Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jerusalemrose (talk | contribs) at 11:52, 21 July 2006 (→[[Joel Leyden]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 18 July 20 >

19 July 2006

Lostpedia

This website was deleted for good reasons but since then its notability has increased severely. It was mentioned in the following articles: Blog connected to USA Today, Blog Connected to the Guardian, Scifi.com site of the week, Business weekly article and newsday.com.

Also, similar websites (such as Homestar runner wiki and Battlestar Wiki) include no outside references and have a much lower google hit count and alexa ranking. --Peephole 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist LostPedia has been cited by staff associated with the show; Speaker, an official ABC source, has not only mentioned lostpedia in his blog (an official ABC source, evidential by the url alone, as well as the ABC 'terms of service linkage...), but has also apparently participated in the talk pages for his article on LostPedia. Additionally, most LOST-related forums(4815162342, dharmasecrets et al) tend to link to LostPedia as a reference site. --Kaini 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted Those are still scraps, but I guess it's known enough now to add as an external link on the Lost (TV series) article. About the other two, Battlestar Wiki looks like a good AfD candidate to me. ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The cited sources are: blog, blog, fansite, trivial passing mention, trivial passing mention. This is a 1,000-article Wiki of no obvious importance, encyclopaedic content amounts to "there is a Wiki", which can easily be included in a single sentence in Lost (TV series). Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, we need more than proof of the site's existence (which was never nin doubt in the first place). AfD result valid per process and per policy. The "some cruft exists, therefore this cruft must exist" argument has never been persuasive; Peephole should feel free to nominate those other sites if they are of even less imporance. Just zis Guy you know? 08:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The activity the talk page already gets at Wikipedia is very telling. Every week more journalists and bloggers cite it as a LOST authority. Every week a new Wikipedian requests a deletion review. Every week more and more data demonstrates the importance of this site. I believe the original article should remain deleted, but a new article about the site should be created. --Kevincroy 08:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The cited sources are not peer reviewed or edited, so verification hasn't been established. An "external link" at the popular article is still all that's needed. Geogre 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting, since any time Lostpedia gets added to that article as an external link, it immediately gets deleted. I guess the wikipedia isn't big enough for any mention of Lostpedia?? --Kevincroy 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's not much of an endorsement for inclusion if even the folks at Lost don't want the link in their article. Fwiw, I quickly browsed the talk page and haven't even seen discussion about it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to tell you, except that that is that and this is this. I should imagine, if it's a valid and useful wiki on the show, it should go there, but I haven't been to the wiki in question, while, presumably, the folks on that article have. All I know is that, as an adjunct to discussion of Lost, it should be an external link rather than an article, unless the website passes WP:WEB. It doesn't, so.... Geogre 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft units and structures

The article was deleted, after a lot of votes on both sides - but the deletion was done based on reasoning that was barely touched on in the AfD, and acknowledged as such. Namely, the article was deleted based on a justification from Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, while almost all the discussion revolved around whether the article crossed the poorly characterized dividing line to an unencyclopedic "game guide" under WP:NOT. There was a very good reason the article centered on the latter issue rather than the former: because it was pointed out very early in the AfD that the matters of verifiability and references are matters of quality, that are supposed to be solved by IMPROVING the article, not deleting it. I for one consciously avoided putting any effort into improving the article's references (though offering an illustrative example of one), to avoid having wasted time if it turned out the article was deleted under what everyone else seemed to understand were the issued under discussion. If the real issue was references, I could easily have edited the article to satisfy the issue in full resolution of the AfD. As it was, I think the rationale for deletion was out of synch with the meat of the AfD and based on an issue that had been explicitly removed from the debate. A high-quality, well-referenced rewrite comparable to Chess piece could easily be written, and would serve better than the deletion at satisfying the rationale on which the deletion was based. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. While I agree with the decision and the reasoning, I also feel it was out of process for the closing admin to close it based on his own personal opinion rather than the opinions expressed in the AfD discussion. -- NORTH talk 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the deletion but a properly referenced recreation should not be deleted under G4. I'd even support undeleting the article and moving it into userspace if you want to work on referencing it. Haukur 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree with the outcome, but only because this article was redundant, not because of the other stated reasons. However, the closing admin rejected the main arguments put forth, then deleted because it was unreferenced, which was barely discussed and normally is cause for clean-up rather than deletion anyway. Ace of Sevens 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, verifiability and original research were listed as reasons for the nom. The fact that those who wanted to keep it didn't refute/discuss this, is their fault, not that of the closing admin or those who voted delete for the nominator's reasoning. Personally, I endorse the deletion. Wickethewok 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply from the guy whose username is based on a Starcraft unit - Thanks - I was actually planning on doing a rewrite on my userspace to present for consideration - once I have the time! As it is I have to get back off to work - I'll post a link to a proposed rewrite hopefully sometime soon. As for redundancy, I think there is significant potential content giving an overview comparing and contrasting the units and structures, that would not be appropriate for any individual unit's page. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision, keep deleted without prejudice against recreation as an encyclopedic article. WP:V and WP:NOR can perfectly be invoked by the closing admin without ever being mentioned in the discussion. In this case it was even brought up in the nomination and after that astutely ignored (other than Reaverdrop's link to the company website) in favor of the WP:NOT game guide discussion. I don't have much doubt that sources exist for most of the material in the article, I just find it astounding how little a concern the issue of verifiability was for all involved, including the keep voters. The problem is less that the article cannot be encyclopedic in its ideal state, it is that it was wholly unencyclopedic in the state it was discussed, and seemingly to none of the keepers' concern. The article was from the ground up written as a game guide: "As such, each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s. For example, it used to be that a Footman and a Grunt each have equal hit points, in StarCraft, a Protoss Zealot has higher hit points than a Zergling but the Zergling can attack faster to balance this out." This is not how we write encyclopedias. There are two possible solutions to the current situation: 1. Move the content to a location where it is accepted as is, or 2. Start from scratch, writing it as an encyclopedia article. Keeping an article with a tenuous grasp on includability in the first place and remote chances of ever becoming an encyclopedic article makes Wikipedia worse. ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the notification. I've re-examined my close, and I failed to explicitly state "There is consensus to delete." Sloppy of me, since there was. That the majority of adminstrators' closes simply say "delete" does not escape me, so odd that I'm being chastised for greater disclosure rather than less. That this descended into an abstruse debate on what exactly is "cruft" is unfortunate, as it served only to distract from the "meat." One man's trivia is another man's precious jewel, and neither one not the other is likely to be convinced he's wrong. I do state explicitly not to disparage the effort put in simply because one doesn't like it, and I stick by that statement. - brenneman {L} 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This was a messy one, and it was skillfully closed. Friday (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Regardless of what reasons were given by the admin who ultimately deleted the article, there was a clear consensus to delete for justifiable reasons. Relisting is just a way to drag this out even longer. Dbratton 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and deletion, Aaron even relisted it for a further gathering of a consensus decision. This looks like process wonking, to be honest. If something encyclopedic can be made of it, userfy it for Reaverdrop to try again. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Wikipedia is not a game guide which the article was. Whispering 01:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. To me this doesn't look like brenneman espousing a brand new opinion, but rather expanding on why Wikipedia is not a game guide by citing other supporting policies. Of course this is a matter of semantics. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary undelete for transwiki - Disclaimer: I supported the original AfD. I believe brenneman's comments when closing the AfD were appropriate, and admit that his group admonishment about the scope of the discussion made me realize where things may have gone astray from the root cause, my own comments included. But, in re-examining the discussion, I know that I did not then, nor do I now, give a whit about basing the decision to delete off of WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:RS. If that means this article is restored for having been deleted "out of process" per WP:UNDEL, I can accept that. -- MrDolomite | Talk 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This issue is larger than one article's fate, it is about if WP:NOT a game guide and WP:CVG#Scope are valid support for an AfD. I feel that lack of a clear, crystal clear resolution, while generating good discussion, is becoming wheel reinvention, which is clearly not. If wikipedia is a place where even policies can change over time, then let us go there and discuss it. Still being new, I admit I know I do not know where "there" is located. And from looking at the AfDs, there are many editors who would be able to contribute to that discussion. -- MrDolomite | Talk 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Well within administrative discretion. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Gameguidecruft often creeps into articles involving a lot of articles regarding CVG (not referring to this particular delete). How do we prevent this (and thereby preventing a lot of this AfD mess)? The easy answer is "don't make articles like these, period", but that's a bias I think against CVG versus other forms of pop culture. I mean most of the articles on Final Fantasy and Warcraft seem to be able to avoid this (by focusing on lore more than the games). --ColourBurst 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment good point, ColourBurst. I know that I would suppport an overall article about the phenomenon/world/family/genre of StarCraft or any other CVG. At least for me, it is about where is the line between that and alleged StarCruft. My ideal would be to have redirects for specific terms, ie zergling, protoss, to the main encyclopedic article(s) of a CVG, which, in turn, would have links to detailed articles on other wikis. This would allow for zergling lookups on WP, something mentioned often in these AfDs, but not lose any content, as it would still exist in the wikiworld. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of film clichés by genre

This is a case of a deletionist admin who ignored the "no consensus" deletion vote and deleted the article anyway. This article should be kept - it is very informative.--Zxcvbnm

Jews did WTC

This was a disambiguation page linking to Conspiracy theories claiming involvement by Zionists or Jews in the September 11, 2001 attacks and Gay Nigger Association of America (as a phrase used by them). There was no reason for this to be deleted, as it could be useful to someone seeing the phrase but not knowing its meaning or origins. --SPUI (T - C) 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one speedying it, and admit that I didn't think very long and hard over it. I think deleting it was the obvious thing to do. It read like a really silly dab-page to me. I don't consider phrases comming out of GNAA to be worthy of inclusion anywhere, to be honest, and I'm wondering in how many ways it's possible to phrase that conspiracy theory and whether people really think we should have even redirects for them all. Shanes 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, I see no harm in this. I would prefer a redirect, but the phrase is ambiguous; roughly the same ammount of people would be looking for either subject. --SB | T 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most people have heard of the claims that Jews were involved in 9/11. 99% of people out in the real world have never heard of GNAA. I don't see any way that an equal number of people would be looking for either. Fan-1967 23:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore. Not a proper disambiguation page. If people are looking for either subject then they will type in the name of either subject.--Anthony.bradbury 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - This is not a common phrase, just a generic expression of a concept, and it doesn't need a redirect. --Improv 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We already give GNAA way too much credit. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute endorsement of deletion: Our lemmae are used by the outside world as validation and endorsement. This is not something that's necessary, and therefore it should not be here. The question shouldn't be "what harm does it cause" (in this case there might be some), but "what good does it do" and, of course, cui bono? Geogre 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as an implausible redirect masquerading as a disambig page. I don't like out of process deletions, however, if we grant that implausible redirects can be speedied (R3), why not disambig pages that contain nothing but the same? It is unfortunate that WP has not seen fit to remove the GNAA article and it most certainly does not need to be dignified by adding pages like this. Nobody is going to type in this term looking for either the GNAA or an article about nutty conspiracy theories. Thus, keep deleted R3. BigDT 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not a common term, neologism to the core. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion POV masquerading as a DAB/redirect. If people want to look for this type of thing they can find it through 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are so many pieces of trollery associated with GNAA that I don't see any need for this particular one linking back to them. The vast majority of people looking for this are looking for the 9/11 conspiracies. Fan-1967 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Out-of-process deletion. Spacepotato 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever happens to this one should also happen to Jews did 9/11, which currently redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories ~ trialsanderrors 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pending Review I can't see the page and would need to see it prior to stating an opinion. I will put in a request. In the meantime can someone explain why this would need to link to GNAA? I do not follow. Nisanu 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, GNAA doesn't nearly approach the level of notability for one of their troll phrases to deserve its own redirect, and in the absence of that, this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Also, the other redirect, to 9/11 conspiracy theories, is inappropriate as an attack redirect, which are routinely deleted. This page has no reason to exist, so keep it deleted. --Cyde↔Weys 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion lacking fact in addition to being insensitive to the Jewish employees of Cantor, Fitzgerald and several other organizations which retained Jewish employees in One and Two World Trade Center. Bonnieisrael 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per not a common term, lack of facts. Jerusalemrose 11:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarians

Joel Leyden

  • Joel Leyden was again deleted out of process by user danny. The Leyden article was in AfD twice and the vote each time was "keep." Leyden, who has served as an advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Defense Forces has over 15,000 articles about him on Google Web and Google News, has been interviewed and quoted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, AP, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, Christian Science Monitor among thousands of other international and domestic media outlets. In fact, Leyden is quoted again in today's Jerusalem Post. Propose immediate relist due to out of process deletion. User:Bonnieisrael Bonnieisrael 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) user has edited mostly on matters relating to Joel Leyden [reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Danny. Please see Danny's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination). In deference to Danny's position, I'm willing to take him at his word. Keep deleted. BigDT 06:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Out-of-process deletion. Spacepotato 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This is one of the occasions where AfD voters may not have all the information necessary for a good decision. Democracy works when the voters are educated and free, and in 99% of the cases they are both. In this case, Danny (and some other ancients) knows about the longish history here. This is a figure whose successes at spamming have led to his ability to generate Google hits, but he is attempting to advertise. No. Geogre 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, Proto's (and Danny's) justification in the AfD is more than good enough for me. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above, exactly. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I trust Danny on this, and I seriously question the contention that DRV can overrule Danny's decision on this matter. --Cyde↔Weys 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore deletion Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. --woggly 09:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. What is it about the words: Out Of Process that people who are voting to endorse deletion do not understand? We are not discussing the content of this article, rather that this article was deleted "out of process." If this article remains deleted as such then what we are declaring that all Wiki community rules and guidelines are meaningless. Propose to relist this article and then AfD if people believe that Leyden, who is an advisor to the Prime Minister of Israel, is not "notable." Maayanbaruch 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)user has fewer than 10 edits[reply]
    • In this particular case, the person deleting it is a part of the process. BigDT 12:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several matters at issue here. One is whether the deletion was out of process. A second is whether Joel Leyden is notable enough to merit an article. A third is whether the subject and author of this article has employed sockpuppets, legal threats, bullying, and wikilawyering both on and off of wikipedia in attempt to push his agenda on Wikipedia, and to what extent should that have any bearing on the deletion of this article. I will leave it up to others to decide the first point, and I'm frankly fed up with discussing the third. Therefore I will limit my comments to the question of whether Joel Leyden is notable enough to merit an article. I am willing to believe that Joel Leyden has on occasion communicated with Ehud Olmert, perhaps on said occasion he even gave him some advice. This does not make him "an advisor to the Prime Minister". I find it impossible to believe that there would be no Google results in Hebrew documenting such a relationship between Leyden and Olmert, as indeed there are none. --woggly 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user / adm has been the subject of a RfC by Joel Leyden and has recently edited mostly on matters relating to Joel Leyden

Not everyone who lives and works in Israel is glued to Hebrew. Although Leyden is mentioned several times for his work in Hebrew. I read the Jerusalem Post. Specops 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one matter at issue here. So that no one is confused or attention diverted, it is not the notability of Joel Leyden which can be debated in yet another AfD debate or simple Google search but rather the breaching of official Wikipedia policy in a Out of Process deletion of an article after said article was debated twice in two AfD with the result twice being "keep" by community consensus. Bonnieisrael 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only once after all: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Leyden. If you have proof of a second debate, please link to it. --woggly 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as per Out of Process. In addition, Leyden is an Israeli war hero. Just check CNN or the Christian Science Monitor Specops 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) user has fewer than 5 edits [reply]
  • Undelete--T. Anthony 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete: Dubious excuses for deletion, especially those which seem politically inspired, just don't wash. Leyden clearly has had a notable impact. Ombudsman 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. As per above, process arguments don't meet minimum requirements of relevancy. --Sahrin 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is an encyclopaedia, and our processes are not for spammers to wikilawyer their way into search engine indexes. Don't care how many times his incessant self-promotion has been successful, wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. Should have been done as an Office action so everyone, to quote the comedians at Wikitruth, could shut up. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete per Out of Process and Google Web / Google News searches brings up thousands (14,500 pages) of notable and respected references. Leyden serves as an advisor to the Israeli PM's Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Defense Forces, in addition to many other highly notable accomplishments. This Out of Process deletion is not about spamming or SEO, it's about a few here who have a political agenda which does not belong in Wikipedia. Restore immediately. Jerusalemrose 11:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of strike-breakers

REVIEW of LIST OF FAMOUS STRIKEBREAKERS Forgive me my NOOBiness.... I feel I have a valid piont about Facts and Truth getting lost in political heatedness and trying to find a way to seperate them.......

I was browsing through the Wikipedia recently and came accross an amazing page. It was a list of professional atheletes/actors who had crossed union picket lines during player strikes. A couple of times, I attempted to cross reference the list to the pages of the individual players and add a comment on the player page that they did, in FACT, cross a picket line during a strike.

Not only were my edits purged by Kukini, but the page listing the picket line crossers was also removed. I have subsequently done a Google search in an attempt to find a list of names, to no avail. Wikipedia was the ONLY readily avialable source for this information. This is information that is very interesting/important to me, as it's all I've been talking about since I discovered it's existence.

The information was removed on the grounds that it was a Pillory. Seemingly the word "scab" sets hearts aflutter when used in reference to people who cross union picket lines.

This is a valid point for the possible removal of the word "scab", EDITing the information, or disclaiming the entries. This is most definately NOT a valid point for REMOVING the information from Wikipedia.

I submit, that while a comprehensive list of all people who have crossed the lines in any strike (Believe me, every one of them is on a list somewhere) is excessive, the Wikipublic is entitled to have this information in regards to famous personages.

I am campaigning for a return of the list of professional atheletes/actors/famous people who have crossed union picket lines. Further, I would like to see the information cross-referenced to the individual pages of the said persons.

This information on the lives of the famous personages in question that is not only undisputed, irrefutable, FACT; but easily as important as the number of passes they attempted in their career. To omit this information is nothing short of sugar-coating the lives of sports heroes because their actions might be percieved by some as unsavory. Keep in mind that when you search Kobe Bryant, there is a paragraph on the Allegations of Sexual Misconduct which includes a link to a seperate page detailing the Allegations. If we can read about the Allegations concerning Kobe, why are the FACTS about the lives of NFL/MLB/SAG members who chose to cross picket lines being deleted?

I understand that this is a sensitive topic to some, but surely the FACTS can be presented as such. A simple list titled "players who crossed the picket lines during the 1987 NFL(MLB/SAG) players stike" would be wonderful and serve the Wikipedia community high standard for TRUTH without being a pillory.

If you support the deletion of this list, I submit that you also support the deletion of the five page Wikipedia entry :List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people for the same reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XxxSKOOKUMxxx (talk • contribs) 05:17, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

    • In the spirit of Don't bite the newbies, I recommend you stick around for a while, get used to the process (for instance, signing your comments with ~~~~), the jargon and the policies of Wikipedia before you decide to create such a sensitive article. I take you at your word that you didn't mean this to be an attack article, but we can only judge from the position of how a likely reader would see it. I don't necessarily think an article like that should never be created, but it requires a certain experience with the mechanism not to set off the trip wires at WP:AfD over a topic like this. Oh, and re List of GLB, all articles stand or fall on their own merit. ~ trialsanderrors 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Process was clearly followed correctly. -- NORTH talk 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the article, I found that it wasn't NPOV, and only mentioned the word "scab" once. However, after reviewing the AfD discussion, most of those seeking deletion cited it being crufty, only a few claimed it was NPOV. And regardless, there was clear consensus in the AfD discussion to delete -- I agree with Sam Blanning below that pile-on claims are irrelevant. Policy was clearly followed, and my endorsement stands. -- NORTH talk 09:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - the AFD got to pile-on delete status before an opposing view was given. I suggest relisting it to make sure that the correct decision is made. Honestly, from looking at the google cache version [3], I don't see the great rush to delete. It's a list that makes sense with the Strike action article. It isn't listing random words or other useless garbage. It isn't suitable for just a category. I'd say relist to make sure that the right decision was made. BigDT 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - pile-on delete status by people trigger happy and more concerned with deleting the aticle than making it NPOV. --Daniel Olsen 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - valid AfD, validly closed, and the claims of a 'pile-on' don't have any basis in reality. If the AfD saw lots of delete arguments, and then a well-reasoned keep argument, which was followed by lots of keep arguments and no counter-arguments, that would be evidence of an initial pile-on and the closing admin would be entitled to close as keep or no consensus, given the change in direction. However, in this AfD there was a consistent consensus for deletion all the way through. Every single keep argument was followed by more editors arguing for deletion, indicating that none of the reasons given for keeping were persuasive. Nothing to review here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Sam Blanning's excellent rationale. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I would also vote to relist to be certain of the right choice.--LifeEnemy 17:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion process was followed, plus argument was lost per Godwin's law. ~ trialsanderrors 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no need to automaticaly treat as evil everyone who has ignored an attempt by a disruptive minority to cause an unnecessary strike for its own sake. Britain where I live has lost much of its industry partly because strikes ad infinitum have priced British products out of the market. I have lived through it and seen it happen. Anthony Appleyard 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete: The subject matter is inherently of encyclopedic interest. Ombudsman 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos

The article was originally a stub, and was deleted for lack of information. I recreated it with new information and a goal to expand the article, and it was listed for speedy deletion as a repost of an old article, which it wasn't. I tried to debate the deletion at WP:SD and on the article's talk page, and tried to argue that I had and would continue to add new information, but it was promptly deleted anyway. I would like a chance to explain that this article is not what was originally deleted: it has been and will continue to be expanded, and I would like to be able to argue my case without the discussion being deleted.

--Daniel Olsen 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How are you going to discuss any of this without infringing copyright? Their list is their intellectual property, and reiterating it is a copyvio. Not repeating it would require talking about the list rather than providing the list, and there are some serious limitations of the utility there. Has the list made such a stink that other publications are reacting to it, that artists are trying to beat each other to make it, that there is a demonstrable effect as a phenomenon that can be discussed? Geogre 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think poll results really qualify as intellectual property. If it was a list that was put together by the staff or by some famous guitarists i would understand, but I don't think the poll results from this magazine are any more copyrightable than the poll results from an election. The copyright issue, however, is not the reason I am listing this here. I feel that here is potential for the article to expand, and after taking a little bit of initiative to expand it (with more planned) I am a little angry to see it get deleted simply because it was once considered useless. --Daniel Olsen 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The polls were conducted and published by a private organisation that has not chosen to release copyright on their work. Therefore, it is a copyright violation to publish their work. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, exit poll results taken by fox or NBC would have no right being published. Copyright protects the creative expression of ideas or information, not the information itself. --Daniel Olsen 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exit polls by NBC are copyrighted by NBC. They polled the voters, compiled the information and presented the information in a creative way, so they hold copyright. ~ trialsanderrors 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but not process. We can't have an article on every single magazine's annual seasonal spacefiller. But you're right, it should not have been speedied as a repost. If undeleted, then AfD immediately. Just zis Guy you know? 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is a poser. I suppose we could go for a relist where the author may present his case. I, personally, don't see how it can survive without being a copyright violation or unencyclopoedic. I have to endorse deletion, but I agree with Guy: talking is good, and especially when the author is doing a hangon. (One could answer from the other side that the author should have gone to DRV from the start, too, but that's no excuse, really.) If the author wants to craft an AfD-proof article in user talk space and then move it to article space and renewed AfD at the same time, that might work. Geogre 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways

Redirect was speedily kept despite 5 users supporting deletion and the only user supporting keeping was the author of the redirect. Closing summary given was, "The nominated redirect was kept, clearly a misguided or bad faith nomination," a violation of assume good faith. -- NORTH talk 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At the time the rfd was closed, there was an active drv in progress[4]. Although it was originally regarding the speedy deltion of the redirect, I did add a comment about the rfd to the drv, so it was available to comment on. While personally I think the drv should have been closed and the rfd continued (and not the other way around), because rfd can discuss a wider scope of arguements than drv, the fact that the rfd was mentioned at drv already and received no major opposition, would seem to me that it's been mostly reviewed already. Regards, MartinRe 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was unaware of the prior DRV. I still think the closure of the RfD reeks of something, however. -- NORTH talk 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    1. WP:POINT creation by SPUI to support his category renaming request.
    2. speedy request by me (deleted).
    3. DRV request by SPUI (undeleted immediately).
    4. RfD request by me.
    5. RfD closed within 6 hours.
    6. DRV closed as "moribund" a few days later.
    • In short, never had a real review anywhere.
    • However, the CfD/CfR to rename the category to match the redirect failed.
    • Meanwhile, SPUI continues to edit war over the redirect, the validity of the page where it redirects, where/whether the redirect should be used, and the text nearby describing his one (1) use of the redirect on a disambiguation page.
    • Yep, the RfD stinks, the DRV stinks, and it must be nice to have friends in high places....
    --William Allen Simpson 02:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this DRV, this has already been DRVed not too long ago. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion was reviewed, the RfD--while briefly mentioned in that review--was IMHO not. -- NORTH talk 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... good point. I was working off memory when I !voted as above. I hereby withdraw my !vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obviously useful redirect. William Allen Simpson is now revert warring to say that the King's Highways are now controlled-access highways due to a misreading of the law that designates them. --SPUI (T - C) 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Just clarifying my original nomination. There are a lot of things very, very wrong with everything surrounding this redirect. It clearly was originally made by SPUI against WP:POINT, although it may perhaps serve some useful purpose. It was then nominated for speedy deletion, and was deleted even though it should not have been (under the CSD), since it was not an "implausible typo", rather it was an alternate name. Thus I do agree with the original DRV. After the redirect was restored, it was nominated for RfD, a fairly common occurance after a page fails speedy deletion or prodding. That RfD was not allowed to run its course, and was closed as keep even though there appeared to be clear consensus to delete. I agree that it's debatable as to whether this consensus was accurate or not, since it seemed like all of the delete "voters" had a dog in the fight, but then, the closing admin Freakofnurture, while I would not go so far as to say he's in the back pocket of SPUI, does have a history of backing up SPUI even when it's inappropriate to do so. I think it's imperative to relist this nomination and allow it to run its course so that editors not so closely related to the earlier discussion can express their unbiased opinion. -- NORTH talk 23:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_19&oldid=65012557"