Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:42, 3 July 2006

June 27 2006

RuneScape armour

This article was nominated for deletion by me - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour. Knowing what happens when you try and delete any kind of gamecruft 'how-to-play-the-RPG' article on account of it abjectly failing Wikipedia is not a video game guide, I even left a note for the closing admin to try and avoid vote-counting (incidentally, it was 10-8 in favour of deletion, plus one 'sarcastic keep' and one 'merge' vote). The article fails WP:NOT. There was block voting by RuneScape project members to keep their nice cruft. The reasons to delete were that the article failed WP:NOT - one of the main policies of Wikipedia, and as per precedent on all the Command and Conquer cruft. The (IMO, flimsy at best) reasons to keep were: "There's nowhere else no put it", "It is not a strategy guide", "Armour is important in the game, so it's an important article", and the crufter's favourite defense, "There are lots of other articles on this sort of thing," (for shame, Sjakkalle!). WP:NOT ought to be non-negotiable, and the constant ceding of AFD decisions by admins to blockvoting from special interest groups is getting boring. Overturn and delete. Proto///type 12:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from closing admin - Thanks to Proto for notifying me of this DRV. As I have said on Proto's talk page, I took notice of his request and would not make a judgement based on vote counting anyway. I believe a decision of No Consensus was reasonable in the circumstances. The article was changed in response to the AfD which complicated matters, but either way there was no consensus to delete. WP:NOT may be non-negotiable, but whether or not something falls foul of the rule is a community decision and is what AfD is for, and if you are not sufficiently supported in that view then the deletion will not succeed. Obviously the article could be relisted in future, but I do not believe there was anything procedurally wrong with the closing decision and therefore no call to overturn it at present. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad this was brought to deletion review; I might have brought it myself if Proto hadn't. There were plenty of people voting Keep, but none of the reasons given were very good. The one that may have had the most influence (since it was the only one that addressed Wikipedia policy) was that it couldn't be considered a game guide anymore because of the edits made to the article during the deletion (summarization, mostly). The thinking there was that if it didn't go into game-guide-like detail about how to find the armor, what it was for, etc. then it wasn't a guide anymore. Well, it is, it's just a shorter one. Recury 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Calling this as a "no consensus" decision was well within reasonable adminstrative discretion. Note that if core problems raised during the deletion debate remain after a reasonable period of time, you can always renominate it for deletion then. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - Totally fails WP:NOT. This is not even really a DRV case, but a case where any admin may delete it as a blatant violation of policy. FCYTravis 00:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, keep as the rewritten article I have created. We now have an article that tells us basically what runescape armour is. That is all. A listing of every single type of armour, or what weird tiny things each particular armour does differently, or how the Beeblebrox Armour protects better than the OMGWTFBBQ armour in certain circumstances, but clearly the Wal-Mart Smiley Face Armour is better than either, etc. etc. etc. is completely and utterly in violation of policy which states we are not a game guide. This is not a subject for "consensus" decisions - unless someone wishes to change currently enforceable policy, which they are free to attempt to do. FCYTravis 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete. Bloc voting should be understood as such. At most, this can be a footnote in the Runescape article, but really doesn't belong even there. --Improv 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Clear no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft. I've seen RuneScape ruin a person's life, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I would've wanted to delete it if I'd seen the listing when it was open, but the closure followed process, and there's no new information here that would lead me to reconsider. Re-list it again in a month or two. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & delete gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, gamecruft. Also, delete the one about runescape weapons. Tell the people responsible for these articles to go to wikicities or something if they want to make a runescapedia. 216.15.119.166 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. As I've said before, the existence of Wikia should have no bearing on deletion decisions. The key question should always be whether the content is verifiable and potentially useful. I personally do not play computer games, but I've found these articles immensely useful to learn about the various gaming subcultures. If Wikipedia does not document these phenomena, it is unlikely that anyone else will do so in a central place. While I understand the WP:NOT objection, I do not agree that this is a game guide; it is descriptive, rather than instructional. For instance, there is not a single use of the word "should" in the article, which would be typical for a guide giving recommendations on what to do, rather than an article describing the game. Of course, I welcome editing of the article to make it less "guideish" if people still object to the current level of detail (though I think the animation is nice and should stay). Out of interest: What was the C&C precedent that Proto refers to?--Eloquence * 20:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eloquence - The C&C precedents (four or five seperate AFDs!) are all linked to via this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG) Proto///type 11:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure based on reasoning by Eloquence. Yamaguchi先生 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *:Eloquence - The C&C precedents (four or five seperate AFDs!) are all linked to via this:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG)]] [[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> 11:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse closure''' based on reasoning by Eloquence.  [[User:Yamaguchi先生|Yamaguchi先生]] 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-==== [[Jesse B. Davis]] ====
-Why is Jesse B. Davis deleted??? I requested that [[Calvin Tuteao]] be deleted. The deletion was removed. Why is there a double standard? Are actors more important than educators?[[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-*The IMDb page link asserts the notability of the actor, and thus it didn't qualify as speedable.  The Jesse B. Davis article was a one-sentence stub that had no assertion of notability. [[User:Hbdragon88|Hbdragon88]] 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-*I was the one who tagged Davis for deletion as he only returned a relative handfull of Google hits and, according to record, was previously deleted. I've read over what you posted on [[User_talk:The_Thadman|my talk page]] and left you some advice towards further action. <small>[[User_talk:The_Thadman|אמר]]</small> <tt><b><font color="#0033CC">[[User:The_Thadman|Steve Caruso]]</font></b></tt><sub><B><font color="#000000">([[User:The_Thadman/Desk|desk]]/[[User_talk:The_Thadman/Poll|poll]])</font></B></sub> 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-* What is notablility? And how do you determine it? Why the need for an internet source? Doesn't IMDB work like a wiki? <br>The first sentence does give Jessee B. Davis notability. He is noted for being the first person to implement a [[school counselor|school counseling program]]. He was a forunner of school counseling and guidance. You are confusing popularity with notability. And I see the article was deleted without discussion.  [[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-* Well, the first version (created and deleted on 26 June) was speedy-deletable as an example of an unsourced "Joe is great" article.  We, unfortunately, get an astounding number of those kind of articles and have been forced to set a fairly high trigger on such biographies, otherwise we would be inundated with all the junk.  The claim that "XXX is probably the first to implement yyy" is a very weak assertion of the person's ability to meet our recommended [[Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies|criteria for inclusion of biographies]].  Given the massive problems we have with true junk, I can not dispute the deleting admin's decision based on the evidence available at the time.  False positives are always unfortunate but often inevitable. <br>24 hours later, you recreated the article and this time added a single paper-only reference.  You may be well-intentioned, but this is a tactic often used by vandals so it's not surprising that the edit was met with some skepticism.  <br>My own research {[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jesse+B.+Davis+Counselor&btnG=Google+Search google search]) shows that there was a Jesse B Davis who was the second president of the National Career Development Association (1914-16)[http://209.235.208.145/cgi-bin/WebSuite/tcsAssnWebSuite.pl?AssnID=NCDA&DBCode=130285&Action=DisplayTemplate&Page=AWS_NCDA2_about_mission.html], indicating that the claim is plausible.  The name shows up again in someone's class notes[http://www.bamaed.ua.edu/counselor-ed/BCE511/classnotes/wk2bac.511.ppt] in a relevant context - not a [[Wikipedia:reliable source|reliable source]] but it substantiates the plausibility of the claim.  The name shows up again in a ''Professional School Counseling Journal'' article[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KOC/is_2_7/ai_112905222] - again, in a context that is plausible to the claim.  Taken together, I think there is grounds to '''overturn the speedy-deletion''' but with the reservation that if the article is not significantly expanded and sourced within a reasonable period of time, an AFD nomination may become appropriate.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-* WHAT ABOUT THIS? This would not qualify has a stub. It has seven sentences.[[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 05:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-** Draft moved to [[user:Whicky1978/Jesse B. Davis]] for now.  It's a fair draft but we do need to keep this page clean for the rest of the discussions.  Thanks.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small>
-***There is not much more than what I put in the [[user:whicky1978/Jesse B. Davis|draft]]. What about an article titled, [[History of Vocational Guidance]] or something similar?[[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-**** Ah, sorry.  I didn't realize you'd already created your own sub-page draft.  Would you like me to delete the /temp page?  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 22:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)