Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 5: Difference between revisions
→Tansuit: closing: Moot |
→Bill Verna: closing: No consensus |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion''': That was the clear consensus. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''': That was the clear consensus. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
====[[:Bill Verna]]==== |
====[[:Bill Verna]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:Bill Verna]]''' – No consensus, discretionary default to relist. – [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] ♠ 19:16, 12 July 2009 (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;" | |
|||
:{{DRV links|Bill Verna|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Verna|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Bill Verna|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Verna|article=}} |
||
| Line 35: | Line 43: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion''' the claim that new stuff was added doesn't wash, the later deletes had benefit of such stuff and specifically rebutted the asserted importance of them. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' the claim that new stuff was added doesn't wash, the later deletes had benefit of such stuff and specifically rebutted the asserted importance of them. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Comment''' - Please note that the final "delete" came ''after'' the content was removed. It is also important to remember that the removal of content potentially had a larger impact. Editors who may have been leaning toward keeping it if they saw the extra information may have been less willing to comment after the content was removed (ie. more on the fence). While I admit this is speculative, it is certainly possible. Relisting the AfD would help answer such questions. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''' - Please note that the final "delete" came ''after'' the content was removed. It is also important to remember that the removal of content potentially had a larger impact. Editors who may have been leaning toward keeping it if they saw the extra information may have been less willing to comment after the content was removed (ie. more on the fence). While I admit this is speculative, it is certainly possible. Relisting the AfD would help answer such questions. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:Oakbrook Mall]] (closed)==== |
====[[:Oakbrook Mall]] (closed)==== |
||
Revision as of 19:16, 12 July 2009
Biography in relation to published work, projects and events systematically deleted (vandalized) by wikipedia editor since 1995. Suspected hate campaing, /ad since the biography and links to support the notoriety principles have been edited/added by various users and systematicaly deleted by the editors who obviously did not verify the supporting links, even when 'hold on' was placed on the page. Claim to notoriety met. Similar articles not deleted, nor questioned nor discussed, despite lesser links (see Nick Denton}, Patrick Barkham and many many living others whose profile is never deleted). All backlinks to related sources in other wikipedia pages also systematically wiped. Please restore and do not allow editors to delete this page, or please delete all the other pages that carry biographies of living people who are journalists/writers/researchers.
- Before I reply to this, please could an uninvolved admin confirm that the various G4 deletions here really were substantially identical to (i.e., near-carbon copies of) the original content from 2006?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- They were not. The recent recreated versions were all similar to each other, consisting of one sentence about Ms. Di Maio, several requests not to redelete, and assorted references. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I should think we'll need some trouts, then.
Procedural overturn as a bad G4, and list at AfD so the community can judge their merits per the correct procedure. Addendum: Before anyone challenges me on this, I should probably add that the references constitute a claim of notability so they invalidate the A7.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the recent recreations weren't substantially identical - in fact they were substantially worse than the version that was deleted at AfD. They were composed pretty much of a little paragraph about how Wikipedia keeps deleting the article, one sentence about the subject, two links to blogs with vague mentions, and a copy-paste of some information from one of the blogs. Two of the three recent deletions have been valid A7 speedies, and the third one pretty much could have been. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- To save further theoretical argument, I've made a temporary copy of the most recent deleted version (all three recent ones were essentially the same) - User:Mazca/Paola Di Maio. This was not a viable article in any way in the state it was deleted in. ~ mazca talk 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the recent recreations weren't substantially identical - in fact they were substantially worse than the version that was deleted at AfD. They were composed pretty much of a little paragraph about how Wikipedia keeps deleting the article, one sentence about the subject, two links to blogs with vague mentions, and a copy-paste of some information from one of the blogs. Two of the three recent deletions have been valid A7 speedies, and the third one pretty much could have been. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I should think we'll need some trouts, then.
- They were not. The recent recreated versions were all similar to each other, consisting of one sentence about Ms. Di Maio, several requests not to redelete, and assorted references. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you work on a draft of the article in userspace and bring it here - none of the recent recreations have been in any way convincing of notability, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Creating an article with virtually no content beyond an angry statement about how it keeps getting deleted is not likely to solve the problem. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep deleted; userfy for a draft if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Userify I think the intention of the latest group of articles was to add what was missing in the original: references. . there might or might not be a viable article combining the original version and the reverences. Sending the latest version to AfD would not help get an article, since it would almost certainly be deleted. Trying to write a new one might possibly do it, and to give a chance,it should be worked on in user space first. This will meet the intent of the request, which was to try to have an article if possible. DGG (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep deleted unanimous AFD and three re-creations later, 'nuff said. No objection to userfication, but it comes here before being recreated a 4th time, as we aren't buying a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment—I'm really concerned that this could result in us endorsing a bad speedy. I think that if this is closed as "keep deleted", the closer should use those words, and specifically not use the word "endorse". In a perfect world, every single bad speedy that comes here would be overturned and sent straight to AfD, because I think it's an overriding consideration that CSD deletions need to be absolutely valid and unambiguous.
I'd also invite the closer of this DRV to comment on the appropriateness of the speedy, please.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment—I'm really concerned that this could result in us endorsing a bad speedy. I think that if this is closed as "keep deleted", the closer should use those words, and specifically not use the word "endorse". In a perfect world, every single bad speedy that comes here would be overturned and sent straight to AfD, because I think it's an overriding consideration that CSD deletions need to be absolutely valid and unambiguous.
- Endorse deletion: That was the clear consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Bill Verna (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Substantial improvement was made during the course of the discussion and was ongoing at the time the discussion was closed. A courtesy notification, while not required, should have been made to the article creator (User:Faridzenger) and the relevant WikiProject (WP:PW). I question the motivation of three of the "delete" voters, as they had expressed displeasure at me for disagreeing with them in a previous deletion discussion and then all showed up to vote "delete" with no interest in weighing the merits of the additions to the article. While the discussion was ongoing, two of the "delete" voters removed sourced information that helped establish the subject's notability for reasons that, at ANI, were said by two administrators to be against Wikipedia policy. I was unable to restore this information without dancing around 3RR, but the article was deleted several hours later (while the ANI was still open). Due to the ongoing improvements up to the time of deletion and procedural irregularities during the discussion, I am asking that the article be restored or, at the very least, that a second, untainted AfD be opened. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Oakbrook Mall (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Decision was to delete and recreate as a redirect. I feel the page should simply have been redirected (edit history retained). While it was unclear if the subject the page now redirects to is the same as the one the creator had in mind, the rationale for the deletion was that it was a hoax. But given the creator's history, it seems more like a good-faith creation in which a poor job was done at specifying the correct details. More time is needed to check this out. Sebwite (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Tansuit (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Decision was to merge and redirect to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters, however new information came to light during the merging process. It turns out that an entry on this page for "Tansit" or "Tansut" already exists, and that "Tansuit" is an improbable misspelling of this character's name. Had I known this during the time of the AfD, I would have recommended Delete because I think it's improper for Wikipedia to maintain Tansuit as a redirect as it is an improbable misspelling. — X S G 05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |