Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:12, 19 February 2009

< February 17	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 19 >

18 February 2009

User:Karmafist/son of jimbo award

This particular subpage was an award and its deletion broke several awards. I would also like to point out that there is no "award category" for ns=. Smallman12q (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper namespace is "User". Fixed. GRBerry 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was still ponting to mainspace when I saw it, so I've changed it to userspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, suggest speedy close. If this thing needs to exist, host it elsewhere, not in the userspace of a banned user. If other awards link to it, fix them. What is the point of revisiting this? Chick Bowen 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Keeping this deleted because it's in the userspace of a banned user is short-sighted. There's nothing controversial about the award so deleting it under a G5 clause doesn't work. (it wasn't created while they were banned) If it is hosted elsewhere, the history needs to be restored for proper contribution anyway. If Gavia immer doesn't want to host the award in their userspace, I will. It's of historic significance to the users who have been given the award and there is no rules that say userpages of banned users should be deleted entirely if there is useful content there. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was deleted over 1¾ years ago. I find it hard to understand how it was only noticed now that the awards were broken. If there's something essential there, then we can undelete it and move it to an active user's userspace. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, it has only ever been given to one editor (who has a collection of about 20). yandman 14:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, undelete, subst, and redelete then. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karmafist/barn award

This particular subpage was an award and its deletion broke several awards. I don't see why it should be deleted. Smallman12q (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper namespace is "User". Fixed. GRBerry 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. See my comment above. Chick Bowen 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn See my comment above. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idle RPG

There seem to have been a number of irregularities in this article's AfD process. I do not feel that this article was given proper exposure at AfD (the reasons which I'll detail below) and I do not believe that the closing admin took the entire discussion into consideration when closing the AfD.

First, the {{AfDM}} template applied to the article by the person nominating the article for AfD did not include the article's name so no link to the AfD discussion page was provided. I attempted to correct this when I was made aware of the problem. See [1] and [2]
The AfD was grossly miscategorized and ended up in the unsorted 'U' category. The nominator used Games and Sports instead of either 'G' or 'W' (the later being the proper category for this article). Because of this, the AfD for this article did not receive the attention it would have received had it otherwise been properly categorized under 'W' (AfD debates (Web or internet)) from day one. I was not aware of this issue and another editor attempted to fix it less than 24 hours before the AfD was closed. See [3] (category documentation)
The AfD nominator failed to notify the article's creator and major editors of the AfD to allow them the opportunity to engage in the AfD discussion. [4] (While this may not be mandatory, this is the normal and accepted practice, see WP:GD#Nomination.)
The AfD itself was closed early, which goes against both the guidelines and standard practice, see WP:DELPRO#Process and WP:GD#Closure. Even though this is an irregularity, it ordinarily might not in and of itself have been an issue if not for the fact that there was still ongoing discussion and a general lack of consensus. The person who nominated the article for AfD also seemed to have changed their mind and decided that the citations that had been added to the article shortly before the AfD nomination [5] did indeed pass WP:V and WP:RS see [6] and [7]

I've attempted to bring this to the attention of the closing admin [8] [9] but he seems to be unwilling to take a closer look at this AfD. While I do believe he attempted to close the AfD with a proper result, I feel he may have either misinterpreted the discussion or simply did a tally of "!votes" in deciding to close this AfD as Delete. While I can understand the extremely long AfD discussion getting to the point of tl;dr, I find the seemingly unwillingness to take a second look at the AfD itself somewhat disturbing.

I propose Overturn and undelete and copying of the original AfD discussion to the article's talk page to allow for further discussion and improvement of the article. If people otherwise feel this should go up for further discussion on AfD, then Relist would be my second choice.

If I didn't firmly believe this article was deleted without informed participation and true consensus I wouldn't bother bringing this up due to the fact that this process is taking up valuable time that I would rather spend working on other articles. I feel I presented a good argument as to why this article met both WP:N and WP:V (using WP:RS) within the AfD discussion itself so I don't see a need to repeat any of that information here.

--Tothwolf (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was mistagged for AFD for just shy of two hours. It was closed eleven minutes early. I don't know how you'd go about informing the main editors of the article, as the history is heterogenous and IP-heavy and the article hadn't had any significant changes since its creation in Sep. 2006 (mostly just removal and replacement of external links and lists of other similar games). So the technical issues, in my estimation, are a big load of hooey.
In fact, Tothwolf, you yourself had the most damning argument to delete in the AFD: "IRC related topics are also notoriously difficult to 'verify'..." and nobody demonstrated how we could verify the claims in this article using appropriate sources (and not personal observation of the subject or documentation made by creators of the subject). So unless you have some new sources to present or a userspace draft hat solves the WP:V/WP:N issues, I don't see any reason to overturn this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it was mislisted for much longer than two hours. [10] This most certainly will make for a less active discussion when those interested in topics pertaining to this category can't even see that something is listed on AfD.
Going by strictly what MBisanz said, it was closed 21 minutes early, not 11. Still, too early is too early, AfDs run for at least 5 days, not 4 days 23 hours and 39 minutes. I still had an open editing window and was finishing up a reply when this AfD was closed. This was indeed a procedural error although as I said above it might not have been a big deal if not for everything else.
It's kinda hard to discuss the various editors and contributors when the edit history isn't even visible, so I won't even try. The person nominating the article failed to give any notification and I know from looking at the edit history before this article was deleted that there were a lot more contributors than just a handful of random IPs.
Well, I tried not to bring up stuff that was already covered in the AfD here, but since you are questioning the sources, I guess I have no choice but to cover this again...
While it's true IRC-related topics are notoriously difficult to verify, there were sources presented that met both WP:V and WP:RS. According to the guidelines and standard practice here on Wikipedia, it has always been acceptable to use a software developer's website to verify the features and functionality present in software discussed within an article. That was also done here. (Developer sites: [11] [12] Source code: [13] [14]) Then there's WP:N, which is pretty well covered by the unbiased stats shown here [15] [16] [17] (among others, Google it for yourself).
Also, in the future, I'd very much appreciate it if you did not take my words out of context because it is easy to misinterpret part of a discussion when that's done.
Now, while I've done my best to remain civil during this entire process, I'm not happy with the borderline personal attacks people have thrown at me both on and off-wiki. My goal is to improve Wikipedia, I don't care for politics and alliances and I don't care whom is friends with who. It would be nice if everyone could get along with everyone else, but obviously that'll never happen. If everyone had followed policies and guidelines and used common sense then I'd have never had a reason to bring this up on DRV or spend so much time discussing this article on AfD. This whole thing has been nothing but a major time-suck but if I don't speak up then absolutely nothing will change or improve.
As for my speaking up during the AfD, I spoke up because it seemed no one else could. This whole issue is something that could have been corrected early on if the person nominating the article on AfD had instead made their concerns visible on the article's talk page. There was absolutely no reason for this to go through an AfD just because they thought this might be a fake or non-notable subject. Heck, the edit history itself proved that this article had been on Wikipedia for 4.5 years without any past issues.
--Tothwolf (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most AFDs aren't immediately categorized, nor is categorization required. I ignored that bullet point because I don't care, and I don't think most people care. Nor does anyone care about 10 or 20 minutes short of five days at AFD. We're not a bureaucracy or a court of law, we don't toss out clear decisions because of technical points.

The links you're offering are the same ones you offered in the AFD. I realize you think Caissa's DeathAngel was wrong, but this still stands: "None of the four sources you give there for WP:V and WP:RS apply to either of those because they are all Primary. Reliable sources have to be third party, so the developer's site cannot count towards that." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most AfDs are categorized long before this one was and the majority are categorized when they are posted. Personally, I don't care that you don't care. I care enough about Wikipedia and the articles on Wikipedia that I'm willing to bring this to DRV and that's what matters. If as you say you don't care, then why did you even bother to post a reply to this DRV?

I at least cared enough during the AfD to attempt a discussion with others vs tossing up a bunch of "probably not...", WP:PS and WP:LAWYER.

I have absolutely no issues with Caissa's DeathAngel and I'm not even sure why you brought up that name.

--Tothwolf (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Google turns up ~247,000 hits [18] --Tothwolf (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are reliable sources, and many of which are just the words "idle" and "rpg" in succession. This is telling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of your argument, Google News doesn't prove much of anything one way or the other. It only indexes a very small subset of "news" sites and I seriously doubt you'd find very many text based games (especially older games) or even IRC software references via Google News. Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we can end this particular thread right here:

Google News: "Internet Relay Chat" - ~16 results

Google: "Internet Relay Chat" - ~4,150,000 results

--Tothwolf (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the results being just the words "idle" and "rpg" in succession, I beg to differ. Notice the quotes around the search terms? Anyone reasonable who scrolls through 100s of results [19] will see that these are references to the "Idle RPG" creators, software documentation, Idle RPG channels, Idle RPG players and players' stats. Tothwolf (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. While I !voted to keep this article, the consensus was to delete, and some minor errors in the deletion process (and I cannot imagine a less minor error than closing 11 minutes early; similar errors are referred to in the DRV instructions as a reason not to overturn), the principle of de minimis non curat lex applies here. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – It seems that the reasons to overturn are based on mere technicalities—none of which are significant enough—which has turned into AFD Round 2. Neither are, in my view, compelling reasons to overturn. MuZemike 16:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus is clear in the AFD, the process issues raised are insignificant to meaningless. Other than that, the nominator here is not presenting new information, just rehashing the ones rejected in the AFD. GRBerry 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of units in the Age of Mythology series

I do not think a rough consensus was formed in favor of deletion, especially in the light of viable alternatives such as merging or redirection, which would have at least preserved the article's history and bring into compliance with the GFDL. Hence, I request an overturn of the 2nd AFD to no consensus or, at the very least, a redirect. MuZemike 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The AFD being contested is the article's second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination). MuZemike 18:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was transwikied months ago to strategywiki. For that purpose, we do not need to keep a copy here; see WP:CSD#A5, and the history is there. A Nobody repeatedly made claims that material from this article had been merged elsewhere, but never provided any convincing evidence, and I can't find any evidence of it myself. For example, he claimed that it was merged to the Units section of Age of Mythology, but no edit summary for that page includes the string "merge" and is about that section. Similarly, Nifboy pointed here as evidence that a merge has taken place, but in fact there is no such evidence there for this article. So far as I can tell, there is no GFDL reason for keeping here, and having researched invalid examples in this category I wouldn't be persuaded by anything less than a diff showing an actual merge occuring in a target article. GRBerry 18:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See for example [20], [21], etc. and looking throughout its history there seems to have been a deal of merges back and forth without saying as much in the edit summaries. At the time, I did not realize we had to say "merge" in the edit summaries. It was something I only learned months later. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong again. That material was not in this article. The history of this article at that time is available at strategy wiki, and neither of those quotes or sources came from this article. Those are not merges from this article. GRBerry 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I merged that material from the article back in August per A Man In Black and then merged some of it back into the article late last night when I began undertaking a considerable revision to add new out of universe headings and sections. But even if the GFDL concern did not exist, the discusion still did not have a clear consensus to delete as it was quite divided in arguments and opinions. Even if not a vote, it was all over the place with even the deletes largely seeming okay with a merge. Zxcvbnm said, "But if necessary, Redirect." Sephiroth BCR said, "I also agree with Zxcvbnm on not seeing where a redirect helps, but I'd be fine with that result as well." There was not decisive opposition to a redirect with edit history intact. We are not here rehashing whether we think the article should be kept, but rather regarding the most accurate read of that discussion and in that discussion, there was not a decisie consensus for redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You copied your own original contributions to this article to another article. Since you own the copyright to both edits, and you are properly attributed, there's no GFDL concern. I even mentioned this in the first AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are we sure that the rest of that units section in the article was not merged? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any evidence anything was merged, or just vague allusions and demands for negative proof? Don't just beg questions, offer evidence of a merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus or undelete edit history and redirect. As I posted on Yandman’s talk page, when it closed as can be seen in the edit history I was in the process of revising it substantially using search results from Google News and Google Books. And in any event, clearly no consensus in this discussion to delete. Moreover, the comparison in the closing statement to similar articles being deleted is not really fair, because this article contained out of universe information on innovations, history, and reception that is absent from similar lists and this makes it more of a contrast to those lists than a comparison. But most importantly the content was previously merged to Age_of_Mythology#Units some months back and so at a minimum the edit history needs to be undeleted with a redirect created instead. A satisfactory result here would be either a re-close as “no consensus“ or undeletion of the edit history and a redirect to Age of Mythology#Units with a note on the AfD explaining that. Thank you for your time and consideration. A Nobody^{My talk} 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus or undelete edit history and redirect per MuZemike and A Nobody. Ikip (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD only looks like split consensus if one counts heads and ignores the validity of the arguments. This is precisely the sort of thing covered by WP:NOT#GUIDE and always would be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we went with validity of arguments, we would keep, becasue the sections on Innovation, History, and Reception cited from both Google News and Google Books and added last night and thus not on the strategy wiki version could not justifiably be called "game guide". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: That seems to reflect the general consensus, if you remember that AFDs are not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. People overwhelmingly offered consensus policies and guidelines against this list, with no counter-argument about how the list met our policies/guidelines. DRVs are not a place to re-open discussions about an article, but merely to ask if the admin was reasonable. And even if I'm not crazy about the outcome, the admin was acting reasonably. However, even though I personally felt that deletion would be acceptable, I said that redirecting would be preferable. Re-creating a redirect wouldn't be terrible, but then we don't need DRV to get there. Randomran (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Randomran, what general consensus? People "overwhelmingly" offered consensus policies and guidelines both for and against and also in between, i.e. there was no general consensus to keep, merge, or delete and certainly not overwhelmingly one way or the other. I agree that we are not re-opening a discussion about the article, but there's just no way that discussion had an actual consensus by any objective and honest read of the discussion. The only accurate close there would be "no consensus" with maybe, maybe a "merge and redirect" as some kind of mutually acceptable middle ground. With that said, I see no reason why at this stage an undeletion and redirect would be detrimental to our project in any way. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the many policies and guidelines I cited during that discussion, which I do not feel were countered adequately with similar justifications. Wikipedia is not a democracy and mere uncited opinions without backup from policies and guidelines do not formulate a valid consensus. This site has never been a place for original research and never will be. I've shown that the majority of this article is just that, and all I got in return were arguments stating what, without examples, it is (e.g. "the content is explained in a real-world context", "Well referenced article"), stating what it isn't (e.g. "it doesn't violate Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines", "doesn't really consitute a game guide since it doesn't list stats or how to use the units") and stating things which go against what Wikipedia is (i.e. A Nobody's numerous arguments in favour of keeping unreferenced content until it is sourced, which clearly violates WP:OR; "Wikipedia does not publish original thought"). Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The many policies and guidelines were effectively countered and trumped by other policies and guidelines and by the reality of the changes made to the article last night. Wikipedia is indeed not a democracy, but the claims that it was entirely original research were not factually acurrate. The article in its final version had whole paragraphs of unoriginal research backed by reliable secondary sources. There was and is no valid reason for the article to be deleted. And there is certainly no policy based reason why not to at worst undelete the edit history and redirect. This is one instance where I am almost tempted to ignore all rules and just recreate it anyway, because that discussion was about as textbook of a no consensus as we have ever had on this site. Of all the possibly outcomes, deletion was furthest from the consensus of the community and if endorsed it would be a real shame for our project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference between my and your arguments as to whether the content is appropriate is that you do not cite yours with quotes and policies/guidelines. Your first sticking point in this discussion has been an assertion of "no consensus" on the grounds of there merely being no consensus, with little discussion as to whether the the points raised on either side of the field are actually applicable or not. Your second is ignore all rules, which, considering the lack of evidence for it relevance here, seems to be nothing more than use of an available trump card. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true, the article should be restored per WP:PRESERVE (a policy) and is consistent with our First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on fictional topics with relevance to people in the real world. The alleged criteria for deletion are false. It is not all original research. It is not all game guide. It is not all plot. Ergo, a case can be made for merging and redirecting, but just linking to a policy or guideline is irrelevant if not true. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:PRESERVE states explicitly that original research is excluded from the policy. I've provided examples of OR and game guide material in the AfD, and you have failed to do the same or assert how my examples aren't OR, therefore making your arguments unfounded. You can claim things all you like, but without proof your claims are invalid. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole top three sections priors to deletion were sources from Google News and Google Books, i.e. out of universe context from reliable secondary sources, i.e the claim that it was original research is unfounded as of the last version of the article and thus invalidates any reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's all good and well to provide a large clump of potential sources, but they are useless unless you can prove how any of them pass WP:RS. I don't remember any such examples being provided by you or seeing any particularly striking information from among the bunch, the latter for reasons I've stated before. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't find content from published books that are secondary source in nature that say the game is specifically "notable" (yes, actually used the much disputed word...) because of its changes in units from earlier games? How could such a claim not be mergeable at worst? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh... "units from earlier games"? "mergeable" claims? What's all this about? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The considerable revision of new content I added just before it was deleted that pretty much no one new to the AfD commented on. Maybe it should be relisted considering the last version prior to deletion and see what someone other than you and I have to say? Because the last version just before deletion could not possibly be deleted based on the reasons in the nomination. Sadly as we are not admins, we cannot see that version. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It would be a better idea to actually directly quote and cite sources in future instead of providing uncited interpretations of them; for now, I have no idea whether what you tried to quote to me was actually reliable or not. I've already addressed the content you added as being simply not enough to constitute a separate article; notability isn't comprised of solely a few reliable sources from various reviews of the game. This is why the content should be userfied; it is simply not ready for an article yet. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing editor's comments - I would have redirected it, had it not been such an improbable search term. As for merging, Is there an editor who wants me to put the article into their userspace? If so, I'd be more than glad to do a quick Ctrl-C Ctrl-V. yandman 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yandman, I am not convinced that it is an improbable search term. To be entirely honest, I frequently search for articles by "List of..." and I reckon many other editors and readers do the same. I reiterate my request that if you are open minded to userfying for merge purposes to just undeleted and redirect for simplicitly and to really satisfies all parties. I cannot imagine anyone being so bent on deletion here that a redirect with undeleted edit history is a big deal. If worst comes to worse, it can always have a protected redirect after undeletion. Please for simplicity and to prevent a needless rehashing here, undelete and redirect. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to userfy/projectify this page, history included, as I suggested in the AFD. I don't think yandman would object to this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I as always will accept userfied articles; however, in this instance, I truly do not see a consensus to delete. Also, I don't know how to transwiki, but if the basis here is for transwikiying, then the version prior to deletion this morning should be transwikied as it contained additional sourced information versus the one currently at the strategy wiki. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse well-reasoned close. WP:NOT 1:0 WP:ILIKEIT, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the calls for deletion were in effect WP:IDONT:IKEIT and it passed what Wikipedia is, which is why closing as anything other than no consensus or merge and redirect was unreasonable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm. ILIKEIT is a fine argument for "I like how this information is presented" when the alternative is "This is not how to present this information." We are free to make personal judgements about the presentation or form of data; it's only personal judgements of the subject itself that are problematic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Excellent, in-process close. Eusebeus (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it went against consensus? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- an excellent example of a closing admin determining consensus from strength of argument rather than just a quick head count. Reyk _YO! 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we went by strength of argument, then it would have closed as keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no you're quite wrong. I know you consider "I like it" to be a strong argument, but it isn't. And general consensus is that it isn't- and that's why the article was deleted and why the deletion will be endorsed. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't consider "I like it" a strong argument. As much as you openly see these things as some kind of battleground where to "fly the Deletionist flag", I, however, believe in arguments based on something other than subjectivity and personal opinion. The strong argument here is that reliably sourced information from independent published books and reviews was used for outr of universe sections on Innovations, History, and Reception of the units, which means it was not all original research, nor all plot. In fact, a book even said that the units here are a "notable example" of a change from earlier games. Thus, the final version of the article prior to deletion met our guidelines and policies at least in a manner suitable enough for a merge and/or redirect with edit history intact. Sure, some who know me will come here to reflexively say to delete just because I say to keep, but no reasonable admin will look at the article, see the inaccurate claims as to why to delete and still take issue with it that they would not undelete and redirect. If this is indeed not a vote, then deletion will not be endorsed. If it is a vote or if subjectivity is what matters, then deletion will be endorsed, but there's no benefit in keeping the edit history deleted and redirecting even if it's a protected redirect. There is however a potential benefit of keeping a legitimate search term available and providing edit history from which reliably sourced content may be merged. As you are unable to see the last version before deletion, you can't reasonably say that the arguments against it being kept really matched how it looked as of the AM hours last night/this morning. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please stop misrepresenting my position. I have told you numerous times that, although I have strong opinions regarding quality and notability and will defend them, I argue based on policy and because I have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I am not here to pick fights or bulldoze people, and I have told you this before. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent me? Reyk _YO! 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was well within admin discretion in interpreting the arguments, and kudos to the closer for making his reasoning clear. Deor (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It went with "arguments" that did not reflect the actual reality of the article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and props to the closer for thinking this thing through carefully. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the reasons for deletion did not truly represent the actual condition of the article? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, within admin discretion. Echoing comments above, I appreciate the closer's detailed explanation. A couple keeps mentioned only sourcing and article quality, which turned out to be irrelevant to the final decision. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The delete's claims were largely false or misleading. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as absolutely correct application of admin discretion. With respect to User:A Nobody, from time to time his apparent understanding of the word "consensus" means "arguments on my side are strong, and arguments against me are weak". Stifle (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if there's a GFDL issue, put a null edit in the edit history saying "parts of this article were taken from articles foo, bar, baz, and qux, written by editors quux, corge, grault, garply, waldo, fred, plugh, xyzzy, and thud". Stifle (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case the "arguments" for deletion were simply not really all that true. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – good close. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it went against consensus? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asserted GFDL burden

Like GRBerry and A Man In Black, I was not able to find compelling evidence of copied content. I'm willing to review specific and well-presented evidence, perhaps formatted as

source permanent link → destination diff

Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Germans

Recommend Wikipedia:undeletion for wikiarticle Good Germans since User:Wehwalt's above claims appear false: a deletion log is not available at any of the links User:Wehwalt "provided below", nor is the information as yet available at Wiktionary:Good German. It also appears as if the article was deleted without any readily-accessible wikirecord of that action until now (here).

NOTE: A wikipedia search for the article title "Good Germans" fails, but the obscure url was found by using a "Good Germans" wikilink in an actual article and then selecting it to generate this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Germans.
NOTE: The deleted Good Germans article did not violate Wikipolicy regarding Nazi Germany articles, nor had User:Wehwaltclaimed as such. Mugs2109 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: User:Stifle's 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) comment is fundamentally the same as the original comment by User:Mugs2109 on 5:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC), above: It also appears as if the article was deleted without any readily-accessible wikirecord of that action until now (here). Mugs2109 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion. Stifle was asking why Mugs2109 did not discuss the deletion with Wehwalt before listing it here at DRV. Stifle was NOT asking why didn't Wehwalt discuss before deleting. --Kbdank71 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct. The instructions to this page say that you are supposed to ask the administrator who deleted the article whether he/she is willing to undelete it before making a listing here. Why did you not do that, Mugs2109? Stifle (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete: Overturn the deletion and restore the wikiarticle since this is (was) a very useful encyclopedic wikiarticle with numerous literary citations and links that substantiate the validity of the wikiarticle's content about an important World War II history term (the term was even used as the title for a movie). Mugs2109 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By nominating here, you indicated your disagreement with the deletion. Placing extra bolded comments saying "undelete" may misrepresent your position as having more support than it does. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete: The wikiarticle shouldn't have been deleted since there was no "discussion ... attempted first". Stifle (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Comment struck, Stifle did not request this, it was added by Mugs2109 [22] --Kbdank71 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Deleted~~ !vote struck, was added by Mugs2109, not Davewild Comment~~: Although not available at Wiktionary:Good German, the article appears to have been transwikied to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Good_Germans.~~ struck the above comment which was not my (Davewild) wording and restored the original wording It does appear to have been transwikied to wikitionary - [23] - and did appear to be a pretty clear dictionary definition so unless there is something I'm missing here, it does appear to have met the relevant A5 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not yet been transwikied to Wiktionary and, in addition to missing a lot of original information, still contains 12 wiktionary syntax errors at the transwiki location, so it is not "a pretty clear dictionary definition". Mugs2109 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should immediately revert your last edit - [24] - which completely changed Stifle's comment and altered mine and completely misrepresented Stifle's comment at the very least. This is completely against the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - "Do not misrepresent other people" and "do not edit others' comments" which this page is like and either yourself or a neutral editor should clean up what that edit has done. Do not alter the structure of this disucssion again please. Davewild (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Has been transwikied, CSD would appear to be proper. --Kbdank71 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the history that is now at wiktionary, the versions of the article through 22 Sept 2008[25] are borderline Wikipedia content. In the next edit[26], Mugs2109 made it a dictionary definition and gave an edit summary including "used wiktionary format". The next editor looked at it and said "this belongs on wiktionary".[27] Fundamentally, this was transwiki'ed because the nominator for this discussion made it belong there instead of here. Five days after transwikiing, it was deleted here. Now Mugs2109 is upset because it has been transwiki'ed. I wouldn't object to restoring all edits prior to the Ocotber 2008 edit by Mugs2109 and sending that to AFD, but I suspect that the answer at AFD would be that even that material is better suited to wiktionary than to wikipedia. Eventually the wiktionary editors will complete the transwiki process. Since Mugs appears to already know how that project works, he could just go finish it if speed is of the essence. Since the nominator made it a dictionary definition and it has been transwiki'ed, the article meets WP:CSD#A5 and thus I endorse deletion. GRBerry 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, what Stifle said. Request makes no real sense in context, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotava language

While a constructed language, it is recognised as an ISO-639-3 language and is therefore notable enough GerardM (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Also, it's nearly four months since Kotava was deleted at AFD; could the nominator please explain why there has been such a delay in bringing this request? Stifle (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's advice, not policy. Attempts to make it policy have not been successful, nor should they be, for all nonobstructive ways of appealing admin decisions are beneficial to the community. And old potential errors need to be reviewed as much has new ones. DGG (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the DRV instructions, as well as common courtesy. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that this DRV actually applies to the Kotava article, not the Kotava language article which was a redirect to Kotava. I've subst:ed the DRV links and corrected the links to be to the right article. If someone wants to recreate the DRV from scratch to make sure it is perfectly clear, please feel free to. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Closing admin See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotava (2nd nomination), lack of sources and lack of notability are strong arguments at AFD. MBisanz ^talk 13:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus in the AFD is clear, and fits the longstanding and widespread community consensus and our policies. Nominator here offers no new information, most importantly no new reliable sources with significant coverage of the language. Reviewing the ISO submission documents that were linked in the AFD and are linked above, it does not seem likely that such sources will come to light any time soon, but if they ever do come to light a discussion could be held at that time. GRBerry 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The argument about ISO-639-3 was well considered in the AFD and there was a pretty clear consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrainSurge

deleted as a hoax (presumably G3), but there is a reliable source [28] that appears to give out tickets in an official capacity [29]. Notified User:Ryulong [30] but he declined [31] RJaguar3 | u | t 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore it was deleted as a "possible hoax" which isn't a speedy deletion criterion. It would now seem that it is a genuine upcoming TV show. RMHED. 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Does not meet any speedy criteria and is pretty clearly not a hoax as a quick google search reveals. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD as "possible hoax" is not a speedy criterion (although blatant and obvious hoax is). Stifle (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Ikip (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 *****Please stop misrepresenting my position. I have told you numerous times that, although I have strong opinions regarding quality and notability and will defend them, I argue based on policy and because I have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I am not here to pick fights or bulldoze people, and I have told you this before. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent me? [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse'''. The close was well within admin discretion in interpreting the arguments, and kudos to the closer for making his reasoning clear. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+**It went with "arguments" that did not reflect the actual reality of the article.  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion''' and props to the closer for thinking this thing through carefully. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+**Even though the reasons for deletion did not truly represent the actual condition of the article? Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Endorse''', within admin discretion. Echoing comments above, I appreciate the closer's detailed explanation. A couple ''keep''s mentioned only sourcing and article quality, which turned out to be irrelevant to the final decision. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+**The delete's claims were largely false or misleading.  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''' as absolutely correct application of admin discretion. With respect to [[User:A Nobody]], from time to time his apparent understanding of the word "consensus" means "arguments on my side are strong, and arguments against me are weak". [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 *:And if there's a GFDL issue, put a null edit in the edit history saying "parts of this article were taken from articles foo, bar, baz, and qux, written by editors quux, corge, grault, garply, waldo, fred, plugh, xyzzy, and thud". [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+**In the case the "arguments" for deletion were simply not really all that true.  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''' – good close. — <font face="Segoe Script">[[User:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="navy">'''sephiroth bcr'''</font>]]</font> <font face="Verdana"><sup>'''([[User talk:Sephiroth BCR|<font color="blue">converse</font>]])'''</sup></font> 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
+**Even though it went against consensus?  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 ===== Asserted GFDL burden =====