Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Topcity.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources. I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper. This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick too delete the article and refer it to DFR process instead of supporting his reasons for deletions in a reasonable manner. Most people would not call defining the only daily newspaper for a state capital as "hardly significant" or not a "mainstream" news source. I'm not sure how to link the discussion between myself and the admin, so I am pasting it verbatim: Speedy Deletion of Topcity.org The entry has two secondary sources from recognized publications. It meets the criteria for notability. Please reinstate it. Thanks Hairoddohtus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) harioddohtus
Since you're so quick on the gun to delete, please cite WHY how the sources do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as secondary sources. All you have done is given unsupported opinion to justify an arbitray deletion. Secondly, I don't remember anything under the notability criteria that listed time as a determining factor for notability. Your logic seems to suggest that a subject cannot be notable unless it has been existence for a set period of time. Can you cite your source for that, so I can mark my calendar for when when the article should be reinstated? Thirdly, I was coming back to to do a second draft when I saw the deletion. I'd be happy to tighten the writing, but frankly, your reasons for deletions are not credible. If you won't neutrally apply the wiki guidelines, please forward this conversation to whichever entity reviews contested articles.
hairoddohtus
According to the deletion review guidelines, I am supposed to try and work it out with you. You are not being very helpful. Please tell me why the secondary sources aren't good. If you can demonstrate they are through the Wiki guidleines then I will graciously concede the matter. However, you really should clarify why two established news sources are "hardly significant." Thanks Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC) hairoddohtus
Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources. I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper. This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick to delete the article and refer it to deletion review process instead of supporting his reasons for deletion in a reasonable manner. That's actually an abuse of process, not to mention a waste of time and energy. Most people would not call the admin's opinion that the only daily newspaper of a state capital is "hardly significant" and "not a mainstream news source" as reasonable or credible. Thanks. Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairoddohtus (talk • contribs) Thanks. Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the could to endore publication, but consider this notice of such: Stifle: Please link me to ten websites that are similar. Your implied ad-hominem attack on the publication's originality is irrelevant to the argument. In addition, your statement is unqualified, unsupported and has no merit regarding notability or secondary sources, which is the issue of discussion. Please stifle any further unhelpful commentary. GlassCobra: Is there a minimum number of secondary sources needed? Link, please. Benefix: Another ad-hominem attack. If you're representative of the Wikipedia community, then the feelings of casual contempt are mutual, my misinformed acquaintance. Secondly, the title of "admin" does denote anything beyond more user privileges. As far as this issue is concerned, I feel that the admin's actions were unreasonable, unhelpful and an abuse of the review process. He made no sincere attempt to answer my questions or support his rationale beyond a Wiki source that undermined his own position. Ackradecki: Please support your contention that either of those sources do not fit the qualification of a secondary source. You seem to be saying that daily newspapers and university newspapers do not fit the bill. Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I did not see anything in Wiki's guidelines for secondary sources to support that. Now I've more than supported my arguments, and I've answered what little I've been given back. Unless someone can demonstrate that the sources aren't qualified as secondary, it seems to me the conditions are met for publication. That was, after all, the reason the admin speedily deleted it instead of giving me a chacne to correct any perceived failings. Hairoddohtus (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Recently, this article has been lined up for deletion, but the internet loves this page, google: "List of Common Emoticons" and you'll see many people enjoy this page, deleting it is deleting part of internet culture. Restore it to its original glory please. =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezeah (talk • contribs)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Assyrian Christian Stele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The primary reason for the AFD was a complete lack of WP:RS and therefore a case of WP:OR. These serious problems were not addressed by those wanting to keep, merge, or redirect the article. The creating user still has not provided any reliable sources, and this violation stills hold true. The article "Assyrian Christian Stele" was created on Jan. 5 by a user claiming it was the "correct" name for Nestorian Stele. He cited a source which supposedly used this name. Following AGF, I waited until I received a copy of the work cited through ILL, only to discover that the user was quite incorrect, and the author of this work used the term "Nestorian" was well. I then spent a considerable amount of time examining many other sources, including both online and many printed sources in my university library, and found not one single source using this term. Any uses of this name online are copies of this original Wikipedia article. I can't think of a more clear case of WP:OR. I almost listed it for speedy delete, but decided to go with AFD to give the user in question another chance to find just one source that uses this term. The AFD was open for five days. The closing admin (MBisanz) claimed "consensus" existed for a redirect. This "consensus" is: 3 deletes (counting myself), 1 keep from the user who created the page (but has never provided sources), another keep only if the sources were correct (which they aren't) and 2 merges/redirects from users who seemed to think this was a naming dispute, and not a WP:OR violation. I discussed on MBisanz's talk page how the keep/merge/redirect votes failed to address the lack of sources (or seemed to assume there were sources and that this AFD was a naming dispute), and how the WP:OR and WP:RS issues were still not resolved. He claimed a redirect was better than a closure of "no consensus" - again, not addressing the OR problem here. Even as a redirect, this article title completely fails WP:RS and clearly violates WP:OR. I would like to re-list to more clearly explain the problems with this title and the purpose for the AFD, and make sure that the resolution of these two serious issues, one way or another, is the focus of the AFD. Otebig (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ikariam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This article was speedily deleted under A7, though I don't believe it should have been. It indicated why the subject was notable, and was backed up by a numer of reliable secondary sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. The admin who deleted them says he doesn't regard them as reliable, though they meet the definition prescisely; Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. These reviews were published by well known and respected gaming web sites, who of course are trustworthy and authoritative in the subject at hand. Besides, even if it is decided that this isn't notable, this should have gone to AfD rather than been speedied, because it certainly doesn't meet A7. The article can be viewed here Pattont/c 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted with minimal discussion and spurious reasons from original nominator. One contributor even commented that "I can't think of what criteria this breaks." The page WAS unreferenced, but this could have been addressed in a matter of minutes and has now been done (see: User:Emeraude/British National Party election results). It was also described as unencyclopaedic (with no reason given) and as a violation of BLP policy - absolute nonsense that would mean the deletion of every article that named a candidate in any democratic election! The same "debate" also resulted in deletion of British National Front election results; revised version is at User:Emeraude/British National Front election results. I would also like to include that in this request for reinstatement on the same grounds. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for less than four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, the closure was also erroneous in that the principal argument for deletion - the lack of independent reliable sources, as required by both WP:V as well as the proposed compromise guideline WP:FICT - was not addressed by any of the "keep" opinions and that accordingly, the discussion should have been closed as "delete". The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that continued discussion would have resulted in a "merge" consensus instead of a "keep" that is not really supported by the three comments that were made. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three days instead of five days. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the almost two days the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run, or that a merger would have been decided upon. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Indus Center for Academic Excellence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD 2) This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days and two hours instead of five days. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the 22 hours the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nader bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Heroes of Might and Magic IV: Winds of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three and a half days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, is not inconceivable that continued discussion would have resulted in a "merge" consensus instead of a "keep" that is not really supported by the two comments that were made. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus. In this particular case, the topic is a very controversial one, and while the deletion looks prima facie reasonable based on the discussion as it stands (though it is not clear why WP:POVFORK, invoked without further comment by many, is a reason to delete instead of, say, merge), many semi-regular editors who might have contributed better arguments for either retention or deletion have been deprived of that opportunity. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Saint Pancake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Redirect was G10 deleted, despite multiple editors arguing that it was not solely an attack page. Black Kite has declined to undelete and has encouraged me to seek review here. Redirect should be restored and then listed at RfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Statement from Originator This is intended to be a summary of the arguments from the perspective of the editor who raised the issue. While I am not seeking to intentionally mischaracterize anyone's position, this is not intended to be an unbiased or impartial view of the situation. Issue 1: Should this redirect exist at this time? Let's get this one out of the way first: No. While it's never gotten a fair hearing, it's clear that a substantial number of editors believe that reliable sourcing should be in place before recreation. I originally asked for the discussion to follow process and be held at RfD, but it's not clear that there's a snowball's chance of a different outcome. Issue 1.1: Should this redirect be salted against recreation? No.
Issue 2: Should G10 have been used to delete it? No, for three reasons: It did not exist solely to disparage, a good faith difference of opinion exists, and the re-deletion of an administrator-restored page violated WP:Wheel War Issue 2.1: Does it exist solely to threaten or disparage? No. Insistence that the redirect does solely disparage Corrie notwithstanding, it is and has been a search term in Wikipedia, because it reflects a name routinely applied to Corrie by her detractors. That has never been contested by those on either side of this discussion. Belief that such usage lacks human decency, is unwarranted, or is somehow forbidden by Wikipedia policy flies in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED. Issue 2.2: Did a good faith difference of opinion exist? Yes. This has never been challenged--and barely even addressed--in the above discussion, primarily because it's rather difficult to argue that multiple editors who dispute the appropriateness of G10 are all acting in concerted bad faith. When a good faith difference of opinion exists, XfD should take precedence; that's not my idea, that's straight from WP:CSD. Much of this drama could have been avoided if, instead of going to the NPOV noticeboard and ANI, the redirect had simply been nominated for RfD. Many arguably more inappropriate redirects are discussed--and routinely deleted--at that venue. The argument that speedy is a manifestation of WP:SNOW is inappropriate and unfounded--this deletion sets a dangerous precedent that some unpopular opinions are unworthy of a proper discussion, which I dislike: I honestly thought WP:STEAM was just a joke... until now. Issue 2.3: Was BlackKite's deletion Wheel Warring? Without accusing him of bad faith or intentional misconduct, yes. It's straight from WP:Wheel war: "specifically, [...] undeleting and redeleting". Some have tried to imply that I started a wheel war, (which I dispute, as undeletion of an out-of-process deletion is clearly allowed by WP:DELETE, as cited above) but even if that were true, it would not justify or excuse Black Kite's violation. Thus, the redirect should remain deleted but be unsalted so that a future recreation can proceed if reliably sourced. I'm not proposing any sanctions for the abuse of administrative tools, since they were used in good faith, but I would like the record to be clear that this was handled badly by those wanting it deleted. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |