Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 9

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Falcons8455 (talk | contribs) at 19:49, 10 June 2010 (→SHAYTARDS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2010 June 8
2010 June 10 >

9 June 2010

SHAYTARDS

SHAYTARDS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

SHAYTARDS is one of the most popular users on youtube. Shay Carl definitly a YoutTube celebrity. If CTFxC aka Internet Killed Television has a wikipedia page I would think that SHAYTARDS HAS to definitly have a wikipedia page. I'm shocked that they didnt already. So, then I created one but it got deleted instantly. SHAYTARDS is even more popular than CTFxC and somehow they get a wikipedia page. CTFxC's total upload views is 76,205,601 and SHAYTARDS total upload views is 123,970,318. Shay carl also isnt on the youtube celebrities list and charles trippy and alli speed are. If you look up the definetion of celebrity on wikipedia this is it: a person who is easily recognized in a society or culture. If you were to ever watch the SHAYTARDS then you would know hat they ALWAYS get pointed out while they are out vlogging. I Highly suggest listen to both my suggestions. And if you let me create a SHAYTARDS page I will take the time to make it as best as possible. Thanks. Falcons8455 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The cached version indicates the speedy deletion was contested at the time. What grounds for contesting the deletion were cited, how did Wikipedians respond to that contest, and what discussion took place with Falcons8455 on the article's talk page?

    The reason I ask is that just from looking at the users' talk page histories, I don't see much evidence that we've fully complied with the last sentence of Wikipedia's fourth pillar. I also wonder whether the nominator has been told about the guidelines and policies that informed the decision to delete. From the nomination, it would appear that he hasn't, and if that's the case then Wikipedia hasn't exactly covered itself with glory here.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Im not to sure why it was deleted. I was making the article and then there was this thing put on top for requested delete. Then I try to put the hangon thing and say my reason for why it shouldnt be deleted and after im dont writing it I click save and then the whole page and everything is gone. I would really like a chance to get the page started and make it as good as possible. Falcons8455 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's how I was afraid you might have seen it. I'll be honest: I don't think DRV will overturn this deletion for you. On the facts of it, Starblind (below) makes policy-based points that it's hard to argue with. When he talks about coverage in reliable sources, that's what Wikipedia's definition of a "celebrity" is: someone who's made the mainstream news, and received more than just a passing mention. But you really ought to have had a proper explanation of notability in general and the details of how notability is applied to internet content like Youtube, and you should've had that explanation at the time. When DRV participants find themselves explaining these things to a good faith nominator such as yourself, that's always a sign that Wikipedians could've handled things better, earlier. It's also a sign that you need to see some FairProcess from us, i.e. a genuine discussion that takes account of the things you say and reaches a conclusion that you find intelligible.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse until we see a reason to undelete that isn't based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Specifically, let's see the substantial coverage in reliable sources you plan on using to source the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but not for the reasons given above. ILIKEIT, BIGNUMBER, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "reliable sources" are arguments for AFD. Endorsing because the cached version of the article gives no indication why the subject is important or significant. Nothing in the article indicates why this series is different from any of the other countless videos uploaded to YouTube. However, the deletion log should read "A7" not "Uh huh". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that ... when I deleted it, I saw that it had been recreated multiple times and I incorrectly thought that it was not a serious article because of this sentence, "It all started when he wanted to do something big for his birthday." Since it had been deleted multiple times, I didn't investigate further beyond only seeing a youtube link and I incorrectly assumed it was a joke/hoax page. (Obviously, it was not and I should have left a better deletion summary.) --B (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the article gives no indication, and none appears to be forthcoming, as to why the person is important or significant, but, as per S Marshall, strongly criticize several of the steps taken so far. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On seeing B's response, keep deleted per Stifle. I would be grateful if the closer of this DRV would avoid using the word "endorse". It's quite apparent to me that the deletion process was not correctly followed in this case. Refreshingly, B offered no excuses for that and indeed apologised, which mitigates any ill-feeling caused by his inattentive use of the tools.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean Ron? The article showed all the awards that Shay carl was up for. I think that shows how differnt he is than other youtubers. He was basically on every award nomination list there was. Plus that is just 1 source that could be used. Falcons8455 (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hoh

Mathew Hoh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject continues to be noted in the media and is one of the most prominent critics of the Afghan War strategy. Here are some of the media citations including several since the close of the AfD. The BLP 1-E closure appears faulty.

Freakshownerd (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article deleted on 6 March for lack of notability; BBC news mentions him on 13 March; The Guardian mentions him again on 16 May. (The other sources' coverage predates the AfD.) However, I would question whether the BBC or the Guardian source is anything more than a passing mention. So there's evidence of ongoing coverage, but not enough coverage for him to be independently notable. I also note that Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) now contains a total of six mentions of Hoh, including some prominently-featured quotes, which gives us an obvious redirect target.

    I'll endorse NuclearWarfare's close as a correct reading of the consensus at that time, but go on to say that in view of the new evidence before us, a redirect to Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) could reasonably be created.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think stories like this one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html in the Washington Post and the ongoing reporting on his views amount to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Wikipedia is better off excluding coverage of an officer and diplomat with first hand experience who is one of the most noted critics of the Afghan War strategy? The coverage of his experiences and views and the nterviews of him by Fareed Zakaria, Al Jazeera, etc. etc. as well as the countless citations in all sorts of international media aren't enough? What exactly is the one event that he's being deleted in regards to? Is the Afghan War a BLP-1E? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't considered the Washington Post story. The reason why I haven't considered it is that when the AfD took place, that source already existed. You see, this isn't AfD round 2. We're basically here to think about two things: first, did the closer make a clear mistake?—In my experience that particular closer very rarely makes mistakes at AfD, and when there's doubt he apologises and opens a new discussion. I don't ever recall feeling that Nuclear Warfare should be overturned here. But second, and more productively, are there new sources that we need to consider? That's why I read the BBC and Guardian sources quite closely and formed my opinion on the basis of them: because they're sources that the AfD didn't take into account.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please address how Matthew Hoh qualifies as a BLP-1E despite the very substantial coverage over many months in reliable independent sources, including extensive discussion of his years of military service in the army, as a diplomat, and most recently as an outspoken critic of Afghan War strategy who has been interviewed, discussed and cited in numerous media sources. Do you expect his significance as the highest ranking U.S. official to resign over the Afghan War strategy to disappear or diminish in coming months? Freakshownerd (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he is a BLP1E. I'm also on record as having said, several times, that I don't like the BLP1E rule at all. But the consensus is against me on that, because the AfD's already happened.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this award http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03h.shtml he just received in April (after the deletion discussion). And S Marshall's comments are a bit misleading because the ABC news story was on March 3 and was not discussed at the AfD that closed March 6. And Hoh is not simple "mentioned" in these articles. There are paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs about him. The Washington Post story, as an example, is 4 pages long and focused entirely on Hoh. So apparently they deemed his story notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My suggestion is one that I make pretty often here, which is that if you can improve on the article that was deleted at AFD, you're welcome to recreate it, since it's not protected. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SQL

User talk:SQL (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Just adding - unable to inform deleting admin because he has protected his improperly deleted talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1) he still has admin tools, 2) the history may contain information relevant to previous admin actions he has taken, etc and 3) no valid reason for deletion has been proposed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice for them, any chance mere mortals might be let in on it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't work - I think [1] is what he is really looking for. There isn't really any specific background there (nor would I expect there to be as obviously it was public at the time he said it.) Without wanting to give exactly what he said out of respect for his privacy, I would sum up what he said as "there is a good reason for it to be deleted". --B (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry about the broken link, and I agree with B's summary. I would also note that I could not locate any instance of SQL specifically invoking WP:Right to vanish at any point. I have also sent them an email to notify them of this discussion. — Satori Son 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn as abuse of admin power and against guidelines. Admins are meant to be no different to other users and other users would have been denied a speedy delete and very probably denied deletion at WP:MfD, so this admin should have gone through MfD. If we start to allow one rule for admins one rule for everyone else we're on very dangerous ground. Additionally we don't allow user talk pages to be deleted in case there's anything of later use in the history. We have no way of knowing what may be of use so saying it isn't useful now isn't a persuasive argument. Yes if it looks like it would be useful in the future someone could come to DRV then but how many would a) know what to do and b) be bothered, therefore I think it's best if this is undeleted. I second DuncanHill's comment about being able to see his reasoning, at the very least someone should restore that conversation. Dpmuk (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, because there's no reason why a retired admin's talkpage ought to be treated any differently from a retired non-admin's talkpage. Before that's done, though, please would an admin examine the history of that page closely to see that there's nothing in need of oversighting. Also, SQL's admin rights ought to be revoked for the time being. He should be able to request their return without a fresh RFA on satisfying bureaucrats about his identity. (The reason for this measure is because the nasty, cynical part of me is worried that an inactive admin account might have a commercial value.)—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why shouldn't a retired non-admin be permitted to have their talk page deleted? How is having his page restored going to preclude the possibility that his account could be compromised/sold/whatever? --B (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No idea. But for whatever ridiculous reason, it's not done. According to WP:RTV, a user's talk page is only deleted after a MFD discussion, if at all, so an MFD ought to take place in this case as well. As for the possibility of a compromised account, I said two separate things in my remark and I think you've conflated them together.—S Marshall T/C 06:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, rules are rules isn't a reason. Obviously, I don't agree with that current language. As with many things on Wikipedia, it's a moving target - it did not used to be there and was added unilaterally without discussion in February 2009 [2]. I think it's a bad rule because it precludes someone who is undergoing harassment from being able to vanish without airing it in public. (Again, I have no idea if this was the case with SQL.) --B (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I recall, the language at RTV was changed to bring it into line with what SPEEDY already said, and with accepted practice. I do not recall such opposition in the past to requests to have improper deletions of talk pages overturned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is good reason for it not to be listed as an explicit criterion - so that mildly disruptive users cannot demand that their pages be deleted, then resume their antics under a different account. There are some things that are clearly appropriate to delete, but for which a firm rule cannot be created because of its potential for misuse. I consider this to be one such thing. We delete user talk pages from indefblocked users all the time (see Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages). I would think we would want to be at least as polite with our good faith users. --B (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You still haven't produced any specific reason why this out-of-process deletion should be allowed to stand. If you want the Criteria for Speedy Deletion to be changed to allow admins to speedy their own pages and then make themselves unavailable for discussion of their (entirely unknown in this case) reasons, then do so at the relevant page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in the absence of a pressing reason to ignore the rules, they should be applied. I also think it's DRV's role to see that they are applied. I agree with DuncanHill that the onus is on you to show why the rules should be ignored. The onus is certainly not on me to show you why the rules should be enforced!—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No rule should be enforced (or action taken) unless the benefits outweigh the harm. Wikipedia is not the US Congress - we have rules because they are generally agreed to be the best/most efficient/whatever way of doing things, but they aren't divine revelation and that's why we ignore them as needed. The benefit of restoring this page is that it's potentially more convenient to research someone's two-year-old contributions for a potential RFA. The harm is that it potentially violates SQL's privacy or makes it easier for someone to harass him. The potential harm seems to outweigh the potential benefit. --B (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no right to privacy here, from the moment one hits "submit". This Bush-era "you don't need to know" cloak and dagger stuff is bullshit, to put it mildly. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely, there is at least some slight difference between the level of accountability that should be required of our government and the level of accountability that should be required from someone who is potentially a 13-year-old kid. --B (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well now, there's a can of worms. Yes, to my eternal despair, there are children among our admin corps. Tell me there's a child protection issue and I'll not only endorse the deletion but personally request oversight for the contents of the page. But aren't you also saying the page history is innocuous?—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn-No reason for this page to be deleted. Even if he really must have the page protected, at the very least the history ought to be visible.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. User talk pages should not be deleted without a very good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per ""there is a good reason for it to be deleted". --B (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)". We don't want to know the details. If B is satisfied, I am satisfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should clarify and I apologize if this wasn't fully clear from my comment, I was summarizing his comments on his talk page as "there is a good reason for it to be deleted", not saying that "there is a good reason for it to be deleted" is my conclusion. I am NOT privy to the reason he wants it deleted and he did not specify what it was. I can speculate/assume/guess that he was being harassed and/or had a privacy concern relating to something in the history, and I fully support him leaving the talk page deleted so long as he does not return and reclaim the admin privileges, but I do want to make it very clear that "there is a good reason for it to be deleted" is my summary of his comments, not my analysis of the situation based on any actual information. I hope that's clear ... I didn't want to copy/paste exactly what he said out of respect for his privacy in case there is something in there he would like to have remain hidden. --B (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more important than his reason for deletion is: Is there anything particular on the talk page that really shouldn't be deleted - ie something related to ongoing issues involving active editors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything ... I went back to mid-2008 and looked at each version prior to archiving. Most of the conversation was just stuff relating to his bots. I didn't see anything along the lines of wikidrama. The worst I saw was in June 2008, someone arguing about their bot being declined. There are exactly 200 edits since October 2008 (when he basically went inactive, returning sporadically until March 2009), and the majority of those from eyeballing it are various posts from bots (eg, delivering the Signpost). I'm not inclined to spend all night and look all the way back, but I don't see anything particularly exciting in the last two years. --B (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - if he returns, the page can be restored. There is no reason that someone who is not active should be required to maintain their talk page. Plenty of Wikipedia users are harassed in real life because of their Wikipedia activities and if someone who has been retired for a year feels more secure by having his talk page deleted, so be it. --B (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per B and per Newyorkbrad, but should SQL return at any stage it should be undeleted without further notice. It would greatly help matters if SQL resigned sysop tools at this time. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newyorkbrad has actually said that there is no special circumstance requiring the page to be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the page - I see no legitimate or policy-based reason to allow a retiring admin to cover his tracks like this. If there are individual revisions that are for some reason problematic, then oversight can be requested. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cover his tracks? His admin actions are all still open to scrutiny by anyone - the only thing that is changing is his talk page history is only open to hundreds of people instead of millions. --B (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is impossible to scrutinize his actions without access to any justification or reasoning he may have given. It is now impossible for any non-admin to make reference to anything that may have been said on his talk page - whoever said it - so it is not only his behaviour that can no longer be assessed honestly, but also that of anyone else who contributed to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, my first thought is that this is an issue not unique to departed user talk pages. There are plenty of deleted pages with extensive histories (anyone remember Esperanza?) and we're certainly not going to undelete all of deleted Wikipedia just in case someone might have said something rude at some point in time that needs to be scrutinized. My second thought is that the content since October 2008 is mostly trivial (with the single exception of the conversation about the deleted talk page, mentioned above) and I looked back to June 2008 and found nothing controversial. Even if someone's contributions are being scrutinized, it's rare that anything more than 2 years old would be particularly relevant. My third thought is that if there is a specific request (eg, please review a particular user's deleted comments for this RFA or please look at SQL's talk page for a particular conversation about a bot that he mentions in a certain BAG request), that request can be accommodated by an admin. I think the unlikely potential for a two-year-old talk page to matter outweighs the reasonable right to privacy that we should afford our editors. No, I don't know what the situation is, but I can certainly imagine it. For example, I was harassed some time ago in the real world by an individual who was seeking to harass anyone associated with the deletion discussion of his article. If I were concerned about the possibility of that harassment continuing, I wouldn't particularly want years of talk page hanging around for this person or similar people to search through for more information about my family, etc. Forcing users to leave their talk pages here for all eternity only makes them more likely to be subjected to harassment. --B (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_9&oldid=367271821"