Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 1 April 2008 (fmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 24 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 26 >

25 March 2008

User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious (closed)

Dan Rosenberg (closed)

Userbox

Userbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The reason why this was deleted so many times in 2006 was because as a redirect it was a "cross-namespace redirect." At the time, the term userbox was not notable enough for an actual article - but 18 months later, userbox is notable enough for its own article. A Google search for userbox -wikipedia retrieves over 300,000 hits. My proposal (which got deleted today) was to write a [[Userbox]] article - for example: "A userbox is an infobox on a user page in a wiki community. It usually describes the user in a certain way. Userboxes can be organized in a userbox tower." Then along the top can be written For information on Wikipedia userboxes, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. When I became curious last autumn about userboxes, the first place I looked to learn more was Wikipedia. I was surprised to find no article, and no direction. There really should be something. Kingturtle (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, WP:ASR, the sheer number of times anything at all here has been deleted should tell you something. There is no way userboxes are notable enough outside Wikipedia that an article on them is warranted, and Google hits themselves tell you nothing. None of those hits appear to be relevant in the least. --Coredesat 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support overturning as this does not appear to be a correct use of the G4 speedy criteria as the original deletion debate quoted by the deleting admin was about a redirect not an article. However I doubt that there are reliable sources out there from which to write an article so see little point in overturning the deletion just for it to be quickly deleted at AFD afterwards; and also this might be seen as a backdoor way of creating such a cross name space redirect. If some reliable sources can be produced to demonstrate at least a shot at notability then will support overturning otherwise will have to say keep deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I am not trying to get anything through a backdoor here. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that might have come out badly, was not accusing you of doing so, but the perception it might be could explain part of the reasoning behind the speedy and could be an argument of deletion used by others. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote, but if it was improperly speedied under G4 (since apparently it wasn't actually a recreation of deleted material), then shouldn't it be undeleted so that a wider community can have a look at it and determine its notability? -- Kéiryn talk 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a temporary undeletion of the article for the duration of the deletion review (but there is little there - 2 to 3 sentences), if nobody else objects I will do so. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you should give the article some time to be written before it is put up for AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was around for five days before it was speedy deleted and if there was even one reliable source produced in the article or elesewhere covering userboxs anywhere near significantly would support overturning and would support giving plenty of time for a reasonable article to be written. What I was suggesting above was just temporarily undeleting the article (last four or five revisions so that non-admins could see what was being discussed here. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Does not meet G4 and is a reasonable topic for an article if sources actually exist. ASR doesn't mean we can't have articles about wikis, it is a style guide meaning that we can't have articles that say things like "Such as on this wiki". At some point I suspect we will have enough material to write a separate article on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, and that will be fine. I'll be interested to see if there is enough sourcing to make Userbox a real article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you have a proposed version? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote my initial stub version above, in my original post. Kingturtle (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, then. Doesn't look like an overturn would do much, but I don't know if a history merge with the G4'd version would be appropriate. The ref below is good enough for a short stub like that; if anyone really wants to know more, the link to WP:UBX will help a lot. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation. Unimpressive as it might be, I have found a non-wikipedia, non-wikimedia reference that discuss (albeit briefly) userboxes:
  • Overturn As promised above, should not have been deleted as a G4 as I explained above and a source has been produced as a starting point for an article which addresses my objection. We should therefore overturn the deletion and give time to see if a reasonable article can be created. Davewild (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn never met G4. Has been here many times, and has never been actually deleted in a community discussion. The full text of the article is ":''For information on Wikipedia userboxes, see [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]].'' A '''userbox''' is an [[infobox]] on a [[user page]] in a [[wiki]] community. It usually describes the user in a certain way. Userboxes can be organized in a [[userbox tower]]." Assuming Wikipedia is not the only wiki in the world that makes use of these things, an article would seem appropriate. DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm going to do what I usually do here: suggest that a version be created in Userspace first, with the proper sourcing. At this point it doesn't really matter if it was an improper G4. DGG already pointed out that it was simply an unsourced stub. If the subject is notable, a user sandbox version can be made and we can work from there. A mainspace version is unnecessary, and overturning this one will just turn into another mess at AfD that'll get dragged back here again.-- Kesh (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted WP:ASR and no case is made here for how on earth this is encyclopedic.--Docg 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with the specific connotation of "Do not delete a valid article as a cross-namespace redirect". It's pretty clear that if you can find sources that document the userboxitis on wikis in general, this is a valid topic for discussion - if not, this article probably shouldn't exist and should remain a redlink. Anyhow, since the article isn't protected or anything, I guess a draft would be more helpful than discussion in DRV. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yes, Avoid self-references applies here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, self-referential. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum fiction (closed)

Hi-C (rapper) (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_25&oldid=202666183"