- Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
- Closing admin's notes: DRV is here to review the process of deletion, not the article in question. This article was sent to afd the second time by DRV - as such that Afd should have been allowed to remain open for significantly more time than 45 minutes. One out of process deletion (as determined by DRV) is not fixed by doing it again - and I think thought people should have learnt something from the Daniel Brandt wheel war. IAR is a great rule, it allows you you bypass bureaucracy in the light of pure common sense. But closing a contentious debate you are involved in is NOT in the spirit of IAR - or for that matter the deletion policy. Lastly, there are no BLP issues, per several of the people who participated in this discussion - we are just reporting what someone else has said (referenced to its source) not insulting the man ourselves. ViridaeTalk 02:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
-
- 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.--Docg 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]
- Yes, or re-opened by the same! (Pot meet Kettle.) Look you've lost me with the process and sequence. The article is about a fat chinese kid who's head was superimposed onto celebrity bodies - that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia - and no amount off wonking will change that.--Docg 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, this article should have been speedied and salted the moment it reared its ugly head. This endless fillibustering will not save it. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not attached to the article. On the contrary, we rather want to get rid of it, as it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As the closer of the second AfD has pointed out, there was even more time for discussion than normal. No arguments have been presented which found the support of a majority of editors. If an article is twice deleted after discussion, you should just live with it. This is not about "The xth DRV didn't correspond with the yth AfD", this is just about the plain question "Is this article of any value to an encyclopedia" and the answer is "No, it should be speedy-deleted per CSD:G10" --Mbimmler 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. Honestly, he's "famous" for being fat. Does anybody not see why we should stop this pointless bickering about process?--§hanel 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This whole situation is probably all my fault. I made strong arguments for deletion in the original AfD, based on the effect this article might have on the living person who is its subject. This is an area of BLP policy to which I am concerned that insufficient attention is frequently given and is an extremely serious concern to me (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad). The original closing admin, Daniel.Bryant, indicated that these arguments were pretty much the basis for his original close as delete. Then someone who'd been tied up in RL until after the AfD closed came by Daniel's talkpage with some colorable (though not I think ultimately persuasive) counter-arguments, and I suggested that it would make sense to discuss them in the context of AfD rather than DRV. From that point on, hilarity ensued. Frankly, if I'd known that all this procedural morass and bickering was going to ensue, I would have just said to the commenter "tough stuff, you missed the deadline, you lost your chance, go away." I suppose I will have to bear that in mind for next time. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just delete the damn thing: what a waste of time and energy by all parties. How about improving the real content of this encyclopedia instead. Danny 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can't trust admins to follow proper procedure when dealing with this dispute, I shudder to think what they'd do with something important. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's somewhat the point that they are making, though: This isn't important; and all of this ping-pong back and forth between AFD and DRV is diverting our energies from the things that are, that they would like to spend their time on dealing with. Uncle G 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, speedy close, trout-slap those responsible for this wilful and obdurate process wonkery in the face of all reason and sense. Procedure my arse. The close was perfectly proper, the second close was equally proper, and bringing it here was an act of crass stupidity which has had its predictable result. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, speedy close. "If at first you don't suceed, try, try again" is *not* something that should be taking place here. Suggesting a good trout-slapping for the offenders who seem to think it is is quite correct. This is an *encyclopaedia* folks, not a collection of trash. --AlisonW 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and close this damn thing. Shanel and Guy have already said all that is necessary. --Srikeit 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as before; this subject meets all of our criteria for inclusion. It should also be pretty obvious that contentious Afd's can not be closed within one hour, especially if only one side has managed to get in the new debate. Prolog 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, speedy close, previous closes perfectly valid, calling something an "Internet meme" does not mean you magically get to ignore WP:BLP. Slow news day articles all about exactly the same thing with the hyperbole that inevitably comes with justifying the reporting of non-news cannot be taken seriously as a good basis for an encyclopaedia article and do not justify ignoring our responsibility to article subjects. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whatever happened to civility in debates, folks? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Perfectly valid article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm indifferent to whether Wikipedia has an article on Qian Zhihun, but this has really gotten quite ridiculous. Endorse deletion so we can get back to doing the things that actually matter around here. Really, he's some fat Chinese kid ffs. – Steel 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I don't believe that valid deletion procedure was followed in either case. He is definitely notable according to BOTH WP:BIO and WP:WEB, being the primary subject of multiple articles from valid chinese news sources, such as China Daily. I don't see how the citation of WP:BLP applies here, as this information is verifiable and already present. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Speedy close. Per Shanel, JzG, Steel, et al. Cary Bass demandez 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Close this. I'm getting bored with expressing opinions on this subject. As Bainer's excellent close pointed out, the topic has now had lengthy discussion in several forums - as such suggestion that debate has been stifled is nonsense. Both weight of argument and weight of numbers favour deletion. The fact that layer upon layer of process is being created to continually reconsider this is regretable. We are better than having an article about a kid "famous" for being victimised for being fat, and we are better than this endless bickering. WjBscribe 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love if we can put this myth to rest - weight of argument does not favor deletion at all. Those in favor of retaining the article can point to how this article meets every relevant policy and guideline it falls under. Those in favor of deletion have not presented much in the way of a solid argument - they allege a BLP issue that doesn't exist due to the subject's willingness in participating (see the Numa Numa guy for a relevant analogy), and, well, that's it. There's no logical argument being presented to actually delete this article - "it's bollocks and must die" and "we don't need this" aren't arguments for deletion. Even now, people are looking to speedy close this review because they're sick of talking about it, even after failing to present a coherent argument when given the opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to this debate (having not participated in either of the AFDs), but I would like to echo jeff's comments above and state that many of the arguments to maintain the deletion make me very nervous, as they cite things like "boredom" and "silliness" rather than actual policy. Given the fact that there are stories on this subject from reputable news sources, we need better reasons than those to omit this subject from inclusion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONGEST possible overturn. Have we learned NOTHING from having 13 deletion debates on Daniel Brandt? Process is important, people. The point of having debates on things like this is to find consensus, to understand how the community interprets its own policies, and to bring the issue to closure. This is not, as bainer put it in his closure, a request for "process for process' sake". Those arguing on the losing side of a debate deserve a certain degree of respect: they deserve that their argument is considered by the community, they deserve the chance to be heard, and they deserve a fair, impartial closure so that they can understand in the end that they lost, not because of some arbitrary decision, but because the community did not agree with them - once that point is arrived at, we have closure and we can move on. Mangojuicetalk 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn; you can't close a contentious AFD in one hour, and there actually are legitimate, mainstream news sources for this person. Sure, the phenomenon is cruel, but so was some of the exploitation surrounding Joseph Merrick. We document what is notable, we don't decide what should or shouldn't be. We're not making fun of the kid; we're reporting what was said in reliable sources about how other people did. *** Crotalus *** 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the bad tendency of editors to factor every subject as a biography of some person. Like the incident with Michael Sneed, an article about this subject shouldn't be pretending to be a biography of a person. The idea that this is a biography of Qian Zhijun's life and works is laughable. As the article itself said, this person's experience is one example of what the actual subjects are, which, upon reading the sources cited beyond their attention-grabbing introductions, appear to be obesity in China and e'gao. At the very best, therefore, it should be presented as but one example of the latter subject. (Singling out this one person as a poster boy for obesity in China is definitely wrong, note.)
One irony leaps right at us here: Night Gyr asks what we do with things that are important. Answering that point with "we" meaning "all editors" rather than meaning just administrators, it appears, from looking at the redlinks at obesity in China and e'gao, that we what we do is not actually write articles on them at all, spending all our energies instead on declaring people to be "internet memes" and writing articles that pretend to be their biographies. Uncle G 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather ironically, after this DRV was speedy closed earlier, I started writing an article on E'gao. It's currently stored on my PC at work, but I can maybe VPN in over the weekend and get something up. It'll be little more than a stub about a neologism, though, since I can only find two distinct reliable sources so far. --DeLarge 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Have a look below. I found three articles dealing with the subject. I strongly suspect that there are more. Uncle G 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed what you wrote after I posted. There are indeed more, since my sources were China Daily and Xinhua.net.[1][2] Also, the term is apparently a derivative of kuso, which is an article. Maybe end up with a merge/redirect? We'll see... --DeLarge 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at the second and fourth sentences of kuso. It seems best to just redirect e'gao there and add a new kuso#e'gao section therein on e'gao and the Chinese government's attempts to stamp it out. That way readers benefit from a complete background, and kuso benefits from some much-needed sources. ☺ I'm glad that you found it to be a startling oasis, incidentally. Uncle G 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Process requires this be kept dead - it's a blatant violation of WP:BLP, which is not up for being superseded by whoever shows up for a DRV - David Gerard 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, even many of those in favor of keeping the article would prefer to see changes made to take the focus off the kid himself, since the kid himself is not the most important thing to talk about here. However, the vehemence and total disregard for policy of those who want to delete the article has left it with no chance to improve. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, speedy close as process-wonkery at its worst. --Carnildo 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, speedy close, BLP supercedes DRV. Corvus cornix 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- where was the BLP issue settled? Unaddressed objections have been raised to the simple claim. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Making fun of a fat kid is a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Wars kid? Gary Brolsma? It's not a BLP violation to say he was made fun of for being fat. We're not doing the mockery ourselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-written and well-sourced articles about notable persons are not. Prolog 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you realize that this was not a BLP violation, as a) the article was not "making fun of a fat kid," and b) said "fat kid" is entirely complicit with the distribution of his image at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that anyone is arguing that this article should exist to "make fun of him", but rather that he is notable by virtue of being the primary subject of articles in major, verifiable news sources. BLP states that articles on living persons should be held to the highest levels of scrutiny when it comes to verifiability, NPOV, and all other content-governing wikipedia policies. I don't think anyone is arguing against it, but rather that the mere existence of an article on him does not violate BLP. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And who has claimed to have read every edit in the history and determined that every edit is a violation. Remember, WP:BLP only authorizes deletion when there is no acceptable edit to revert to. "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." (Emphasis added.) There are plenty of sourced, non-controversial edits in the history, so WP:BLP does not authorize a deletion. GRBerry 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion is my opinion on this matter. Process is important, yes, but blindly abiding by process with no thought to the state of the encyclopedia is the core of ignore all rules. Seeing this dragged back and forth and back again is inane. Arkyan • (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - I don't endorse the process, but good grief, at some point, we need to decide that we want to be an encyclopedia and quit having stuff like this. --BigDT 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was an initial AfD. There were several irregularities, and at least three closes: an initial close, which was undone/relisted by the closing admin; a subsequent close that cut off the relisting after a quite short time while discussion was still active, and at least arguably did not agree with the then consensus of the discussion; a completely improper revert of that close by an editor who had previously expressed strong views in the discussion; and a revert of that revert, incidentally removing subsequent comments placed in good faith by editors who were neither closers nor reverters. This AfD was then brought here to DRV. There was a long and contentious discussion, and I would be hard pressed to say that any true consensus emerged. The weight of numbers, and in my (quite possibly biased) view the wight of valid arguments were on the side of overturning and relisting on AfD, and the DRV discussion was closed to that effect. The 2nd AfD was duly opened. It was then closed within less than one hour on the ground that the first afd (with all its problems) had offered all the discussion needed, and that the early views on the new AfD were largely for deletion (which they were). Obviously there was no meaningful opportunity for new discussion, and raising and responding to policy based arguments by those known to be interested in this matter, nd others who might be interested. This closure can be sustained only on the view that the previous DRV discussion and its closure were irrelevant, and that the serious arguments raised by those previously favoring keep (extensive well sourced media coverage; participation by the subject indicating that BLP concerns are not present, etc) need not be addressed, merely dismissed. I strongly oppose this view. If re-listings can be closed by anyone who doesn't feel that re listing is a good idea, what is the point of having and closing DRV discussions at all? And why is this closure (ignoring the DRV result) any better than reverting a closure one disagrees with? And why are those opposed to the relisting and the article itself so strongly opposed to obtaining as clean an AfD result as possible? Would allowing the auricle to remain live for 5 additional days pending a normal AfD term have caused the skies to fall? DES (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy close this waste of time. Or hell, waste more time by undeleting, then watch me speedy it as patent nonsense, unsourced, nn. Heck, I might just do it. This is a joke. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was none of those. It was coherent, showed notability with multiple nontrivial articles directly concerning its subject, and was thoroughly sourced. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)This commentator obviously failed to consider the evidence when he claimed it was "unsourced". The article had the following references at the time of deletion, and every sentence in the article had a citation, an average of 1.7 citations per sentence, all of them to reliable sources:
- "The new cultural revolution: How Little Fatty made it big", Clifford Coonan, The Independent, 16 November 2006 (cited 7 times)
- "Fatty - the face that launched 1,000 clicks", Raymond Zhou, China Daily November 15 2006 (cited 3 times)
- "Face of 'Little Fatty' finds fame among China's web users", Jane Macartney, Times Online, November 21 2006 (cited 4 times),
- "E'gao: Art criticism or evil?", Wu Jiao, China Daily, January 22 2007 (cited 1 time)
- I think it is safe to say that many people are opining based on misinformation. GRBerry 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. WP:π, people. There is dispute as to whether he is includable or not, and speedy deletions only create more drama, when the theoretical purpose is to reduce said drama. Abeg92contribs 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Silly of us to believe that Wikipedia process is more important than immortalising the unwilling humiliation of a human being. How could we be so foolish? Guy (Help!) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all articles devoted to sniggering at living people. Jkelly 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deleted, and end the squabbling here...so much more energy is being wasted on process over actual consensus, because it looks like some people will just fight for anything. --InkSplotch 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the love of Christ, Kill this dead. Complete and utter processwanking. Stick a fork in it, it's done, and relentlessly playing pitch-til-ya-win despite a couple of weeks worth of discussion is pointy to the max. --Calton | Talk 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Boy, what a mess. And User:Newyorkbrad, I'd like to claim some of the "credit" for all this -- it was me who posted on User:Daniel's talk page, after all.
- When the trouble started I grabbed a copy of the wikicode from the final version of the article and stored it locally, and I've written a revised draft from it which I'll create on my userpage at User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. It's cut some content out including all personal details (the kid's name, weight, and occupation), and I've shifted the focus from the boy to the meme as best I could. The second paragraph is still "about the boy" insofar as it includes the fact that he wasn't originally a willing participant, and also therefore includes his reaction to discovering it, but I reckon those are an encyclopedic part of the meme and don't tread on BLP's toes.
- I know this might raise the hackles of some people who feel that no matter how much media attention they get memes aren't worthy of coverage, but clearly that view isn't universally held (including by the BBC, Reuters, The Times, etc). I say that as a tertiary source we're OK to cover the ones the big news outlets do. Is that such an issue? I also know that this is a DRV and we should be discussing process and not content, but really, this is turning into Wikipalestine here, and I'm offering this in a (vain?) effort to find a ceasefire that might gain some kind of consensus.
- PS I'd like an overturn if no-one's interested in my compromise... --DeLarge 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is exactly what I had in mind. If everyone could calm down and let the process run, there'd be time to calmly rewrite the article in a way that would address any concerns and still document a notable phenomenon. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Z" (closed)
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
- "Z" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
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]
- Overturn Maybe a hoax, but that needs to be investigated during an AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and possibly move to Lost City of Z as mentioned. May be a hoax/myth, but it appears to be a notable concept, having been extensively discussed in the New Yorker article mentioned above, covered briefly in this Time article from 1951, this episode of Digging for the Truth, several books about Percy Fawcett, etc. Could conceivably be a merge/redirect to Percy Fawcett, of course, depending on the level of content in the article. JavaTenor 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
- Template:Drmmt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)
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]
- Endorse deletion - don't agree with nom, if a newbie removes a template without an edit summary, you can use a template explaining edit summaries. If editors start to revert war over a template they can be cautioned for going upto 3RR. This warning isn't required. Addhoc 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as deleter, because templates should not misrepresent policy. Because this template is designed similar to other warning templates, it implies that removing maintenance templates is grounds for blocking. Aside from that, novice users will not understand such a warning and advanced users will likely not appreciate being warned by template, so in either case writing a message manually would be better. >Radiant< 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Tpv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
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 [3]. 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]
-
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
- Template:Fur (edit | [[Talk:Template:Fur|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)
The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by User:JzG on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD if at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is not what was deleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you take a useful template and replace it with this nonsense? Please write proper fair-use rationales for your images. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This template was a redirect to another template. Jeff hijacked it to create a supposed fair-use rationale which did not actually include the fair-use rationale, and referenced a single retailer. Jeff's version was syntactically equivalent to "this was scalped form Amazon so it's obviously fine". But it isn't. And even if it was, we would not, I hope, have a template referencing a single retailer. Plus some of the uses were decidedly dubious, such as posters. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the uses was a poster, which I fixed. Second, I didn't "hijack" anything, as the redirect was not being used on anything other than two archived talk pages. Third, it referenced a single retailer that provides images that are good for fair use. Which is where these come from. Fourth, note that we're now endorsing the speedy of a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template because someone doesn't like it. That's problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All online retailers provide images that are good for fair use, and very often the same or similar images are also available from the publishers' websites, which is obviously better as it does not endorse a particular vendor. And yes, you're right, some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like it because boilerplate fair use templates that don't include the fair use rationale and also endorse a single retailer don't seem to be that good an idea. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No particular vendor is being "endorsed" by accurately stating where an image comes from. That's what people want to know, right? And it's not a "boilerplate" fair use, as this isn't a boilerplate and it includes an actual rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it named FUR if it applies to only one retailer? And if it's a timesaver for you, why not keep something in your userspace and subst it as needed? Transcluded templates are subject to being changed out from under you. No comment on whether deleting was the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I do that? I didn't think I could transclude out of my userspace (I don't work with templates often). If so, then I'll simply do that, but I'll need the text of it to do so, and for the template to be restored temporarily so I can make the fix, since the redirect has broken about 100 image pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. The template was fine in acknowledging the source and why the effect on their rights was minimal - low quality etc. but it wasn't a full fair use rationale. In particular, it lacked the "why this image is necessary in this article" component. Its not enough just to show than an image cannot be replaced and that the effect on the copyright owner has been reduced, a fair use rationale must assert why the article requires the pictures in each case. WjBscribe 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
- Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD|DRV|Joint CfD)
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.--Docg 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?--Docg 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]
- Speedy Close - no issue for DRV has been raised, nominator is simply repeating their substantive argument, not raising any procedural issue or even asking for an overturn.A Musing 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not cast a vote on any poll I initiate typically. I merely state an argument. Review the argument and comment on it please. Do not discard it out of the blue. I was asked to post this deletion review. Votestacking was the case on the past vote. Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) for example is a shining example, god knows how many others were sockpuppets and etc. User:Soapyyy for instance is particularly suspicious. It was closed as a "No Consensus" and procedualy deletion review is the next step. -- Cat chi? 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
|
