Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 March 5
2007 March 7 >

6 March 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Electric universe (concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
  • Note that there is a potential conflict of interest, as I started and contributed to the article.
  • I believe that "Irregularities" make the decision to delete the article, to be unsafe. For example, after User:ScienceApologist begun the AfD here with his own reasons...
  • My comments,[1] were removed by ScienceApologist to the discussion page,[2], contravening the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" page, which states in the section "Commenting on a listing for deletion" that "Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion.". On bringing my comments to another editor's attention,[3], they responded that "That is alot more of a case than I ever saw on the AfD page"[4], (because my comments had been removed).
  • Less seriously, having moved my comments to the Talk page, ScienceApologist responded by intermixing his comments with mine, making it difficult for others to read mine. This practice is not allowed in ArcCom cases, and the "Talk page guidelines" section on "Layout" tells us to "Answer a post underneath it". ScienceApologist is not a new user, and is well aware of this.
  • ScienceApologist advertised the AfD on the proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) page,[5], in contravention of the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy" page (see the section "Abuse of deletion process" tells us that "It should also be noted that packing the discussion .. meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus,". It explains why another user commented "Why so many votes??"[6]
  • It was claimed that the AfD was brought as a "Test Case"[7] for WP:SCIENCE. This was wholly inappropriate as WP:SCIENCE (a) is only a proposal (b) is not the sole criteria on which to judge articles; indeed, the recent WP:A includes a link to a comment by Jimmy Wales on "Crackpot articles"[8] stating that "if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsenese"; he does not say that we delete them.
  • To summarise. (A) Most of the votes were in favour of deleting because of the reasons given in the orignal nomination, which I argued were misleading, but which few saw because my comments were removed. (B) Most of the voters were only aware of the AfD because the case had been inappropriately advertised at WP:SCIENCE (C) Scientific notability is not the only criterial for notability. --Iantresman 19:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The consensus was clear that the article was not sufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate. Interesting concept, but as has been pointed out in the past by numerous well-informed individuals, complete bollocks and of no objectively provable significance. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Desperate clutching at straws. Refactoring is not removing. WP:SCI/TC makes clear what the purpose of test cases is: to follow up on relevant discussions to see how the community considers science topics in order to fine-tune the guideline. "Advertising" at WT:SCI is perfectly within WP:CANVASS since it doesn't target editors with a single bent (after all, it took half a year to agree on a proposal). It's also completely irrelevant that WP:SCI is only a proposal, editors can follow it or not depending on their own appraisal of its merit, the difference is that as a proposal it's not actionable by the closer. Consensus was established in the discussion and correctly interpreted by the closer. End of story. ~ trialsanderrors 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Trialsanderrors. The closer's decision reflected the clear consensus of the discussion. Notifying XfDs to Wikiprojects and other interested portals, projects, et cetera, is routine, and certainly not canvassing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Obviously the debate had a very clear outcome. I do think that some of those in the delete camp were playing a bit fast and loose with some rules here: I do think that delete voters were drawn to the debate because of its being publicized as a "test case" for WP:SCIENCE which is fundamentally a deletion-oriented initiative. I also think it's wrong that ALL of Ian's comments were removed to the talk page. But, the outcome was so overwhelming, I don't think we need to try again, and the arguments for deletion are very solid. An entire scientific theory with sourcing, effectively, from a single Wired article? I can see why the community went for deletion. Mangojuicetalk 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:ScienceApologist did NOT Refactor my comments; they were not "redundant", nor "superfluous" (as they directly addressed his points), and nor did removing them improve their readability, it hindered them by requiring editors to click on a link.
  • The AfD policy "Abuse of deletion process" clearly states that "(advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus," irrespective of whether WP:SCI targets editors with a single bent. (eg. an interest in science, against pseudoscience)
  • Incidentally, I did dispute the consensus, nor the reasons given; but my comments should not have been removed, and the AfD should not have been advertised on WP:SCI. The policy guidelines are clear. --Iantresman 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, if you don't dispute the consensus, then what exactly are you doing here? Process is not an end in itself. You've already faced ArbCom sanction over disruption relating to articles like this one at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and in fact you were banned from this specific article previously under that sanction. If you merely feel mistreated, but don't actually want the article to be undeleted, it would be appropriate to post at WP:ANI or somewhere similar. Or, for that matter, you could have reverted SA's refactoring if you disagreed with it, and you were obviously aware of it, as you commented on it directly afterwards. Could you just withdraw the request if you don't dispute the consensus? Mangojuicetalk 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can read the consensus as easily as you can. There is no dispute that the majority voted to delete the article. But the voting process deviated from policy.
  • Surely you're not suggesting that because I received sanctions under an ArbCom ruling, that I should ignore the abuse of the AfD process?
  • I could have reverted the refactoring, the removing of my comments, and the inappropriate advertising of the AfD on WP:SCI. But as you have just pointed out I have "already faced ArbCom sanction", as other Admins have warned me too.
  • I dispute the deletion of the article on the grounds that the voting process was FIXED. You've already acknowledged that my comments should not have been deleted, and the AfD policy "Abuse of deletion process" clearly states that advertising the AfD (on WP:SCI) is not allowed. --Iantresman 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How dare you criticize me for reporting that another editor has abused the AfD process, and completely ignore my original reasons, and then threatening me with my ArbCom case. I'm taking you to Arbitration for what I feel is willfully ignoring and abusing your duties as an Arbritator.
  • This reminds me of police offers in the 1970s who would criticize women for having the audacity to report cases of rape against them. You're wasting police time! You were probably asking for it! He's your husband. The politician is a respected citizen! Oh, I see you were caught with an overdue library book... you'd better watch it. --Iantresman 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for God's sake Ian, get over yourself. I told you: you are in danger of crossing the line. You cannot fail to be aware by now that your view of these fringe topics is at odds with consensus. Your rude, aggressive and obnoxious response to what was certainly intended as a polite but firm reminder to tone down the rhetoric is a perfect example of why you have a problem here. I would be more than happy for you to take that comment to ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I understood that the listing as a "test case" was to see how well the proposed rules matched the situation, not as a chance to prove that they would be used effectively to delete the article. There was considerable discussion of the article over there as well. DGG 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)

Appears to have been speedied in the belief that it's an empty category (there was no discussion about it, and the reason given appears to be some sort of automatically generated list). This category is meant to be usually empty, as articles appearing in it are often resorted quickly by hand. I'd recommend a speedy undeletion to avoid disrupting the AfD process while this DRv is ongoing (just deleting part of a process without altering the process first can be unintentionally disruptive). --ais523 18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} refers to this category if the user specifies "?" as a parameter. I'm not sure if the deletion of the category was the result of a change in the AfD process, but either the category should be restored, or the "remove this template" template should be updated. My vote is for the former, so I'll endorse undeleting it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Voice of All's deletion log, it seems pretty clear that this was a mistake during serialized deletions, not an attempt to change the AfD process, so I'd recommend a speeedy undelete to correct the mistake. --ais523 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rites of Ash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Since Rites of Ash has been deleted, the band has composed music for (and has aired on) nine MTV shows, including, "The Real World," "Next," "Pimp My Ride," Gauntlet 2," "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat," "Island Life," "Livin La Haina" (MTV South America, etc. Also, Rites of Ash has collaborated with international DJ Paul Edge and Pablo Manzarek (son of Ray Manzarek of The Doors) on a remix album, and U.S. DMC Supremacy Champion DJ Idee on his music video "Eclectic Dreams" (which will air on MTVu and MTV2).

As for song credits, most of the MTV online archive for our credits have since been taken down. I could only find this site with credit of our work: http://www.mtv.com/#/ontv/dyn/realworld-season17/episode/featured_music.jhtml?episodeId=96397

I have the signed MTV contracts right here. We have numerous press releases and related materials on our websites: www.ritesofash.com -and- www.myspace.com/ritesofash User:ritesofashritesofash 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of real people appearing in fictional context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I have been working on this list a lot and some other people too, and I know many people find it very interesting. At least one person find his way to Wikipedia by once being directed to this page. It is not the most important knowledge of course, but still it is something which facinates many people. Of course it was not ready yet, it never will be, but Wikipedia is a place in constant work, isn't it? Maybe it could be divided into a couple of subpages so as not be so long. Many pages still have links to this page.

If it is not undeleted, I will have to create it again and adding all the information from my memory. It's much work, and I find it hard to see that I can remember even a fracion to start with.

Also, the page was deleted after just a short period of voting. Shouldn't a vote like this be on for at least a week, so that everyone concerned might have time to notice it? John Anderson 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. Admittedly, there was no pressing concern that made this debate close 2 days early, but it's also not a big deal: consensus was very clear from the debate as it stood. John Anderson brings up no points against the reasons the community agreed to the deletion of the page. Mangojuicetalk 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin: I'll admit that I closed the debate early, but the consensus was overwhelming and highly unlikely to have changed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In saying that, the AfD was opened on Feb 27 and closed on March 4. It had therefore had five days and a bit during which people could discuss it, which is strictly speaking the length it should have had. The fact that a great many AfDs run 6 or 7 days is a backlog issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AFD made it clear people thought it was too broad, especially nowadays where guest stars in TV shows are very common. TJ Spyke 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt to ensure this guy doesn't go through with his threat. JuJube 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt - Admin correctly closed based on overwhelming consensus and user is threatening to disrupt Wikipedia by recreating deleted content. Otto4711 13:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think salting is unnecessary here: I left the poster a note to please accept the DRV outcome and not create the article if recreation is not allowed: let's WP:AGF that he will respond to the request. If he recreates the article, I'm watching it, I'll just delete it G4 (unless recreation is allowed by this DRV) and can salt it later. Mangojuicetalk 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If I'm counting the days correctly, it wasn't even an early closure. I agree that pageprotection seems premature. Rossami (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, when I understood that the article had been deleted, I was angry at first. After having given it some thought, I too think that this page might not belong on Wikipedia, as it is not any really important knowledge.
Let me just clarify, for the record, that the list was not a list of the people who has been appearing "as themselves" in different movies and TV shows. On the contrary, I think almost all examples given on the page was of real people being played by or described in literary by someone else. You know, when someone is playing "himself" on TV, it usually is in a context where his appearance is somewhat like semi-fictional at best, the fiction in these circumstances bordering very close on reality.
Also, I think it is unwise deleting a page without erasing all the links to it from other pages at the same time. John Anderson 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Woodbine Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I closed the AFD as a delete. SimonP undeleted this, but the reasons he gave for doing so are uncompelling to me. The argument seems to be "this is an arterial road in Toronto, therefore it should have an article". I agree that there were a number of votes for keeping it, but these were not based on any valid reasoning I can see. I use the "nontrivial coverage in reliable sources" yardstick, but the sources given in the article are mentions of the road in passing. I just don't see how there's an encyclopedia article to be had on this topic. Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. His reasons are definitely compelling! -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the undeleters: It's misnamed. Woodbine Avenue exists in several cities, and it's non-trivial in a few. The Woodbine Avenue in New York City is large and heavily trafficked, and probably the site of some history, so it would be wise to locate the article at Woodbine Avenue, Toronto. Geogre 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that based on what I see at the original AFD discussion, there's a very clear preference for "keep Woodbine but delete the others". Again, I'm not really entirely convinced that Woodbine is sufficiently notable, and I think Wikipedia could probably stand to have a more thorough discussion on how to quantify the notability or non-notability of city streets, but the AFD preference was pretty clear. It's true that "it's a notable main artery", by itself, is a weak reason. However, I also personally expressed the opinion that if anything, Woodbine should be a separate AFD from the others, because an arterial road that extends for about 100 kilometres through five different municipalities is not equivalent to, or batchable with, a 20-house residential cul-de-sac like Rockingham Court. Undelete, and move per Geogre, but feel free to put it up for a new solo AFD if you still feel strongly about it. Bearcat 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, since the consensus of the AFD-discussion seems to have been keep. Disambiguate, if necessary, per Geogre. Bucketsofg 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see why nose-counting is relevant here. Are the people saying keep it undeleted arguing that this topic doesn't need nontrivial coverage, or that it has nontrivial coverage? Friday (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per others - also note the arterial designation in York Region has a legal and objective significance (as sourced in the article), rather than a subjective one. Dl2000 00:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted; this is why notability is flawed. There is enough information to write a comprehensive article, but the closer decided to discount that in favor of the opinion that only sources specifically about the road, rather than those mentioning it as part of a larger work, are valid. It should also be moved to Woodbine Avenue (Ontario) and disambiguated if there are other major roads with the name. --NE2 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Guitar George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted because someone else also uses the same name (George Borowski)and that there was no proof that the other Guitar George had legitimate claims to the name aswell. Since the deletion of the page there has come to light many newspaper articles, TV appearences (in England and Spain) and Pictures of Guitar George using that name and showing his various appearances. This can be found at guitargeorge.net. His latest appearance being on the BBC1 TV show 'When Will I Be Famouse' on sat 17th feb which can still be viewed on the bbc website bbc.co.uk/whenwillibefamous. Only because of the coincidental use of the same name has Guitar George been deleted. If this person had had a different name there would have been no question of his inclusion in wikipedia. Guitarminator 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PortugalMUN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

similar articles intact(ex:THIMUN) MiguelNS 11:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
EGullet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

eGullet has 10 cites in the New York Times in the last three years, is a site with interviews and posts by notable food personalities like Food Network hosts Anthony Bourdain and Alton Brown, former LA Times Food editor Russ Parsons, hosted a chronicle of the opening of the well-known new restaurant Alinea. I know there are a million food message boards out there, but eGullet attracts a significant number of important people in the food world, such as Mediterranean cookbook author Paula Wolfert, sommelier Mark Slater at Citronelle in Washington, D.C., one of the nation's top restaurant, and others. I hope that the deletion will be reconsidered. Wnissen 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion of self-created vanity article, without prejudice to working up a proper, cited version in user space which demonstrates notability by reference to multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. A better statement from the afd closer could've really helped here. I can see two straightforward explanations for his close despite the afd not reaching the normal 2/3 bar for rough consensus. The first would have been discounting the opinions of Perlow (talk · contribs) and Arvedui (talk · contribs) as very new users, judging from their redlinked user pages; however, this would be in error as both have substantial contribution histories.

    The other would be to discount User:Perlow's argument that the article meets WP:WEB and User:RockMFR's assertion that sources can probably be found (though he didn't actually supply any). Looking at the deleted revisions of the article, this would be very understandable. Despite ten external links, it cites exactly zero secondary sources, and the afd didn't provide any either, except for a link to a google news search. The two most substantial sources from that search between them have enough information to write no more than a one-line article; no new sources are given in this deletion review, either. Endore deletion, I suppose; without better sourcing, I can't see us having a worthwhile article that passes the Amnesia test. —Cryptic 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the first deletion I've been involved with. I didn't realize that the bar was so high. How about this mention [9] from the NYT?:

Mr. [Steven] Psaltis's assertions and job history became the subject of discussion a few weeks ago on the message boards at eGullet (egullet.com), a Web site devoted to epicurean life, which had been running excerpts from the young chef's book.

On Sept. 19, a member wrote in suggesting that Mr. Psaltis skipped over an important episode during his tenure at French Laundry, after he left Mix, one that might taint his account. After an innuendo-filled online conversation, Mr. Psaltis posted a response in which he said he had been frustrated with the restaurant and was certain "that others were frustrated with me." He wrote that one night, during a dispute, he slapped another employee's hand. "It was stupid of me to allow myself to be baited into crossing that line," Mr. Psaltis continued.

(When asked by phone about the circumstances under which Mr. Psaltis left the French Laundry, neither he or Mr. Keller would comment, Mr. Keller citing a confidentiality agreement he keeps with his employees.)

In other words, a chef with a published memoir was willing to post on eGullet but not talk to the NYT.
Not just food publications, but how about MIT's Technology Review? [10]

[Grant] Achatz and his Chicago contemporaries have not just placed themselves at the front ranks of the avant garde; they are the future of American cooking, in a self-conscious but valid way. Just as he has built on what he learned, proclaiming his roots in [French Laundry chef Thomas] Keller's teachings, Achatz knows that the 22-year-olds in his kitchen will one day have kitchens of their own and come up with the next cuisine. Many of them came to him through his frequent postings on eGullet.com, a website for chefs and foodies, where during the run-up to the opening of Alinea he kept a blog. His kitchen is already a self-selecting school, and his students will go on to grow without and perhaps beyond him.

On my last visit to the kitchen, I met a wide-eyed and extremely ambitious cook, all of 19 years old, named Chad Kubanoff, who had read some of Achatz's ­eGullet postings and started pelting him with e‑mailed requests for a job. ...

Another cite [[11]], from the dead tree magazine Food and Wine:

The charge of plagiarism was first raised on the Web site eGullet in March. Three weeks later, eGullet reported on a second copycat chef, this one in Japan. The Tapas Molecular Bar inside the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Tokyo was offering a tasting menu that appeared identical to one originally served at a Washington, DC, restaurant called Minibar, run by avant-garde chef José Andrés. Once again, the chef who seemed to have stolen the dishes—at least 15 of them—had worked at the restaurant where they were invented.

There are several more mentions of eGullet and its co-founder, Steven Shaw in the article.
Which publication, on- or off-line has the longest excerpts from the Feb 2007 book "Cooked: From the Streets to the Stove, from Cocaine to Foie Gras" ? It's not the publisher's page: [12] but eGullet [13].
I'm not saying it's the most important site on the web, but it has played a role in several controversies in the food world, and I believe it's the largest concentration of culinary professionals on the web, though I readily admit that figure is impossible to verify. Am I crazy for thinking that this deletion was a knee-jerk Wiki reaction against a vanity article? Wnissen 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice per Guy. The closure was sound (based on the info provided), but it now appears there may be enough sources available to create a referenced version. Trebor 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Graham Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

My article was deleted over and over and finally a block was put on the article name "Graham Mitchell". The problem is that not a single moderator responded to any of my 'hold on' requests or responded to my points/questions raised in the talk page. The reasons for deletion were inconsistent and inaccurate. For example, one admin deleted due to COI but Wikipedia's own COI page states that COI is not in itself grounds for deletion. When I point these things out to admins, they ignore me, or find another excuse (which I also disprove). It seems that the admins are not acting according to the Wikipedia spirit or rules. Full story too long to repeat here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funkybear (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Most versions created by User:Foto-z, which purely by coincidence is the subject's domain name. we know it's the subject's domain name because the article exhorted us to visit it for samples of his work. Redux: generic vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, your answer makes no reference to the merit (or otherwise) of the article. I am not Graham Mitchell but even if I were, COI is not grounds to delete an article. Funkybear 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions. See also Graham mitchell and /Graham Mitchell. Incidentally, I didn't once say I deleted due to COI. It was self-promotion, of which COI is a part. – Sock of Steel 11:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not surprising that Steel agreed with his own decision. Funkybear 13:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You missed out the bit where this was previously deleted by three other admins and tagged for speedy by four different users. – Sock of Steel 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you missed out the bit where some of the admins merely followed the actions of previous admins rather than assessing the article for themselves, just as you are doing now. You also missed the part where admins didn't act with fairness or neutrality or in accordance with Wikipedia's own rules.Funkybear 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - Even in a deletion review, no assertion of notability has actually been made. Just an attempt to squabble over procedure. The Kinslayer 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kinslayer, thanks for taking an interest. In which way did the article fail to meet the notability requirements? I attached two citations to newspaper articles about the photographer, for example.Funkybear 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion. No assertion was made in any deleted version of the article that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. Neither has evidence been provided here to address that concern.
    I am unable to find the two citations that Funkybear alleges to have attached. I can find only this link which was added by user:Foto-z and which, when run through babelfish (an admittedly imperfect tool), appears to return a fairly trivial human-interest newsarticle about a single exhibition by a "young person of Estonia". Rossami (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that you were searching in Russian and I don't know whether these papers are online. You can't search for 'Graham Mitchell' in a Russian article due to the transliteration. To make things worse, the transliteration is inconsistent. Perhaps you saw an earlier version of the article, but later versions had two citations included: MoлoдеҗЬ (Estonia), page 18, 6 October 2006, and BECТИ (Estonia), full back page, 5 October 2006Funkybear 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was searching strictly in this discussion (since this is the only place you've really edited) and it's entirely in English. Now that we understand that you were referring to the two print references listed in the last deleted version of the article which were added by user:Foto-z, I'll add the comment that they are, unfortunately, not functionally verifiable to the average editor of the English-language Wikipedia. In such situations, we often defer to the native-language Wikipedia. I can not find a reference to or link to the equivalent article on this person in the Russian Wikipedia. Does such an article exist? If so, please provide a link. Rossami (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No there is no Russian article although I could add that first. Is the article title banned for the English wikipedia only or across all languages? Funkybear 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The inclusion standards and deletion processes here only apply to the English Wikipedia (though most of the other projects have their own equivalent processes). You are always free to submit the article to one of our sister projects. For local artists, that's often a good idea since other participants on that project will be better able to confirm and correct the contents of the article and are in the best position to decide if the subject is appropriate for the encyclopedia.
            I'll also say that the title is not "banned" here - it's just not being accepted based on the sources currently available. If/when significant and verifiable new information is available, the issue can always be reconsidered. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BrettspielWelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This website is probably the most popular and best known place to play board games online. Principally German-style/Euro boardgames. It has had a feature article or two in Games Magazine and other hobby publications (unfortunately not available online, for the most part, though I’m looking). Chunky Rice 01:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from PC World [14]. The Games Magazine article was in the February 2004 issue.Chunky Rice 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list on AfD. Since it's been covered by 2 independent reliable sources, it shouldn't be a CSD A7. It's a German site, so it may be worth looking at the version on the German Wikipedia. Although I don't know the language, I see a lot of stuff that looks unencyclopedic, and a lack of sources -- can someone that speaks German see if there's anything useful over there? Dave6 talk 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion was proper but it is possible to have a decent article. In other words, there was nothing incorrect about how it was deleted. The references need to be non-trivial, non-passing. I.e. there needs to be an article on this portal, not an article on Java game sites that mentions a list of them. There is insufficient evidence now for overturning. This is in addition to the article stating that this is a web portal and then that there are "towns" for users. Geogre 12:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the article that I cited? It's only about this particular site. As was the Games Magazine article. I don't understand why that's considered trivial or passing,Chunky Rice 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't. I was talking about how an article with the references included would look. Basically, I was saying, "No prejudice against recreation in proper form" but "deletion of what was there was justified." I.e. the article as it was was a valid target for deletion, even if the subject could bear a proper article. Geogre 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh, okay. Yeah, I agree. Regardless, Merope restored the page and I'm going to work on it. Hopefully that will resolve it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
New Breed (ECW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The AFD was closed by User:Quarl who said the result was Merge. However, only 1 person (of the 10 people who joined in) suggested a merger. 5 suggested keeping and 4 suggested deleting. Seems like the result should have been Keep, or maybe No Consensus (with default to keep). The AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Breed (ECW). TJ Spyke 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge is a keep. If the information has been merged, then there is nothing for DRV to do with this request. Corvus cornix 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. The same thing happened with Everybody Votes Channel; the result was a merger, but one of the people who voted keep managed to get the merger undone with a DRV. I don't get how the closing admin (if they are an admin) got a Merge consensus when only 1 person suggested a merge. I could undo it myself (by just reverting the page back to its pre-merge version). TJ Spyke 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Result of AfD was to keep, nominator is not challenging that decision. AfD does not make binding decisions on merges, merges done following an AfD - including by the admin who closed the discussion - are subject to reversion and continued discussion (on Talk:New Breed (ECW)) as usual. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not the usual view, but the effect of a merge is to place the text in a less visible position. Perhaps should be seen as a half-way delete, not as a keep. It is exactly analogous to the decisions often made at AfD to merge the less notable material into sections of a general article. It is often a satisfactory compromise, but it keeps some of the material, but not the article. Having an article represents a higher degree of N than having it in a section or paragraph in a different article. DGG 05:01, 6 March 2007 (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/2007_March_6&oldid=1138430800"