/lightsaber_combat.php this link] in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own ''Star Wars Insider'' magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various ''Star Wars'' novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. [[User:MikeWazowski|MikeWazowski]] 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the '''quality''' of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — [[User:WCityMike|'''Mike''']] • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-27,GGLD:en&q=%22lightsaber+combat%22] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsabercombat&diff=57199613&oldid=57199345], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsabercombat&diff=next&oldid=57540927], "More editing and cleanup can help."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsabercombat&diff=next&oldid=57570623], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsabercombat&diff=next&oldid=58669822]. Also it should be noted that [[User:Milkandwookiees|the nominator]] was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsabercombat&diff=prev&oldid=57198625].<br />Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]] <sup>[[User talk:Yanksox|(talk)]]</sup> 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. [[User:EVula|EVula]] 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. [[User:Jgp|jgp]] ([[User_talk:Jgp|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete''', textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. [[User:Kotepho|Kotepho]] 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse keep'''. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. [[User:BryanG|BryanG]]<sup>[[User talk:BryanG|(talk)]]</sup> 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse Close'''. Properly closed based on the discussion. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse Close''' per BryanG. —'''[[User:MiraLuka|<font color="Purple">Mi</font>]][[User talk:MiraLuka|<font color="Blue">r</font>]][[User:MiraLuka/Userboxes|<font color="Red">a</font>]]''' 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Relist''' for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Close''' followed policy.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' as per MikeW. <font color="#000080" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>N</strong></font><font color="#FF0000" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong>scheffey</strong></font><sup>([[User_talk:Nscheffey|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nscheffey|C]])</Sup> 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse keep''' - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse keep''' per consensus in AfD --[[User:Winhunter|WinHunter]] <sup>([[User talk:Winhunter|talk]])</sup> 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. No Original Research. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —'''[[User:MiraLuka|<font color="Purple">Mi</font>]][[User talk:MiraLuka|<font color="Blue">r</font>]][[User:MiraLuka/Userboxes|<font color="Red">a</font>]]''' 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wookiepedia], which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on [[fencing]]. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
** The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.[[User:Captainktainer|Captainktainer]] * [[User talk:Captainktainer|Talk]] 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Keep''' The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. [[User:Barnas|Barnas]] 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' but definitely add more references so that it doesn't end up here again. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Transwiki''' over to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page . Really: What other encyclopedia bases pages on copyrighted fiction material? Only Wikipeida and only to keep some volunteers happy. People can easily straddle en.wikipedia.org for fact-based material and wikia.com for copyrighted, commercial fiction and entertainment. If Wikipedia gets less mind share from such fancruft-obsessed people, then all the better. -- [[User:67.121.113.141|67.121.113.141]] 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment:''' Technically, we can not [[m:transwiki|transwiki]] this page to starwars.wikia because that is not a WikiMedia project. It is, however, compatibly licensed under GFDL so you could freely copy the content over there as long as you include a copy of the page's attribution history. I think your suggestion has merit. [[WP:BOLD|Be bold]]! [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly Endorse Keep''' This article provides background information about the Star Wars saga that is substantiated by the Star Wars movies, books, etc. There is no persuasive reason to delete it. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:140.211.82.5|140.211.82.5]] ([[User talk:140.211.82.5|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/140.211.82.5|contribs]]) 140.211.82.5.</small> |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''', closing admin acted within their judgement. Personally, I feel the article is a complete waste of electrons, that should be expunged from Wikipedia at the first possible opportunity, but the AFD didn't reflect this. So I will probably make a note to renominate this in a couple of months, unless it is tidied up and all OR removed. Which would make it two lines long. Which would get it deleted anyway. It's a vicious circle, whatcanisay. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Knox (animator)]]==== |
====[[Knox (animator)]]==== |
||
Revision as of 18:40, 21 June 2006
16 June 2006
Knox (animator)
Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.
- Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is so stupid. His cartoons are all over the web. Why cant he have an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikefood (talk • contribs)
- Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. This thing just won't stay dead; here's hoping this time does the trick. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak
This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)