Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:10, 25 June 2006

20 June 2006

Wikipedia:SCAG

I object to this articles deletion and seek its undeletion. Reasons 1/ This article was still being built. 2/ On User:Zoe's talk page there are three or four complaints about Zoe deleting things without reading them. 3/ Zoe deleted this article immediately after being notified of it. 4/ Zoe's only problem with the article was with a program it sponsored, but Zoe did not just delete the program. 5/ This is a data analysis group, not the justice court. Please inform me on my talk page of the decision. Geo.plrd 23:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Reply Another program I was going to create was to measure the success rate of mediation, by obtaining the number of cases sent to mediation, and the number resolved by mediation. In response to Calton, the emergency is that a Council is not sitting. to Blanning, I only hold one of those titles. Geo. 20:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep deleted, this is just a recreation of Wikipedia:Justice Court with another name. The purpose was clearly laid out in the Wikipedia:SCAG/Operation Watchdog page: This is the Operation Watchdog page. We are working on the bad apple rating for administrators. To further that goal we are compiling a list of administrators who misuse their power.. Geo seems to like the idea of creating all of these bureaucracies designed to attack admins, but he has yet to have shown any inclination to actually write any articles. He has two edits to article space and tried to nominate himself for admin the day he got here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply As I said before, the page you were talking about was a program, which when a Governance Council was seated would have had to have been ratified, I was going to post that fact but you deleted the page. Plus, if you did not approve of the program, then just delete the program. After seeing a comment on your talk page I think I have been scared off of creating articles. Geo.plrd 23:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Zoe in that case. --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Why do you not get that SCAG was just sponsoring it. Plus it is NOT the justice court, which I would of put up for deletion if Zoe did not beat me to it.There was no reason to delete the sponsorGeo. 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you not get it that you cannot create all of these little fiefdoms and appoint yourself as Lord High Poo-Bah for life? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ReplyI am not creating 'fiefdoms', I would not be Poobah of SCAG you deleted the series before I was able to post restrictions to the Chancellor. My emergency powers must be relinquished when a Governance Council is seated. The executive would be the Chair which has to be elected. Geo. 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but your "emergency powers"?!? What powers? What "emergency"? --Calton | Talk 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep deleted. Good grief, if you want to play junta-maker, go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as recreation of policruft. If you want to play political games, Nationstates is that way. First we had "Chief Magistrate" and "Justices" and now it's "Inspector-General" and "Chancellor"? Anyone care to create a pool for the almighty leadership's titles in the next recreation? I have dibs on "Grand Inquisitor" and "Führer". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Rouge admin abuse! Keep deleted, per above. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, recreation of previously-deleted content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That there are people complainig about Zoe deleting things is not necessarily a valid reason because people complain about anyone deleting things all the time. Maybe you should go and create a web site where you can be a Generalissimo and appoint as many layers of clerks and bureaucrats for as many districts as you want. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This is nearly a textbook example of the sort of thing that doesn't belong here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure: A valid deletion. (If the thing went into operation, folks would brag about getting on their list, I think, so, even if they won, they'd lose. It's a bad idea that will do no good to anyone.) Geogre 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep deleted. "Justice Court" by any other name is still "Justice Court". Kimchi.sg 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should stay deleted, and if Geo was looking out for his own best interests, so would he. Consider, Geo, your reputation, months, even years, from now. Compare the Geo who now stands before us, with no evidence (other than this DRV) that he ever was involved with a project so utterly bonkers as the one currently being discussed; now compare him to one whose tragic past is laid utterly bare. Surely you'd prefer it if Justice Court, SCAG, whatever, were not immediately visible in your contribs? Surely you're better off pretending it never happened, for the sake of the you in the future who has learned some common sense and realised how foolish he looked? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinston Indians

AfD listed here as a group nomination for a series of minor league baseball players who play for the Kinston Indians, a Class-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians. First things first, of those advocating delete, six incorrectly cited basic WP:BIO guidelines as the reason for deletion, although WP:BIO clearly states that those who play professional sports are deemed notable by the guideline. The discussion spilled over into the WP:BIO talk page, where the waters were further muddled. It's obvious, at this stage, that there's no consensus to delete minor league baseball player or professional ballplayers, so this should be overturned and closed as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO needs to change after that AFD, 13 deletes, 5 keeps one from the creator, valid AFD, endore deletion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion at WP:BIO was promoted during the AfD, and very few people headed over to actually discuss it. I'm not convinced WP:BIO needs to change, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change it, either. Also, we don't vote count here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Valid AFD, in process closure. None of the notability criteria are policy. WP:NN itself is only an essay, WP:BIO is a guideline. That the The Baseball Encyclopedia, a topic specific encyclopedia, doesn't see fit to find them worthy of an article is good evidence against our doing so. Discussion of modifying WP:BIO should occur on the talk page for it, I've put my two cents in there. GRBerry 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As The Baseball Encyclopedia handles major league players, I have no clue why it would be cited here. They don't find them fit because they restrict it to major league players. Meanwhile, Baseball Prospectus's yearly guide covers major and minor league ball, and is praised by Billy Beane, Rob Neyer, and John Hunt, among others. You make the call, I suppose, but I think we got it dead wrong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion I don't see any procedural issues, and this is not the place to discuss the merit of the article. I don't have any problems if editors interpret "professional" as highest level in the sport. Most Class A players stock shelves to make ends meet. ~ trialsanderrors 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (I was the original nominator). There was a great deal of discussion of this topic on the WP:BIO talk page, and there is no consensus as to whether A-level baseball players qualify for the WP:BIO barrier. The closure of this nomination was proper, there is nothing to overturn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - process followed and AfD closed properly. --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - Also, note that the article has been recreated anyway. --Philosophus ^T 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD was on players for the Indians, not the team itself. BryanG^(talk) 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Process followed, and WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. BryanG^(talk) 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions, valid per process and guidelines. They can have articles when they do something which makes them notable. Otherwise we will have a series of articles on John Doe, played one season with foo team, last lknown selling insurance in Mudhole Flats, Idaho. Just zis Guy you know? 11:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, it's not even that good. The last update to the article will be made halfway through his one and only season with the Podunk Catfish, and we'll never know what happened after that. Fan1967 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as closer of the AFD, I deleted because I thought the consensus was pretty apparent. Process was followed. Proto///type 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

AfD closed by User:Cyde as a delete. The discussion was refactored between new/socks and established users, where the subject of verifiability came up. As internet memes have been a very tenuous discussion as of now, with discussion at the proposed page not even sure what to with them, it was noted that this meme was different as the subject of the article has recieved some fairly non-trivial media coverage (MSNBC, CNet, New York Times). Thus, many of the rationales by established delete proponents concerning verifiability and notability were addressed. A request at Cyde's talk page was met with a somewhat terse dismissal to say the least, and still wasn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. So I'm bringing it here for review to be overturned and closed as keep, as it meets even the basic standards for notability and verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion started 21:25 (UTC) 8 June. Refactoring occured about 13:15 (UTC) 9 June, based on edit history. Some of the comments were moved to the talk page in the refactoring, which wasn't immediately visible but was explained. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for the talk page. GRBerry 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified Cyde of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - New York Times full page article -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted - Have you read those links you have mentioned? The NY Times article doesn't seem to mention the case at all and the other 2 are blogs. Sure you might say, it's the MSNBC blog, so everything it mentions is instantly notable. Not everything mentioned in fringe news articles are notable events, just as Snowspinner isn't notable, this kid (linked from the MSNBC blog) isn't notable nor is this kid. The close was valid, and whereas it's not the best of form to close an AFD that you vote on, it was still the correct action based on the arguments presented. - 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs) .
Keep Deleted. Take a look at the Internet Memes category list. How many held up, or were more than a brief passing story? How many have you even heard of? How many should be AfD'ed? When this story has been out there a year as specified in WP:MEME, or even six months, and people still remember it, then reopen the question of whether it deserves an article. Fan1967 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I comment that WP:MEME, which is a proposal, does not currently have any reference to the passage of time, including the "one year" test noted above. The drop is recent, with an edit summary of "remove the classic definition per talk". Per the talk, this meme may itself have partially motivated it going away. GRBerry 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeek, hadn't seen that change. I would counter that this case is a good example of why we need such a clause. Look through the Keep comments in the AfD and see how many crystal-ballish comments are made about what the incident might mean, or how "I think there might be a real movement starting", or how it "will be an interesting case study", or how it "probably won't be forgotten." An encyclopedic article really needs to at least wait for the dust to settle. Fan1967 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The clause was poor for a variety of reasons, even before this AfD. Heck, the main complaint w/internet memes was the lack of third party sourcing (which is what somehting like The Juggernaut Bitch lacked before the movie), and we finally get one WITH third party sourcing and it's still bizarrely closed as delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, non-encyclopedic and non-notable. DRV isn't a second AFD ... the consensus on the original AFD was quite clear about this thing's deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original AFD was largely concerned with noteworthiness, longevity, and sources. All these are affected by the fact that the case was resolved, the incident just got a second round of attention, and is sourced in America's "paper of record" with a dedicated article on the front of the 'metro' section. Dgies 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it got a mention in the local paper doesn't mean it's important enough to require an encyclopedia article. There are likely tons of stories in the 'local' section of the New York Times that don't have WP articles about them. Why is this different, just because it involves some guys on the internet? WarpstarRider 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Do not undelete. Do not keep undeleted. Do not keep it not deleted. Do keep not undeleted. Not not keep do undeleted? --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Result correct. (See, Cyde, I do ocassionally agree with your deletions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Nothing improper occurred here, the consensus was clearly in favor of deletion. As was said before, I can't see any mention of this case in that NYT article, so it can't be used as evidence unless there's something I'm missing. And the others are just blogs, which doesn't mean anything. Unless you think every single thing mentioned in them deserves their own article. As it stands now, this is a minor story, barely a few weeks old, that really needs to show some lasting popularity before it can warrant having an article. WarpstarRider 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Correct closure by deleting admin, no reason to undelete. --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete This got 2 seperate articles in the NYTimes and a bunch of mainstream press. If this were not a 'lowbrow' topic like internet memes we would not be having this discussion. Latest article: Tale of a Lost Cellphone, and Untold Static, New York Times, June 20, 2006 Also worth mentioning that we now know the full names of all involved and the resolution of the story, so this is a well documented case were internet vigalantism helped affect the real-world outcome. Dgies 06:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First thing, you say two articles in the NYT, where is the first one? The article link posted earlier here has nothing to do with this Sidekick business. As for the one you just posted (which was just published in the last couple days), I still have a few problems with it. For one, it requires registration to view, so I have no idea what it says. Second, it appears to be a small piece in the Regional section; it only got a mention in the paper because of the fact that the theft happened in New York, not because it was a huge topic of national interest. I'm not convinced that this is anything more than a passing story; just because something happened on the internet doesn't make it instantly ultra-notable. WarpstarRider 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I can't help you if you can't be bothered to get a free registration for the NYTimes, there was a 1000 word article which explained the full incident and gave the full names of all involved. A dedicated article in an authoritative newspaper seems like a pretty strong indicator of notability. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Importance which seem to support restoring this article.Dgies 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, valid per policy and process. Take it to wikinews. Or somewhere. Else. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per the improperly refactored AFD. I'm looking at the deleted article from Google cache [1] and honestly, other than the newness of the meme, I'm not sure how this doesn't warrant inclusion, especially since WP:MEME has been changed to be essentially a rehash of WP:WEB (a horrible change, by the way). At any rate, there was far too much silliness on this AFD - IMO, it ought to be relisted. BigDT 14:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist If it hadn't been refactored and there hadn't been the subsequent NYTimes article that is a clearly on-point WP:RS, this would be an obvious endorse closure. With both, I think the best answer is relist. However, if the article looks like original research then it may need to eb deleted again. Hey - at least with the phenomenon over we won't get the outside folks coming to contribute, so the relist shouldn't have any reason to be refactored. GRBerry 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The second New York Times article does not satisfy WP:WEB on its own - we seem to be forgetting the "multiple" part of "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". Not everything that gets an article in the New York Times deserves an article; the NYT comes out every day and they have to fill it with something, and that goes for thousands of newspapers across the globe. Increasingly journalists fill it with what they got forwarded in their Hotmail account that morning. All other "sources" provided so far are either blogs (failing WP:RS) or don't focus on the subject of the article (failing the amnesia test, which I just made up). Please, we may have to share the Internet with them, but let's keep ourselves out of the blog/Slashdot/lazy journalist conveyor belt of crap as much as possible. Only when several sources (that won't disappear when the power goes out) pay significant attention to a subject, and preferably over an extended period, does it become suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Also, I think the one-year rule may apply here. When it comes down to it this is a local news story, and no-one will care 12 months from now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:WEB says "multiple". WP:MEME does not. This is not a website - it is a meme - and thus WP:WEB is not relevant. BigDT 20:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I'm going to see if I can get that changed. Wikipedia is not a news service. Besides, WP:MEME is still proposed, and the 'multiple non-trivial published sources' criterion applies to pretty much all articles in one form or another. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Perhaps a borderline case, but AfD and the closing sysop made the judgement and there is no compelling reason to overturn. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted: It was properly decided, and I'm going to resist the nearly overwhelming temptation to opine on the subject itself, as DRV is not a second AfD. Geogre 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, Cyde did a good job closing this AfD. Kimchi.sg 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. I have saved a copy of the article at User:Evanx/Backup. Please refer to it regarding sources and verification. Issues of non-notability and non-verification are resolved by a reputable source, such as the New York TImes and the NYPD. There is a case number that confirms the initial police report. Besides, WP:MEME is still being proposed and is not yet in any final form. Even then, it fits the current and previous iterations of the requirements, being that it was notable and relevant from a few credible sources (under the previous version, it will pass if it fulfills 1 of 3 conditions). At the point of closure, the full New York Times article was not released but the situation is now different. There have even been affirmations from inside the NYPD but they are unable to release their names in lieu of unprofessional conduct. The facts are that this article is not regarding the incident itself but the situation which arose out of it, hence the links to Internet phenomenon. It fits that category perfectly. If this article is fit for deletion, then how about Tubcat, Henry Earl and Ellen Feiss which would be at the very least, on par. We cannot be discrimminatory in allowing some of this or that although the same rules apply. Let's be fair about this, this article fits the requirements of Wikipedia. Its notability is in the community's reaction to perceived immorality or perhaps ammorality in this case. My hope is that it can be judged on the same level as Leeroy Jenkins, Dog poop girl and P-P-P-Powerbook. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just read Cyde's talk page and am quite disappointed by the response he returned regarding the AfD. In my opinion, it was rather off-handed and it appears he has quite a strong view about it, having also voted in the matter itself. Whether an admin has been unprofessional if he has also participated in the vote that he himself affirms the verdict, is debatable. On my part, I am dubious about the neutrality required for this article but will give the benefit of doubt. What gales me is the attitude he took to users who have pointed out their opinions and have duly supported them with facts. This is simply irresponsible. I have left a note pertaining to this comment on his talk page as well. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 01:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. I was the one who originally nominated this for deletion, and I stand by that nomination (although I am quite surprised by the reaction!). As it says in WP:V, "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it". The long and the short of it is that this article is not encyclopedic. It does nothing to enhance or relate to the broader field of knowledge of which it forms part. At most, it might merit a mention in Internet vigilantism, but even then I am dubious as it is merely an annecodal example. I fail to see how this article met WP:5P and WP:NOT. It is indiscriminate trivia. Agent 86 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not annecdotal. It's documented by the New York Times and the NYPD. I think it does contribute to the broader field of memes and internet vigelantism. John Tawell is not famous today but his case is still worthy of encyclopedia note because it was a landmark in law encorcement. Dgies 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per Lord Deskana and JzG. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *I think this should stay deleted, and if Geo was looking out for his own best interests, so would he.  Consider, Geo, your reputation, months, even years, from now.  Compare the Geo who now stands before us, with no evidence (other than this DRV) that he ever was involved with a project so utterly bonkers as the one currently being discussed; now compare him to one whose tragic past is laid utterly bare.  Surely you'd prefer it if Justice Court, SCAG, whatever, were not immediately visible in your contribs?  Surely you're better off pretending it never happened, for the sake of the you in the future who has learned some common sense and realised how foolish he looked? [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|befuddle me!]]) 12:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
-====[[:Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png]]====
-Can this be recovered for me?? I wish to use it in my personal sandbox. It was originally used on early versions
-of {{[[Template:WoW]]}}. --<tt>'''[[User:Sunholm|Sunholm]][[User talk:Sunholm|(talk)]]''' </tt> 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-:Was that different from [[:Image:Nuvola apps important.png]]? - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-:Or even better [[:Image:Nuvola apps important.svg]]. Anyway it was deleted back in October 2005 so it can't be undeleted (only images deleted after June 16 2006 can be undeleted). --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Sherool|(talk)]]</span> 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-:: Yes, it's strongly encouraged that you use the SVG version. -- <small> [[User talk:Drini|Drini]]</small> 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Kinston Indians]]====