Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:46, 5 December 2006

< November 28	November 30 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

29 November 2006

Lists of Half-Life mods

In chronological order, from newest to oldest:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods (delete)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life mods (delete)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life 2 mods (keep)

When debate was closed, the closer determined that the reigning majority of Keep votes were sockpuppetry, and determined to close the debate with a "Delete" stamp. Direct violation of WP:AGF and standard deletion policy. Note: 13 keeps, 9 deletes... Fair is fair. WaltCip 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close on a quick review of the quality of arguments. Half-Life is notable, modding is notable, individual Half-Life mods are not, and this article appeared to be drawn largely from original research despite appearances otherwise. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the AFD linked only had 14 distinct edits, so how 13 were keep is beyond me (it certainly isn't what it shows now). WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, or call to shut your eyes and hope. Wikipedia's goals to be a free, npov encylopedia that comes first before being "fair". --pgk 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life mods is the old AfD discussion. There was a second one, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods. (Note the appended 's' because in the new AfD discussion two lists were covered.) --Pizzahut2 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a recent copy of the deleted article, but take this, add five mods similar to the entry on this early rewrite of the article, plus a section about multiplayer stats. Also think two awards per single player mod, and a mod of the year ranking for the multiplayer mods. Then you have approximately the article which has been deleted again after I rewrote it from scratch. --Pizzahut2 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So an AFD was held which endorsed the deletion, two weeks later a further AFD was held which then attempts to overturn the original deletion (not the role of afd), and now that further endorsed the deletion is being bought here for review. Unbelievable. --pgk 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The consensus of the original AfD was that the article at least needed a major rewrite. Since the list of HL2 mods survived the previous AfD, I thought it was the best cause of action to make the list of HL(1) mods similar. Is this an unbelievable mistake to make? --Pizzahut2 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are reading the same discussion? All the deletes I read effectively say this is inappropriate material for wikipedia and the deletes were a fair majority. I read the consensus as delete, not rewrite. --pgk 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The concsensus was delete because the list in the current state was inacceptable (indiscriminate list / repository), not because a mod list generally doesn't have a place at Wikipedia. That's also what the last delete vote says: "WP:NOT a repository of external links, which this is unlike the HalfLife 2 article. Userfy if someone wants to turn it into an acceptable article rather than a directory." Also the closing admin said afterwards: "Even though there was no AfD tag on the article, the AfD is still valid, so this needs to be changed significantly before it is reposted, if it is reposted at all." [1] --Pizzahut2 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn original decision as the Admin who deleted the article did it against the voter's choice, blaming it on "sockpuppetry," without giving any proof. Considering that the other times the page has been AFD before and was overwhelmingly kept, I doubt the motivations of the Admin for the reason that they give. CPTGbr 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming good faith, I guess the admin didn't mean to accuse anyone of using multiple accounts, but was merely refering to one purpose accounts (meatpuppets). An AfD is not a vote, or at least not meant to be one. It's about giving good reasons for either action (keep or delete), and ideally coming to a consensus. There wasn't a consensus, but merely saying "I find this list useful" isn't enough. As much as I'd like to have a list of good mods with descriptions and links and a couple of images of the best mods all on one page, it looks like Wikipedia isn't the place for this. --Pizzahut2 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of good arguments probably is what the admin meant with "not one valid keep vote". He wasn't saying all keep votes were sock or meat puppets. --Pizzahut2 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't stop the Esperanza crew from mass-keeping AfDs in their territory with "Keep it because I like it!" and successfully hitting a "Keep" consensus. Now is not the time to buck the system.--WaltCip 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the reference to Esperanza is irrelevant per WP:INN and factually incorrect as several subpages were recently deleted at MfD. Eluchil404 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a directory trumps WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, no reason presented to overturn whatsoever as AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closer - I apologise if the closing summary implied every 'keep' was from a sock. I didn't intend it that way - there wasn't a single valid 'keep' because a) most of them were socks, and b) none of the votes were based on policy or guideline, just variations on 'I like it, it is useful'. Also note the two deleted articles are now protected redirects to the appropriate categories, which I think is a good thing. If they're notable enough to be on Wikipedia, they'd have their own article anyway, and thus would be in the category. Anything else is just inviting a huge pile of external links unverifiable by anyone other than Half-Life players, who would have a vested interest in keeping all the links anyway. Proto::type 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "most of them were socks" - Last time I checked I only counted two meatpuppets, maybe I missed some. I'm not feeling well today so I'm not up for checking all keep votes. Of course this won't change anything, I'm merely wondering if it's correct. --Pizzahut2 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-post AfD Closing admin has shown bias against so called "gamecruft" before. Also, considering the amount of "sockpuppets" the article should get a fair chance. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore all, I don't see the justification for deleting these. Half-Life is arguably the most popular PC FPS franchise, and it is also the most often modded one. Millions of people have downloaded or played mods and a lot of the mods have gone on to become highly notable games in and of themselves ... for example, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, etc. Also, claiming that "every single" keep !vote was a sockpuppet is assuming bad faith bordering on ridiculous. I saw at least one Wikipedian I've known for almost an entire year in that discussion with a good keep reason. You're going to call that sockpuppetry? Preposterous. --Cyde Weys 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment? I said the majority of votes were sockpuppets. Majority != all. Please actually read the discussion. What I said was that no keep votes were valid. This was due to the fact that they were all variations on 'I like it', and failed to reference policy at any point. Proto::type 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
overturn this one too please per cyde weys it is the most popular with games build on modification like counterstrike and dod Yuckfoo 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Cyde... i'm shocked we agree on something... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh c'mon Alkivar, we agree on lots of things. School deletions are probably the main area in which we disagree, actually :-P Cyde Weys 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. First nom for the HL2 article was almost a unanimous keep. Absolutely impossible that such a decision could turn into a "consensus delete, only sockpuppets want this article" decision. --- RockMFR 07:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misrepresentation of what I said, I'm afraid. Proto::type 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. {{notavote}} - identify one single keep comment in here that presents a valid and relevant point. (Hint: "interesting" and "useful" are not relevant arguments.) Chris cheese whine 07:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- brighterorange's and RockMFR's keep comments aren't that bad. --WikiSlasher 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Brighterorange's comment doesn't provide any reason for keeping it, only a suggestion on how to dispose of it. RockMFR's comment is WP:ILIKEIT. QED. Chris cheese whine 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chris: Identify one single Delete comment in this DRV that doesn't state "because the Keeps are all invalid."--WaltCip 16:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mu. DRV is explicitly not a repeat of AfD. We only evaluate the closure. Chris cheese whine 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be so fixated on that one single AFD. I wasn't ever aware of it; if I was, you can rest assured I would have posted a lengthy and detailed keep reason. For now, I'm stuck having to explain why the deletion was inappropriate. But just because you don't see keep reasons elucidated in that discussion that meets your standards doesn't mean they don't exist; remember, "votes" aren't binding in perpetuity. --Cyde Weys 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can always say "I didn't, but if I had ...", but you didn't. If reasons are not put forward in the discussion, then quite clearly there's no way the closing admin would have ever been able to take them into account. So, if there's some substantial piece of information everyone was missing in that list, let's see it. Otherwise, missing reasons or otherwise, it's a perfectly valid close, which is ultimately what DRV serves to discuss. Chris cheese whine 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Right now, it's a redirect to the category which is alright. But I see the benefit of having a list, I don't see how this is any less valid than List of webcomics. The only problem is that everyone wants to add their favourite or their own mod. - hahnch e n 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - This had a good amount of information about the listed mods and their progress, unlike the HL1 list which was just links. Not gamecruft, actually had valuable info IMO. Unless you want to go through and give each of the listed mods their own page prior to deletion next time. Easier to simply put them all on one page. Kuroji
- DRV is about whether or not the admin behaved correctly (accusing them of being anti-"gamecruft" doesn't help anyone decide), or whether some huge chunk of information that may have swayed the debate was not available to the participants. Arguments about articles containing a good amount of information, or being useful, interesting, valuable, etc. are for AfD, which DRV explicitly is not. Chris cheese whine 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, wasn't going to bother, but it was a case of 'I like it' versus fundamental Wikipedia policy, and so I closed it as such. Many of the arguments being produced on this DRV seem to be along the same lines. Proto::type 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Wikipedian policy hasn't been brought up in this DRV, and only once in the AFD as Wikipedia is not a directory, which in this case is inconsistent and indirect, for with that logic, all lists would have to be directed. WP:ILIKEIT, while it has good foundations, is not yet a policy. It's still an essay undergoing confirmation. Denying every vote as "sockpuppetry" and "I like it" is not grounds for reaching a consensus of delete unless you can specifically prove each vote wrong. People have made "per nom" and "per above" votes before, and while I understand that polling is evil, consensus is founded based on a vote majority. An almost 3:2 majority is, in my opinion, satisfactory. Did I mention that the number of Half-Life mods available in the mainstream community are widespread? (See GameSpy) So, yeah, maybe I like it, but OTHERS like it and Half-Life is one of the most popular games in the U.S. and perhaps the world. Is it false if millions of people like it, and these people make up a large part of the gaming community? You can fall back on fancruft, but Half-Life mods aren't fancruft if it's well known by the young and old.--WaltCip 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if people are invoking WP:NOT a directory, it implicitly includes some not of WP:V and WP:N, otherwise they would not be supporting its deletion. Lists are fine in context. I think it's safe to assume that were there not some hint of these two in there, WP:NOT would not have been raised. Also, we don't tend to raise such things here, because doing so turn DRV into AfD round 2. In general, Wikipedia couldn't care less about who likes and how many people like it. If it's been written about, it goes in. If it hasn't, it stays out. If we have to define our own criteria for inclusion on a list, then the list has to go. Chris cheese whine 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, since you again brought up the "3:2 majority" that AfD is not a majority vote. Chris cheese whine 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the lists were deleted (closing of the latest AfD), they only contained mods which either had prove of notability (awards or mod of the year top 15) or were blue linked (had their own article). This should also cover verifiability as the review sites and the mod of the year feature was referenced ~~or, in the case of blue linked mods, their notability hasn't been contested~~. So, the mods themselves were notable and verifiable at the time of deletion (I'm refering to the latest AfD). However if notable mods automatically make the lists notable, that's arguable. --Pizzahut2 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that while the rewrite of the LoHLm only contained notable mods from the start, the LoHL2m was cleaned up during the AfD. --Pizzahut2 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations

Keeping track of the complexities of the Jack Abramoff scandal is horribly complicated, and this page provided a straightforward summary of all the various organizations involved in some way. I'm happy to provide more sourcing but disagree with the deletion. --The Cunctator 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it completely inappropriate for the person listing an article for DRV to be the one who undeletes it. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's WP:AGF a bit here, shall we? The Cunctator is not at all the kind of person given to wheel warring, and has listed the undeletion here for review as well as tagging it with {{delrev}}. There was not much participation in the AfD, and the reason advanced for undeletion would have been a reasonably persuasive Keep argument. So I say let The Cunctator have a go at fixing the fundamental problem and I'm sure it can be revisited in a while. Damn, I think just endorsed the retention of a list. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a personality thing, I would object no matter who did it. If somebody wants to bring up a request for undeletion to the DRV and somebody else thinks it warrants undeletion, then that somebody else should do the undeleting. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just undeleting it for the sake of review. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Or does every action have to be subject to wikilawyering and bureaucracy? --The Cunctator 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said, why not list it here and let somebody else undelete it? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly, I'm more than a bit confused as to what the "right" process is. We've got some people saying you shouldn't be using DRV, some people saying you can just undelete it, some people saying use DRV but don't undelete it...the reason to list it here and undelete it is so that people other than admins can see the article. Or are only admins supposed to be involved? Who makes the rules? Where are they clearly defined? --The Cunctator 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There is an incredibly (long-winded) debate here where rough consensus is that articles may (on a case-by-case basis) have their history restored while under review. If the adminstrator who brings it for review undeletes, puts the "delrev" template on the page, and protects it, very little harm is done. - 152.91.9.144 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and relist AfD. DRV is not (as far as I understand it) a forum to review the outcome of an AfD one disagrees with, but in this non-WP:SNOW case, it would have been better if there would have been more discussion in order to establish consensus for or against deletion. Only three distinct opinions were expressed, two in favor and one against deletion. Sandstein 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, what is the right forum?? Or can an admin just reopen and relist for AfD?? --The Cunctator 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have any objections to me doing this? --The Cunctator 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the deleting admin, I told The Cunctator I didn't mind if he undeleted it if it was consensus amongst Abramof editors to do so, as there are other similar articles that weren't deleted... a batch AfD with wide participation would really have been most appropriate if one was going to happen at all. I don't really know that the DRV is all that necessary... it might go to AfD again but this is what happens when you don't group related articles together in the AfD, it's hard for the close to be very binding... as each one produced a different result in this case. --W.marsh 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 -->
-====[[Japanense football squad templates]]====
-{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
-|-
-! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Japanense football squad templates]] – withdrawn after userfication, no other opinions presented – 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-|-
-| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
-|-
-| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
-:{{la|Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup|AfD]])|}}
-:{{la|Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup|AfD]])|}}
-:{{la|Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup|AfD]])|}}
-<s>Japan was the champion of the Asia Cup, and as mentioned in the TFD discussion, Denmark's 1992 Euro squad was kept for the same reason </s>
-[[User:Neier|Neier]] 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:Original deletion discussion is [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_21#Template:Turkey_Squad_Euro_2000|here]]
-'''Review request withdrawn''' [[User:Neier|Neier]] 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*I hope you don't mind, I've lumped the three seperate discussions into one, as they were all the same deletion debate.  In the debate there, there was '''only''' a clearly-voiced consensus to save the Denmark template from deletion, and per the precedent set in an earlier discussion (and the consensus for this sort of thing there ([[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_17#Template:Romania_Squad_Euro_2000|here]]).  In the debate to which this DRV refers, the only consensus to save any of the templates was for the Denmark on - as far as I know, I can't go against the [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] to do what seems farier (which, to be honest, I did consider).  Therefore, I '''endorse deletion'''. <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User_talk:Martinp23|rtinp23]]</strong> 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:*Thanks for the link to the Romania squad discussion.  It is enlightening.  However, in most of these cases (not just the Japan articles), when the templates were deleted, information was lost from Wikipedia.  In the case of the 2000 Euro champions, there exists a [[2000 UEFA European Football Championship squads]] article where the information was already replicated; but, for these three and others, the squads may not have articles yet.  I only checked the 2000 and 2004 Asia Cup, and neither of them have blue links to a squad list.  Is it possible to resurrect the templates, so that the source code could be used in creating similar squad lists for the other tournaments?  It would make the creation of the articles a bit easier, at least.  Also, should the Denmark 1992 Euro squad be listed here, as a review (to bring consistency to the non-WorldCup squad templates, and maybe a bit of closure?) [[User:Neier|Neier]] 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-::* If you like, I'll be happy to restore the deleted templates to your user-space, so that you can create an article (or more) from their listings.  I'm not sure about whether to add Denmark to the debate, but it's up to you (there was a consensus to keep that one, after all :)).  Thanks <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User_talk:Martinp23|rtinp23]]</strong> 19:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-:*Please do that.  I got the list of players from you/your bot's contributions log; but, the log doesn't contain position/number info, nor does it account for red-linked players.  Can you put all of the Japan teams (Olympic and Confederations Cup) in my user space?  There were existing pages with some of the info already for those competitions (I updated them last night), but they are missing position/number info too, and I think that may have been included in the templates.  Thanks! [[User:Neier|Neier]] 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-|-
-| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
-|}