Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2006 December 20
2006 December 22 >

21 December 2006

[edit]
Kalpesh Sharma – Deletion endorsed – 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kalpesh Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (AfD)

Hello, I am Kalpesh Sharma, I want to edit my following page on wikipedia: Kalpesh Sharma because of a reliable source from himachal times which was posted by senior editor Mr. Chauhan. Check it here: [1]

Secondly, I also request to allow me to post my article on wikipedia due to following notable and reliable sources which are from print media and electronic media and the scanned copy of whch is posted by me on: [2]

Please consider this for deletion review. Thanks.

From Kalpesh Sharma 59.95.217.129 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly please tell me how to unblock ? Thnx

  • Endorse deletion. Original article = WP:AUTO with the absence of reliable sources. Deleted in an appropriate fashion and the author has been trolling by placing copies of the article on many inappropriate pages -- Samir धर्म 10:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be possible that http://www.himtimes.com/full_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1166359894&archive may not be notable source according to your views. But I request you to recheck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Kalpesh_Sharma

because only internet sources cannot be said to be notable. I have given the source which is a website where a lot of scanned articles from highly reputed and reliable sources of print and electronic media are available. Kindly please have a look at it. Thnx a lot.

Kalpesh Sharma

59.95.217.237 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Satyendra Oswal? The name gets zero hits on google. Is he a Himtimes reporter, or just someone with a name made up one day (note that his address is at hotmail) to post your praises on that page? And the esnips "article" was written by you, as well, in first person, and therefore of zero reliability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick FitzGerald is also a wikipedia administrator. Who is using sock puppet to comment on http://utcursch.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/my-answer-to-kalpesh-sharmas-allegations See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

and now these wikipedia administrators have started using different user names like sock puppets, whereas they used to blame me for same when I edited wikipedia. This is a big proof now that what I was saying about Aksi Great, Utcursch and Samir was not wrong. A person who itself is wrong should not call others wrong.

Kalpesh Sharma

59.95.217.237 13:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, but my name is not Nick Fitzgerald. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Greece Squad UEFA Euro 2004 et al. – Deletion endorsed, "no consensus" closure can be renominated at WP:TFD – 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 1992 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 2000 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Japan Squad 2004 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd November 21
Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) tfd December 4
Template:Greece Squad UEFA Euro 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions tfd December 4

And please read the rest of the list in November 21, November 17, November 13, October 17.

  1. Delete all or
  2. Delete all except Champions Keeping regional (& Confederations Cup) Champions squad. that's equal for Euro and Asian Cup. And/or
  3. Delete all except Current event Keeping last regional squad (Euro 2004, 2005 Confederations Cup), that's is England and Lativa.

As the usage of squad template discussed in August 11, a notable world-class player would play more than three "A" event, just like Paolo Maldini and Shunsuke Nakamura, and current squad list (2006 FIFA World Cup squads) is enough to provide the function as the squad Template adding to the player's article.

There is no sense the template showing he won the champions or not, as we can replacing it to medal template.

Matthew_hk tc 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per unanimous delete !votes, which shows something.. I don't understand what you're saying, either. -Amarkov blahedits 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I brought the Japanese templates up for review earlier, and withdrew after the templates were user-fied, where I used that info to either expand existing roster pages, or create new ones. I think that for the major tournaments that these templates represent, having a page with the rosters for all teams is useful, and putting a link on a player's page to either the tournament or the tournament's roster page is sufficient. Neier 12:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion voted billions of times about this stuff, always with the same response. --Angelo 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm relisting this because like Amarkov I'm having a hard time understanding the nomination, but if I read this correctly the contested CfD is the December 4 one, which ended in a no-consensus against precedent. So !votes in favor of deletion should read "overturn, delete", not "endorse deletion". Also, since Greece won the Euro 2004 the Denmark 1992 precedent should hold and the CfD end in a split decision (keep Greece, delete Latvia). Iow, a tangled mess worse than offside rules. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Action Zone Wrestling – Deletion endorsed – 08:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Action Zone Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was nominated for deletion by a convicted sockpuppet BooyakaDell. I was in the process of trying to source the article when it was deleted, and was also distracted by the dispute over whether or not Booyaka was in fact JB196 - which has since been proven. I have joined the forum attached to the official website of AZW and I intend to seek sources there - but I need the article undeleted to allow forum members to access it. As well as not allowing the proven bad faith nomination for deletion by JB to stand. Curse of Fenric 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Whatever the nominator's motives, the AfD was handled correctly. Sandstein 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no sources demonstrating notability, nominator (and anyone else) is free to recreate the article with such sources or provide them here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This ranks up there with a DRV because the deleting admin was later desysopped for a completely different matter. Proving that the nominator was a sockpuppet doesn't prove bad faith, and even proving bad faith doesn't mean it should be undeleted. -Amarkov blahedits 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the AfD showed a very strong consensus to delete, regardless of who the nominator was or may have been. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guys with all due respect, this doesn't address the problem of the original content. When I emailed AZW about the AfD, I mentioned what was on it. If I get a reply that addresses it - I have nothing to go on without the original article being re-created. I need it also to address the same content on the forum at the official website. I hope you understand the dilemma you are creating for me when I'm trying to do the right thing by WP - and provide a sourced article. Curse of Fenric 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have addressed the problem of the original content. The problem is that the original content had no independent reliable sources, and consequently failed WP:V, which is non-negotiable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So could you please re-create it so I can fix it up? I explained why I needed it. I don't undestand - please don't stick to this hard line. I can't do the work I need to do without the original article. Comments were made on it - and I will be sourcing them. This will eliminate your objections - if you'll just allow me to do so. [[User:Curse of Fenric/sig]] 08:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean, you can't do the work you need to do without it? The proper way to build a verifiable article is to start with sources and then find statements to include, not start with statements and then go through contrivances so you can call them verified. Regardless, forum members saying something doesn't make it verifiable. -Amarkov blahedits 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I do mean that, Amarkov. I want the forum members to see the original article that was deleted - that's essential. And I have not asked for statements on the website forum. I have asked more specific questions than that AND asked for sources to be provided. I know very well what I need for verification, and it won't be the forum by itself. (Hope the new sig is OK off topic) CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was closed correctly, IMO (per Starbind/Andrew Lenahan). 1ne 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sylvester Mubayi – Article restored by deleting admin, AfD optional – 08:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sylvester Mubayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mubayi was a first-generation Zimbabwean sculptor; he was one of the founder members of the important workshop school at the National Gallery of Zimbabwe. His work is on permanent display at the Chapungu Sculpture Park, probably the second- or third-most important exhibition space in the country. Both of these should be enough to establish notability. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the speedy deleter - there was no assertion of notability in either Sylvester Mubayi or Chapungu Sculpture Park. I've temporarily restored Sylvester Mubayi so that anyone who cares can add a (preferably sourced) assertion of notability. Sandstein 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've beefed it up a bit. I've now made it clear that a.) he was a founder member of the Tengenenge Sculpture Community, which is probably the most important community of its kind in Africa, and certainly was pioneering (and for which I know of a print source, which I do not own and so cannot cite); b.) he has been recognized by the Chapungu Sculpture Park, another important gallery in Zimbabwe; and c.) he was a product of the Workshop School, the first notable school in Zimbabwean art. To me, that seems enough to establish notability, but as there's no notability guidline for artists, I don't have a further way to bolster my claim. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, so this is no longer a speedy delete. But as long as we're discussing it... does he meet WP:BIO's criterion of "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field", and are there any reliable sources for it? (Anyone, feel free to move this to a proper AfD discussion, by the way.) Sandstein 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well...from http://www.sil.si.edu/SILPublications/ModernAfricanArt/maadetail.cfm?subCategory=Zimbabwe: "The larger dilemma for Cook and others, who appreciate Zimbabwe stone sculpture as a truly fine art, is its rapid commercialization and consequent dilution by inferior imitations. Art critics here and in Zimbabwe have failed so far to draw the line: most viewers genuinely cannot see the difference between the good, the bad and the mediocre. Perhaps we should rely on Cook's judgment. His nine are: Edronce Rukodzi, Henry Munyaradzi, Joseph Ndandarika, John Takawira, Moses Masaya, Nicholas Mukomberanwa, Sylvester Mubayi, Norbert Shamuyarira, and Richard Mteki." And his name appears as one of a number of artists cited in several other sources. I'd say he's probably among the most important of the Zimbabwean stone sculptors. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you - that's persuasive, and I think the article should be kept. If no one disagrees, I suggest that this discussion be closed and copied to the Article talk page for future reference. Sandstein 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1 – Speedily restored – 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Canadian identity/Archive 1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

I would like to see the talk history of the article that I'm working on. Arctic Gnome 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators – Deletion endorsed – 08:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted after an AfD that was overwhelmingly (10/4) keep. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators) The list certainly has POV problms, but there are ways to refocus it, including a standard of mainstream press sources referring to the ruler as a dictator (Example: [6]). Traditionally we keep these lists and enforce standards and rigor on them - which is what the consensus in the AfD showed that we should do. That an admin deleted despite an overwhelming consensus is not a reason to do otherwise. Phil Sandifer 02:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Most of the keeps didn't address the nomination, but said "Well clean it up then!", which the nominator said was not possible. -Amarkov blahedits 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote. 1ne 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Phil's reasoning the last time the article went on AfD was based on more clearly on the goal of writing an encyclopedia: Delete - note that this is not really a matter for voting, as one cannot vote away NPOV, and one cannot do this list in a NPOV way. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC) [7] 172 | Talk 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, many of the problems with the list in the form I voted for deletion on were products of its explicitly presentist structure. I think an overall list of dictators remains quite reasonable - the modern section would be a relatively small portion, I should hope, and would hopefully include references and explanations. But this is wholly possible. Phil Sandifer 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's not "explicitly presentist" by virtue of the title. But it's the same article, just moved. How the content is structured is pretty much the same mess we had on our hands last year. 172 | Talk 05:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Clearly abuse of deletion process. There is nothing in deletion policy that would permit Doc glasgow to issue a decree that a certain article is "Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy" and appoint himself as the final arbiter what is POV and what is not against rough consensus that was clearly towards keeping the article. Instead the deletion policy is very clear about this: XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept. I read this to mean that "so fix it" is indeed a valid reply to NPOV complaints in AfD discussions. jni 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, closer's reasoning is sound. The Keep !votes did indeed miss the point, never refuted, that this violates core policy. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's rationale: Let me be clear, I didn't do this lightly. POV in an article is a reason for clean-up not deletion. However, please bear in mind that this is a list not an article. In a contentious subject, we reach NPOV by working towards a consensus not of 'truth' but of a neutral and balanced description of the various views, each given with reliable citations. That can be hard, but it is a goal we believe is at least theoretically achievable. Lists are different: because ultimately they are binary. We can't describe the various views fairly, we have to choose one. He's either on the list, or he's not. We either call him a dictator or we don't. That will always be POV: there is simply no goal of neutral description possible. Find me ten reliable citations that say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a dictator, and I'll find you five praising Iranian democracy. Robert Mugabe? Gorbachev? Now, even if we discussed all that, and reached a consensus on the page, it wouldn't be NPOV, since it wouldn't be a neutral description of the various views. All it would be is a List which the consensus of Wikipedians call dictators. By definition, this 'article' cannot logically be cleaned up comply with NPOV. And NPOV is non-negotiable. --Docg 09:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this line of reasoning apply to this list in specific? Coudn't you fairly insert "which the consensus of Wikipedians call" into pretty much any title? Also, was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually on that list with a source? He's not even in charge of Iran... BCoates 13:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly didn't look at the content of the list. It isn't relevant: the concept of this list rather than the content necessarily breaches NPOV. As to other lists, straight faction lists are not a problem. We don't need a consensus of what goes on the 'List of U.S. Presidents', we deal in facts. But opinionated lists should be a no no in my opinion.--Docg 13:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I endorse and agree with Doc above. A core policy is given that name for a reason. It's a non-negotiable fact, and Doc has made the right call here, I believe. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "Traditionally we keep these lists and enforce standards and rigor on them". Wrong. Traditionally ten people say 'keep and cleanup', forcing either a 'keep' or a 'no consensus', and none of them actually do so. Although that isn't actually relevant, because Doc's rationale above says it all; this article is inherently POV. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion while I enjoyed the list, its a nightmare to maintain in an NPOV form. As its an unmaintainable list its a valid deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, who is a dictator? Who is not? Reliable sources? One says he is, the other says he is not. Fighting, quabbling, edit-warring. Serious NPOV issues. N00k it. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There's clear precedent for deleting such lists. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Excellent closing rationale. I'm a bit disappointed the majority didn't get this one right on AFD. Wickethewok 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of backdoor: The category was a hot debate, with loads of folks weighing in. The category got deleted, and the list looks like a back door. Essentially, all the arguments, above, were the "winning" arguments in the category deletion. Effectively, deletion of the "list" is consistency rather than a truly new issue being debated. Geogre 13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The closing admin got it right. Dr Zak 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, exactly for the reason given.--Aldux 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, per Jni. Also, many hours were put into this list to meet the specific criteria.--Antispammer 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the very appropriate rationale provided by the closing admin. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 05:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Very well done. Inherently POV list, no ideas from the keeps on how to not make it so. ("CLEAN IT UP!" usually doesn't count unless you do it yourself, I'm afraid.) Grandmasterka 08:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Whatever the "truth" of the NPOV concern, an admin must not simply go on his/her own whim and ignore consenus! LotLE×talk 15:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn and restore. Abusive close unsupported by either policy, the AfD discussion - where consensus existed to keep the article - or basic logic by a non-neutral admin who repeatedly argued for deleting this list in November 2005 [8]. If a list of dictators violates NPOV, Dictator or any use of the word in any article at wikipedia does as well - frankly that's just PC thinking run amuck. I would hope that Admins that have stated such strong opinions would refrain from exercising administrative powers regarding article inclusion/deletion. In the real wikipedia world, though, that just about never happens and AfD discussions are increasingly irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of an article. Admins now feel fully empowered to ignore completely the views of other users (as the closer has admitted here, in fact going so far as to state he didn't even look at the list) in order to enforce their personal opinion or bias. I view that approach as a sad demonstration of contempt for the community. --JJay 16:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JJay. A list is better than a category, since the list can include the definition it's using right at the top. However, my biggest concern is that of consistency. For the record, I looked up 6 dictators alleged dictators political leaders with questionable records, and found these quotes:
Joseph Stalin - According to the consensus of modern historians [2][3][4][5][6], he is seen as a dictator of his country.
Adolf Hitler - With the establishment of a restructured economy, a rearmed military, and a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy
Benito Mussolini - He established a repressive fascist regime
Francisco Franco - was the effective ruler, dictator, and later formal head of state
Kim Jong-il - According to defector Hwang Jang-yop, the North Korean system became even more centralized and autocratic under Kim Jong-il than it had been under his father.
Augusto Pinochet - Sen. Coleman noted: “This is a sad, sordid tale of money laundering involving Pinochet accounts at multiple financial institutions using alias names, offshore accounts, and close associates. As a former General and President of Chile, Pinochet was a well-known human rights violator and violent dictator.”
By my rough count, that's three "he's a dictator", one "consensus indicates he's a dictator", and two "one source says he acts a dictator". Above all else, as Phil said, we need to "enforce standards and rigor" on the use of terms like "dictator", "fascist", and "repressive" - both in individual articles and in a list such as this. Who said he's a dictator? Do single-party elections count? Was the government repressive, or just highly bureaucratic? Pick some standards to use, then apply them across the board. Quack 688 07:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - broader issue: it is no secret that List of dictators was a prototypical example of a new approach to how Wikipedia could/should deal with sensitive lists, see Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia (where "List of dictators" is mentioned as an example), and the talk page archives of that page where it is discussed why and how "List of dictators" was intended to set an example of the new approch. Further, see also Wikipedia talk:List guideline (where it was tried to merge the new ideas in the general List guideline): on that talk page "List of dictators" has about a dozen mentionings as an example. Currently the last section of that talk page that kind of summarizes the arguments is Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Question about section 2.2 (lead section).
    • The "new approach" contained the idea that a list should start with a strong definition, and that inclusion of items on a list should be weighed against such definition.
    • One of the problems with that approach is that for sensitive issues a "strong" (unanimous,...) definition is often not possible (otherwise the issue wouldn't be sensitive, would it?), which led to a vague addition in the new ruleset for lists: "Beware of definitions which are disputed", trying to forbid lists where there might be discussion over inclusion criteria. Now, Wikipedia has dealt with, and will continue to deal with, lists on sensitive topics. I've given many examples of such lists which are sensitive but not problematic as a Wikipedia endeavour on Wikipedia talk:List guideline (and many other places), I mention just a few here: "List of works by Plato" (included in the Plato article); "List of Nudibranch infraorders"; "List of islands of Japan"; "List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach";... The old approach was making annotated lists (noting down as well verifiable factors that justify an inclusion, as verifiable factors that indicate an inclusion is not justified), which doesn't lead to a NPOV problem, as those example lists I mentioned show. In fact, the new approach was making lists problematic where they hadn't been in the standard approach of treating list pages exactly the same way as all other articles in article namespace, as far as compliance to core content policies is concerned.
    • As for the present deletion review of List of dictators, my opinion is that the page should not be re-created on the basis of the Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia type of guidance, but on the other hand, there should be no impediment of creating a List of dictators with a strict adherence to core content policy. In other words, I support the rigor approach, but only if this is understood as rigor w.r.t. core content policy (and not the subsequent guidelines/essays that erred from core content policy).
    • If "deletion" of the current version of List of dictators stands (which I think will be the case, and which I think should be the case) I'd ask the community for support on:
      1. marking Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia as "rejected" or "historical" or disable it by making it a redirect to Wikipedia:List guideline.
      2. reworking of Wikipedia:List guideline#References for list Items, which has become affected by the abovementioned problem-generating approach. --Francis Schonken 12:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore, This is a useful article... there's no real reason to delete it. If people have POV issues, let them be discussed. Cyberdog 20:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Its existence offended a few people intensely, in a way I frankly never understood, but that in itself is not enough. It was well-maintained, sourced, and strongly scrutinized. If need be it can be renamed if the word "dictator" just makes some folk see red.--T. Anthony 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red labor – Overturned, listed at AfD – 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I created the article on this artist group and it was speedy-deleted by Teke. I left a message on their talk page on November 28, 2006 and have heard no response. Teke cited G11 "Blatant advertising" as the reason for deletion but "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I would like to see the article up for an AfD vote as they have some good article contributions in the graphic design community. JohnRussell 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellflower (movie) – Deletion endorsed – 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellflower (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

The reason for deletion is unclear Bennytrek 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that an article about the same thing was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm. It's not an identical article but all of the reasons from the original afd would still apply, considering the article states that "shooting starts soon". - Bobet 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no argument presented, no reliable sources as already pointed out in the AfD given by bobet, whose article is pretty much the same as this one's. ColourBurst 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We'd likely have a hard time keeping a major star-studded Hollywood production that wasn't even in the shooting stage yet, and a "fan film" has even less chance. Come back when it's complete and has plenty of verifiable reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per ColourBurst and Andrew Lenahan. 1ne 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Somari – Overturned and relisted at AfD – 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Somari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The original premise for deletion was entirely invalid. (Somari is not a simple graphics hack; it is a very impressive conversion of a game from the Genesis to the NES, which itself makes it notable -- there are very few comparable examples. Porting a game to a different platform without the source code is generally a difficult feat even today; it's even more amazing back when it was made.) Several votes of "delete per nom" were explicitly based on this invalid premise. This seemed to have gone unnoticed until two days before the article was deleted, with the majority of votes that indicated any awareness of this coming on the last day. I'm convinced that if the debate had lasted longer, the outcome would be different. Therefore I'm posting this for deletion review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. I hate to do vote counting, but when neither side bothers to back up their opinion, you have to, and there was not a majority in favor of deletion. -Amarkov blahedits 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this comment. There are 10 "delete" votes (11 if you count the nomination) and 5 "keep" votes, a clear majority if there ever was one. I don't dispute that there is a majority; what I dispute is that a significant (if indeterminate) number of people who did vote "delete" clearly did not understand what they were voting on. While that doesn't invalidate those votes per se, I think it's inappropriate to close the discussion and delete the article before a discussion based on proper understanding could take place. Before deciding whether an article on Somari is worth having, we need to understand what Somari is. Grossly misrepresenting it in the nomination, whether intentionally or otherwise, is kind of like rigging the vote. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_21&oldid=1136460815"