Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:10, 12 November 2006

< November 6	November 8 >

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

7 November 2006

Lost Planet of the Gods (Part 2)

Stub page deleted prematurely by proposal prior to additional content being added. BlueSquadronRaven 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read the second paragraph at the top of the Wikipedia:Deletion review page (above): If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted". Fan-1967 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate pages

A number of pages which were created about candidates in elections were deleted on the basis that the candidates were not notable. Some of these candidates will be elected to public office and will therefore become notable. This is not a standard deletion review request, but a general request that admins who remember deleting a page for a candidate who was elected restore that page, and that admins who plan to start an article about a newly-elected politician first check to see if a deleted page about the politician can be restored as a starting point for the new article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly, most of the articles I saw of that nature were C&P jobs from the campaign sites, without much in the way of encyclopedic content that would be valuable to a future article on the office-holder. I would bet there are a lot more pages, that have not been deleted, with the opposite problem: people whose only claim to notability was their candidacy, and who will return to obscurity after tonight. Fan-1967 18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we kept more than we deleted. Even those who stood little chance. So perhaps editors who insisted on keep could also remember to tag them for deletion once they've failed :-) Guy 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall one discussion on a marginal candidate (expected to finish behind the Green and Libertarian candidates) where the author felt it important to keep all candidates for the historical record. I'll have to find that one and see if his votes totalled in the hundreds or only in the dozens. Fan-1967 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD goes back and forth on this, but the general practice has been to keep candidates who have independent fame/significance and otherwise to keep candidates who have had to win substantial, at least state-wide, primaries. Otherwise, office holders are significant, while aspirants are not. Geogre 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me :-) Guy 14:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild beasts

This page was deleted but no further comment was made after I tried to argue the case Ryanpostlethwaite 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was first deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild beasts. When it was recreated, it was deleted per our criteria for speedy deletion. Criterion G4, recreation of deleted content, applied. The band is not (yet?) notable; it does not meet the notability guidelines set by WP:MUSIC. Endorse deletion without prejudice. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Post the article deletion, the wild beasts have recieved offers from XL records (Record label of the white stripes, basement jaxx and dizee rascal)and Domino records (Record label of The Artic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand) I feel that proves the band are notible. A page could represent the bands ability for future notibility and would be edited in that way upon undeletion. Ryanpostlethwaite 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having received an offer isn't enough. Having the "ability for future notability" isn't enough. The key question is not whether they might one day become notable, but whether they already have. And it seems like they haven't. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wr

Template:Wr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Wr2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Wr3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Wr4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These 4 templates were kept twice at TfD (August), (October), with a consensus of keep each time. A thread on WP:AN has had many users say that they would prefer the templates deleted; some have said that they think the TfD was closed on vote-count rather than on weight of arguments.The templates were T1 speedied and subsequently undeleted. I'm asking for the templates to be relisted for a third time, as it seems as though current opinion may not have been reflected in the results of the TfDs. --ais523 12:16, 7 November 2006 (U T C)

The entire series of related templates:

Template:Wr0(edit talk links history)
Template:Wr(edit talk links history)
Template:Wr1(edit talk links history)
Template:Wr2(edit talk links history)
Template:Wr3(edit talk links history)
Template:Wr4(edit talk links history)
Template:Wr4rfc(edit talk links history)

John Reid ° 05:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion or Relist - Both TfD discussions were heavily weighted towards supporters of these templates... as they use them and thus were informed of the TfD while those who oppose these templates were not. These templates seem to directly contradict Wikipedia's policies against edit warring and harassment, and in my experience are frequently abused for both... or even lead users who think they are 'following process' to commit both. The deletion under 'CSD T1' strikes me as novel, but accurate... as these templates clearly are both divisive and inflammatory. If the 'T1' was improper or TOO 'novel' then these should be relisted at TfD with notification to all involved. If not (as I think) then the undeletion of these without a DRV should be overturned and the templates re-deleted. --CBD 12:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy (and re-delete). Also applaud's Bainer actions on this, I have seen too many edit wars over simply removing warings (which, in itself, does not harm the encyclopedia) ending up with absurd situation of blocking someone for "removing a warning about removing a warning over a mis-interpreted edit." I have also seen good faith users being given warnings about a potential problem, the user resolving it swiftly on the article page but weeks later, when the user cleans out his page for tidyness (i.e. not selectively), another good faith user reverts him, and gives him a follow up warning. Having a good faith user get harrassed by another good faith user is not good practice, and this is exactly these templates encourage in my experience. Personally I think that the deletion was an excellent example of IAR - if the rules dictate a situation that increases the likelyhood of unwarrented harrassment, then they should, and must be ignored. Regards, MartinRe 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and delete not per process, but per WP:IAR. As long as these templates exist, they give the appearance of being policy. As I have said on many pages, they are not necessary for vandals, as Special:Contributions/SomeVandal will show that previous warnings were removed. For non-vandals they shouldn't be used anyway, as their use almost always escalates the situation where a polite handwritten note might help more. Kusma (討論) 13:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but... all warnings should from now on have an edit summary giving the name of the warning template used in uppercase. For example, if warning a user for blatant vandalism, the edit summary could be "TEST3 - stop inserting swear words into all the articles about cheese". Having to check each version of the history would slow down RC-patrols too much. Comments? yandman 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not check the talk page history, but the vandal's contributions. If the vandal has edited his own talk page, you'll see whether warnings have been removed. That shouldn't slow you down, because you should check the contributions anyway to check for other pages he may have vandalized. Kusma (討論) 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Although they sometimes use IP adresses to blank their talk pages, this isn't very common, so checking contribs should do the trick. yandman 13:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. The previous TfD's resulted in "keep", not in "no consensus". We have just been through Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll. This is not an open-and-shut case. The discussion is ongoing, and should not be ignored. Yes, we have WP:IAR. But are the templates really that urgent, that they can't go through another TfD? And yes, there may be cases where the wrong blocks are issued and the wrong warnings are given. But admins are no bots. If admins decide to block someone, they should be held accountable for it, not templates. To paraphrase the NRA: "Templates don't block users, admins block users." Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People are often not blocked but come to WP:ANI and complain about harassment. The harassment is done with these templates, usually by non-admins. Kusma (討論) 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, perhaps not. But is the situation so urgent that TfD had to be bypassed and all the recent decisions had to be ignored? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes…HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying that 'all recent decisions were ignored' is inaccurate. This issue comes up on AN & AN/I a couple of times per week... and every time the consensus decision there has been that users should not be re-inserting warnings once they are removed. The decision on TfD was different but not at all representative of the community as a whole. As Kusma said, the problem is not with admin blocks, but with the 47,376,615 Wikipedia users who can, and far too often do, use these templates to harass people they are in disagreement with. There is no way that admins can keep track of the talk page actions of every user to prevent such abuses. --CBD 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. TFD is not decided by vote count, and the problem with these templates is that they are based upon an idea that lacks consensual support, that removing talk page warnings is disruptive, incivil or a blockable offense. >Radiant< 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's turn that around: there may not be a consensus for the idea that removing talk page warnings is disruptive, incivil or a blockable offense, but is there a consensus against it? I'm not trying to defend these templates, although it may seem that way. But why is it not possible to follow the processes we have? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is consensus for the idea that plastering warning messages of an overbearing and misleading nature on people's talk-pages is a blockable offense. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edconf) Interesting question... something is only a blockable offense if a policy or guideline says so, and a policy or guideline is created by consensus. Per WP:POL, it's irrelevant if there's consensus against a suggested p/g; what matters is whether there's consensus for it. If not, the suggestion is rejected (and that includes if there's no consensus either way). So it is simply false to state that removing talk page comments will get you blocked for disruption. >Radiant< 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - A consensus is forming on Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll that removing warnings is indeed wrong. Also see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings#Archives should be Proper Archives (Clear to Research & Enforce) for a way to respect the growing consensus that only recent warnings should not be removed, while the user may remove older warnings freely. These templates help in the former case. --Nehwyn 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That poll has not been modified since September, so "is forming" is less than accurate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And in the centralised discussion listed, there were many examples brought up of the templates being mis-used, but none that I saw of them being used positively. Keeping something that is predominatly mis-used (even by good faith users) and which creates conflict is a recipe for disaster. Regards, MartinRe 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone removes a valid warning, but does not vandalise further, then the warning worked, warning them for the removal is simply inflaming a resolved situation. (If they vandalise again after the removal, then warn them for the vandalism, sure, but punishing someone because they might get away lighter with something bad they might do in the future is counter to everything AGF is about. Regards, MartinRe 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a big stick. "Divisive and inflammatory" works for me. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for now the existence of these implies a policy that doesn't exist. If a policy is agreed then they can be recreated. There is a problem that it takes a super majority to pass a policy, but only a minority (30%) to keep alive templates that imply and enable that policy. Templates that relate to a non-policy should either be speedy deleted without TfD, or marked 'do not use'.--Doc^g 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion divisive and inflammatory in the absence of a policy about warning removal. Kavadi carrier 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Not according to CSD, IMHO, but following WP:IAR, per Kusma. And per MartinRe above: warnings are meant as an attempt to communicate, not as a record of past behaviour. If a warning is deleted and subsequently there is no further violation, there is no problem; the message was received. If a warning is deleted, and there is a repeat offense, it's the repeat offense that should lead to a block, not the warning removal. Eugène van der Pijll 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. A deletion review is not the place to bring up new arguments that were not discussed in the original TfD. Just as the TfD may have been weighted towards supporters of the template, this Deletion Review is weighted towards administrators, due to its recent appearance on WP:AN (and administrators appear to be generally against these templates, mainly seeing the occasions when the templates are misused). Both sides should have the opportunity to debate it in a fair basis. Bluap 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - a speedy was not appropriate in this situation. -- Tawker 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. IAR exists for these kinds of situations. L'affaire du warning templates strikes me more than anything else as a prime example of slavish devotion to process causing damage to the project. --Slowking Man 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I am the one who undeleted these templates, I was with the idea that the TfD was inconclusive and they should not have been deleted on a speedy. I undeleted so that others can discuss the template while being able to see the template. I do not oppose re-deletion. Just make sure that the community agrees (as best it can) before doing a deletion. Frankly if you prefer I delete the tags and then discuss it I am willing to do that. Though I am going to note that the deletion reason was CSD T1, and not WP:IAR as mentioned above. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Doc^g. --Interiot 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The whole removing warnings debacle has been disproportionately distructive compared to any good it might accomplish. Better to bury these things in a hole and move on. Dragons flight 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this DRv is swinging towards 'endorse deletion', possibly due to the large admin attention generated on WP:AN; likewise, the TfDs were 'keep', possibly due to the large vandalfighter attention generated by the TfD notice on the templates. Is it worth putting a visible deletion-review notice at the top of the template to try to balance out the advertising (both situations seem like unintentional vote-stacking to me)? --ais523 09:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Added to all. I trust the closer not to be swayed by the weight of numbers either side. Kavadi carrier 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That warning's noincluded so vandalfighters still won't see it. (On the other hand, I can't think of a good way of including it without cluttering user-talk pages up with junk at the moment.) --ais523 11:54, 8 November 2006 (U T C)
- (edit conflict) Note that just after this DRV was created I posted notification on AN, the template talk page, and the removing warnings centralized discussion talk page... which I thought would represent 'equal notification' to all involved parties. Possibly users who oppose this practice are more likely to read one or more of those pages than users who support it. Including notice on the template itself should notify everyone who uses the templates (and thus presumably supports them) while this DRV is running. --CBD 11:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, as per Doc, or tag as deprecated. No apparent keep consensus on TfD can trump the fact that these templates were misrepresenting policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both TfDs actually had a fairly strong consensuses for keep. 10/3 in one discussion, 16/3 in the other. Bluap 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Its fairly clear these tags do not represent current practice and only cause confusion and 8 posts a month on ANI by someone complaining that someone else removed a warning. Perpetuating this idea with templates is silly. They never should have been undeleted. pschemp | talk 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, reasonably valid CSD T1, and per IAR. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible endorse deletion These are not correct at all. We should not be giving the impression to users that remove stuff from thier talk page that they will get blocked for it. Even using the blocking policy link in it is incorrect as nothing in the blocking policy says that we should be blocking for this reason. The only reason it may be appropriate for warning users of this is because they are a blatent vandal removing comments and replacing it personal attacks or some other similar situation. But in no way is removing comments uncivil if done in good-faith or anything these templates discribe. If someone removes a warning post, it's always going to be in the history of the talk page that you tried to warn them, there is no reason to revert a talk page for this reason. semper fi — Moe 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. CSD T1, IAR, foundation issues, BITE, WP:NOT a battleground, CIVIL, vote-packing and puppetry at TfD, you name it. I've already been cited once as the creator of these divisive and inflammatory templates that, in some cases, cite non-existent policy -- when all I did was edit to try to make them less inflammatory and more honest. I wash my hands. John Reid ° 05:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. The TFDs got it wrong in the opinion of people who have to enforce the policy this tries to describe, and hence should not have been closed on numbers alone. -- nae'blis 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 * '''Endorse deletion'''. CSD T1, IAR, foundation issues, [[WP:BITE|BITE]], WP:NOT a battleground, CIVIL, vote-packing and puppetry at TfD, you name it. I've already been cited once as the ''creator'' of these divisive and inflammatory templates that, in some cases, cite non-existent policy -- when all I did was edit to try to make them ''less'' inflammatory and more honest. I wash my hands. [[User:John Reid|John&nbsp;]][[User talk:John Reid|Reid]][[User:John Reid/Q4ArbComminee|&nbsp;°]] 05:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion''' per Doc glasgow. The TFDs got it wrong in the opinion of people who have to enforce the policy this tries to describe, and hence should not have been closed on numbers alone. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Get Medieval]]====
-{{la-admin|Get Medieval}}
-Well, I came across the Get Medieval webcomic, and really liked it, so I looked on Wikipedia and found nothing. I therefore created an article. It got deleted right away without comment for not being "notable". I am not sure what contitutes "notable", but there seems to be quite a community that regularly reads the comic, it has over 700 comics, going regularly and daily since 2004 and is published in print format. It isn't a vanity article, as I have nothing to do with the comic or the author. I just started this page because I was surprised there was nothing on wikipedia about it, and was hoping to get further information about the comic by people who are more familiar with it.
-I did a quick search on Google, and found these sites commenting on the webcomic:
-*http://obdormio.com/2006/10/28/pins-and-needles/
-*http://www.choicecomics.net/index.php?&page=webcomics&comicID=204
-*http://comixpedia.com/and_now_your_morning_webcomics_news_update
-*http://comixpedia.com/weekend_update_0
-*http://rocr.xepher.net/weblog/archives/001016.html
-*http://www.onlinecomics.net/pages/details/listing.php?comicID=7316
-*http://forums.keenspot.com/viewtopic.php?t=85896
-Surely it shows enough interest by third parties to be mentioned on wikipedia!? Isn't that the main criteria for "notability"? That people unrelated to the author/creator/etc are discussing it? [[User:A302b|A302b]] 08:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment:''' To satisfy [[WP:WEB]], we need to have [[WP:RS|''reliable'' sources]] which mention the webcomic. This excludes simple directories of webcomic listings, blogs, forums, and wikis. Unfortunately none of the links you provide are reliable sources. [[User:Kavadi carrier|Kavadi carrier]] 09:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-*I've replaced this with an article on the computer game with the same name. If it is decided to keep the webcomic as well, a disambig would be useful. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' Livejournal-hosted webcomic.  Having looked at the links above, I don't think any of them constitute non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.  More interesting is the claim that it has a print edition as well.  tell us more about that, please: is it syndicated?  How many papers run it?  If you mean it has a book collection in print, who is the publisher?  How many copies were printed?  Is it widely available in stores?  [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Endorse deletion'''.  [[WP:ILIKEIT]] does not trump [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment:''' Okay, I am new to this whole wikipedia thing, so was not sure how it worked. I was just surprised when it suddenly got deleted without any comments. The first book incidentally, is at: http://www.cafepress.com/get_medieval (and the other is also on cafepress), but after reading your comments, I don't think it will count.
-There is one thing I'd really like to make sure of though, and feel strongly about, even if there is no page. There is now a "Get Medieval" page discussing a video game. Is there any way I can put something on that page saying: 'This article is about the videogame "Get Medieval", for the webcomic go to (webcomic_url).' Or even: 'This article is about the video game "Get Medieval", not the webcomic." Or <em>something</em> like that.
-This is my first time trying all of this, and I don't want to make some mistake again! Its just that I am sure there are people like me who looked up Get Medieval (I originally looked it up in wikipedia for more information after I heard about it, before reading the webcomic). There was no article then, but would be very confusing to me now. If I typed it in now and saw that article, I would assume that the webcomic was related to the video game! I don't want to make any more edits if it is against wikipedia guidelines. Its just that leaving it as it is would be very confusing for people. Thanks for your help. [[User:A302b|A302b]] 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-: You are not the first person to have this problem and I doubt you'll be the last, so don't feel too discouraged.  There is no real dissent from the view that there must be some bar to inclusion, because all articles must be [[WP:V|verifiable]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and we must be able to ensure its [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] - which means that at least some sources must be trusted authorities independent of the subject.  As to where the bar to inclusion lies, that is a matter of constant debate.  We have a guideline at [[WP:WEB]] which gives a reasonable indication so what is currently considered appropriate for inclusion for web content, including comics.  From what you say, I think this will probably fall short, but do read the guideline and see if Get Medieval meets the criteria.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 07:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)