Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23: Difference between revisions
rv unexplained disruptive closing |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
(44 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> |
|||
<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px"> |
|||
{| width = "100%" |
|||
⚫ | |||
! width=20% align=left | <font color="gray"><</font> [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 May 22|May 22]] |
|||
! width=60% align=center | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May|2007 May]] |
|||
! width=20% align=right | [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 May 24|May 24]] <font color="gray">></font> |
|||
⚫ | |||
</div></noinclude> |
|||
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23|23 May 2007]]=== |
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23|23 May 2007]]=== |
||
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
||
Line 12: | Line 5: | ||
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
||
⚫ | |||
====[[:Robyn Dawkins]] and [[:Gavin Clinton-Parker]]==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
⚫ | |||
* '''[[:Robyn Dawkins]] and [[:Gavin Clinton-Parker]]''' – Normally this nomination would be speedily closed as "relist at AfD per invoking of exception of clause in [[WP:CSD#A7]] providing for AfD discussion in the case of contested speedy deletion." However, the AfD process has already been ''de facto'' taken its due course here. Given this fact, I thereby invoke [[WP:IAR]] to (in an attempt) save everyone from lashing out at each other again in another unnecessary and redundant process move (namely, AfD), and hereby close this discussion as '''deletion endorsed''', with the option of locating the contents of the deleted articles in a more general location, such as the [[Babies switched at birth]] article. – '''[[User:Kurykh|<span style="color:#0000C0; font-family:cursive;">Kurykh</span>]]''' 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | :{{la|Gavin Clinton-Parker}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Gavin Clinton-Parker|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Gavin Clinton-Parker}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Clinton-Parker|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --[[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --[[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
*Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to '''keep deleted''' (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to '''keep deleted''' (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''' Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is '''not''' a tabloid newspaper]]. |
*'''Endorse deletion''' Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is '''not''' a tabloid newspaper]]. |
||
This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] of the subject. -- |
This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] of the subject. --[[User:SunStar Net|<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:SunStar Net|<i style="color:blue;">talk</i>]]</sup> 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''', valid A7 plus BLP concerns. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''', valid A7 plus BLP concerns. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment from deletin' admin''' - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- [[User:Merope|Merope]] 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment from deletin' admin''' - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- [[User:Merope|Merope]] 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
*****That's clearly helpful. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
*****That's clearly helpful. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***You will note that having said that, i proceeded to respond substantively to the (IMO clearly incorrect) claim that BLP issues '''do''' mandate deletion here. Note also that the purpose section of this page says "This page is about '''process''', not about '''content''', although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." An '''encyclopedia''' is supposed to include significant contetn about what actually happend, whether that distresses living people or not. Now an argumetn can be made that this incident is to minor to be notable, but that sort of argument ought to be made durign an AfD discussion, where everyione can see and work on the articel, can add or challange sources, etc. I am tempted to say "This must live" but I won't -- what I will say is that emotional appeals to avoid harm -- about articles that are not in any obvious way harmful to anyone, and that are well sourced and apparently factually accurate -- are in my view harmful to the project of creating an encyclopedia. And just as DRV is not suppsoed to be a re-run of AfD, neither is it supposed to be a preveiw of AfD. These were delted as makign no claim of notability, which is not true, neither are they unsourced or weakly sourced negative or controversial biographies. therefore they shouldn't ahve been speedy deleted. debate the more general question of notability and inclusion in an AfD, as is or normal method for dealing with such matters. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
***You will note that having said that, i proceeded to respond substantively to the (IMO clearly incorrect) claim that BLP issues '''do''' mandate deletion here. Note also that the purpose section of this page says "This page is about '''process''', not about '''content''', although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." An '''encyclopedia''' is supposed to include significant contetn about what actually happend, whether that distresses living people or not. Now an argumetn can be made that this incident is to minor to be notable, but that sort of argument ought to be made durign an AfD discussion, where everyione can see and work on the articel, can add or challange sources, etc. I am tempted to say "This must live" but I won't -- what I will say is that emotional appeals to avoid harm -- about articles that are not in any obvious way harmful to anyone, and that are well sourced and apparently factually accurate -- are in my view harmful to the project of creating an encyclopedia. And just as DRV is not suppsoed to be a re-run of AfD, neither is it supposed to be a preveiw of AfD. These were delted as makign no claim of notability, which is not true, neither are they unsourced or weakly sourced negative or controversial biographies. therefore they shouldn't ahve been speedy deleted. debate the more general question of notability and inclusion in an AfD, as is or normal method for dealing with such matters. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep Deleted''' And stop wasting our time on these. -<b>< |
*'''Keep Deleted''' And stop wasting our time on these. -<b>[[User:Pilotguy|<span style="color:#800000;">Pilotguy</span>]] <small>[[User_talk:Pilotguy|hold short]]</small></b> 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''' - serious BLP concerns, quite aside from the fact A7 was an issue anyway. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' - serious BLP concerns, quite aside from the fact A7 was an issue anyway. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**Which BLP issues were problematic? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
**Which BLP issues were problematic? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
::::::::::::*The problem with that line of reasoning, Jeff, is that ethics isn't really a matter of evidence. It's knowing in your heart what the right thing to do actually is. The closest you can get to evidence is when "50 people tell you" that you're wrong about the ethics of the situation. That doesn't mean you are actually wrong (mobs sometimes lead people astray), but it does mean you need to drop back, stop talking about process and evidence, and do a little soul searching about the issues. I'm not seeing evidence that you've done that, Jeff... just that you're standing on process. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
::::::::::::*The problem with that line of reasoning, Jeff, is that ethics isn't really a matter of evidence. It's knowing in your heart what the right thing to do actually is. The closest you can get to evidence is when "50 people tell you" that you're wrong about the ethics of the situation. That doesn't mean you are actually wrong (mobs sometimes lead people astray), but it does mean you need to drop back, stop talking about process and evidence, and do a little soul searching about the issues. I'm not seeing evidence that you've done that, Jeff... just that you're standing on process. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Pointing at the big green box [[#Crystal Gail Mangum|in the discussion below]], I repeat the principle that '''not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article'''. [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]], in good faith, took the wrong approach, writing about an incident in two separate articles purporting to be individual biographical articles of two people involved in the incident. That's not what we want.<p>This could have been solved before deletion, without the use of any administrator tools, by simply [[Wikipedia:merge|merging]] (indeed, [[Wikipedia:Glossary#S|smerging]]) the articles into an article about the actual subject. As [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] says above, there is an encyclopaedic article to be written, but addressing that article as ''two separate articles that are purporting to be biographical articles'', when the two individuals are not discussed by sources separately from the case, and are not even discussed by sources separately from each other, is clearly wrong.<p>The proper encyclopaedic article is [[babies switched at birth]], which discusses this case without separating it into multiple biographical articles, in its proper overall context, without a pretense that it is in any way a biography, and with the necessary weight that should be given to a case that is simply ''one instance'' of the phenomenon.<p>As it was, the articles have been deleted. I suggest that we simply leave these articles deleted, educate editors such as [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] in the better approach to writing about court cases, controversies, crimes, conflicts, and suchlike; and that we drop the matter. An AFD discussion would almost certainly at best have resulted in a merger consensus, given that the articles were exceedingly similar (merely addressing the incident one-sidedly from the perspective of each individual in each article). We now ''have'' an article discussing the phenomenon. And in this particular instance, redirects from the abovementioned titles don't seem terribly useful, as [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] wrote above. The best thing that we can be doing right now, the best thing for our efforts to be expended upon, is showing editors such as [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] how best to address such subjects, at the point that they create articles; so that we don't get into these situations in the first place.<p>By the way: The claim of "eighteen years of continuous coverage", which many editors above appear to be accepting without actually checking for themselves, and using as a basis for their own arguments, is false. This incident hit the headlines in 1995 ''as a court case'', when the mothers sued. I can find ''nothing'' between then and the recent documentary segment, which is little more than an "18 years on" followup. I strongly recommend, once again, that editors ''look for sources themselves''. It is one of the things that we are supposed to be doing. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*Pointing at the big green box [[#Crystal Gail Mangum|in the discussion below]], I repeat the principle that '''not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article'''. [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]], in good faith, took the wrong approach, writing about an incident in two separate articles purporting to be individual biographical articles of two people involved in the incident. That's not what we want.<p>This could have been solved before deletion, without the use of any administrator tools, by simply [[Wikipedia:merge|merging]] (indeed, [[Wikipedia:Glossary#S|smerging]]) the articles into an article about the actual subject. As [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] says above, there is an encyclopaedic article to be written, but addressing that article as ''two separate articles that are purporting to be biographical articles'', when the two individuals are not discussed by sources separately from the case, and are not even discussed by sources separately from each other, is clearly wrong.<p>The proper encyclopaedic article is [[babies switched at birth]], which discusses this case without separating it into multiple biographical articles, in its proper overall context, without a pretense that it is in any way a biography, and with the necessary weight that should be given to a case that is simply ''one instance'' of the phenomenon.<p>As it was, the articles have been deleted. I suggest that we simply leave these articles deleted, educate editors such as [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] in the better approach to writing about court cases, controversies, crimes, conflicts, and suchlike; and that we drop the matter. An AFD discussion would almost certainly at best have resulted in a merger consensus, given that the articles were exceedingly similar (merely addressing the incident one-sidedly from the perspective of each individual in each article). We now ''have'' an article discussing the phenomenon. And in this particular instance, redirects from the abovementioned titles don't seem terribly useful, as [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] wrote above. The best thing that we can be doing right now, the best thing for our efforts to be expended upon, is showing editors such as [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] how best to address such subjects, at the point that they create articles; so that we don't get into these situations in the first place.<p>By the way: The claim of "eighteen years of continuous coverage", which many editors above appear to be accepting without actually checking for themselves, and using as a basis for their own arguments, is false. This incident hit the headlines in 1995 ''as a court case'', when the mothers sued. I can find ''nothing'' between then and the recent documentary segment, which is little more than an "18 years on" followup. I strongly recommend, once again, that editors ''look for sources themselves''. It is one of the things that we are supposed to be doing. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse Deletion''' and for the love of god stop whining about these kinds of articles. They arent encyclopedic. -<u>[[User:AKMask|< |
*'''Endorse Deletion''' and for the love of god stop whining about these kinds of articles. They arent encyclopedic. -<u>[[User:AKMask|<span style="color:#000000;">M</span>]]<small>[[User talk:AKMask|<sup style="color:#000000;">ask?</sup>]]</small></u> 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Doc. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Doc. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. Some people have commented that the arguments here are exactly like an AfD, so why should we care about it? The important difference is that at AfD, no consensus defaults to 'keep'. So performing an out-of-process deletion and moving the argument here gives their side an advantage. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. Some people have commented that the arguments here are exactly like an AfD, so why should we care about it? The important difference is that at AfD, no consensus defaults to 'keep'. So performing an out-of-process deletion and moving the argument here gives their side an advantage. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion'''; I'm not a BLP wonk, but two people separated at birth is in itself not notable. Interesting story, but it doesn't satisfy encyclopedic notability to me. Plus, the "average" referencing job does show some BLP concerns.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#0F0;background:#006">Wizardman</span>]] 01:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion'''; I'm not a BLP wonk, but two people separated at birth is in itself not notable. Interesting story, but it doesn't satisfy encyclopedic notability to me. Plus, the "average" referencing job does show some BLP concerns.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#0F0;background:#006">Wizardman</span>]] 01:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**Notability is not itself a BLP concern, and not relevant to DRV. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 01:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
**Notability is not itself a BLP concern, and not relevant to DRV. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 01:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''; At this point, I think the best ultimate resolution to this would be to create an article called Switched at birth cases (or some variant of that) and include information about relevant cases and hospital efforts to increase security in light of cases such as this, as suggested above. I'd still like to see these articles go through the AFD process, though, largely because I remain troubled by the administrator's decision to speedily delete it without such a review. I think the process needs to be honored here unless there are clear issues of libel or material in an article is not sourced. I don't think the article does harm, either, which seems to be the issue that the administrators are citing. It's not material that is libelous or derogatory and these boys gave interviews to a national news organization. While I would probably vote to delete my own articles or merge them into the new topic at this point, I still would prefer that they be officially listed for deletion. --[[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*It's been created at [[Babies switched at birth]]. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It doesn't (yet) mention this case, though. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 04:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::It does now. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 04:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::You're right; I missed it. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 04:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I suggest that we now close this review amicably because the material has been inserted into Wikipedia in a manner consistent with our policies. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: If an admin now closes as 'no consensus', I will not object here. That in no way means that I approve of the deletion. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
====[[Frog and the Peach]] (closed)==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 137: | Line 147: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
||
:{{la|Frog and the Peach}} < |
:{{la|Frog and the Peach}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Frog and the Peach|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Frog and the Peach}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frog and the Peach|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
Notable [[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Notable [[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 146: | Line 156: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | |||
:{{la|Canadian royal family}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Little Fatty|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Little Fatty}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Fatty|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
|||
====[[Canadian Royal Family]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
* '''[[Canadian Royal Family]]''' |
* '''[[Canadian Royal Family]]''' – The result was '''Keep as redirect'''. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
||
:{{la|Canadian Royal Family}} < |
:{{la|Canadian Royal Family}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Canadian Royal Family|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Canadian Royal Family}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|AfD]]<kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|AFD2]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|the ANI discussion]], which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|the ANI discussion]], which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 167: | Line 174: | ||
::A merge took place last year. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
::A merge took place last year. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Thank you. In that case '''endorse redirect''' [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::Thank you. In that case '''endorse redirect''' [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' as closing admin. There was unbelievable consensus in the AfD to redirect the page to [[Monarchy in Canada]], as all on AN/I stated. Unless people wish to argue that the consensus was wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to say. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''< |
*'''Comment''' as closing admin. There was unbelievable consensus in the AfD to redirect the page to [[Monarchy in Canada]], as all on AN/I stated. Unless people wish to argue that the consensus was wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to say. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="color:#000088;">Ry<span style="color:#220066;">an<span style="color:#550044;"> P<span style="color:#770022;">os<span style="color:#aa0000;">tl</span>et</span>hw</span>ai</span>te</span>''']] 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse closure'''. The AfD seems to have been perfectly in order. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse closure'''. The AfD seems to have been perfectly in order. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse redirect''', no evidence it's a separate concept, a single user asserting that consensus is wrong is not a good reason to have a fork. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse redirect''', no evidence it's a separate concept, a single user asserting that consensus is wrong is not a good reason to have a fork. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 179: | Line 186: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | |||
====[[Little Fatty]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 188: | Line 194: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
||
:{{la|Little Fatty}} < |
:{{la|Little Fatty}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Little Fatty|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Little Fatty}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Fatty|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
Invalid G4...this is not a repost of the deleted article. This new version was sourced and carefully avoided talking about the person involved, instead it was about the meme. Given the controversy surrounding speedy deletions of this article I think overturning and listing at AfD would be appropriate. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Invalid G4...this is not a repost of the deleted article. This new version was sourced and carefully avoided talking about the person involved, instead it was about the meme. Given the controversy surrounding speedy deletions of this article I think overturning and listing at AfD would be appropriate. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strongly endorse deletion''' BLP issues in the name - end of. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''< |
*'''Strongly endorse deletion''' BLP issues in the name - end of. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="color:#000088;">Ry<span style="color:#220066;">an<span style="color:#550044;"> P<span style="color:#770022;">os<span style="color:#aa0000;">tl</span>et</span>hw</span>ai</span>te</span>''']] 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Keep in mind that this is currently a centerpiece of an ongoing ArbCom request that may get accepted. It's still probably worth waiting until that gets cleared up. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*Keep in mind that this is currently a centerpiece of an ongoing ArbCom request that may get accepted. It's still probably worth waiting until that gets cleared up. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:* Exactly so. Thank you. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
:* Exactly so. Thank you. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Very strong endorse'''. No, no, no. There is an RFC currently active about the whole mess, and it's even resulted in a related request for arbitration. Trying to create a new version while the other one is mired in such heated debate and dispute is inappropriate. Wait for a resolution. [[User:Arkyan|<b><font color="#0000FF">Ark</font><font color="#6060BF">yan</font></b>]] |
*'''Very strong endorse'''. No, no, no. There is an RFC currently active about the whole mess, and it's even resulted in a related request for arbitration. Trying to create a new version while the other one is mired in such heated debate and dispute is inappropriate. Wait for a resolution. [[User:Arkyan|<b><font color="#0000FF">Ark</font><font color="#6060BF">yan</font></b>]] • [[User_talk:Arkyan|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
* See my Talk: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=132951287#Little_Fatty]. Best to wait, this needs to be discussed ina rational manner in the right forum ''after'' the dust has settled. This is an extremely ill-advised request. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
* See my Talk: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=132951287#Little_Fatty]. Best to wait, this needs to be discussed ina rational manner in the right forum ''after'' the dust has settled. This is an extremely ill-advised request. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**You are ''named'' in the arbcom case. And you speedy deleted this. And you closed one of the previous DRVs as "disruptive" to Wikipedia, even though it validly pointed out that an AfD cannot be open for only an hour and hope for consensus to emerge [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_18&diff=next&oldid=131815667]. I'm not sure you are unbiased in this. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
**You are ''named'' in the arbcom case. And you speedy deleted this. And you closed one of the previous DRVs as "disruptive" to Wikipedia, even though it validly pointed out that an AfD cannot be open for only an hour and hope for consensus to emerge [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_18&diff=next&oldid=131815667]. I'm not sure you are unbiased in this. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Speedy endorse deletion''', G10 if not G4.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#0F0;background:#006">Wizardman</span>]] 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Speedy endorse deletion''', G10 if not G4.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#0F0;background:#006">Wizardman</span>]] 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*A version of this article exists at [[User:DeLarge/Little Fatty]]. I do not see any BLP issues with this article about an internet phenomenon. I would support restoring this article. [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*A version of this article exists at [[User:DeLarge/Little Fatty]]. I do not see any BLP issues with this article about an internet phenomenon. I would support restoring this article. [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**The problem is the sources still name him. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''< |
**The problem is the sources still name him. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="color:#000088;">Ry<span style="color:#220066;">an<span style="color:#550044;"> P<span style="color:#770022;">os<span style="color:#aa0000;">tl</span>et</span>hw</span>ai</span>te</span>''']] 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***Ryan, with all due respect, so what? That's their problem, not ours. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
***Ryan, with all due respect, so what? That's their problem, not ours. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***This BLP argument is pretty much bullshit, its application is a farce. Wikipedia is not a censored, we don't delete well sourced articles for ridiculous claims of "human decency", who the hell are you to decide what counts as decent? Whether its notable is a different issue, and one that should have been decided on AFD. Are we really going to start deleting articles on criminals because its giving the crime "undue weight", and should the [[Gerald Ratner]] article be moved to [[1991 Institute of Directors' speech]], because of BLP? I remember the fairly trivial [[Jason Fortuny]] thing several months back, certain (misguided) editors were claiming that the article shouldn't be at [[Jason Fortuny]] because it was giving "the only thing notable he has ever done" undue weight. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
***This BLP argument is pretty much bullshit, its application is a farce. Wikipedia is not a censored, we don't delete well sourced articles for ridiculous claims of "human decency", who the hell are you to decide what counts as decent? Whether its notable is a different issue, and one that should have been decided on AFD. Are we really going to start deleting articles on criminals because its giving the crime "undue weight", and should the [[Gerald Ratner]] article be moved to [[1991 Institute of Directors' speech]], because of BLP? I remember the fairly trivial [[Jason Fortuny]] thing several months back, certain (misguided) editors were claiming that the article shouldn't be at [[Jason Fortuny]] because it was giving "the only thing notable he has ever done" undue weight. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 209: | Line 215: | ||
*'''Not helpful''' Whether this is a valid G4 depends on whether there is a valid AFD deletion of the other article. I continue to believe that there is no valid AFD deletion of the other article, which invalidates G4 as a basis for deletion. However, creating this article at this time was not helpful. Let it wait until the ArbComm case is over. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Not helpful''' Whether this is a valid G4 depends on whether there is a valid AFD deletion of the other article. I continue to believe that there is no valid AFD deletion of the other article, which invalidates G4 as a basis for deletion. However, creating this article at this time was not helpful. Let it wait until the ArbComm case is over. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*: That seems very sensible. If the creation of this article is contingent on the status of the other, then deferring any decision is a good idea, I agree. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*: That seems very sensible. If the creation of this article is contingent on the status of the other, then deferring any decision is a good idea, I agree. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''' This should have been settled long ago. But until it is, the deletion should stand. <small><sup |
*'''Endorse deletion''' This should have been settled long ago. But until it is, the deletion should stand. <small><sup>[[User:H|<span style="color:#000000;">(</span>]][[User talk:H|<span style="color:#cc2200;">H</span>]][[User:H|<span style="color:#000000;">)</span>]]</sup></small><!-- Was HighInBC --> 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion for now''', while I disagree that a BLP issue exists here, I think we need to let this settle down. We already saw last night that throwing more fuel on the fire is not a very good idea. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion for now''', while I disagree that a BLP issue exists here, I think we need to let this settle down. We already saw last night that throwing more fuel on the fire is not a very good idea. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
** I endorse Seraphmiblade's comment and thus endorse deletion for now. --[[User talk:Iamunknown|Iamunknown]] 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
** I endorse Seraphmiblade's comment and thus endorse deletion for now. --[[User talk:Iamunknown|Iamunknown]] 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 221: | Line 227: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | |||
====[[:Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 230: | Line 235: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
||
:{{la|Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1}} < |
:{{la|Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
This is a request for assistance to restore access to the archives of this talk page. I don't know how they were lost but as a clue to the administrator who handles this, the article recently was changed from Scientific Revolution to Copernicus Revolution to Copernicus revolution and back to Scientific Revolution. |
This is a request for assistance to restore access to the archives of this talk page. I don't know how they were lost but as a clue to the administrator who handles this, the article recently was changed from Scientific Revolution to Copernicus Revolution to Copernicus revolution and back to Scientific Revolution. |
||
Line 239: | Line 244: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[:List of people by name]]''' – Overturned and deleted. AFD showed a clear consensus to delete which is apparent here too. – [[User_talk:Srikeit|Srikeit]] 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**All subpages have been deleted by [[User:ABCD|ABCD]] and I. —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<span style="color:navy;">Eagle</span><span style="color:red;">101</span>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
⚫ | |||
The [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/List_of_people_by_name|debate]] was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: ''"it has been kept before"'' is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; ''"it can be maintained"'' and ''"it works better than the search function"'' are proven wrong by precedent; and ''"it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them"'' simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof. |
The [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/List_of_people_by_name|debate]] was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: ''"it has been kept before"'' is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; ''"it can be maintained"'' and ''"it works better than the search function"'' are proven wrong by precedent; and ''"it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them"'' simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof. |
||
This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request '''overturn and delete'''. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b>< |
This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request '''overturn and delete'''. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#0000DD;">><span style="color:#0066FF;">R<span style="color:#0099FF;">a<span style="color:#00CCFF;">d<span style="color:#00EEFF;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete'''. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete'''. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 248: | Line 263: | ||
*'''Do not overturn'''. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Do not overturn'''. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse no consensus''' - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the ''delete'' argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse no consensus''' - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the ''delete'' argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that ''in theory'' this list page is a nice idea, but ''in practice'' it really doesn't work at all. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b>< |
**The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that ''in theory'' this list page is a nice idea, but ''in practice'' it really doesn't work at all. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#0000DD;">><span style="color:#0066FF;">R<span style="color:#0099FF;">a<span style="color:#00CCFF;">d<span style="color:#00EEFF;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea ''in theory'', while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ''ever'' happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as ''unmaintainable'', while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting ''delete'', particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
***I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea ''in theory'', while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ''ever'' happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as ''unmaintainable'', while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting ''delete'', particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete this'''. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
* '''Delete this'''. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. [[User:Arkyan|<b><font color="#0000FF">Ark</font><font color="#6060BF">yan</font></b>]] |
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. [[User:Arkyan|<b><font color="#0000FF">Ark</font><font color="#6060BF">yan</font></b>]] • [[User_talk:Arkyan|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete''' As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. [[User:JuJube|JuJube]] 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete''' As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. [[User:JuJube|JuJube]] 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete.''' I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. [[WP:USEFUL]] is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete.''' I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. [[WP:USEFUL]] is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete''' Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. <small><sup |
*'''Overturn and delete''' Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. <small><sup>[[User:H|<span style="color:#000000;">(</span>]][[User talk:H|<span style="color:#cc2200;">H</span>]][[User:H|<span style="color:#000000;">)</span>]]</sup></small><!-- Was HighInBC --> 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse no consensus''' First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. [[WP:NOT USEFUL]] is no more valid than [[WP:USEFUL]]. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse no consensus''' First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. [[WP:NOT USEFUL]] is no more valid than [[WP:USEFUL]]. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 265: | Line 280: | ||
*'''Endorse no consensus''' - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of ''no consensus'' is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse no consensus''' - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of ''no consensus'' is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Inherently unmaintainable due to size. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Inherently unmaintainable due to size. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse no consensus'''. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] <sup |
*'''Endorse no consensus'''. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|<sup style="color:green;">talk</sup>]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Clear consensus to delete. <i><b>[[User:WarpstarRider|Warpstar]]</b>[[User_talk:WarpstarRider|Rider]]</i> 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete'''. Clear consensus to delete. <i><b>[[User:WarpstarRider|Warpstar]]</b>[[User_talk:WarpstarRider|Rider]]</i> 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse no consensus''' - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting ''keep'' b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- [[User:LiniShu|Lini]] 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse no consensus''' - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting ''keep'' b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- [[User:LiniShu|Lini]] 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 277: | Line 292: | ||
*'''Overturn and delete''' per consenus to do so in the discussion. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete''' per consenus to do so in the discussion. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse no consensus''', agree with closing admin... however, suggest centralized discussion to move forward to Carcharoth's proposal. Am puzzled, incidentally, as to why this was on MfD rather than AfD. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse no consensus''', agree with closing admin... however, suggest centralized discussion to move forward to Carcharoth's proposal. Am puzzled, incidentally, as to why this was on MfD rather than AfD. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**It was on AFD too [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_15&diff=130920801&oldid=130919538]. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b>< |
**It was on AFD too [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_15&diff=130920801&oldid=130919538]. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#0000DD;">><span style="color:#0066FF;">R<span style="color:#0099FF;">a<span style="color:#00CCFF;">d<span style="color:#00EEFF;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 09:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete''' This article is doomed to fail, as it is per se not maintainable. --[[User:Mbimmler|Mbimmler]] 11:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete''' This article is doomed to fail, as it is per se not maintainable. --[[User:Mbimmler|Mbimmler]] 11:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn and delete''' - totally without merit--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 11:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn and delete''' - totally without merit--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 11:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 299: | Line 314: | ||
: simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof. |
: simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof. |
||
But in fact this does nothing to counter the repeated observation that there are many cases like Hoffman/Hoffmann/Hofman/Hofmann where the alpha list makes possible an eye-ball search much shorter than alternatives. Nor does it acknowledge that even the contrived 4-way confusion cited here is capable of being reduced by the mechanism that's been in use for years on some pages, and probably is on the page or pages with those Hof... surnames: "This name may sound like" [another name] lks. Note that even soundex or automated fuzzy searches could not do as well as such cross referencing, bcz the c-ref'g can be targeted at cases of real names, and even (with enuf effort) at names that actually are misspelled on Web pages. (And, No, that's not fully implemented either, and Yes, it'll take a lot more work to do so, but the question is not whether the pages are ready for prime time (neither is [[Thai art]], which groans for expansion but not deletion), but whether its existence is more burden than an aid to users. The tool doesn't say it's complete, and implies it's not; if it needs to say it on every page (except permanent index-only pages) to avoid being misleading to some readers (not argued let alone demonstrated), the "incomplete" notice can be put on every page simultaneously, with about 5 minutes ''total'' for editing and testing.) (Gotta run again, w/o finishing proofreading!) <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)<br> |
But in fact this does nothing to counter the repeated observation that there are many cases like Hoffman/Hoffmann/Hofman/Hofmann where the alpha list makes possible an eye-ball search much shorter than alternatives. Nor does it acknowledge that even the contrived 4-way confusion cited here is capable of being reduced by the mechanism that's been in use for years on some pages, and probably is on the page or pages with those Hof... surnames: "This name may sound like" [another name] lks. Note that even soundex or automated fuzzy searches could not do as well as such cross referencing, bcz the c-ref'g can be targeted at cases of real names, and even (with enuf effort) at names that actually are misspelled on Web pages. (And, No, that's not fully implemented either, and Yes, it'll take a lot more work to do so, but the question is not whether the pages are ready for prime time (neither is [[Thai art]], which groans for expansion but not deletion), but whether its existence is more burden than an aid to users. The tool doesn't say it's complete, and implies it's not; if it needs to say it on every page (except permanent index-only pages) to avoid being misleading to some readers (not argued let alone demonstrated), the "incomplete" notice can be put on every page simultaneously, with about 5 minutes ''total'' for editing and testing.) (Gotta run again, w/o finishing proofreading!) <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)<br> |
||
*'''Overturn and delete''' Although I am normally an advocate of wide admin-discretion in closings, I think Radiant's nom. provides a conclusion rebuttal in this case: this close was not reasonable by any measure. The impracticality of this list is clear, so I feel relisting is unnecessary. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete''', not only is this completely useless, but it is totally impractical, will never be complete, and is a textbook example of [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]]. The delete arguments in this case are much stronger than those for keeping, and that should have been considered. If the "no consensus" closure is endorsed, the list should be relisted on AFD. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
** I still fail to see the point. What people say here over and over again is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. They even quote the relevant Wikipedia policy. Now the List is even a "textbook example". However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] (List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). Referring to [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE]] is probably the weakest delete argument of all, as no one is willing, or able, to explain why it applies here in the first place. [[User:KF|<K]][[User talk:KF|F>]] 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and delete''', that looks like a pretty clear delete consensus to me. That's a pretty clear case of "what categories, redirects, and search are for." [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
====[[User:UBX/Suicide]] (closed)==== |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
⚫ | |||
|} |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 311: | Line 333: | ||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
||
:{{lu|UBX/Suicide}} < |
:{{lu|UBX/Suicide}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/User:UBX/Suicide|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:User:UBX/Suicide}} cache]</span><kbd>)</kbd> |
||
*'''NOTE that this debate started May 17th'''. |
*'''NOTE that this debate started May 17th'''. |
||
Line 329: | Line 351: | ||
:*…or at least a less ambiguous one. Who's being so bloody stupid? Is it me? I've been known to be stupid sometimes. Is it everyone who thinks this deletion should be overturned? Is it everyone who thinks this deletion should be upheld? — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
:*…or at least a less ambiguous one. Who's being so bloody stupid? Is it me? I've been known to be stupid sometimes. Is it everyone who thinks this deletion should be overturned? Is it everyone who thinks this deletion should be upheld? — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion, keep deleted''' This is an inflammatory userbox, and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a counselling service]]. |
*'''Endorse deletion, keep deleted''' This is an inflammatory userbox, and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a counselling service]]. |
||
This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has [[WP:BEANS]] connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes ''per se'', but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia. -- |
This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has [[WP:BEANS]] connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes ''per se'', but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia. --[[User:SunStar Net|<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:SunStar Net|<i style="color:blue;">talk</i>]]</sup> 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep deleted''', divisive template. Obviously. What the fuck, people. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep deleted''', divisive template. Obviously. What the fuck, people. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:...just as divisive and inflammatory as a userbox of "this user is an aspie" or "this user is an anarchist". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
:...just as divisive and inflammatory as a userbox of "this user is an aspie" or "this user is an anarchist". [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 346: | Line 368: | ||
:I don't see any instance or potential for this userbox to be disruptive in any way. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
:I don't see any instance or potential for this userbox to be disruptive in any way. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn to TfD''' [[WP:PII|Process is important]], so undelete. Out-of-process actions, unless entirely uncontroversial, are bad for the project. By their nature, they are not transparent, and they tend to sow confusion, especially among [[WP:BITE|inexperienced editors]]. If nothing else, actions like this support the contention that an [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] has traded mop & bucket for sword & shield. Untested consensus is no consensus to act. If the feeling against this template is ''that'' strong, [[WP:TfD|templates for deletion]] should rapidly arrive at the same conclusion that [[User:Cyde|Cyde]] did. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Overturn to TfD''' [[WP:PII|Process is important]], so undelete. Out-of-process actions, unless entirely uncontroversial, are bad for the project. By their nature, they are not transparent, and they tend to sow confusion, especially among [[WP:BITE|inexperienced editors]]. If nothing else, actions like this support the contention that an [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] has traded mop & bucket for sword & shield. Untested consensus is no consensus to act. If the feeling against this template is ''that'' strong, [[WP:TfD|templates for deletion]] should rapidly arrive at the same conclusion that [[User:Cyde|Cyde]] did. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**How is it controversial to delete a suicidal userbox? Has Wikipedia really fallen ''this'' low?! --[[User:Cyde|< |
**How is it controversial to delete a suicidal userbox? Has Wikipedia really fallen ''this'' low?! --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]] 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***By the number of vociferous arguments on both sides, it seems clear to me that it is controversial. — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
***By the number of vociferous arguments on both sides, it seems clear to me that it is controversial. — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***Cyde, StormSurfer has a point. If the deletion was ''entirely uncontroversial'' it wouldn't be at deletion review. The fact that anyone took the time to locate and delete this userbox can be used as evidence of how ''low'' Wikipedia has ''fallen''. The existence (or not) of this (or almost any) userbox pales in importance next to the improvement that could be made to encyclopedia articles. On a (hopefully) humorous grammatical note, wouldn't a ''suicidal userbox'' be prone to deleting itself? --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
***Cyde, StormSurfer has a point. If the deletion was ''entirely uncontroversial'' it wouldn't be at deletion review. The fact that anyone took the time to locate and delete this userbox can be used as evidence of how ''low'' Wikipedia has ''fallen''. The existence (or not) of this (or almost any) userbox pales in importance next to the improvement that could be made to encyclopedia articles. On a (hopefully) humorous grammatical note, wouldn't a ''suicidal userbox'' be prone to deleting itself? --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Process is irrelevant, this is transparently plain silly. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Process is irrelevant, this is transparently plain silly. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**I can't believe administrators say things like "Process is irrelevant." — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
**I can't believe administrators say things like "Process is irrelevant." — [[User:The Storm Surfer|The Storm Surfer]] 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep deleted''' and stop wasting our time. Where in the hell has common sense gotten to these days anyway? --[[User:Cyde|< |
*'''Keep deleted''' and stop wasting our time. Where in the hell has common sense gotten to these days anyway? --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]] 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**This troubles me on a couple of bases. First, this isn't an "us & them" kind of thing. We're all ([[WP:AGF|presumably]]) here to produce an encyclopedia. Second, the act of disagreeing over this deletion is not, in itself, a departure from common sense. People of good conscience and the best intentions can & do disagree. It's easy to see that your deletion was an attempt to [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] improve the project; We just disagree on the method & its effect. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
**This troubles me on a couple of bases. First, this isn't an "us & them" kind of thing. We're all ([[WP:AGF|presumably]]) here to produce an encyclopedia. Second, the act of disagreeing over this deletion is not, in itself, a departure from common sense. People of good conscience and the best intentions can & do disagree. It's easy to see that your deletion was an attempt to [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] improve the project; We just disagree on the method & its effect. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 360: | Line 382: | ||
{{quote|This is an inflammatory userbox, and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a counselling service]]. |
{{quote|This is an inflammatory userbox, and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a counselling service]]. |
||
This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has [[WP:BEANS]] connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes ''per se'', but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia.|[[User:SunStar Net]]}} |
This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has [[WP:BEANS]] connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes ''per se'', but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia.|[[User:SunStar Net]]}} |
||
This comment is controversial, I realize that, but this one does have problems, in a moral, legal and publicity sense. To undelete it would be a '''very bad idea'''. -- |
This comment is controversial, I realize that, but this one does have problems, in a moral, legal and publicity sense. To undelete it would be a '''very bad idea'''. --[[User:SunStar Net|<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:SunStar Net|<i style="color:blue;">talk</i>]]</sup> 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''', a no-brainer. [[WP:NOT#BURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]; it's ridiculous to insist that process be followed in an obvious case where [[WP:IAR|rules should be ignored to improve Wikipedia]]. [[User:Krimpet|Krimpet]] ([[User talk:Krimpet|talk]]) 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''', a no-brainer. [[WP:NOT#BURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]; it's ridiculous to insist that process be followed in an obvious case where [[WP:IAR|rules should be ignored to improve Wikipedia]]. [[User:Krimpet|Krimpet]] ([[User talk:Krimpet|talk]]) 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**What [[WP:IAR|Ignore All Rules]] says is: ''If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.'' In this case, following the rules would ensure that [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] exists for the deletion, but would not prevent ''improving or maintaining'' the project. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
**What [[WP:IAR|Ignore All Rules]] says is: ''If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.'' In this case, following the rules would ensure that [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] exists for the deletion, but would not prevent ''improving or maintaining'' the project. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 367: | Line 389: | ||
*'''Comment'''. If this were undeleted, would there be liability problems if users were to use this and subsequently not receive counseling? --[[User:Alan Au|Alan Au]] 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. If this were undeleted, would there be liability problems if users were to use this and subsequently not receive counseling? --[[User:Alan Au|Alan Au]] 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:No, it's a person's [[free choice]] whether to commit suicide or not. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
:No, it's a person's [[free choice]] whether to commit suicide or not. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Can you show me your law degree as basis for your assertion? This is a serious ''real life'' issue; it isn't something any amateur can just make up answers to. --[[User:Cyde|< |
::Can you show me your law degree as basis for your assertion? This is a serious ''real life'' issue; it isn't something any amateur can just make up answers to. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]] 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I don't know whether there would be liability. I do know that no-one here is qualified to say whether there would be liability or not. And I know we don't need the uncertainty. --[[User:138.38.251.193|138.38.251.193]] 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::I don't know whether there would be liability. I do know that no-one here is qualified to say whether there would be liability or not. And I know we don't need the uncertainty. --[[User:138.38.251.193|138.38.251.193]] 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::It doesn't take an attorney to know that a third-party bystander is not liable for failing to stop a suicide. For there to be liability, there must be a legal duty to act. What goes on here isn't about credentials. Not having a [[Juris Doctor|J.D.]] or a [[User talk:Essjay|D. Div.]] doesn't invalidate the information offered. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
::::It doesn't take an attorney to know that a third-party bystander is not liable for failing to stop a suicide. For there to be liability, there must be a legal duty to act. What goes on here isn't about credentials. Not having a [[Juris Doctor|J.D.]] or a [[User talk:Essjay|D. Div.]] doesn't invalidate the information offered. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong overturn''' sorry for foul language here, but seriously, wtf? This userbox not only should be kept, but it's also a very good one. We have userboxes that express the user's identity, like we have userboxes to indicate the user being Republican, Democrat, libertarian, goth, emo, geek, depressed, aspie, why we can't indicate the user is suicidal? I've seen now admins like Cyde trying to wage a war on teenagers, basically. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Strong overturn''' sorry for foul language here, but seriously, wtf? This userbox not only should be kept, but it's also a very good one. We have userboxes that express the user's identity, like we have userboxes to indicate the user being Republican, Democrat, libertarian, goth, emo, geek, depressed, aspie, why we can't indicate the user is suicidal? I've seen now admins like Cyde trying to wage a war on teenagers, basically. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**Yeah, you caught me. I'm waging a war against teenagers. Uh-huh. You teenagers need to get over yourselves; the world is ''not'' out to get you. --[[User:Cyde|< |
**Yeah, you caught me. I'm waging a war against teenagers. Uh-huh. You teenagers need to get over yourselves; the world is ''not'' out to get you. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]] 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
***We knew you had it in for userboxes, but teenagers too? How about puppies? (I'm kidding) This isn't the angst- & drama-ridden discussion that some of these comments (not speaking strictly of Cyde's) would indicate. It's definitely not a clear-cut and uncontroversial deletion, so it should go through [[WP:PII|the process]]. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
***We knew you had it in for userboxes, but teenagers too? How about puppies? (I'm kidding) This isn't the angst- & drama-ridden discussion that some of these comments (not speaking strictly of Cyde's) would indicate. It's definitely not a clear-cut and uncontroversial deletion, so it should go through [[WP:PII|the process]]. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*I'm still on the fence on this one and don't like userboxes in general, but there is a difference between "This user is suicidal," on the one hand, and "This user is about to commit suicide" or "This user advocates suicide" on the other. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
*I'm still on the fence on this one and don't like userboxes in general, but there is a difference between "This user is suicidal," on the one hand, and "This user is about to commit suicide" or "This user advocates suicide" on the other. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 402: | Line 424: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion''' If nothing else, the prescribed method was just cruel. No one should be encouraged to experience the awful pain of acute liver failure that accompanies an acetaminophen overdose. If the userbox suggested [[Darvon cocktail|a proper suicide cocktail]], then... nah, [[WP:THERAPY|still a horrible idea]]. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' If nothing else, the prescribed method was just cruel. No one should be encouraged to experience the awful pain of acute liver failure that accompanies an acetaminophen overdose. If the userbox suggested [[Darvon cocktail|a proper suicide cocktail]], then... nah, [[WP:THERAPY|still a horrible idea]]. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:No one has encouraged overdosing...why can't you treat suicidal people just like everyone else, just like Democrats and Republicans, I find this moral panic disconcerting. I've been painstakingly reiterated that suicidal people is just another group of people, like goths/liberals/geeks. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
:No one has encouraged overdosing...why can't you treat suicidal people just like everyone else, just like Democrats and Republicans, I find this moral panic disconcerting. I've been painstakingly reiterated that suicidal people is just another group of people, like goths/liberals/geeks. [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Suicidals ''aren't'' just a different "group" of people along the lines of various political/social affiliations. There's a difference between having a certain opinion on big government vs. small government and wanting to kill yourself. You still don't understand why this is being deleted. It's because claiming to be suicidal is stupid, disruptive, and has liability concerns for Wikipedia if someone has that on their page, nobody steps in to help, and then they end up offing themselves. And stop throwing around phrases that you don't understand like "moral panic". There's no moral panic here. If anyone wants to be so stupid as to kill themselves, let them. You can't catch suicidalism. --[[User:Cyde|< |
::Suicidals ''aren't'' just a different "group" of people along the lines of various political/social affiliations. There's a difference between having a certain opinion on big government vs. small government and wanting to kill yourself. You still don't understand why this is being deleted. It's because claiming to be suicidal is stupid, disruptive, and has liability concerns for Wikipedia if someone has that on their page, nobody steps in to help, and then they end up offing themselves. And stop throwing around phrases that you don't understand like "moral panic". There's no moral panic here. If anyone wants to be so stupid as to kill themselves, let them. You can't catch suicidalism. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]] 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I think Wooyi has confused the term "suicidalist" and "masochist."--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
::I think Wooyi has confused the term "suicidalist" and "masochist."--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Actually, I find suicide to be a morally neutral endeavor. Suicidal people don't constitute a clique, they are individuals in the midst of a psychiatric emergency. Further, we have no way of judging whether each use of this template is deliberate trolling, a symptom of some personality disorder, or a real plea for help. In any case you would have amateur therapists popping up to recklessly attempt to reason with the user, others to fan the flames and try to involve every official agency they could contact, and yet more users that become personally invested out of empathy or some vague sense of responsibility. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. So, um, lets avoid that. If an editor expresses any wish to commit suicide, politely refer him/her to a mental health professional and discourage any attempt to seek intervention through Wikipedia channels. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
::Actually, I find suicide to be a morally neutral endeavor. Suicidal people don't constitute a clique, they are individuals in the midst of a psychiatric emergency. Further, we have no way of judging whether each use of this template is deliberate trolling, a symptom of some personality disorder, or a real plea for help. In any case you would have amateur therapists popping up to recklessly attempt to reason with the user, others to fan the flames and try to involve every official agency they could contact, and yet more users that become personally invested out of empathy or some vague sense of responsibility. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. So, um, lets avoid that. If an editor expresses any wish to commit suicide, politely refer him/her to a mental health professional and discourage any attempt to seek intervention through Wikipedia channels. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 441: | Line 463: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
⚫ | |||
====[[Crystal Gail Mangum]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 459: | Line 480: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
Another controversial [[WP:BLP]] deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by the Google cache ([http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:3K0UIxgxu5wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Gail_Mangum+%22crystal+gail+mangum%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us]), and is a central figure in the [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]]. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html Fox News]. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. Also, a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Gail Mangum|previous AFD]] resulted in Keep. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|< |
Another controversial [[WP:BLP]] deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by the Google cache ([http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:3K0UIxgxu5wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Gail_Mangum+%22crystal+gail+mangum%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us]), and is a central figure in the [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]]. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html Fox News]. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. Also, a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Gail Mangum|previous AFD]] resulted in Keep. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b>]] 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
'''''Note to all''''' Some commentary has been moved to the talk page. It will need to be courtesy blanked later. Please do not say anything else that will need to be courtesy blanked. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
'''''Note to all''''' Some commentary has been moved to the talk page. It will need to be courtesy blanked later. Please do not say anything else that will need to be courtesy blanked. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 470: | Line 491: | ||
:*Although, it obviously should be left up to editorial judgment (read: not speedy deletion) whether to merge/redirect to the main article. The sort of details in the article are the kind that nobody will care about in 5 years (or now, for that matter). --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
:*Although, it obviously should be left up to editorial judgment (read: not speedy deletion) whether to merge/redirect to the main article. The sort of details in the article are the kind that nobody will care about in 5 years (or now, for that matter). --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Unsalt, redirect and protect.''' - Her name is in the first sentence of [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]], for crying out loud. AfD is fine too. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Unsalt, redirect and protect.''' - Her name is in the first sentence of [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]], for crying out loud. AfD is fine too. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete''' - [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|< |
*'''Undelete''' - [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b>]], Thank You. I am surprised by the heavy hand wielded by two editors who had not (to the best of my knowledge) been interested or edited at the two articles before today. I uploaded an appropriate image of the false accuser ([[Crystal Gail Mangum]]) a couple times, which was deleted each time with no record of who did the deletion or why. This move does not fit in with WP policy, AFAIK. Did those two editors act in good faith, or should they be called on the carpet for their actions? <font face="raphael" color="green">[[User:Duke53|Duke53]] | <sup>[[User talk:Duke53|Talk]]</sup></font> 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:*The image was apparently deleted for lack of a [[WP:FUC|fair use rationale]]. The article was deleted for reasons that are unclear to me; the existing state of the article had some problems, but these could have been handled by one of the two other methods I described above. A full deletion and salting was not appropriate. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|< |
:*The image was apparently deleted for lack of a [[WP:FUC|fair use rationale]]. The article was deleted for reasons that are unclear to me; the existing state of the article had some problems, but these could have been handled by one of the two other methods I described above. A full deletion and salting was not appropriate. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b>]] 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::* There was discussion and a defense of the fair use rationale of this same exact image within the last two weeks and it was decided then to keep the image. What has changed since then? <font face="raphael" color="green">[[User:Duke53|Duke53]] | <sup>[[User talk:Duke53|Talk]]</sup></font> 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
::* There was discussion and a defense of the fair use rationale of this same exact image within the last two weeks and it was decided then to keep the image. What has changed since then? <font face="raphael" color="green">[[User:Duke53|Duke53]] | <sup>[[User talk:Duke53|Talk]]</sup></font> 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Does she really need her own article? No, not really, but that's an issue for AFD. Since her name has already been made public by the media, that's not an issue for us, so '''overturn and list at AFD'''. Considering that I have been edit conflicted by four people wanting this overturned, we may even want to consider a speedy close as a clearly out of process deletion. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 04:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*Does she really need her own article? No, not really, but that's an issue for AFD. Since her name has already been made public by the media, that's not an issue for us, so '''overturn and list at AFD'''. Considering that I have been edit conflicted by four people wanting this overturned, we may even want to consider a speedy close as a clearly out of process deletion. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 04:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
* David Gerard had it as a protected redirect, which I think was about right. It should be unsalted and replaced by a protected redirect. The article about the affair has all the relevant information, and the article about the person had become an attack piece. Deleting under [[Wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] was correct in this case. The history must not be undeleted. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
* David Gerard had it as a protected redirect, which I think was about right. It should be unsalted and replaced by a protected redirect. The article about the affair has all the relevant information, and the article about the person had become an attack piece. Deleting under [[Wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] was correct in this case. The history must not be undeleted. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**As stated in the nomination, I have no objection to either redirecting to a section of the main scandal article, or deleting the history and protecting a new stub that can then be further discussed on talk with a careful eye to BLP issues. But having a redlink there is clearly wrong. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|< |
**As stated in the nomination, I have no objection to either redirecting to a section of the main scandal article, or deleting the history and protecting a new stub that can then be further discussed on talk with a careful eye to BLP issues. But having a redlink there is clearly wrong. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b>]] 04:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
**: There may be an argument for a protected redlink. I'd like to hear why it was deleted. I was the person who made the redirect, which I thought was about right. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
**: There may be an argument for a protected redlink. I'd like to hear why it was deleted. I was the person who made the redirect, which I thought was about right. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete and protect'''. Review it for tone, and DISCUSS changes. Remember that 'balanced' does not mean 'say one good thing for every bad thing'--it means that the article shouldn't be slanted--at least that's what people editing other articles seem to think. [[User:Marieblasdell|Marieblasdell]] 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete and protect'''. Review it for tone, and DISCUSS changes. Remember that 'balanced' does not mean 'say one good thing for every bad thing'--it means that the article shouldn't be slanted--at least that's what people editing other articles seem to think. [[User:Marieblasdell|Marieblasdell]] 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 538: | Line 559: | ||
:::* I believe that somebody mentioned (<i>"I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and <b>presumably so did the admin who deleted it"</b></i>) <I>another</i> admin (as yet not named) as being involved in the feeding frenzy, not just the two guys previously mentioned. <font face="raphael" color="green">[[User:Duke53|Duke53]] | <sup>[[User talk:Duke53|Talk]]</sup></font> 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::* I believe that somebody mentioned (<i>"I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and <b>presumably so did the admin who deleted it"</b></i>) <I>another</i> admin (as yet not named) as being involved in the feeding frenzy, not just the two guys previously mentioned. <font face="raphael" color="green">[[User:Duke53|Duke53]] | <sup>[[User talk:Duke53|Talk]]</sup></font> 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Actually, looking at the log (at the top of this discussion), it appears that [[User:Zsinj]] was the one who deleted it. [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] <small>[[User talk:Horologium|talk]] - [[Special:contributions/Horologium|contrib]]</small> 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
::::Actually, looking at the log (at the top of this discussion), it appears that [[User:Zsinj]] was the one who deleted it. [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] <small>[[User talk:Horologium|talk]] - [[Special:contributions/Horologium|contrib]]</small> 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::All i did (or so I thought) was cleaning up the history of the page by deleting all revision except for the one which contained the protectedpage template. < |
::::All i did (or so I thought) was cleaning up the history of the page by deleting all revision except for the one which contained the protectedpage template. [[User:Zsinj|<b style="color:#22AA00;">Zsinj</b>]][[User Talk:Zsinj|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Would this not be solved by '''redirecting''' the article to [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]]? [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b>< |
*Would this not be solved by '''redirecting''' the article to [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]]? [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#0000DD;">><span style="color:#0066FF;">R<span style="color:#0099FF;">a<span style="color:#00CCFF;">d<span style="color:#00EEFF;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:It was a redirect, but it's been contested, and [[User:David Gerard]] nuked the article and salted it, with no discussion permitted, please. [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] <small>[[User talk:Horologium|talk]] - [[Special:contributions/Horologium|contrib]]</small> 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*:It was a redirect, but it's been contested, and [[User:David Gerard]] nuked the article and salted it, with no discussion permitted, please. [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] <small>[[User talk:Horologium|talk]] - [[Special:contributions/Horologium|contrib]]</small> 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*::As noted in the nomination, the above would be an acceptable solution to me. (I can't, of course, speak for the other commenters.) Another possibility is reducing the article to a stub and then protecting it, and discussing changes on the talk page to avoid BLP issues. This has been done before with other articles, I think. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|< |
*::As noted in the nomination, the above would be an acceptable solution to me. (I can't, of course, speak for the other commenters.) Another possibility is reducing the article to a stub and then protecting it, and discussing changes on the talk page to avoid BLP issues. This has been done before with other articles, I think. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b>]] 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*::I could live with a stub being expanded into a full article through consensus. What happened here was not that. [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] <small>[[User talk:Horologium|talk]] - [[Special:contributions/Horologium|contrib]]</small> 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*::I could live with a stub being expanded into a full article through consensus. What happened here was not that. [[User:Horologium|Horologium]] <small>[[User talk:Horologium|talk]] - [[Special:contributions/Horologium|contrib]]</small> 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete''' - Get the history back, maybe switch it to a redirect. The application of BLP is a fucking joke around here, we'll be blanking articles on criminals next because we're giving the crime "undue weight", and deleting them for "deceny" reasons because they're fat. We're a fucking encyclopedia. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''' - Get the history back, maybe switch it to a redirect. The application of BLP is a fucking joke around here, we'll be blanking articles on criminals next because we're giving the crime "undue weight", and deleting them for "deceny" reasons because they're fat. We're a fucking encyclopedia. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
* BLP beats all the "votes" possible on DRV. This was established recently by Jeff's previouis exciting arbitration case and is about to be established in the next one - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
* BLP beats all the "votes" possible on DRV. This was established recently by Jeff's previouis exciting arbitration case and is about to be established in the next one - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:Please explain to me why neither protecting a redirect, nor protecting a stub and then carefully discussing additions on the talk page, would have met the requirements of BLP. Why is an ugly redlink needed? Furthermore, the discussion on both the last AFD and this DRV clearly calls the BLP allegations into question. This is why I wanted to draw the line earlier than this — if this keeps up, pretty soon we'll have nothing on Wikipedia but hagiographies. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|< |
*:Please explain to me why neither protecting a redirect, nor protecting a stub and then carefully discussing additions on the talk page, would have met the requirements of BLP. Why is an ugly redlink needed? Furthermore, the discussion on both the last AFD and this DRV clearly calls the BLP allegations into question. This is why I wanted to draw the line earlier than this — if this keeps up, pretty soon we'll have nothing on Wikipedia but hagiographies. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b>]] 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:"BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify out-of-process deletions and protections. You have to discuss, allow other users to discuss and explain how the article was so drastically in violation of WP:BLP that this action was necessary. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*:"BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify out-of-process deletions and protections. You have to discuss, allow other users to discuss and explain how the article was so drastically in violation of WP:BLP that this action was necessary. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:You have to first demonstrate that this is a BLP violation. You must then demonstrate that there's no non-BLP-violation available. And so on and so forth. You can't just scream "BLP! BLP!" and have it be done with. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*:You have to first demonstrate that this is a BLP violation. You must then demonstrate that there's no non-BLP-violation available. And so on and so forth. You can't just scream "BLP! BLP!" and have it be done with. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 557: | Line 578: | ||
*::: Not at all. The article on the scandal has all relevant encyclopedic information about the person. I'd like to see a protected redirect here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*::: Not at all. The article on the scandal has all relevant encyclopedic information about the person. I'd like to see a protected redirect here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*::::Keep, merge, redirect, delete – that's for the community to discuss. Redirecting and then protecting would be inappropriate, unless there is a consensus to do so. The editors in the last AFD certainly thought this should have its own article. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*::::Keep, merge, redirect, delete – that's for the community to discuss. Redirecting and then protecting would be inappropriate, unless there is a consensus to do so. The editors in the last AFD certainly thought this should have its own article. [[User:Prolog|Prolog]] 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete'''. Due to the amount of problems BLP-related articles are experiencing with regard to deletion, undeleting it would allow further discussion which is clearly warranted. BLP is not a magic wand to make not-nice articles disappear. < |
*'''Undelete'''. Due to the amount of problems BLP-related articles are experiencing with regard to deletion, undeleting it would allow further discussion which is clearly warranted. BLP is not a magic wand to make not-nice articles disappear. [[User:Zsinj|<b style="color:#22AA00;">Zsinj</b>]][[User Talk:Zsinj|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete with full restore and reprimand the deleters''' -- She is not a victim or even alleged victim. She is a victimizer who falsely accused three people of rape. Her false allegations likely were motivated in part from her own racism. There's an article about the guy who kicked in and shot up V-TECH, so there should be an article about her. The real victims were the people she falsely accused. Wikitruth.info has a good version explaining this. [[User:SakotGrimshine|SakotGrimshine]] 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete with full restore and reprimand the deleters''' -- She is not a victim or even alleged victim. She is a victimizer who falsely accused three people of rape. Her false allegations likely were motivated in part from her own racism. There's an article about the guy who kicked in and shot up V-TECH, so there should be an article about her. The real victims were the people she falsely accused. Wikitruth.info has a good version explaining this. [[User:SakotGrimshine|SakotGrimshine]] 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Leave it as it is''': What we have here is an article including every single bit of information that any media source has managed to dig up about this person, including medical records, grade point average, previous unrelated employment, dates of birth of her children - and this is the ''cleaned up'' version. Many of the originating sources used in this article - quotes from the lawyers of the accused, her former employer (whose club is now getting all kinds of free advertising), opinion pieces and so on - are hardly objective and reliable sources, even if they are quoted by others. Everything left after removing the irrelevant personal information and the information from questionable sources is already in the main article. The administrative actions, while bold, were entirely correct and within the requirements of BLP. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Leave it as it is''': What we have here is an article including every single bit of information that any media source has managed to dig up about this person, including medical records, grade point average, previous unrelated employment, dates of birth of her children - and this is the ''cleaned up'' version. Many of the originating sources used in this article - quotes from the lawyers of the accused, her former employer (whose club is now getting all kinds of free advertising), opinion pieces and so on - are hardly objective and reliable sources, even if they are quoted by others. Everything left after removing the irrelevant personal information and the information from questionable sources is already in the main article. The administrative actions, while bold, were entirely correct and within the requirements of BLP. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 565: | Line 586: | ||
*'''Undelete''' Although it's practically piling on at this point. Other than [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] and [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]], who seem to think they don't need to answer to anyone but themselves, I think there is consensus that CGM is a proper subject for an article. I looked at the previous version via Google, and it could probably be cut down to 1/2 to 1/3 its previous length by simply eliminating information that is already available in the main article - which is also the same material that I suspect is most objectionable to Sidaway and Gerard. [[User:Unlearned hand|Unlearned hand]] 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''' Although it's practically piling on at this point. Other than [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] and [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]], who seem to think they don't need to answer to anyone but themselves, I think there is consensus that CGM is a proper subject for an article. I looked at the previous version via Google, and it could probably be cut down to 1/2 to 1/3 its previous length by simply eliminating information that is already available in the main article - which is also the same material that I suspect is most objectionable to Sidaway and Gerard. [[User:Unlearned hand|Unlearned hand]] 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' The people who blanked/protected redirected the article might have been trying an IAR-type thing, which they believe would better the project, so people probably shouldn't get annoyed with them. The complete initial lack of an explanation and avoidance of discussion of the issue until badgered into it helps better nothing, though. [[User:Voretus|Voretus]] 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' The people who blanked/protected redirected the article might have been trying an IAR-type thing, which they believe would better the project, so people probably shouldn't get annoyed with them. The complete initial lack of an explanation and avoidance of discussion of the issue until badgered into it helps better nothing, though. [[User:Voretus|Voretus]] 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''undelete''' the amount of interest and coverage at Wikipedia alone speaks for itself. --[[User:Cumbrowski|'''roy''']]<sac> [[User talk:Cumbrowski|< |
*'''undelete''' the amount of interest and coverage at Wikipedia alone speaks for itself. --[[User:Cumbrowski|'''roy''']]<sac> [[User talk:Cumbrowski|<b style="color:red;"><sup>Talk!</sup></b>]] .oOo. 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep deleted''' - I am unconvinced that there is any persuasive reason to keep this separately from the scandal article. What about her is significant that is not something that would be covered in a well-written article on the scandal? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep deleted''' - I am unconvinced that there is any persuasive reason to keep this separately from the scandal article. What about her is significant that is not something that would be covered in a well-written article on the scandal? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
* '''Endorse deletion''' per [[WP:CSD#G10]], pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. It is abundandtly clear form the content and history of this article and [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]] thast both have always exiosted primarily as a vendetta against this individual, pursued zealously by the team and their supporters. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
* '''Endorse deletion''' per [[WP:CSD#G10]], pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. It is abundandtly clear form the content and history of this article and [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]] thast both have always exiosted primarily as a vendetta against this individual, pursued zealously by the team and their supporters. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 685: | Line 706: | ||
*'''Undelete''' - Very sourced article and BLP issue was not a reason to [[WP:IGNORE|ignore]] consensus and decisive Keep AfD. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''' - Very sourced article and BLP issue was not a reason to [[WP:IGNORE|ignore]] consensus and decisive Keep AfD. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete''', since this seems open again. The article presents a lot of negative facts because most of the relevant facts about her are negative, not because the article is biased. PS: I think the idea that BLP decisions may only be reviewed by Arbcom is ridiculous, and bears no resemblance to policy. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''', since this seems open again. The article presents a lot of negative facts because most of the relevant facts about her are negative, not because the article is biased. PS: I think the idea that BLP decisions may only be reviewed by Arbcom is ridiculous, and bears no resemblance to policy. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. I agree that, from an editorial standpoint, this should be a redirect. However, a redirect is not a decision that an editor can make and protect against consensus. I disagree very strongly with the argument that Tony or David can simply cry BLP and unilaterally remove their actions from any normal review process. Although this article was not balanced, I do not think it qualifies as an "attack article" any more than the articles on [[:Theodore Kaczynski]] or [[:Terry Nichols]] are "attack articles". This was a person who was ultimately cast in very unfavorable terms with respect to the central reason she was "newsworthy". While the facts themselves must be balanced (and there is certainly reason to argue here that more favorable facts were omitted in this article), it should not be surprising that in the case of some living people, their article will be overwhelming negative because the reason they are in the encyclopedia at all is because they did something that was overwhelming negative. In this case, the correct action is to redirect, not protect the page and certainly not delete the page history, Let the normal editing process do its job. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] <sup |
*'''Comment'''. I agree that, from an editorial standpoint, this should be a redirect. However, a redirect is not a decision that an editor can make and protect against consensus. I disagree very strongly with the argument that Tony or David can simply cry BLP and unilaterally remove their actions from any normal review process. Although this article was not balanced, I do not think it qualifies as an "attack article" any more than the articles on [[:Theodore Kaczynski]] or [[:Terry Nichols]] are "attack articles". This was a person who was ultimately cast in very unfavorable terms with respect to the central reason she was "newsworthy". While the facts themselves must be balanced (and there is certainly reason to argue here that more favorable facts were omitted in this article), it should not be surprising that in the case of some living people, their article will be overwhelming negative because the reason they are in the encyclopedia at all is because they did something that was overwhelming negative. In this case, the correct action is to redirect, not protect the page and certainly not delete the page history, Let the normal editing process do its job. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|<sup style="color:green;">talk</sup>]] 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' BLP calls for the removal of unsourced negative material. Everything in this article is well-sourced. Telling the truth and being able to document it is a complete defense against BLP just as it is against libel. BLP only applies to ''unsourced'' negative material. The attempt to extend it is an attempt to end NOTCENSORED. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' BLP calls for the removal of unsourced negative material. Everything in this article is well-sourced. Telling the truth and being able to document it is a complete defense against BLP just as it is against libel. BLP only applies to ''unsourced'' negative material. The attempt to extend it is an attempt to end NOTCENSORED. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
** I don't think notability and sourcing issues are the only problems — the deletion log states an admin deleted the article due to its status as a "[[Wikipedia:Coatrack|coatrack article]]", meaning it has little coverage of the main subject and then deviates into a related topic. <span style="font-size:95%">—[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''[[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]]'''.</span> 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
** I don't think notability and sourcing issues are the only problems — the deletion log states an admin deleted the article due to its status as a "[[Wikipedia:Coatrack|coatrack article]]", meaning it has little coverage of the main subject and then deviates into a related topic. <span style="font-size:95%">—[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''[[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]]'''.</span> 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 695: | Line 716: | ||
*I am convinced by Uncle G's reasoning and rationale. '''Leave it redirected'''. A separate article on a person whose sole claim to notability is related to the scandal when her role is covered in that article ''already'', is a content fork. I must also say I feel sorry for the subject as well, and I think that the fault for the mess is mostly in the hands of the jurists who ought to be more professional. A big Wikipedia bio as the first hit on Google detailing her involvement is a huge burden to carry. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
*I am convinced by Uncle G's reasoning and rationale. '''Leave it redirected'''. A separate article on a person whose sole claim to notability is related to the scandal when her role is covered in that article ''already'', is a content fork. I must also say I feel sorry for the subject as well, and I think that the fault for the mess is mostly in the hands of the jurists who ought to be more professional. A big Wikipedia bio as the first hit on Google detailing her involvement is a huge burden to carry. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion/leave as protected redirect''' - hopeless trainwreck of an article being edited in bad faith. Nicely structured attack article/POV fork we're better off without. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion/leave as protected redirect''' - hopeless trainwreck of an article being edited in bad faith. Nicely structured attack article/POV fork we're better off without. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 701: | Line 722: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
====[[:Connections Academy]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 710: | Line 730: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
||
:{{la|Connections Academy}} < |
:{{la|Connections Academy}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Connections Academy|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Connections Academy}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connections Academy|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
The page was deleted earlier today for being a spam article, however the article did not read as an advertisement, but an a description of what the school was. I believe some of the links were not neccessary, hwoever I feel deletion of the article was not warranted. [[User:Wildthing61476|Wildthing61476]] 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
The page was deleted earlier today for being a spam article, however the article did not read as an advertisement, but an a description of what the school was. I believe some of the links were not neccessary, hwoever I feel deletion of the article was not warranted. [[User:Wildthing61476|Wildthing61476]] 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 721: | Line 741: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
====[[:Enchanted Forest Water Safari]]==== |
|||
:{{la|Enchanted Forest Water Safari}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Enchanted Forest Water Safari|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Enchanted Forest Water Safari}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted Forest Water Safari|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
|||
Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Wikipedia in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. [[User:Jjm10|Jjm10]] 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' why not just re-create the article? -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Response''' He has tried to re-create and it sources. It was suggested that he come to request deletion review. Discussion [[User_talk:Jjm10|here]]. [[User:Uncle uncle uncle|Uncle uncle uncle]] 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': on a purely-procedural note, {{user|Mhking}} tagged this with {{[[Template:db-repost|db-repost]]}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Enchanted_Forest_Water_Safari×tamp=20070521030141 here]: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under [[WP:CSD#A7]], for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{tl|db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. [[User:Jjm10|Jjm10]] 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that [[User:Jjm10|Jjm10]] bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on [[User:Jjm10|Jjm10]]'s user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">AK<font style="color:#FFFFFF;">Radecki</font></font>]]''' 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Radecki, which version do you say was good? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:I'd say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Enchanted_Forest_Water_Safari×tamp=20070513032144 this one] would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">AK<font style="color:#FFFFFF;">Radecki</font></font>]]''' 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::That version, unless I am much mistaken, reads like a pastiche or satire of an amusement park rather than a sourced article. There are a number of assertions and descriptions of things in there that I am highly dubious are actually factually true, and I would want to see cites for them. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Canadian Royal Family]] (closed)==== |
|||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
||
Line 747: | Line 751: | ||
Additional closer's note: For the avoidance of doubt, no decision was made here on whether or not to protect the redirect. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Additional closer's note: For the avoidance of doubt, no decision was made here on whether or not to protect the redirect. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:{{la|Canadian Royal Family}} < |
:{{la|Canadian Royal Family}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Canadian Royal Family|restore]]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Canadian Royal Family}} cache]</span><kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family|AfD]]<kbd>|</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|AFD2]]<kbd>)</kbd> |
||
Sourced, verifiable and free content not repeated elsewhere completely lost due to redirect. Note: the article underwent a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|second AfD]] in May, 2007; article contents were different to when first AfD conducted. [[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Sourced, verifiable and free content not repeated elsewhere completely lost due to redirect. Note: the article underwent a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)|second AfD]] in May, 2007; article contents were different to when first AfD conducted. [[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 755: | Line 759: | ||
*'''Undelete''' all the history (including that from the first AfD, keep redirect and protect. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete''' all the history (including that from the first AfD, keep redirect and protect. -[[User:Nardman1|N]] 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Undelete the history, do not protect the redirect'''. Protection isn't warranted at this stage. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Undelete the history, do not protect the redirect'''. Protection isn't warranted at this stage. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - Sorry guys, I didn't realise the merge had taken place previously - All revisions now undeleted and redirect in place. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''< |
*'''Comment''' - Sorry guys, I didn't realise the merge had taken place previously - All revisions now undeleted and redirect in place. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="color:#000088;">Ry<span style="color:#220066;">an<span style="color:#550044;"> P<span style="color:#770022;">os<span style="color:#aa0000;">tl</span>et</span>hw</span>ai</span>te</span>''']] 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Further comment''' - subsequent redirects after I closed the AfD were simply copy an paste moves of the orginal article with a slightly different name - that's why I originally deleted the whole page and simply restored the AfD redirect. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''< |
*'''Further comment''' - subsequent redirects after I closed the AfD were simply copy an paste moves of the orginal article with a slightly different name - that's why I originally deleted the whole page and simply restored the AfD redirect. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<span style="color:#000088;">Ry<span style="color:#220066;">an<span style="color:#550044;"> P<span style="color:#770022;">os<span style="color:#aa0000;">tl</span>et</span>hw</span>ai</span>te</span>''']] 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|- |
Latest revision as of 08:12, 3 April 2023
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --Bookworm857158367 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the notability of the subject. --SunStar Net talk 08:37, 24 May 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. |
Notable Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:22, 23 May 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. |
New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See the ANI discussion, which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? GRBerry 17:17, 23 May 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. |
Invalid G4...this is not a repost of the deleted article. This new version was sourced and carefully avoided talking about the person involved, instead it was about the meme. Given the controversy surrounding speedy deletions of this article I think overturning and listing at AfD would be appropriate. -N 16:19, 23 May 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. |
This is a request for assistance to restore access to the archives of this talk page. I don't know how they were lost but as a clue to the administrator who handles this, the article recently was changed from Scientific Revolution to Copernicus Revolution to Copernicus revolution and back to Scientific Revolution. I'd also appreciate help on creating an archive2 for the articles through February on the present talk page, which is extremely large. Thanks for the help. SteveMcCluskey 13:26, 23 May 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. |
The debate was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: "it has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof. This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request overturn and delete. >Radiant< 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
--Jerzy•t 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
(IMO probably not quoting an actual version of it), saying
But in fact this does nothing to counter the repeated observation that there are many cases like Hoffman/Hoffmann/Hofman/Hofmann where the alpha list makes possible an eye-ball search much shorter than alternatives. Nor does it acknowledge that even the contrived 4-way confusion cited here is capable of being reduced by the mechanism that's been in use for years on some pages, and probably is on the page or pages with those Hof... surnames: "This name may sound like" [another name] lks. Note that even soundex or automated fuzzy searches could not do as well as such cross referencing, bcz the c-ref'g can be targeted at cases of real names, and even (with enuf effort) at names that actually are misspelled on Web pages. (And, No, that's not fully implemented either, and Yes, it'll take a lot more work to do so, but the question is not whether the pages are ready for prime time (neither is Thai art, which groans for expansion but not deletion), but whether its existence is more burden than an aid to users. The tool doesn't say it's complete, and implies it's not; if it needs to say it on every page (except permanent index-only pages) to avoid being misleading to some readers (not argued let alone demonstrated), the "incomplete" notice can be put on every page simultaneously, with about 5 minutes total for editing and testing.) (Gotta run again, w/o finishing proofreading!)
|
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. |
Cyde deleted this userbox without any sort of discussion or even notification. The matter was brought up on Cyde's talk page but Cyde provided only "common sense" as the criterion for speedy deletion. Other users contested that it was common sense to delete the page. In short, Cyde's deletion was out of process, and the page in question should be undeleted, at which point Cyde or some other user may choose to initiate a proper deletion discussion. The Storm Surfer 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has WP:BEANS connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes per se, but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia. --SunStar Net talk 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This comment is controversial, I realize that, but this one does have problems, in a moral, legal and publicity sense. To undelete it would be a very bad idea. --SunStar Net talk 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I am the one who made the userbox, and I just want to clear something up: I did not make it to troll, disrupt, seek any sort of help, or for attention. I made it only because it is true. I cooled down since Cyde's cold and apathetic attitude on the matter, but I see that Wikipedia, nor society, is not ready to accept suicide, for whatever reason. I don't see how it's disruptive, as I was probably the only one who was ever going to use it, and my userpage isn't exactly the most popular, but that doesn't matter now. I support it's undeletion, but it seems Wikipedia's users really have a stigma for it: so be it. Make any snide comment about this as you like: I will not respond either way. Let those who argue that Wikipedia is not a place for such things know that it was merely a little fact about myself, nothing more important than the fact that I like spaghetti. And let ignorance remain bliss. Just wanted to say something before it gets deleted. -Eridani 21:15, 17 May 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. |
Closing explanation: Examining all the comments carefully, it is clear that a significant portion of the community does not endorse the unilateral action taken in this case. Hence, "overturn." As for the fate of the article, it was surprisingly uncommon for folks to request relisting, so it will not be relisted at this time. Normally, DRV is for discussing the decision-making process involved in a deletion, not for deciding on the fate of the article. But there are too many comments on what we should do with the page for them to be ignored because of that, so I feel it's important, given that the debate will not be relisted, to interpret this debate as deciding on the fate of the page. Many folks made arguments explicitly in support of redirecting the article; the main arguments were based on WP:BLP (that the article, though sourced, presents mostly negative information) and that the other article already contains all the content this one did. Some of the undelete comments endorsed returning the article in full, although many either explicity endorsed the redirect solution or were merely opposing the way the decision was made. Those in support of full undeletion made two main points: (1) we can try to fix the article / it was okay, and (2) the prior AfD resulted in a keep. Neither of these is really an argument against redirection; in response to point #2 we have multiple AfDs on articles frequently: consensus can change. In fact, I didn't see any good arguments that directly oppose the (2nd) argument for redirection. (And, though many people said "Endorse deletion," I really don't think they wanted the redirect to go away, but if I'm wrong, head over to WP:RFD.) Thus, I have to conclude that the consensus and the weight of the arguments here is in favor of the redirect. I hope this closes the book on this particular article, at least for a long while. Mangojuicetalk 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Another controversial WP:BLP deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by the Google cache ([4]), and is a central figure in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including Fox News. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. Also, a previous AFD resulted in Keep. *** Crotalus *** 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Note to all Some commentary has been moved to the talk page. It will need to be courtesy blanked later. Please do not say anything else that will need to be courtesy blanked. GRBerry 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please heed these proscriptions at WP:BLP:
References
|
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. |
The page was deleted earlier today for being a spam article, however the article did not read as an advertisement, but an a description of what the school was. I believe some of the links were not neccessary, hwoever I feel deletion of the article was not warranted. Wildthing61476 01:45, 23 May 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. |
Additional closer's note: For the avoidance of doubt, no decision was made here on whether or not to protect the redirect. GRBerry 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sourced, verifiable and free content not repeated elsewhere completely lost due to redirect. Note: the article underwent a second AfD in May, 2007; article contents were different to when first AfD conducted. G2bambino 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |