Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 26: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Gilles Trehin]]: closing moribund debate |
→[[Sahaba's ancestors]]: closing moribund debate |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Don't forget to notify the closing admin of your nomination by going the admin's talk page and using {{subst:DRVNote}} |
Don't forget to notify the closing admin of your nomination by going the admin's talk page and using {{subst:DRVNote}} |
||
--> |
--> |
||
====[[Sahaba's ancestors]]==== |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaba's ancestors]] |
|||
Should not have been deleted in the first place, contains lots of important information. The main reason for it being deleted was that there was a afd spree at that time, and this one sliped below the radar. Further, i think the closing admins words are telling: |
|||
:''The result of the debate was delete; merging and deleting is a pain in the ass (at best), since the GFDL requires the preservation of the content's history'' |
|||
The result was: "3 Delete", "3 keep", "4 delete AND merge". Closing admin deleted since he didnt care for merging. No consensus to '''just''' delete in the first place. |
|||
Also i want to upgrade the article in the same maner i uppgradet [[Family tree of Muhammad]]. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment:''' I've notified [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] of this DRV. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''', "Delete and merge" is an invalid vote because doing so breaks [[GFDL]] attribution requirements. Most closing admins seeing that comment count it as a straight delete, rather than a straight merge. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I argue that the people making that vote wanted the information to be preserved somewhere, and it is not so right now. Even if they would be counted as a straigh delete, 7 delete vs 3 keep is not consencus. Pleace consider the value of the information, and remember that a afd is not a vote.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***It is the fact that AfD is not a vote that I agreed with John's closure. Looking at the comments, the consensus seems to be that the article should not exist by itself and that a redirect is useless. Therefore, the article and redirect should not exist. If you wish, go back to [[Sahaba]] and add information there, but the article should not exist by itself. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
****What is your view, is the information in the article unencyclopedic? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*****My view on the worthiness of the article is irrelevant, because when I close AfDs, I only look at the comments without actually analysing the article itself. The same goes for the DRV: I am not looking at the notability or worthiness of the article, rather, I am looking at whether process was followed when the article was deleted. I have not examined the article content or subject matter itself, so I have no judgement on the article itself, just the process. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
******Ok. Im not so much intrested in the proces, since i view that very few of the people actualy involved in the subject participiated. I am mainly focusing in salvaging the information, i hope to have it undeleted in order to work further on the article.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* As the closer noted, "delete ''and'' merge" comments are extremely problematic since they almost always lead us to violate the attribution requirement of GFDL. In some cases, you can still divine the intent of the user and decide if the comment should be interpreted as "keep" or "delete". In this case, many of the comments are very difficult to interpret. I recommend that we '''overturn the closure and immediately relist to AFD''', this time with a very clear statement at the top that "merge and delete" comments will be ignored. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
** [[user:Striver|Striver]], in your edit summary when you changed my comment, you said "I hope its not wrong to do this." It is ''very'' wrong to tamper with the comments of another editor in a deletion discussion, even if you think that you are being helpful and you think that you are not changing the meaning of the comment. I made a deliberate choice in the organization of my comment. This is not a vote and I want others to read my comment in full, not to just glance at the first few words. You may disagree with me and think that my comment will be marginalized as a result but that's my mistake to make. <br>About the only edits that are acceptable to another editor's comments are 1) to standardize indentation, 2) to add a signature using the {{tl|unsigned|}} template if the user forgot to do so or 3) to remove an egregious [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. See [[WP:GAFD]] for more. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***Ok, thanks for correcting and informing me.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Consensus was not to keep. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''', allow temporary undeletion to transwiki to Wikinfo if requested. [[WP:NOT]] a genealogical tree. [[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?]] 10:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist''' where my vote would be rename to [[List of Sahaba ancestors]]. "Delete and merge" is a vote to keep the content in my analysis. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist''' is something i could support. regarding "[[WP:NOT]] a genealogical tree", read [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility]]: |
|||
:''While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic. |
|||
Then, see also [[List of family trees]]. I want to turn this article to something like this: [[Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt]].--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Delete''' misuse of deletion review process.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**Let's say that it isn't a misuse because I didn't have a chance to comment on that AfD... [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''', I have been thinking about this for a while and I'd say that the content could be encyclopedic. The biggest problem is family trees up the wazoo with not enough organization. Most/many of the articles from that list have articles (you can dispute if they should--that's another issue) and if they have articles and are related then a family tree page is in order. When it says Wikipedia is not a genealogical database it is referring to giving the genealogy of one person with no notable family members. The fact that so many of the Sahaba's ancestors have pages seems to me that a ''organized'' genealogy of them is in order. (I'd also argue that most are as notable as Christian mythic / saint figures--although there is less English language material on them. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Green, what is your preferend title for the article? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - process was followed, concensus was clear. --[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc Tropics]] 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||