Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:55, 14 June 2007

< June 8	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 10 >

9 June 2007

Supreme Court nominees categories

Supreme Court nominees categories (Categories' CfD)

These categories were deleted during a large CFD in February where several Presidential nominee categories were nominated (and kept). For these two cats in particular, the CFD resembled straight voting, with very little actual discussion of the merits of deletion of them in particular (as opposed to the Presidential cats, for which there was more discussion). As Osomec indicated in the final comment "Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result." In fact, a comparison to Superbowl losers was the only comment during the discussion that was actually about these two judicial categories. (The closer also made a comment: that there was already a list of judicial nominees, a point that is addressed below.) With so little discussion of these two categories, it was inappropriate to delete them.

The categories are both valid and encyclopedic. They complement Category:United States Supreme Court justices and its subcategories. The analogies to Super Bowl losers and to candidates for political office do not fit. Unlike Superbowl losers, many nominees to the Supreme Court are famous primarily or only for being nominees (think of why people recognize the names Harriet Miers and Robert Bork; in both cases, their status as failed/withdrawn nominees is noted in the article lead). Furthermore, with games as well as elections, there are always losers, but unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees have been relatively rare. The statistics show that most nominees have been approved throughout the Court's history, so something unusual happens when a nominee is not confirmed.

The closer pointed out that there is already a list that duplicates the categories. Setting aside the issue of how appropriate it is for this rationale to be raised for the first time in the closing, categories and lists are not in competition; they work best when used in synergy. Categories are helpful for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia in a way that lists are not (plus lists clutter See also sections whereas categories are less obstrusive). Categories furthermore help to classify articles, and as noted above being a failed or withdrawn nominee does help to define the notability of those individuals in a substantial way.

Simply on the numbers, there was insufficient consensus to delete. For these two cats, there were two keeps (unnamed and Sefrigle) and three deletes (Otto4711, mikedk9109, and nominator Xdamr). 60% with virtually no discussion should have been "no consensus". Based on these substantive and procedural issues, I ask that the deletion be overturned. Chaser - T 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (with editing and some writing credit to Postdlf)[reply]

Overturn and relist - nominating all of these together doesn't make sense and these two were an "oh and by the way" type of thing in the CFD. --BigDT 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-create or relist per the well-written and convincing nom. By the way, has anyone asked the closer if he would be okay with a relisting? Newyorkbrad 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've now asked the closer about relisting.--Chaser - T 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Most people in the CFD discussion indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be deleted, and only one or two people explicitly indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be kept. The fact that people did not explain themselves fully is not necessarily a reason to restore the category. Moreover, this category was nominated after a series of similar nominations for "nominees" categories at WP:CFD, as the discussion clearly indicates. Therefore, the people reading the discussion now may not fully understand the context of the discussion. I conclude that the deletion was appropriate. However, it might be appropriate to relist the categories simply because the discussion covered multiple marginally-related categories. The relisting could also be conisdered a discussion to build consensus on recreating the category. Dr. Submillimeter 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-create or relist, per nom/myself. Postdlf 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist Clearly there is further discussion to be had on this after such a detailed nomination. The correct place to do that is CFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist there seems to be agreement thatt here was not an adequate discussion. DGG 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The deletion was appropriate given the circumstances, but I think, judging from this nom, it should be probably be relisted to grasp a larger community consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Dr. Submillimeter, not per nom. --Kbdank71 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infoboxrequested

{{Infoboxneeded}}'s TFD discussion appeared to have a(n admittedly weak) consensus of delete and move to {{Infoboxrequested}}, which had been created during the debate AFAIK. As part of that closure, ^demon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted both Infoboxneeded and Infoboxrequested. Should Infoboxrequested have been deleted? If not, I'd like some discussion on the merits of restoring it, if only because it allows you to specify a particular template to be used on that article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was closed with the words "The result of the debate was deletion," and I don't see anything about a rename in that sentence. So endorse deletion, because no reason the closer made an incorrect decision has been provided. Picaroon (Talk) 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, the debate had nothing to do with Infoboxrequested. I saw no mention that it was going to be deleted along with Infoboxneeded. If the TfD had been amended to cover both of the templates, I could understand... but it wasn't. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of {{infoboxrequested}}. If we have infoboxes, we should be able to request them. This TFD never made sense to me... might as well delete templates to request pictures, expert attention, etc. --W.marsh 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation per W.marsh. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse TFD - no evidence that the deletion fell outside the Admin's discretion and there was a good argument presented for the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin's Comments - The way I read and understood the TfD (and please correct me and accept my apologies if I'm wrong) was that the {{Infoboxneeded}} and newly created {{Infoboxrequested}} were to both be deleted. I don't really care one way or the other about it, and I'll respect whatever the outcome of this DRV. I'm sorry if I read the TfD wrong and the latter template was to remain in place. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed like people kept arguing to delete based on the name "infoboxneeded", even after it was renamed. Only a few really seemed to argue for the deletion of both names. --W.marsh 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  As one of those in favor of deletion, I was certainly against the use of {{infoboxneeded}} and {{infoboxrequested}}. I didn't explicitly say "and the fact that it was moved to a new name doesn't change my opinion" because I thought it would be obvious, and I think ^demon made the right decision by deleting both. If you check the wording of the template before the move to its second location, and afterwards, you'll notice that the difference is really one of minor wording switches; they're saying the same thing, but the second one is doing it in a slightly less demanding way. A name change does not a new template make. Picaroon (Talk) 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution here would be to restore it and send it straight to TfD. That would remove some of the ambiguity of the infoboxneeded decision. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Rachel Moran (closed)

Loyola2L

I hope I did this correctly. Dear administrator. Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers. They are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is by far, not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on. Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. Their concern was that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 . Unfortunately, EditorEsquire, in the Loyola Law School talk page, presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restor the page and wait for the discussion in the Loyola Law School talk page to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval.} Updatethis12 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

endorse but permit re-creation if a good article is written that demonstrates their notability. The article which was deleted consisted of a one sentence description, follow by 4 links to representative posts.This was a fully justified A7. DGG 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to restore it, and let people work on it over time? --Updatethis12 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was not asked to take a second look at the article before it was listed here. If I had been, I would have offered to provide the deleted material to the user and explained that the article was not deleted based on lack of notability grounds, and no precedent has been created; rather, the article was deleted because it contained no assertion of notability, per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The nominator should also be aware that if the article is re-created with an assertion of importance, in order to avoid further deletion process but not speedy deletion, such as at WP:AFD, it would be good if it cites to reliable sources which verify its content and are enough to meet the notability guidelines for organizations.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I saw what must have been the original article in a Google cache. As DGG's comment (above) makes clear, it was fragmentary. There is not even an actual blog called 'Loyola 2L'. There is a set of people who sign themselves 'Loyola 2L' in comments on other people's blogs, in one case a blog at the Wall Street Journal. Though the quotation from Michael Sauder above is interesting, that quote is of way higher quality than any of the comments I saw signed by 'Loyola 2L.' Our discussion here at DRV is just to confirm that the speedy deletion was correct, which it clearly is. Nothing prevents someone from creating a new article in a User sub-page, obviously, and getting it reviewed. EdJohnston 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Google hits are a poor measure of anything for this kind of article. Are there multiple independant published reliable sources that could be used to verify the content and establish notability for an article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, which was proper, allow workup in userspace if the nominator can source and provide evidence of significance, but it sounds awfully as if the main reason for wanting an article is support for the group and a wish to bring it to greater prominence, rather than a desire to neutrally document something of provable cultural significance. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onesidezero (designer)

~~Note: the redirect Onesidezero Design should be deleted if this deletion is upheld.~~ Nevermind.

This article was speedily deleted supposedly because of a lack of assertion of notability. However, I maintain that the specific claim "Onesidzero is also the co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis which he runs alongside fine artist/designer Gurps Kaur," constitutes at least an assertion of notability. Whether the assertion actually constitutes notability or not is debatable, but I don't think this is obvious enough to deserve a speedy. (Note, I did create the article, but only because it was requested at Articles For Creation. I felt at the time that the sources listed were sufficient evidence of notability, though I was open to discussion otherwise; I certainly didn't expect a speedy.) Powers ^T 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Inkthis article has distinctly dubious sourcing - the purported BBC page is one of their user editable things, isn't it? Seems to me as if there might be enough credible sources for a single article between the two of them, but the deleted one was... not one of your better ones. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as I said, I didn't compose the article. =) With AfCs, I tend to err on the side of creation, figuring deletion processes will weed out any bad articles I don't catch myself. I just didn't think a speedy was justified here. Powers ^T 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Srikeit 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Overturn and list on AFD. A7 speedy deletion isn't for 'this has dubious sources', it's for when the article doesn't even show any sign of notability. If there's a chance of an argument in favour of the article, it should go to AfD and not be speedy deleted. On a side note, I think speedy deletions under A7 that come up for a DRV should almost always result in it being restored and put on AfD for full deletion discussion, as at least one person feels it asserted notability. --Barberio 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD per nom ... "co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis" constitutes an assertion of notability, albeit not the among the strongest I've seen. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list If it had said "famous annual graphic event" it would have been an obvious assertion of notability, but the exact wording shouldn't matter that much, as long as something possibly notable is given.DGG 19:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse for now not a great speedy, granted. I'd be tempted to overturn it, but not when even the nominator isn't sure if it belongs on wikiopedia. Go, do some thinking, and come back when you've made your mind up. And please don't create articles and leave it for others to 'weed out' the inappropriate ones. The deletion process isn't a tool to do your thinking for you.--Doc^g 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When working with AFC, I just create the articles. I weed out the obviously bad ones, but anything borderline I create so that the wider Wikipedia community can form a consensus on the acceptability of the article. I am not so arrogant as to presume that my judgment on a submitted article is always correct, thus I err on the side of creation. This is a collaborative project, after all. Powers ^T 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a project where we don't try to make work for others. Please do not create articles if you're not sure they belong on Wikipedia - we've enough work to do.--Doc^g 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to raise my threshold just so we can avoid a few AfDs. It's far better in my mind to keep useful articles submitted to AfC from being rejected than it is to keep borderline articles from being created. This article is a classic case in point. I know virtually nothing about the subject area discussed in this article; who am I to say, when reviewing it as an AfC submission, that this person is clearly not notable? I can express concern about notability, but declaring him obviously not-notable is a task for the community, not for me alone. Powers ^T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert into wikipedia articles you think may not be suitable. And please do not create articles on something you admit to knowing nothing about.--Doc^g 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (And as for my being unsure, it's true I don't know how consensus would rule in an AfD, but I am reasonably sure that this was not a proper speedy.) Powers ^T 14:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article. If anyone thinks it has merit, I'll undelete it.--Doc^g 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse I can't see the article but if the nom is unsure then we would be better off being asked whether a proper article created in user space can be moved into main. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can view the original submission to AfC in my DRV nomination above (it's linked as the word "requested"). Powers ^T 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. If an article is worth this much time and study at DRV, it ought to be worth a normal AfD discussion, where the issues are better focussed. Neither the creator (Powers) nor the speedy deleter (Naconkantari) made an obvious error, in my opinion, so there is no process or person that needs to be set straight. Just send the article to AfD and see how it goes. I left a note for Naconkantari so he can join this discussion if he wishes to. In my legalistic heart I know that the speedy was correct, but I have read elsewhere that WP likes to get to the heart of the matter by shortcutting procedural steps when it can reasonably do so. A completely correct sequence of events would be: (a) This DRV upholds the deletion, (b) Powers adds a sentence to the article claiming notability, (c) the article is re-created. Do people prefer that sequence? EdJohnston 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any sentences to add beyond what was in the article submitted to AfC. Powers ^T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and thanks for contacting Naconkantari. That was an oversight on my part. Powers ^T 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per "There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article". I think overturning and listing at AFD would be a waste of the community's time in this particular instance. The article should meet Wikipedia standards *before* entering mainspace. Orderinchaos 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 244: / Line 244: @@
 |}
-{{#ifeq:Category|Category|====[[:Category:Fictional ninjas]]====
+====[[:Category:Fictional ninjas]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
-:{{ln|Category|Fictional ninjas}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Category:Fictional ninjas|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Category:Fictional ninjas}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:{{#switch:Category|Category=Categories for discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Category:Fictional ninjas|Template=Templates for deletion/Log/2007_June_9#Template:Fictional ninjas|Miscellany for deletion/Category:Fictional ninjas}}|{{#switch:Category|Category=C|Template=T|M}}fD]]<tt>)</tt>|====[[:Fictional ninjas]]====
+|-
-:{{la|Fictional ninjas}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Fictional ninjas|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Fictional ninjas}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional ninjas|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>}}
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
+* '''[[:Category:Fictional ninjas]]''' – Original discussion endorsed – [[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 17:55, 14 June 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;" |
+:{{ln|Category|Fictional ninjas}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Category:Fictional ninjas|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Category:Fictional ninjas}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Category:Fictional ninjas|CfD]]<tt>)</tt>
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Category:Fictional_ninjas said to go here (after another told me to go there). You know, it's getting kind of tiresome. My arguments are there. In very short: it's [[:Category:Fictional samurai]] not [[:Category:Fictional samurais]], and [[:Category:Historical ninja]] not [[:Category:Historical ninjas]]. Also: [[Ninja in fiction]] as the main article. Every serious source uses "ninja" as a plural form; "ninjas' is a popculture word used by teenagers and in bad (or badly-translated) movies (these movies were actually an argument for "ninjas"). Dictionaries use both forms, but there's just no reason to favour "ninjas" and several to favour "ninja" (above). --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 260: / Line 267: @@
 *'''Endorse''' per Radiant.  --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''' original close with no prejudice to relist. As Radient said, DRV isn't the place to reargue the debate. --'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]''' ([[User talk:TheFarix|Talk]]) 20:00, 12 June 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>''
+|}