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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:26, 18 May 2007

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

18 May 2007

Qian Zhijun

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). DES ^(talk) 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn as before, policy and procedure have both been completely ignored, without well-founded reasons. The contentiousness of the DRV means there's significant dispute on this issue, and the fact that the AFD was closed less than an hour after it opened means most opinions were supressed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disgrace - that the very admins who participated in the first debate keep trying to close this one. Overturn - does not qualify for speedy deletion. Shame on you. The Evil Spartan 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn Closer made false statements in his close, and did not consider the compelling case for a keep result. Why didn't he consider it? I don't know for sure, but the early close prevented it from being made. GRBerry 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that I have previously outlined valid arguments for keeping the article that the closer avoided acknowledging. The list, which is possibly incomplete, as I only looked at the original DRV, is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)#Closer's notes are false. GRBerry 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this. (1) it's silly. (2) it's disgusting. (3) that article is dead. --Tony Sidaway
- I'm glad to see such strong, policy based reasons provided. i'm glad also that IAR is being used so carefully wioth such respect for the probable consensus. I would be tempted to wheel-war by this, but I'm not going to. Why do those opposed to this feel so strongly that giving it a single clean AfD discussion, lasting the full time, with a closer who closes according to the consensus that develops, is unacceptable. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Per above and POINTy closures. Matthew 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close DRV as invalid or endorse deletion This is the second DRV in one day which is clearly against common sense. If you insist on going through with this, then endorse the deletion of this article which is a shame for the Wikipedia. It fails all our notability guidelines. --Mbimmler 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the second DRV today because the first one was closed without debate and improperly by an admin who was deeply involved in the discussion. The Evil Spartan 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second nomination, a consensus of experienced editors considered this article non-notable. A new discussion will not change this. And overturn without re-listing is just a blatant joke. --Mbimmler 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The closure of the first DRV (which closed today), required the article to be undeleted and run through AFD again. The second DRV's close was not valid or appropriate. There has been more than enough evidence presented that this subject actually meets both WP:N and WP:BIO, if people would read the prior discussions. GRBerry 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this nonsense. This 'article' is unfit for the encyclopedia and we have now had 3 admins delete it per AfD and this is the third DRV. The closer of the last AfD got it right - and I refuse to rehearse the arguments for deletion again. It dies - get over it. Stop the process wonking.--Doc^g 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all about WP:IAR, but from what I can tell: we have a previous DRV which brought it to consensus to a new AFD. But that AFD was closed within less than an hour by an admin involved in the discussion under the frivolous reason that the previous discussions already had time (not to mention that the DRV overturn clearly showed that there was no consensus yet). Then this last DRV was closed within minutes of being opened by an admin deeply involved in the issue. This isn't process-wonkery: it's trying to get a fair discussion and having it stop being closed by people who are too closely attached to the article. The Evil Spartan 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

Majorly stated this as his reason for deleting it: Mostly because it states "It is likely it never existed". I honestly do not understand the rationale here.Gerhard1 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty obviously not a good reason for deletion. Atlantis likely never existed. nevertheless some people get confused about Wikipedia and hoaxes... we shouldn't include articles that are themselves hoaxes, but articles about hoaxes should be judged by the same standards of verifiability and neutrality as any other article. --W.marsh 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AFD - likely it doesn't satisfy notability, so bring it to AFD. Unfortunately, I can't tell that, as the page is currently deleted. The Evil Spartan 17:23, 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. Ask User:AGK, the mediator of the failed mediation discussion, why it failed. -- 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]] (closed)====
+====[[Qian Zhijun]] ====
-{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
-|-
-! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
-* '''[[Qian Zhijun]]''' – Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to [[WP:POINT|make a pointless]]. – <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:26, 18 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|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>
@@ Line 38: / Line 30: @@
 *'''Speedy close this nonsense'''. This 'article' is unfit for the encyclopedia and we have now had 3 admins delete it per AfD and this is the third DRV. The closer of the last AfD got it right - and I refuse to rehearse the arguments for deletion again. It dies - get over it. Stop the process wonking.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 :*I'm all about [[WP:IAR]], but from what I can tell: we have a previous DRV which brought it to consensus to a new AFD. But that AFD was closed within less than an hour by an admin involved in the discussion under the frivolous reason that the previous discussions already had time (not to mention that the DRV overturn clearly showed that there was no consensus yet). Then this last DRV was closed within minutes of being opened by an admin deeply involved in the issue. This isn't process-wonkery: it's trying to get a fair discussion and having it stop being closed by people who are too closely attached to the article. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-|-
-| 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>''
-|}
 ====[[:"Z"]]====