Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:00, 30 March 2007

< March 28	Deletion review archives: 2007 March	March 30 >

29 March 2007

MyWikiBiz

See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other related AfDs:

Gregory Kohs - Delete
Gregory Kohs (2) - Delete
Gregory Kohs (3) - Delete

DRV - Deletion endorsed

Very, very weak overturn and relist. Should not have been speedied after surviving an AFD. Very, very weak because only one of the sources there is even remotely reliable, the other sources are either Wikipedia (WP:ASR) or a press release (not independent). If this is relisted, that needs to be made evident: multiple means multiple. --Core desat 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, but unless some new information comes to light the decision should be delete. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a number of related AfD's missing. Anyone can add them? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added all of the Kohs AfDs. There doesn't seem to have been another AfD for MyWikiBiz, so I'm wondering why this was the "2nd nomination". WarpstarRider 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It was MyWikiBiz.com ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, RESTORE. Regardless of why Kohs was LEGITIMATELY banned again, for legal threats, we'd already shown in DRV, AfD, etc. that MyWikiBiz for that article was notable. It was unilaterally deleted by User talk:JzG. - Denny 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Really, tired of unilateral deletions against consensus. WP:IAR is not a license to just ignore everyone else and do whatever you want. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Should not have been speedied. I suppose it is reasonable to relist a nonconsensus for another AfD soon afterwards, doing a Speedy is really deliberately defying the rules based, I suppose, on one's personal opposiution.DGG 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - if you're an admin and you're unhappy with the way an AFD turns out, you should be coming here, not just disregarding the community's discussion. Wikipedia is not censored, least of all for "things that annoy JzG", and JzG's personal interaction with Kohs should have made him stay out of the situation in the first place. This was in extremely poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Milto LOL pia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Aren't these deletions done with the approval of Jimbo? I know Gregory Kohs was blocked by Jimbo for refusing to stop spamming. Corvus cornix 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the log. It had passed DRV + AFD. The deletion was IAR. - Denny 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, don't relist. Seems like we just can't figure out how to apply notability to people that annoy us these days. --tjstrf talk 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by desperate grasping at straws for reliable sources. This is worth all the trouble to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Relist - With a note that "sources" presented at the last AfD, which swayed editors towards saying it marginally met WP:CORP turned out to be obvious duplicates or derivatives of the one independent source we already had. Danski14^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I support the idea of the article's deletion as non-notable, but the closure of the AfD should have been appealed here, to deletion review, not undone by a unilateral deletion. It would be nice if we could treat this DRV as if it were an appeal of the original "no consensus" decision, in which case I would vote to delate, but I'm sure there will be people unwilling to look at it that way. So it seems that there is really now no choice but to start again. Put it back on AfD. Sigh. Metamagician3000 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Repasky McElhinney

I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb.

alderbourne 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted article, but if the article itself did not make any claims of notability, then the deletion was proper. If you want to rewrite the article to indicate what you said above, and can provide proof of your claims, then please go ahead. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the "cache" link above. The article doesn't lack in assertions of notability, but comes across as a bit advertorial. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autocoitus

No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion is sustained, I ask an admin to post the content of Autocoitus as of its last revision before the speedy delete to User:saizai/Autocoitus for my archival use, since I don't have access to it, there isn't a gcache copy, and I don't want to look for the links again in case it comes up later. Thanks. --Sai Emrys 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:

Reliable sources - Amateur porn is a reliable source for whether a sex practice is conducted or not. Additionally, the article at last revision had other (text) sources, e.g. LPSG.org threads.
Claimed impossibility WP:PN - The sources cited conclusively prove otherwise. If the editors voting for deletion on this ground were not inclined to view that proof, that is their problem and not one of the credibility of the source.
Neologism WP:NEO - Irrelevant. The article is about a practice, not the word itself. Also, see pegging and santorum; they are sexual neologisms but nevertheless kept.
Censorship / revulsion - Irrelevant and inappropriate reason to delete on Wikipedia; it is a sexual act and can sustain an article just as much as autofellatio, anal sex, pegging, scat / coprophilia, etc. Yes many people will find it offensive or unpleasant. So what?
ghits - Autocoitus = 65 (not 15 as claimed in VfD); self-fucking = 19,200; selffucking (no space) = 6,360; selffuck (no space) = 16,100; self-fuck = 33,100, including many forum threads about the practice.
Rename - I'm fine with renaming the article to something like self-fucking. Autocoitus is simply the most obvious clinical term. Best would be to have one redirect to the other.
Notability WP:N:
- "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
  - About as much detail as autofellatio
- "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
  - Multiple sources cited.
- "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
  - Sources cited all specifically about the topic.
- "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
  - Ergo Pornotube and [lpsg.org] sources are perfectly legit
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
  - In this case there is no need to rely on the honesty of the sources, since they are self-proving.
- "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
  - AFAIK this is not an issue here --Sai Emrys 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ridiculous" is not an argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible or a joke page? --Sai Emrys 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AfD was closed properly. In addition, there were absolutely no sources. PornoTube is not a reliable source. This may require a speedy close as the nomination pretty much defeats itself - we require that something be attributable to reliable sources as defined in WP:RS, not that something simply exists. --Core desat 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pornotube was not the only source listed in the article. Additionally, it *is* a reliable first-hand source, given that it is not being used as some sort of social commentary but as documentation of a sexual practice. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't. Neither is LPSG. --Core desat 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. You've managed to conclusively prove that it exists and is possible, and nothing else. That is not an encyclopedia article. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds exactly? If it's something I addressed above please refute my comments rather than just reasserting it. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, compare to autocunnilingus, which isn't even known to be possible. --Sai Emrys 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod. This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.DGG 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.DGG 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus at its AfD was clearly delete. The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD. Just wanted to clear that up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List as AfD per DGG. When a speedy is contested, use AfD to confirm deletion. As it is now only sysops can see it so I don't know if it actually does meet criteria. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- History restored behind {{drv}} tag for the purposes of this DRV. --Core desat 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ugh! I'd vote delete BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The most recent version had zero sources. The most recent version which did have sources had zero reliable sources. Corvus cornix 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europe United

Administrator who deleted this article did it without reasonables reasons Wadim 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously AFD'd for reasons of notability. Deleted three times since as being a recreation of deleted material. Article has been around for years and yet has no sources other than the subject's Web site. I protected the article as a deleted page becasue the author claimed he would keep re-creating the deleted article from a saved file on his computer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the original author. I had to recreate the article from material in Google's cache. In any case: Europe United is an active organization with more than 500 members. It's Web site is active too, just check it's forum [1] and this should be enough. All that deletions and protection is censorship for me. Wadim 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no evidence of notability given. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of all unsourced articles about "emerging political parties" even if they have got 500 members. Which is fewer than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, by the way. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want info about big parties, buy Microsoft's Encarta. Wikipedia is different (or it should be). If you censor any info about small and new organizations, you are against democracy and freedom on Internet. Wadim 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:NOT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above, valid AfD, and - judging from the last comment by the nominator - as a WP:POINT nomination. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Core desat 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject deletion I stated it on the talk page on Europe United, but there is a heck of a lot more parties that are smaller and have done less yet still get a page on Wikipedia. Europe United's status as the first (or near first, there is also Newropeans which hasn't been deleted) pan-European party is also notable. The deletion is unjustified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebloke (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Are we getting any hits on google for this? Any reliable sources? I'm amazed at how just one person can bring a page down. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the look of the page, thanks to the cache, the page should be redirected to [[United Nations (Europe) since that what I thought it would be about. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BuickCenturyDriver, who are you claiming was the "one person" who "brought the page down"? The AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change

Deleted without consensus: vote was 9-7 but closing admin claimed 12-7 James S. 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW it was 12-7, counting the nominator and counting an Archive comment as == Delete and counting a "Comment This kind of stuff is meant for blogs..." as == Delete. Also FWIW my closing was based, rightly or wrongly, on the theory that:
- If most everyone agrees Entity X is harmless, Entity X is kept.
- If some believe Entity X is harmful, but others think it's helpful, Entity X might be kept depending on the balance of various factors.
- But if some believe Entity X is harmful and others think it's harmless but not helpful, there's no real reason to keep it, and that was the situation here in my view. Herostratus 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I'm not even looking at the item, haggling over vote counts is an insufficient reason to contest a closure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Vote count is not a reason for deletion, but that means it also isn't a reason for overturning a deletion. And as Herostratus said, if nobody believes that something is helpful, and some people do believe it's harmful, the logical thing is to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. It's not a vote. The closing comments state the reasons behind the evaluation of the arguments and the decision to delete. I see nothing wrong here. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - "voting" outcome alone cannot be determinative. It's not actually meant to be a vote. Metamagician3000 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Greco (closed)

Dust (closed)

Koda Rohan (closed)

Friendship Circle

Reason given was "and the only contributor was 'Zalman613'" However you did not even give a chance for anyone else to comment. 12.26.60.132 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reason given was "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". >Radiant< 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the talk page. Talk pages for pages that have been deleted are usually deleted as well. And it looked like someone was just trying to recreate the article content on the Talk, which is not what Talk pages are for anyway. (Though I'm only going by the snippet of content included in the deletion summary; I can't actually see the deleted page's full content.) WarpstarRider 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an admin. than restore the talk page and you will see. The point that it said there was, that the organization is fundamental in changing societies look at the inclusion of special needs children. Knowing about that, through that post, is a part of people being aware of the this type of thought or at least to know that it exists in a large way. That explains clearly the importance and significance of the subject, the deleter does explain why that is invalid. 12.26.60.132 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied this. This article does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It is also heavily POV, contextless (international? US? Israel?) and is a mission statement, not an article. having reread, I would still delete. jimfbleak 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement which would require substantial rewriting to be anything else) and G12 (content copied from another website with no assertion of permission, [3]). If you could fix those, you would still have the problem that it is an article on a specific group but under a generic title, and the possible conflict of interest - created by a user called Zalman, and Rabbi Zalman Grossbaum is a leading figure in the group. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Direct cut-and-paste from a website. Not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per CSD G11 mainly and also A7. An attempt at a neutral, sourced article on this subject would be one thing, but this was a cut & paste mission statement. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Tyne and Wear Metro nameboards

Rogue result. Images have no encyclopaedic value, and are essentially textual content pretending to be an image. Last time I checked, we don't use images for this sort of thing (e.g. we don't use "File:Longbenton metro station sign.png" where "Longbenton" will do - particularly as there are implications for screen readers and users of large fonts). The closing admin decided that apparently despite the images being purely cosmetic, having no value, and the usability concerns, 3 ILIKEITs and a straight vote are apparently a consensus. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XfD isn't the right place for this. A discussion about whether these are the logos of the stations or just text on a goldenrod background should occur at some relevant page, not IfD. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from the closing admin) "No encyclopedic value," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The actual wording of the nomination is "serve no purpose, purely cosmetic," again fairly subjective claims, which many others did not agree with. The images are public domain and were being used. There was no reason to delete them. WP:IFD is not the forum for whether the images belong as the title for an infobox or not. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
- Again, I put it to you that 3 WP:ILIKEITs and 1 straight vote are not a consensus, and hardly support the claim that "many others did not agree with" the nomination. As for the wording of the nomination, I think it's not a big jump to infer "unencyclopaedic". I still challenge anyone to defy this claim (it has not once been addressed, not in the debate nor in the accompanying talk). Chris cheese whine 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no requirement that a free image be used for encyclopedic purposes to remain on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - IfD begs to differ. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ifd is not a policy. But even at that, the images were being useful in the article namespace so they could be considered encyclopedic. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, now you're just making excuses. They were not being useful. They were being used where it would undoubtedly be better to use text, and purely to fulfull a cosmetic role. The WP:MOS is clear on the point that we do not blindly follow the styles of others, and the point that apparently we should use the same typeface as on the signs carries no weight whatsoever. Chris cheese whine 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my re-cap for non-deletion:

The images were being used
There was no legal reason to delete them.
There was no policy reason to delete them.
There was no consensus to delete them

Nv8200p talk 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The images should not have been in use. There was no real opposition to the proposed deletion. "UE" clearly is a policy reason to delete, otherwise it would not be listed in the instructions as a viable reason. Chris cheese whine 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Increasing the cosmetic appeal improves Wikipedia. I've seen templates that use images te recreate route maps which is much better than providing them in voluminous writing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where were these used before they were nominated for deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images were used in the infobox for each station such as in this example for West Jesmond. DrFrench 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse decision The proliferation of those images is annoying (starting with this particularly obnoxious example) and some policy/MoS directive needs to be created to keep Wikipedia from turning into Geocities 2.0, but I can't read this from the discussion. This reads more like an "I'm unhappy with the outcome of the IfD" nomination to me. ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie (closed)

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 *'''Overturn and list at AfD.''' I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod.   This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 ::But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
+:::No, the consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autocoitus|its AfD]] was clearly delete.  The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD.  Just wanted to clear that up.  —[[User:Bbatsell|<span style="color:#555;font-weight:bold;">bbatsell</span>]] [[User_talk:Bbatsell|<span style="color:#C46100;font-size:0.75em;">¿?</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bbatsell|<span style="color:#2C9191;">✍</span>]] 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 *'''List as AfD''' per [[User:DGG|DGG]].  When a speedy is contested, use [[WP:AFD|AfD]] to confirm deletion.  As it is now only sysops can see it so I don't know if it actually does meet criteria.  [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCenturyDriver]] <small>([[User_talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Honk]], [[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|contribs]], <span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BuickCenturyDriver&amp;site=en.wikipedia.org odometer]</span>)</small> 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 **'''History restored behind {{tl|drv}} tag''' for the purposes of this DRV. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]]''' 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)