Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elalan (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 28 November 2006 (→[[Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE]], [[Notable attacks by the LTTE]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 27 November 29 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)


28 November 2006

Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Fairmont Preparatory Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

After the AfD had started, an explicit and sourced claim of notability was made based on recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program awarded by the United States Department of Education, considered to be the highest honor that an American school can achieve. This claim was backed up with relevant, reliable sources from the United States Department of Education, provided to document the school's receipt of this award. We are approaching a strong consensus at both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 that receipt of a national recognition such as by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program constitutes evidence of notability. I must also question the one-sided dissection of the intent and reasoning of the votes of those who chose to keep this article, while failing to apply the same standard to other poorly argued votes ("because of, as the title states, being non notable") and several other unsupported and unargued variations of "non notable". Claims of non-notability included a claim that the Blue Ribbon Award is non-notable, a claim that is clearly contradicted at the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article. While we would all strongly prefer to see all those voting to keep an article demonstrate some more substance regarding their logic, the fact that an arbitrarily high standard of argument was upheld in only one direction, while ignored in the other, is at best inconsistent. There is no clear reasoned consensus for deletion, even with throwing out votes, other than based on ignoring the notability of the award. I strongly urge all those reading to overturn this deletion. Closing administrator was approached before opening this DRV and encouraged its creation. Alansohn 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sorin Cerin

Template:La/Sorin Cerin

New Info about Sorin Cerin.Translate Romanian Wikipedia and see the links there.The former article in english wasn't in accordance with reality and for that reason must to be re-edited.Cerin have published another four books/titles in Romania.L.Marchis 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia Marchesetti

Mattia Marchesetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

goolge search reply 12,500 results, and on the football club official site[1] have his real mage. i don't know User:Centrx why simply delete it using A7, no sources Matthew_hk tc 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serie A football player, as noted in the infobox. Needs sources, but I restored. Clearly no A7 (which is no assertion of notability, sources don't come into play with speedy deletions). ~ trialsanderrors 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE, Notable attacks by the LTTE

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)
Notable attacks by the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)
Note: Per a request I ahve undeleted the history of Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE for the period of review; also, I have merged the discussions (original discussion on "notable attacks" is below the line) Guy (Help!) 14:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two thirds of the users voted to merge or keep the page. I cannot see why the adminstrator concerned went ahead and deleted it when only one third of the users had voted to delete it. Dutugemunu 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan
    • Comment. As for the Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE page , I saw only one user making personal attacks on the others. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. If I remember there were 4 merge votes, 5 deletes and 5 keeps. So the deletes were in the minority anyhow Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion: This article does not aim to preserve NPOV or simply anything at all. All the incidents it actually had were only some 100 odd external links and just date, time and external link. This is completely POV and is based on a no of Govt. of Sri Lanka citations, when it is one of the parties involved in this racial conflict. This is like looking up the Sudanese archives to write in an NPOV fashion against the Darfur crisis. This article conforms to advertising the govt of Sri Lanka as a noble, humanitarian agency when it has thousands of gross human rights violation cases against it, and this article is only being used to establish GoSL's supremacy by defaming the other party involved in the conflict. My final opinion, as an editor, who conforms to WP:5P would be to delete this article to bring back NPOV to the coverage of Sri Lanka in Wikipedia, as well as this specific article. Proto, my thanks to you for taking into account the credibility of the actual votes - sockpuppets, anon IPs and everything. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan
**Comment. But two thirds voted either to merge the page or keep it. The deletes were in the minority. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. I dont think we shoudl delete pages simply because someone posts an AFD Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's patently untrue - I'm saying most of the 'keep' votes were either sockpuppetry or of dubious worth. There were, in total, 9 keep votes, of which 4 were definitely discounted, and 2 more were from sockpuppeteers or POV warriors. So you could say that three quarters voted to either delete the page or merge it. And as there was nothing other than external links to merge, the difference between merge and delete was minimal. Proto::type 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan
The users who voted for merge asked for the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to be merged with Notable attacks by the LTTE. Since you deleted both pages , you have actually gone against the merge and the keep votes combined. Certainly the merge voters didnt expect this page and the page they voted to merge it with ,both to be deleted. They expected the information to be merged , not to be entirely deleted. I would dispute the clain that these are no more than external links. Many Wikipedia users spent their time on creating these pages. Its not fair to just dismiss the work they have put into it. If content is lacking , you can wait for other users to add to it, not just delete the entire information Dutugemunu 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, one of the administrators has deleted the Notable attacks by the LTTE even though there was no AFD on it. He has justified his deletion by saying it is a fork of a page (Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE) which has an AFD. However Notable attacks by the LTTE predates Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE so it cant be a fork of Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE . There is no or little overlap between the incidents described in each page. Notable attacks by the LTTE describes military attacks while Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE describes attacks on civilians. Even the people who have voted for deletion on the AFD for (Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE have given 2 main reasons , that much of the material is from the Sri Lankan government and that the title contradicts NPOV. These reasons do not apply to the Notable attacks by the LTTE because I dont think any of the material is from Sri Lankan government and because no one objected to the titleDutugemunu 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deletion of the above mentioned article is a big mistake by some admin. It is the terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE that is a fork of Notable attack attributed to the LTTE. The Notable attack article is properly referenced and it does not violated WP:NOT, or WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:V, how do we restore it ?RaveenS 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also wan't to second Raveen's statement on this. Notable attack was well referenced and wasn't up for deletion, however "Terrorist Attacks ..." was the one up for deletion. I also second what Proto has said. He is telling the truth. I have watching from the sidelines and even admins such as Osgoodelawyer and Proto are being mercilessly attacked by these pro govt POV warriors. There is no level of decency in their attack , which are mostly personal. I am also testament to this situation. Elalan 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America

Gay Nigger Association of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

The article was deleted too soon before a real discussion could commence (and this was the 18th deletion debate for a contentious page). The article was AFD'd on the 26th and deleted early on the 28th. At the very least the article should be undeleted and a new AFD should be started or the old one restarted. TrollHistorian 06:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, possibly Speedy close. Valid AfD, there were a LOT of verifiability concerns brought up and none of the keepers had much to say besides that there were lots of previous AfDs. After literally years of sitting around unverified, it's not coming back. Let it rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were plenty of primary sources. I don't think you'd see a lot of secondary sources with a group like this. You'll see people responding to what they did. Regardless their trolls were pretty well documented and those affected often wrote about it. They meet any metric of notability from Alexa rankings to Google rankings. What the article needs is secondary sources. To delete and protect is pretty insulting because it doesn't even allow the article to improve and it doesn't allow us to actually add anything. Seeing as it was deleted over the period of 2 days. --TrollHistorian 06:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank was in the 250,000 range, and Google has 127 unique hits, neither of which are even close to high enough for an article. More importantantly, there wasn't a single Reliable source. There is no way such a fundamentally unverifiable article could be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was valid. Simply, articles need reliable sources. This one had zero reliable sources, and the comments in the AfD reflected that. All of the AfDs since July 2005 were speedily closed based on it have been nominated before. That is, there hasn't been a real AfD on this that could possibly be considered precedent since July 2005, in which the AfD was closed by someone who was or was previously a member of the "group", and many of the keep reasonings were still "there have been so many other AfDs on this subject". Most of the past AfDs were like this; this one was pretty sound and the discussion and decisions have to be based on Wikipedia policy and article standards. Quite a peculiar case history though. —Centrx→talk • 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid AfD per Centrx. 1ne 07:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Discussion was clearly heading for a consensus of delete. Keeping it open another three days would have made it more so, but achieved nothing else – Gurch 07:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - In short, Centrx and Starblind have it summed up perfectly. There is no way whatsoever we can source this article, and that is a core policy, we can't go breaking that now can we?. Most previous AfD's have been full of sockpuppetry and seriously, this was like the ESP MfD, we could let it go on longer but all it would really give us is more trolling and not much more meaningful discussion. -- Tawker 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This was an extremely skillful application of ignoring the waiting period rule on AfDs. Needless to say, this should only be done in the rarest of rarest of cases. theProject 07:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't have been speedy closed, and I rather suspect the main reason that it was is that Tawker wanted to be the one that finally got to Push The Button. (I can hardly blame him; I'd been refraining from a "Delete per all the misguided keeps above" for similar reasons.) That said, there's really no point in reopening this unless someone comes forward with a source that's reliable (i.e., not a blog), nontrivial (i.e., more than a sentence-long mention in the middle of an article about something else entirely), and independent (i.e., not created by a member). Endorse deletion. —Cryptic 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion per Centrx, the reasoning behind the AfD close was valid. Even looking beyond that, the "group" does not come close to meeting any policy or guideline (per Starblind), especially verifiability with reliable sources. Further, some of the keep arguments were forged, and the vast majority of them offer no actual reasons to keep the article (one edit summary reads "keep, because."). --Coredesat 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & relist - AfD closed after only 2 days, hence out of process. If consensus is to delete it after that fine, but an article that survived 17 previous AfD's deserves to run its full course. VegaDark 07:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion is clearly warranted per WP:V and WP:RS and re-opening the debate is inappropriate per WP:SNOW. Eluchil404 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion per TheProject. The fact that there were 18 previous AfDs showcases how WP:IAR is required. Danny Lilithborne 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Gurch. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This was the only AFD I've seen that was not a "OMG THIS GROUP IS BAD WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA HAVE AN ARTICLE FOR IT?" reason for deletion, as several others were. This was done in process, although it was closed early, but it was a definite delete.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow to complete its full course. I guess i'm just crazy... but you know we have policy for a reason. AFD has a timeframe for a reason... its not a to be closed on a whim process. Hell I hate the GNAA as much as the next guy considering they made death threats on my home phone! But even I can see this was done entirely out of process. I've no doubt if it had run its course the final result would have been a keep (just like the previous umpteen times). This early closure sets a bad precedent... can an admin just close an AFD when the side he likes is winning? Are people allowed to just keep submitting stuff on AFD until they get a result they like? I for one dont think this result is going to improve our steadily tarnishing image.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I've got the "process is important" userbox on my page, but even I'm willing to concede IAR here. The article fails inclusion standards at a core policy level. Unless that changes, it doesn't matter how many !votes for Keep arrived. That it still fails inclusion under those standards after 17 other AfDs does not indicate that we should give this three more days; it indicates that previous AfDs were not all processed properly (indeed, several seem to me to have been intended simply to ratchet up the counter to increase inertia in its favor). The best way to improve our "steadily tarnishing image" is to hold articles to the rules of inclusion, not to give this thing another 3 days to attract meatpuppetry. Serpent's Choice 09:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid (and inevitable) deletion debate. The only point in relisting is either drawing out the ineviatble or grasping at straws. --Calton | Talk 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion and salting. WP:SNOW and WP:IAR were well applied, as not a single 'keep' was valid in either policy or common sense. Well done to Tawker. The fact that the article went through 17 prior AFDs is not evidence that Wikipedia should have kept the "article"; it's an example of how easily SiGs and forum trolls get away with manipulating Wikipedia process and gullible admins to retain their garbage. Proto::type 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The debate was admittedly open for a short time, though there was more discussion than most seven-day debates, and the arguments were compelling. No new information had been presented by either side; the administrator closing the debate had seen all the original arguments. Unless new information can be presented which would significantly affect the decision, the debate should remain closed. —Psychonaut 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The only way to make this nonsense end is to stop closing these early. The early closes have no basis and only end up muddying the water. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse dleetion, long overdue. Historical problems with trolling and puppet theatre render AfD substantially unusable for this subject. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think after several years of debates, at least one reliable source would have popped up. Most of these debates degenerated into trolling and sockpuppets. --Wafulz 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28&oldid=90659421"