Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:49, 18 May 2007

< May 17	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 19 >

18 May 2007

"Z"

not notable Gerhard1 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pertinent discussion at User_talk:Majorly#.22Z.22. The Evil Spartan 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, possibly move to Lost City of Z. The New Yorker ran a huge piece on this in September 2005, so even if possible hoaxes could be speedied (they can't), some research prior to pulling the trigger should have saved this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another pertinent page by this user: Torca Island. The Evil Spartan 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, there are 2 book references, and cities (even probably fictional ones) don't fall under A7 anyway. Possibly merge to Percy Fawcett or somewhere appropriate but that's an editorial decision. --W.marsh 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:drmmt

This was speedy deleted by Radiant! because it "misrepresents policy" (see here). However, this was referring to {{drmmt3}}, and not {{drmmt}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* bv for this unending edit war*cough*) - and as if WP:TEMPLAR didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{trivia}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{NPOV}} without even explaining why. --The Evil Spartan 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tpv

I'm not sure why this page was deleted by Resurgent insurgent in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see [1]. And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept.

(note: the original template may also have been located at Template:tpv1, but I think that was a redirect. However, I can't tell without administrator rights: only by looking at the deletion logs) The Evil Spartan 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion when there's still template:tpv0 (which this was originally moved to); they're almost the same in wording but tpv0 is milder and is the one that should be kept if we've to choose one or the other. Resurgent insurgent 16:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the kind of opinion that should not be enforced by g6-speedy deletion, but by TFD (though, in fact, I think that decision would be wrong as well). The Evil Spartan 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun (closed)

Template:Fur (closed)

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan

Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. WP:V demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". -- Cat ^chi? 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave alone Obvious categorization criteria, despite lack of clear boundaries: the issue shouldn't be the category, but whether individual members belong and/or what geographic areas are covered, which are not issues for this forum. I'm sensing a wee bit of political axe-grinding here. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not a "political axe-grinding". Any categorization with this is an endorsement of Kurdistans official borders with source being wikipedia editors such as User:Diyarbakir, User:Diyako and etc. There isn't a single other example of this kind of categorization as demonstrated in 2007 March 15 link. -- Cat ^chi? 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reverse variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, then? --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough This Kurdistan thing has gone too far. Rather than all the interminable deletion discussons - I suggest you stary a general RfC on the issue - have a debate get a general consensus, and then abide by it. Me, I don't care.--Doc^g 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried two general rfcs (one kinda ongoing with me being the only participant), 2 mediation cases and countless other discussion attempts. All of which was ignored. No one even cared to comment for two months on that well advertised discussion for instance. I have even taken it to arbitration committee which they declined to even hear the case. RfCs and etc is simply not working. There isn't a process I haven't used. Kurdistan thing has gone too far indeed. I have tried my best to find a solution without escalating the matter. Point me to a process I haven't used and I'll take it. -- Cat ^chi? 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--Doc^g 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. -- Cat ^chi? 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria - No, it's an explanation as to why out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was completely uncontroversial and non-problematic I am sure people would be more than willing to comment on this. -- Cat ^chi? 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a widely accepted and verifiable definition of the area's boundaries does not exist, we should not be categorizing places as being there. By categorizing, say, specific cities as part of Kurdistan, we are endorsing certain definitions at the expense of others. I have not seen an uncontroversial definition of the area (I'm not terribly familiar with the Kurdistan issue, though). We do need to find some kind of solution to this dispute. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~      -->
-====[[:Qian Zhijun]]====
-:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Qian Zhijun|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Qian Zhijun}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
-This was listed at AfD after being on here with a fairly contentious discussion which was closed with the decision to undeleted and list of AfD. The afd was then closed as a delete less than '''one hour''' after it was opened, this completely ignoring the decision reached here (I'm not sure I can call it a true consensus, given the degree of contention). IMO this was '''completely inappropriate'''. A discussion here resulted in a decision to list on AfD in an attempt to achieve consensus, and the discussion was reclosed without there being enough time for even those who were known to be interested to express a view, much less for consensus to emerge. I am appalled. I call for this to be '''overturned''' and '''not relisted'''. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' as before. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[:"Z"]]====