Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:14, 16 September 2008

< September 15	Deletion review archives: 2008 September	September 17 >

16 September 2008

User:Efrym87

MfD was closed as delete citing Wikipedia is not a free webhost, which is all very well, but this page had one edit, ever - like many new users the person added something small - in this case their name(s) to their userpage and hasn't edited since. That isn't what "not a free webhost" is about. Secondly the deleting admin cited "canvassing attempt that caused a radical change in consensus" except the "canvassing" (more like a POINT violation) was made to ANI - where, although it undoubtedly got the page more attention, the attention gained is uncontrolled and would have brought people both for and against deletion (unlike a proper canvassing attempt which seeks out people symathetic to the canvasser's argument). Therefore, this debate should have been closed as Keep or at the very least No consensus so should be overturned. Viridae ^Talk 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. Brilliantine (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close was against consensus. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Austinleal, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Danielpr, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carlodue, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bejarana. The same to all. It was all same part of the same mass nomination, and blanket-closed by the same flawed logic. Sorry, Ryu... rootology (C)(T) 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Ingram

This was deleted by Mangojuice in June 2007 per CSD R1 (Speedy: Redirect to non-existent page). However, I have added several sources (a total of 12) including several non trival articles about him He is an important figure in the churches' investigations as well as notable for his illegal activity. Thus, the article can be expanded and I will add to it with a variety more sources. Plus this person is mentioned in six wikipedia articles (Cult Awareness Network, Fair Game (Scientology), Bare-faced Messiah, Office of Special Affairs, Moxon & Kobrin), showing that the article is of value to wikipedia and broader public. He is also mentioned in several wikisource court cases.Seelltey (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram has a "Early keep" with 9 keeps and ZERO deletions. Nominated by Mangojuice. How did it get deleted in the first place? Seelltey (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 20 for the real discussion; this was later reconfirmed at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 27. The AfD was canvassed at the Scientology WikiProject, and closed inappropriately. Mango juice^talk 12:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article wasn't deleted as R1, that was just a redirect page to the article at Eugene Martin Ingram, I've fixed the links here to reflect that, but left the title as is to reflect the original nom (+recreated article). The original article was deleted as CDS G10 and endorsed at deletion review over a year ago --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic Eugene Ingram was G10 speedy deleted 28 January 2008 Mangojuice as "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" You recreated the article Eugene Ingram on 16 September 2008 and desire permission for the article to stay, correct? In summary of the article, Ingam was born, then became a Scientology private investigator. He then was accused, charged, named, and charged again. Does that really sound like a biography to you? He has no family, no parents, never lived anywhere, and never went to school. To top it off, you appear to have lifted substantially entire sentences from sources without using the "" marks. -- Suntag ☼ 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G4? Stifle (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A7, G4, and G10 could all apply here as far as the article is concerned in its present state. Some references to significant discussion in secondary sources do appear to be posted on the talk page, however not too sure this satisfies WP:NOTE on its own. Now that there are some satisfactory sources listed, could perhaps be worth discussing a merge to Fair Game (Scientology) - I'll defer to what consensus is from this discussion. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT: this is definitely a CSD G4 case and exactly similar to the previous deletion and deletion reviews for Eugene Martin Ingram. Mango juice^talk 12:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted and salted the page. The article as it stood was so slanted that it could not possibly have been allowed to exist without being re-written in a rounded fashion that reflects more of the subject then his brushes with the law. Controversial articles like this are always much better dealt with by creating a NPOV draft in user space that properly reflects an individuals entire life and works and not just the controversial parts. I have deleted this article as a BLP violation. Please note that BLP states that such deletions may not be overturned without there first being a consensus to do so. Needless to say I endorse my own deletions and the previous ones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 {{drvlinks|pg=Efrym87|ns=User}}
+{{drvlinks|pg=Austinleal|ns=User}}
+{{drvlinks|pg=Danielpr|ns=User}}
+{{drvlinks|pg=Carlodue|ns=User}}
+{{drvlinks|pg=Bejarana|ns=User}}
 MfD was closed as '''delete''' citing [[WP:NOT#WEBHOST|Wikipedia is not a free webhost]], which is all very well, but this page had one edit, ever - like many new users the person added something small - in this case their name(s) to their userpage and hasn't edited since. That isn't what "not a free webhost" is about. Secondly the deleting admin cited "canvassing attempt that caused a radical change in consensus" except the "canvassing" (more like a POINT violation) was made to ANI - where, although it undoubtedly got the page more attention, the attention gained is uncontrolled and would have brought people both for and against deletion (unlike a proper canvassing attempt which seeks out people symathetic to the canvasser's argument). Therefore, this debate should have been closed as '''Keep''' or at the very least '''No consensus''' so should be overturned. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)