Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 25
Roblox (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I contacted User:Sandstein The admin who deleted the article, and gave him the link to the re-written article I have been working on. The previous article was deleted because the user writing it was using it as an advertising tool. User:Sandstein replied saying he was happy with the sources given and he thought the page was good enough to be re-instated. He then suggest that I bring my draft here for review. Our draft can be found here. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we have reached somewhat of a concensus. I say we leave it deleted for now and I will work on getting sources to better fit Wikipedia's expectations.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Human Achievement Hour (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Thehondaboy believes that this AfD was closed contrary to consensus, and brought it to the attention of WP:AN/I. This is the appropriate place for a review of the deletion, so I am beginning this review here. I endorse the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Reinstate - N complaint: Though never formally stated as N, several complaints were on whether the event is notable. While this may have been a problem at the initial creation of the article, which received a notice for deletion within hours of creation and it's first mention on a pro-environment blog (suspiciously indicating the possibility of the notice being from a biased editor), it was not a problem within a roughly 48 hour period after the notice was given. Well within the 5 day review time frame. N clearly states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The event is notable, and has been referenced in:\
N clearly states that notability is: Not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity. The evidence clearly shows that the event is notable, it does not matter if it is not popular to those who disagree with it or how famous the event is. SR complaint: The article was clearly high-quality in form and function and met the guidelines and clearly had a neutral point of view and was a verifiable event. NFT complaint: Obviously with the above cited verifiable references, the event is not "something me and my friends made up". The creator is a published policy analyst with a major Washington, DC think tank, and additionally the references prove it is not an idea within some group circle. The reasons for deletion were weak at best, but even then evidence is given here that completely blows any of those arguments for deletion out of the water based on WIKI guidelines, not anyone's personal opinion or bias. Failure to restore this article is ridiculous. Wiki's own guidelines dictate that is proper form to be an active article. It follows all guidelines, and any questions relating to reasons for deletion have now been answered in full.Thehondaboy (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Reinstate- Amazing myopia. The only possible explanation for the deletion of this page is "political activism." Censorship of political views is never pretty, and a dangerous step. WP editors have crossed the line- will WP remain relevant?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucio (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
And this attempt to get around the AfD [3] is a very bad idea - you don't seem to read your talk page, but if you continue to do this you might find yourself blocked (not by me, but it is the sort of action that gets people blocked). Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Reinstate While this article was clearly not notable at the time of its creation -- and thus was properly deleted -- the fact that several reliable and credible sources have referenced Human Achievement Hour since the closing of the deletion debate means that discussion must be re-opened to ensure that the article gets a fair shake. Following the article's deletion on March 25, 2009, articles discussing the subject have been published in sources including the USA TODAY, Time Magazine, Chicago Tribune Breaking News, Duluth News Tribune, and National Review's The Corner. Notability is not constant -- as WP:NN states, "subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence." The case for inclusion is much stronger now that the topic's notability has improved, and the only way to discuss the merits of the deletion is by debating its notability -- again. Assuming there is no dispute that the notability of Human Achievement Hour has grown significantly since March 25, the deletion debate must be re-opened -- whether or not you think the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Jaminus (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC) This deletion was a disgraceful event in Wikipedia's history. It's obviously a clumsy and ham-fisted attempt by ignorant young enviro-goofs to crush any dissenting views of the juvenile Earth Hour stunt. Even this discussion is filled with veiled threats by activists to dissenters to ban anyone who complains. Wikipedia is really lurching mindlessly into the control of partisan goon-squads. For shame, Wikipedia, for allowing such ignorance to take control. Bushcutter (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Deletion closer acknowledges there is coverage of the author's books, but says there is insufficient coverage of the author. But the coverage of the author's work is good evidence of notability for the author, and without the article on the author there is no coverage of the books at all (they don't have articles of their own). Also, the AfD nominator indicated that the article subject was notable, but needed work. This work was done after the first two delete votes, and a reopening of the deletion discussion to gain greater input for consensus was refused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Also, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that the closer offered an opinion rather than determining consensus and that this opinion didn't follow policy guidelines. Allowing the AfD to go on longer to determine consensus is hardly asking for another AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I temporarily undeleted it in the page history to facilitate the review. DGG (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse the close based on the article as it existed (there was nothing about the author himself, only his books) but I think the article could be improved to prove notability. I'm looking at it now. Black Kite 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion proper read of the consensus. This is not afd round 2. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I closed the AfD, so I'm not going to !vote in this, but I would point out that coverage of the author's work does not automatically provide good evidence of the author, and particularly I did not say that the books were notable; that wasn't in the scope of the AfD, nor of my closing rationale. --GedUK 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion DRV is not AfD round 2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Updated version at User:Black Kite/DP. Black Kite 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. There really wasn't a consensus in that debate and I'm deeply perplexed by previous remarks that suggest there was; am I reading the same AfD as everyone else?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The original "BS-daten" template, used on dozens German railway line articles, was deleted and replaced by "Infobox rail line". The new template has some major disadvantages: first it doesn't dovetail into the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it introduces a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a real hassle when translating articles and adds a lot of time to the process. There are a lot of railway line articles to go so this is a real factor for me. The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Haßfurt–Hofheim railway article and its de.wiki equivalent or what was my budding "B" class candidate, the Hof–Bad Steben railway and its de.wiki opposite number. Before I understood the deletion review process I'm afraid I created a new Template:BS-daten, but have been told this could be removed at any time, so I'm asking if we can sort this out. I hope I've used this process correctly - it's new to me.
I would be grateful if we could agreed to retain this template until such time as a multi-lingual version of "Infobox rail line" is produced which can handle "BS-daten" fieldnames and data and which also generates a single box combined with the route diagram template. Meantime we can legitimately undo the changes and continue to use "BS-daten". Many thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist This was deleted with only one comment. Apparently the problems weren't recognised. What should actually be done I do not know, but it clearly needs some discussion by those who work on the subject. The user is apparently new to WP process, and already he apologized if he wasnt following everything exactly, so I think the message above might not really be appropriate in this instance. DGG (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist – I agree with the nom that the replacement is not satisfactory. Occuli (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist - as the single user who !voted to Delete this template, I'm prepared to admit I was wrong here. I hadn't realised the problems with the replacement, and now I do I agree that this version is preferable. On the other hand, there are reasons to prefer a uniform standard, but this is clearly an issue which needs further discussion. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist - please note that Infobox rail line does have the ability to include the map template; this is a common practice on Amtrak articles. I'm going to demonstrate on Haßfurt–Hofheim railway and drop you a line. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the helpful responses. Stifle asked me to respond to his question. I didn't contact the deleting administrator because I didn't know the process. I acted in haste to reinstate the template (actually I translated the German one from scratch, so it may not be exactly the same as before, but it seems to work), but then decided it would be wrong to reapply it without asking the editor who made the changes (Erik9) why he was doing this. He then pointed me at this forum. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Relist to get a proper consensus, without blame to the deleting admin. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can someone explain what happens now? Does this get reviewed again? If so, where? Thanks in advance. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- After the normal listing period of five days expires, an administrator will judge the consensus and take the appropriate action. At the moment, it looks like that action will be to restore the template and relist it at AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist without admonishing the closing admin - clearly there is further discussion to be had about the issues surrounding these templates. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
Craig Barber (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was notable to a degree, and the image is public-domain. This should go through AfD again for fresh discussion. Samllaws300 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (logged in at a public terminal)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This category was deleted as part of a purge in 2007. I'm not convinced that this consensus against categories still exist. There are several articles and one sub-category that can populate this. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse, unless nominator can provide evidence that consensus has changed. --Kbdank71 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Plenty of similar examples in Category:Categories named after musicians e.g. Category:Rolf Harris. I know "other stuff exists" is not always a good argument, but in this case I believe that as these similar examples have existed for some time without causing problems, I see no problem in restoring this category. (I suspect that if I'd simply re-created it, no-one would have complained, as seems to have been the case with some of the other categories purged at the same time).
- As a counter request, I'd like evidence that categories like this are not acceptable. I'll raise the matter with the original nominator to get their view. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist How can we find out if consensus has changed otherwise? DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not demonstrate that consensus has changed. There is still a strong preference for navigation templates for all but the groups with lots of articles related to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse - no indication, despite the occasional aberrant result, that the general consensus against small and eponymous categories has changed. Indeed, presumption is against eponymous categories in general. Unfortunately with these band categories everybody wants their own favorite band to have a category so we end up with hundreds of cats with practically nothing in them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Fair enough, if general consensus is still against categories like this I'm happy to go along with it, but it struck me as odd that we have Category:Flanders and Swann songs, without an obvious parent category. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The parent is Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Otto is probably correct on this one (difficult to be sure as it depends to some extent on what the articles would be). Quite a few non-Ottos now think it is very odd to have Category:Four Tops songs, Category:The Four Tops albums and Category:The Four Tops members floating around apparently unrelated in category space. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've created a navbox, which has all the relevant articles I've found (so far). One thing I'm considering is renaming Category:Flanders and Swann songs to Category:Flanders and Swann songs and revues, so that it's a bit bigger. However that's a discussion for WP:Categories for discussion, not here. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relist DGG has hit the head on the nail. The editor has followed the letter of the law in coming to DRV to consider recreation of the category. Other than the circular reasoning of stating that it was deleted before and that there is no proof that consensus has changed, how on earth could we know if consensus has changed? On the other hand, the significant number of such categories that have been retained, as documented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 28#Category:Travis .28band.29, goes a long way to show that there is no absolute policy banning the existence of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)