Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 23

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

23 September 2006

Thizz

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thizz

This article was speedy deleted as patent nonsense after a vandalized version was put up for deletion. Thizz is a San Francisco bay area hip hop slang for extacy as well as a hip hop style dance originating from the bay area. A number of IP editors deleted the entire section about the thizzle dance, as well as information which provided context.

• The version that was speedy deleted was done so correctly, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. The most recent non-vandalised version appears to be from 20:30 4 September (admins can view it here), which although I still think is not notable enough for an article looks to be worthy of an AfD hearing. Restore to 20:30 4 September 2006, then send to AfD. Thryduulf 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• From a purely process-review point of view, I suppose we should overturn the speedy-close and relist to AFD. However I found no non-vandalized version of the page that was anything other than a dictionary definition. I see no possibility of expansion. Interestingly, the term is not yet in Wiktionary. I recommend a temporary undeletion in order to transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think Wiktionary takes slang like this. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by diet; debate viewable at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

This category and its 40 some odd subcategories were listed for deletion on September 10 at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 10 (diff showing initial listing). 3 days later it was moved to WP:CFDU where it is now listed as a closed debate resulting in delete (diff showing move to CFDU.

None of the {{cfd}} tags in the 40+ articles were updated to point to the new location of the debate (and I've just discovered that a number failed to even be tagged). Instead the tags continued to read: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page." Yet, after the move to CFDU, "this category's entry" in the tags in those 40+ categories, did not at all link to the place where the debate was located.

When I first discovered the CFD tag, I followed the link and was not able to find the debate. It was only after going into the history (which defaults to 50 listings), failing to find where the debate had disappeared to, going to 500 listings and after not inconsiderable detective work that I finally found the diff, linked previously, showing the move from the CFD log for September 10, to WP:CFDU. The debate remained open subsequent to the move for 7 more days. Here's the nitty gritty: 25 people weighed in on the debate in the first three days when it was properly linked through CFD tags (for some, but not all of the categories affected, mind you). After the move, and being open for a period more than twice as long, 3 people added to the debate. This is pretty strong evidence that the difficulty in locating this debate after the move stifled full process and I call for relisting, with properly linked tags in all affected categories.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As closer, I am prepared to "stay" closure and relist but I would prefer if someone else could amend the tags on each of the categories. Tim! 08:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, There was pretty clear consensus in the first three days to delete these, and so I'm okay with the deletion (even though I voted against it). But this is the consequence of User:Radiant's unilateral decision to move everything to CFDU at once (rather than just new discussions) when the community was heavily divided on whether to do so. I thought this was an outrageous breach of process at the time, and now I think it just created a lot more work for people other than Radiant. Clearly it should have been delayed until all the templates could be written to make the switch possible.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• The move to a new process wasn't unilateral; it was discussed on the admin noticeboard. There was no "heavy division" about it, indeed people thought it was a good idea. The reason behind it was that the many nominations on user-categories were clogging up the system for dealing with encyclopedic categories. While I have no objection to the existence of user categories, I hope we can all agree that writing the encyclopedia has a higher priority than classifying our users.
  • There was in fact heavy division about it among the users of CfD at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#PROPOSAL: WP:WCFD. Radiant may believe the admins have a higher priority there. I don't. To be clear, I would have been happy with the outcome of moving the discussions eventually. But it was a terrible idea to move active nominations without any kind of tags. It could have waited.--Mike Selinker 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note that there's a big and bright tag at the top of CFD stating where the usercat debates went; I find it unlikely that anyone who was looking for those debates was unable to find them. It is common for any debate to have most discussion in its first few days. >Radiant< 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Most debate on most deletions takes place in the first few days. Endorse deletion, although relisting any that didn't have a tag would be fine. TimBentley (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)