Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 8

8 September 2006

Ook! programming language

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages#Ook! programming language

This was nominated as part of the mass AFD on esoteric languages mentioned below. Though I have no strong opinions on the other nominations, I feel that this one and its deletion result had a number of flaws:

• This page has been nominated for deletion twice previously (in multiple noms) - [March 2006] and 5 April 2006. Both received significant input, and both were closed as no consensus to delete (after ignoring socks). The closing admin on the first nomination commented that Ook! "appeared to be a keeper" compared to the other articles co-nominated.
• Neither of these previous AFDs were mentioned in the most recent one.
• The most recent AFD received very little input (3 !votes) especially compared to the previous ones, possibly because it was buried within the mass nomination.
• One of the delete !votes gave no rationale.
• I feel the two other delete !votes had dubious rationale:
  • "Wikipedia:Complete bollocks" - the truth of the article is not questioned, this language clearly does exist.
  • same as Brainfuck, "already on Esolang wiki" - this suggests a merge and redirect. Also since when has the existence of another non Wikimedia website determined the activities of Wikipedia?

-- the wub "?!" 12:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Previous AfDs are not considered binding. Strictly speaking, "already on esolang" should have no bearing, although it does tend to satisfy certain factions that give (IMO improperly) weight to the idea that it's a greater shame to remove information unique to Wikipedia than information that exists elsewhere. Ook is not notable. --Improv 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Process: valid. Subject: Less so. It's a joke version of Brainfuck, Wikipedia's policies make it very hard to cover in-jokes and other nonsense properly - nor is there any real reason why we should aspire to do so. I understand this has been taken Somewhere Else where such considerations do not apply. Guy 13:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion not AfD process Whilst the process involved in this case was out of order, I'm afraid that Ook! would have been deleted in a traditional AfD. It merges into the list of esoteric programming langauges very easily, as a short line stating it's unique take on brainfuck and it's discworld origins. LinaMishima 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Denise Paolucci

It seems this was lost on the previous log, so I moved it here (page was edited while I was editing). My first article about Denise Paolucci was speedily deleted. At the time, I didn't really understand Wikipedia very well, so I recreated it. It was deleted again. Each time I've created it, it has been speedy deleted in a matter of seconds. (People are encouraged to be bold in their edits!) I attempted to discuss this on the talk page and to provide substantive evidence as to why the article should be left intact, however the talk page ITSELF was speedy deleted! I began a dialogue with the admin who deleted (aeropagitica) after he posted to my talk page, saying the person was not notable, according to WP:BIO. I pointed out that WP:BIO is not official policy and that I did not agree with the admin's determination that the subject of the article was not notable. The admin's response was to accuse me of vandalism and direct me here.

Therefore, I am here to request this article be undeleted and left intact. The subject in question is already mentioned on Wikipedia on Shock site, and I want to improve Wikipedia by adding more information on this person. I'm not her, nor do I know her, so it's not self-promotion or anything of the sort. A google search brings up multitudes of hits. Lastly, this person was the subject of a massive internet shock site hoax that affected people across the world. Saying she is not notable is the same as saying the Michelangelo virus (or other infamous viri or trojans) isn't notable either. TheQuandry 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've informed User:(aeropagitica) on his talk page. TheQuandry 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Somebody being abused by the GNAA for doing her job is not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Obvious case. As for the "multitudes of hits", don't forget those all-important quotation marks. Use those and she's down to just 173 unique hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a variation on the (notable) LastMeasure. Absolutely no credible reason advanced why the victimisation of this person by self-admitted trolls should be perpetuated on Wikipedia. Guy 13:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted GNAA article is already an ugly scar on Wikipedia. Unacceptable that Wikipedia should be expected to celebrate the abuse and harrassment of their victims too. Not notable. Bwithh 15:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It looks to me like this was deleted out of process, but maybe I'm missing something here. After the first recreation, after the first speedy delete, this should have either been PROD or Afd. I can only think of two reasons we might keep this deleted WP:SNOW (as I think it would fail an AfD) or WP:IAR (but I don't see why we'd use that in this case). It should probably be undeleted and submitted to AfD - unless the source of the deleted article (which I haven't seen) makes it obvious that WP:SNOW applies (an empty article, no assertion of notability, or libelous material). Brian 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)btball
• Note - I've salted the earth. This is pretty clearly non-notable, and the numerous attempts to recreate don't inspire confidence that people will leave it alone. A note to Sebbeng: What you did is not exactly vandalism, because it presumably wasn't done in bad faith, but being bold generally should only be applied until you find out people disagree with you. At that point, you should start talking - continuing to be bold is rude. --Improv 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with the Denise Paolucci article being deleted. It was reviewed fairly and people talked about it and that's all I asked for. I just wanted to state for the record that I did attempt to discuss keeping the article on the associated talk page, but that during my first attempts to create it, the discussion was ignored, and that after the last speedy deletion, the person who killed the article also speedy deleted the talk page, so my commentary was gone. Anyway, thank you for listening and considering. TheQuandry 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

〡 and Ⓐ

As part of my Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 29#Various strange redirects, I withdrew the above redirect (re-redirecting it to 1 (number)) and Ⓐ (re-redirecting it to A). I'm sorry about generating all the redirects and then withdrawing most, but I think the results of these two reviews should have been Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:JLaTondre and User:Netsnipe have been informed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse restore. I misread 〡 as a vertical bar which seemed to make no sense targeting to 1. I've reverted that one myself since it was my deletion. I also agree with your recreating the Ⓐ which is why I didn't re-delete it when I closed the RFD. -- JLaTondre 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Chalk up the deletion up to inexperience. I was a bit overly enthusiastic about clearing backlogs on my 2nd day as admin and was speedily deleting gibberish looking redirects without noticing the discussion. Restored. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You also restored ⍣ & –·–·. Those two weren't withdrawn or contested here so I've re-deleted them. The Ⓐ was the one one of yours that Arthur was concerned about. -- JLaTondre 11:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is unfortunate -- IMO, we should not have entries for all unicode characters. --Improv 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought so, too, but we have a template {{R from Unicode}}, and it's presently a guideline that such are appropriate if they redirect to something related to the character. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)