Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 14: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Satori Son (talk | contribs) →[[Flimap]]: endorse |
→[[Flimap]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
*'''Overturn''' as it'a a valid subject for an article though probably should be renamed/rewritten. [[User:MLA|MLA]] 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn''' as it'a a valid subject for an article though probably should be renamed/rewritten. [[User:MLA|MLA]] 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Restore''' (at [[Tim Chapman]]). Two drags, drops and deletes and a stubbish intro put in its place would take care of much of the unencylcopaedic, possibly copyvio stuff. The second section is written relatively well. It's no brilliant prose, but it doesn't require a complete rewrite from start to finish. I dislike [[WP:SNOW]] being used to justify speedy deletions; it's a legitimate reason to not bother opening a second discussion, but it's a wholly inadequate [[WP:CSD|CSD]]. When admins use it to justify speedy deletions which clearly don't meet the critieria, it looks much as if they've become too lazy and complacent to use [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:PROD]] like everyone else. Certainly if a non-admin started an AfD with the nomination "I looks like a total ripoff of the original dog page... This page should be deleted for the overal astetics of Wikipedia", they would probably get a response along the lines of "Looks? Did you check? What is the URL of the 'original dog page', whatever that is? Do you know that poor writing justifies deleting the poor writing, not the whole article?" --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Restore''' (at [[Tim Chapman]]). Two drags, drops and deletes and a stubbish intro put in its place would take care of much of the unencylcopaedic, possibly copyvio stuff. The second section is written relatively well. It's no brilliant prose, but it doesn't require a complete rewrite from start to finish. I dislike [[WP:SNOW]] being used to justify speedy deletions; it's a legitimate reason to not bother opening a second discussion, but it's a wholly inadequate [[WP:CSD|CSD]]. When admins use it to justify speedy deletions which clearly don't meet the critieria, it looks much as if they've become too lazy and complacent to use [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:PROD]] like everyone else. Certainly if a non-admin started an AfD with the nomination "I looks like a total ripoff of the original dog page... This page should be deleted for the overal astetics of Wikipedia", they would probably get a response along the lines of "Looks? Did you check? What is the URL of the 'original dog page', whatever that is? Do you know that poor writing justifies deleting the poor writing, not the whole article?" --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
====[[Flimap]]==== |
|||
I believe this article was deleted when I originally created it because it read more like an ad. Since then I have tried to rewrite it to read like a company profile, which I am convinced that I did accomplish, but yet it always gets deleted within an hour of posting [[User :Fliadmin|Fliadmin]] 16:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flimap]]. Both the originator and the above requester appear to be [[WP:SPA|single purpose accounts]], AfD process was entirely valid, reposted content was substantially similar so subsequent speedies were also valid. '''Endorse''', salt the earth if necessary. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' unless material can be provided on how it can meet [[WP:CORP]]. [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse'''. The AfD discussion showed an overwhelming consensus to delete, so decision by closing admin to delete was entirely proper. Assuming subsequent article postings were substantially similar, speedy deletes would also have been proper and per policy. --<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">[[User talk:Satori Son|<b>Satori Son</b>]]</span> 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:11, 19 September 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
14 September 2006
Tim "Youngblood" Chapman
Bounty hunter who faces a criminal trial in Mexico for abduction related to his capturing an American fugitive without Mexican authority to do so. Notability through media coverage of arrest and through earlier appearances on a television series. Admin Yanksox (talk • contribs) deleted as CSD-A7. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Side Note: Can someone open an RfC on me, I've been here too many times for the communities comfort, and I'm being serious. I think I should be evaluated. Yanksox 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn Speedy-delete and List for AfD Urghhhhh....bleurrrggggh. More Reality TV / trash-news sludge, but it shouldn't have been speedied.... unless Yanksox would like to invoke official policy WP:IAR or something (*cough*) Bwithh 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm wondering if we should move the A7 reviews over to the Prod reviews. If within five days an admin thinks the article asserts enough notability for an AfD to decide it can get undeleted, if not there's always rewrite. I get the impression that in most cases we spend five times as much effort discussing than it took to write them. Oh, and Yanksox, I don't see a need for an RfC yet. ~ trialsanderrors 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, I think this is the 6th or 7th time, I've been here in less than two months of being an admin. Meh, I'll try to fix this. Yanksox 09:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think that combining contested speedies and contested PROD is a good idea. In most cases undeletion and listing is uncontroversial. I will confess that I often treat contested speedies in this way anyway. Guy 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't like the idea myself. What about pages speedy deleted as recreations, for a start? They clearly need full discussion. Also, a contested deletion is not the same thing as a controversial deletion. If I create a patently nn-bio on myself, then say I want it undeleted, that makes it contested (by me) but clearly not controversial (as everyone else will endorse its speedy deletion). The main thing is that I don't see why we have to be in such a rush to undelete things. If something is uncontroversial then all people have to do is ignore the discussion as soon as a single person votes for restoration with none against, and it will be restored in a few days with no more wasted effort than under the proposed system. There's no quorum here that requires that 3 or 4 people have to participate to make a restoration valid. If other people wish to waste time by making pointless 'me too' !votes on uncontroversial DRVs, that's their problem. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- The reason why I'm proposing this is that at best we're conducting a discussion here that AfD is the better place for (1. The discussion at AfD is about the merit of the subject, not the admin action; 2. At AfD everybody can see the content of the article; 3. During AfD the creator and other editors can improve the article), and at worst we're running the discussion here and later again at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to be part of the general malaise of DRV with arguments about content instead of process, which I don't think we can correct. Myself, if I closed DRVs (I don't, at least not at the moment), I would discount 'endorse' arguments based on WP:SNOW in all DRVs which do not have a unanimous or virtually unanimous consensus for that. If even a significant minority are calling for restoration, then clearly the article has more than a snowball's chance. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The reason why I'm proposing this is that at best we're conducting a discussion here that AfD is the better place for (1. The discussion at AfD is about the merit of the subject, not the admin action; 2. At AfD everybody can see the content of the article; 3. During AfD the creator and other editors can improve the article), and at worst we're running the discussion here and later again at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't like the idea myself. What about pages speedy deleted as recreations, for a start? They clearly need full discussion. Also, a contested deletion is not the same thing as a controversial deletion. If I create a patently nn-bio on myself, then say I want it undeleted, that makes it contested (by me) but clearly not controversial (as everyone else will endorse its speedy deletion). The main thing is that I don't see why we have to be in such a rush to undelete things. If something is uncontroversial then all people have to do is ignore the discussion as soon as a single person votes for restoration with none against, and it will be restored in a few days with no more wasted effort than under the proposed system. There's no quorum here that requires that 3 or 4 people have to participate to make a restoration valid. If other people wish to waste time by making pointless 'me too' !votes on uncontroversial DRVs, that's their problem. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, now I remember why I deleted this thing. I looked like a total ripoff of the original dog page. Also, I'm invoking both IAR and WP:SNOW. I wasn't aware ignore all rules become...one of the rules. This page was deleted for the overal astetics of Wikipedia and it really doesn't have a chance of survival if it was restored. Yanksox 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Heh... actually I was being ironic about vague and incoherent... I mean, hem, deep and subtle policy WP:IAR. Anyway, apparently someone's opened a reform discussion page for this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules/Brainstorming Bwithh 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, notwithstanding my usual preference for simply undeleting contested speedies, since this is (a) a poor quality article written in completely the wrong tone, (b) unsourced, and (c) on a subject which I can't bring myself to care about despite sharing a surname. Undelete and AFD works too, of course, but seems like a waste of time. Guy 09:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn as it'a a valid subject for an article though probably should be renamed/rewritten. MLA 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Restore (at Tim Chapman). Two drags, drops and deletes and a stubbish intro put in its place would take care of much of the unencylcopaedic, possibly copyvio stuff. The second section is written relatively well. It's no brilliant prose, but it doesn't require a complete rewrite from start to finish. I dislike WP:SNOW being used to justify speedy deletions; it's a legitimate reason to not bother opening a second discussion, but it's a wholly inadequate CSD. When admins use it to justify speedy deletions which clearly don't meet the critieria, it looks much as if they've become too lazy and complacent to use WP:AFD and WP:PROD like everyone else. Certainly if a non-admin started an AfD with the nomination "I looks like a total ripoff of the original dog page... This page should be deleted for the overal astetics of Wikipedia", they would probably get a response along the lines of "Looks? Did you check? What is the URL of the 'original dog page', whatever that is? Do you know that poor writing justifies deleting the poor writing, not the whole article?" --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)