Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 August 16
2007 August 18 >

17 August 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zeitgeist the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not sure if there are reliable sources. Post reliable sources here. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Incompetence – The last edit was to PROD this, which process had two days to go. This was an invalid speedy, and an unnecessarily accelerated prod that has effectively now been contested. The deleting admin has not responded, and so I'm going to undelete this on the grounds that the prod was contested. Note that wikt:Transwiki:Incompetence shows that the transwiki was correctly completed. – Splash - tk 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Incompetence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article improperly transwikified with loss of disambig and "See also" info. Prior AFD vote results were disregarded. Azazello 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AfD. I can't see to what degree the deleted article was a trivial dictionary definition, but without further information it seems speedy deletion was misused - speedy deletion only applies to articles that were transwikied as a result of an AfD, not articles that were transwikied on someone's own initiative - see WP:CSD and WP:TRANSWIKI. Evouga 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Permanent North American Gaeltacht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Permanent North American Gaeltacht was deleted for verification reasons. Personally I didn't know how to cite myself (I live across the road from the site, speak Irish, and wrote the article. Any information I stated was verifiable, but from non-online sources (such as the letters from Eamonn O Cuiv received on the official opening). This site was endorsed by Uduras na Gaeltachta, and despite what some claim here, is a full gaeltacht not a college. for a complete description see sources such as (http://www.nwipp-newspapers.com/DN/free/324892792346375.php) which gives a detail of the site planned as the learning centre, helping to preserve the culture and language we posess. Also, being rejected because of size (as one claimed, Erinsville is to small) is just ridiculous. UNDELETE_verified by me, and others. -- Danjdoyle 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The history of this article has been restored pending closure of this review. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't cite yourself. That would violate the policy Wikipedia:No original research. You need to rely upon reliable and published sources, preferably independently published secondary sources. The actual consensus of the AFD was a failure of WP:CRYSTAL, for which the only solution is the production of sources as described in the prior sentence. Consensus in the discussion is clear, so endorse deletion. GRBerry 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technical point: you can cite yourself if you have published the facts in question in a reliable source. In mind I have academics who routinely publish in such a way, and could legitimately cite their own papers as a result. (Not that we'd know if they were pseudonymous). Splash - tk 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; consensus to delete was clear. DRV is for cases of improper deletion (or improper retention), not for deletions/retentions one disagrees with. —Angr 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion view - this was properly closed based on consensus and with no overriding policy issues. Recreation should be permitted once this settlement becomes a verifiable reality. Bridgeplayer 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Even were it real, it would need to pass beyond mere existence to be encyclopedic. There are any number of gaeltachts about. One even tried to teach me Irish, once. However, they have a hard time remaining, gathering subjects, and then having a demonstrable effect on the world. Geogre 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the standard here is verifiability; all the notability in the world is not really useful if no one can verify it Offline sources can be cited; however, they still need to be reliable and you still have to cite them in some form. I could see the article being re-created when and if it has some sources to back up notability --Haemo 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion provided that it's noted that re-creation with sources is acceptable. SamBC(talk) 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Agree with SamBC. Proposer of restore asserts that he has access to sources which confirm "Gaeltacht" status. Assuming these can be provided (and verified), re-creation would seem acceptable. Without however, issues with VER/CRYSTAL remain - certainly if "Gaeltacht" used in title. (Otherwise can only ber VER as a "project" or "school" or "language education centre" or similar, and any other "aspirations" remain CRYSTAL.) Guliolopez 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Closing admin interpreted the debate correctly. If that settlement has a library, I'm sure that some WP:RS material could be located from which the article may be recreated. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The intention of this page is to provide a resource for interested parties to obtain information on this State Organization. The copyright violations that were described shall be corrected promptly and we request that the page and it's content will be Temporarily reposted in order that corrections and source sitations can be made. Thank you. Lefirre 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We never restore copyright violations. The risk to whomever actually acts and to Wikipedia are too high. Endorse deletion of acknowledged copyright violation. GRBerry 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy. Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations beyond fair use quotes is nonnegotiable. --Farix (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion view but allow clean recreation. Naturally, to safeguard the Project, the article cannot be restored. However, as a state department the subject is eminently notable so there cannot be any objections to a new, clean article being produced. Bridgeplayer 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, not a copyvio State of California web pages created by the State are public domain, except for material that may have been copyright elsewhere: "in general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. " [1] This information is linked from "Conditions of use" at the web site quoted in the article, [2]. Incidentally, the same applies to Texas. I know it may apply to some other states, but I do not know just which ones--it does not apply to all. GRBrry, you have more experience than I at this, could you check? --:the material should be rewritten anyway--it is much too heavily PR for an encyclopedia page, but that's a secondary concern.DGG (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG is correct that http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/conditions.htm says "In general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." However, what do they mean by information? That isn't clear to me, and I'm not an expert on copyright law. The page that was the source also explicitly says "© 2004 State of California". Given this, a plausible interpretation is that copyright is at best questionable. I've asked for some assistance. I incline to being conservative and keeping deleted since a complete rewrite is pretty much needed. GRBerry 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy delete The source also explicitly stating "© 2004 State of California" is enough to meet speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After 5 days, the result was clearly keep. The AfD was not closed. After 10 days, there were a few more delete votes, but there was clearly no consensus. A non-admin closed the AfD in frustration at lack of admin action after the failure to close had been reported on WP:AN for two days. The AfD was plagued by argumenative sockpuppets of Kephera975 and/or indef blocked user Frater FiatLux as strongly evidenced in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd), both of which were also ignored by admins despite requests to review on WP:AN and/or WP:AN/I. The arguments that these socks presented were for the most part invalid, and based on bald assertions of various writers' membership in the order without any valid citation to a source where the individual self-identified as a member. Due to the argumentation, El C incorrectly deleted the article upon review, apparently w/o taking into account the sockpuppetry and/or single purpose accounts and invalid arguments. IPSOS (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it appears that the AfD was never transcluded onto the daily logs or elsewhere, so the consensus was not representative of the entire community. At the very least it should be overturned and properly relisted. IPSOS (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken into account all the factors presented and have nothing to add beyond what I already stated in my closing statement. Thanks. El_C 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected GRBery's request that I overturn my decision. Again, I was aware of the factors. Enough established editors participated. El_C 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: there's a whole host of WP:COI breaches going on in that AfD discussion. While I originally voted to merge I now agree with the current closing decision based on the earlier closure by a non-admin who was partisan to the debate. At the same time, the allegations of sockpuppetry against User:Kephera975 raised by User:IPSOS have yet to be proven and this is a clear failure to assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. I'm not getting in to this debate again, and I have already noted my own suspicions that the AfDs were raised in bad faith in the first place, but that does not mean we're free to cast aspersions against fellow editors with whom we disagree, willy nilly. I am certain that the closing admin took the merits of the article, and the debate, into account when making the decision, rather than the 'who might be a sock of who' tit for tat going on between User:Kephera975 and User:IPSOS. ColdmachineTalk 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This behavioural guideline notes that editors who fail to disclose an interest in a given topic, particularly when making controversial edits (and I would include debate on an AfD as potentially controversial), risk being accused of a conflict of interest and this template, which might be placed on a users' talk page, makes specific mention to "participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I refer here to the non-admin closing the debate, and to this removal of a clear COI some time ago, but I am assuming good faith and have refrained from templating people. The debate, and the notability of the article in question, speak for themselves. ColdmachineTalk 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, an interest in the subject is not the same as a conflict of interest. But I'm sure you knew that. IPSOS (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, El C took the correct action here. Neil ム 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Due to an honest mistake by the nominator, the AFD was never transcluded in any of the AFD daily log pages. (The nom omitted the word "The" when attempting to transclude.) This is a basic issue of procedural fairness that compromised the entire AFD discussion, and is itself necessary and sufficient reason to compel a no consensus closure or a relist. I probably should have closed it myself as no consensus when I first learned this, instead of just leaving a note in the AFD for someone else, so I award myself a WP:TROUT for failure to take the correct action myself. But a delete outcome is the one untenable outcome given this procedural failure, so overturning is necessary. The unresolved sockpuppet concerns are an additional issue, and hopefully someone will step up to resolve them (I have no expertise to inject myself) prior to relisting. GRBerry 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that really matters. It was in the AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) category, and was later noted on AN, so many people noticed it. I, myself, never even look at the convoluted daily log, refering instead to the topical categories (although admittedly, I am the one who created the AfD categories). I don't feel this procedural oversight really hindered the balance of the debate. El_C 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the sockpuppet allegations were taken to account, within reason. I don't think another closing admin can do better on that front. El_C 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the sockpuppet point, what I meant by "resolve them" was figure out which, if any, are valid, and issue any appropriate blocks. GRBerry 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understood that. The point is that it just wasn't that pertinent as a factor, in any case. El_C 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. -- Avi 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone please take a look at the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page? User:IPSOS has now merged the majority of this deleted article into the main page. In the edit summary he lists it as "including a summary of the most significant contemporary golden dawn order". Isn't this out of line? Kephera975 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think the omission from the log mattered--clearly everyone from both sides saw the debate. DGG (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Clearly there is no consensus in either direction, yet El_C indicated that he was interpreting the consensus to, broadly, indicate a failure to satisfy notability requirements. Notability is a question in this issue, but there are book references that mention the organiazation, so that is still open issue and should be discussed when the AfD is relisted. Most certainly there is no consensus on that AfD page that there is no notability. Out of the 14 editors who listed !votes, only 5 of them were for delete. 2 were for merge, 1 suggested splitting the article and starting over as a stub, and 7 specified keep. That's not a consensus.
If El_C had stated "there is no consensus but I don't think it's notable" that would more accurately reflect the action, though I would still question the decision. It is not fair to declare a consensus where there is none.
Aside from the !votes, that extremely long AfD page is so full of contentious bickering and repeated arguments by the nominator who apparently has a COI, and at least one pair of sockpuppets, that there is nothing even approaching a real consensus and it would be hard to see it even if it was there (I am not accusing the nominator of being related to the sockpuppets, but there are sockpuppets involved).
In Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete it states, and it is written in bold: When in doubt, don't delete.. That is the correct action in this case: restore the article and relist the AfD. In the relisted AfD, use extra vigilance to avoid long rambling arguments by COI accounts and the nominator and let the process proceed as it is intended to work rather than devolving into chaos as it did this time. Choas is not consensus, the AfD should be relisted.
I have written a lengthy response here, but in case anyone is wondering, I have never edited the article or articles related to it so I have no vested interest. --Parsifal Hello 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Reassess hi just to say that the AfD was listed on the main list of current things at the time, so it was open for the whole community to comment. I thought the result, from all the comments and opinions that were given, would be keep though. There are problems with non-admin closures with a lot of the AfDs (some people are too mad for doing it.) Much as I love Glass-thingy (the bloke who closed it) if he was involved in the debate it's clearly wrong for him to close it. I don't think it needs the whole shebang again though, I'm surprised an admin kept it as delete and think the consensus, arguments should be reassessed by someone else.Merkinsmum 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned by the level of apparent promotional activism. From what I saw, all the established editors who commented opted to delete. AfD is not a vote and the deletion guideline is not intended to be cherry-picked in this way. El_C 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wanted an univolved admin to close as "no consensus". Sorry it dosen't work that way. This promotional attitude is far off from that of the average established editors, so, yes, I have my suspicions. Of you, too, seeing how you are revert warring over the restoration of deleted content in the other article (which I thereby had to protect), merely a few hours after it was deleted. El_C 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No established editor that I know can possibly cheer on an involved user when he struck out his vote and closed the debate. El_C 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wonderful sentinment, but in point of fact, no cheering has occurred. If you think it has, please show some diffs. I and other editors have stated that we agree that the non-admins conclusion was the right one. That's entirely different from approving of his action. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you." (diff of full post here) IPSOS (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's untrue; I'm uninvolved and I don't really care. I have gone to the lengths I wish to to illustrate the extent of the disruption. But if you continue to revert war over the restoration of deleted content, be prepared to face further censure. El_C 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • El_C, you wrote: "all" the established editors who commented opted to delete.
Your comment is not only incorrect, it is a basic violation of AGF and disturbing to see that coming from an administrator. In what way am I not an established editor, with over 2800 edits and hundreds of edits helping resolve disputes at WP:WQA? And, I've never edited any topics related to that AfD.
That shows you completely discounted valid "keep" !votes by good faith editors without actually checking our contribs. I don't know why you did that, perhaps you were angered that a non-admin closed the discussion. There is no evidence that I or most of the others who added "keep" comments have any vested interest in the article.
By stating that only the "delete" votes were those of established editors, you acknowledge that you did not consider the "keep" votes at all, making your close of the AfD biased and unfair.
Whatever happens with this deletion review, I ask you to withdraw your negative characterization of myself and the other editors who do not deserve to be spoken of in that fashion. --Parsifal Hello 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not acknowledge that; it was a well-rounded decision that took everyone's opinions and all factors into account. El_C 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you took everyone's opinion's into account, why did you say "all" the established editors who commented opted to delete. ?
Please tell me in what way you find that I am not an established editor, or that I have any promotional activism on this topic. My only activisim in the debate was to try and fairly identify SPA accounts that were disrupting the discussion. I've never edited any related articles, and I came to the AfD from a report at WP:WQA.
Aside from your decision on the AfD (which I believe was hasty and incorrect), that characterization of me is just plain wrong, and it's unfair. I think you're wrong about several other editors too, but I'll stick to what I know absolutely for sure for now, which is the facts about myself.
You marginalized my comments by stating that I am not an established editor. That's unfair, uncivil, and I ask that you withdraw that statement. You're an administrator. You're supposed to set an example of the best, so please show us that you are. --Parsifal Hello 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: this should not imply any form of criticism of the closing admin. The lack of transclusion is a severe problem for an article which is already something of a battleground. Hornplease 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that its a battleground is precisely why soliciting wider, neutral "oh-I-just-stumbled-across-this" opinion is more, not less important. Hence, not a technicality. I certainly scan the logs. Hornplease 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there are lots of tit for tat sockpuppet pages being filed and absolutely none of them have been proven, as far as I know there's no conclusive decision of anyone being a sockpuppet of User:Kephera975 and so that claim should not be used to decide anything. Not saying it's necessarily untrue, who knows, but it's certainly not proven and for all way know some editors could be sockpuppets of people on other sides of the AfD argument too. i don't get El_C's latest comment either- please explain? Any AfD may get promotion by its fans while established eds disagree. that's not a matter for concern, though with no wiki-able reasons for the args, they can be ignored. but anyway, the vote didn't go their way, so wasn't biased.Merkinsmum 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Ipsos is right too, several established eds voted keep.Merkinsmum 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that care if this notable group makes it? Go ahead, overturn it, "vote stack" the relisted AfD and close as no consensus. El_C 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the current AfD listings for that day I think, along with all the others Keph listed. I think that's how I saw it, unless I just tracked it down from those other ones. It's not like uninvolved eds didn't contribute. Oh and I agree with Parsifal, I too am an established ish editor having been on wikip for over 2 years, with over 1000 edits. It's a bit rude to say all those who voted keep aren't established. I don't know if I voted keep, as I was a bit turned off by the ravings of the HOGDinc fans. But I'm surprised that the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn got through and this didn't. Because I imagine that there are more sources for HOGD Inc, though they're maybe not as novel.Merkinsmum 21:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, when in doubt delete and El C has once again taken a wise decision from what I can see, SqueakBox 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's absolutely counter to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which clearly states the opposite, When in doubt, don't delete. I sure hope you're not an admin. IPSOS (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? Because my view of wikipedia differs from yours? We actually need more middle aged professionals and less clueless kids as admins if we are to prosper as a project, thank God for admins like El C who use their own judgement, SqueakBox 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does age have to do with this? IPSOS was referring to an official guideline that states that opposite of what you wrote. Why do you assume, when in doubt delete, when the guideline says the opposite? What's so important about deleting on a whim rather than relisting and allowing for a more functional debate to create consensus? --Parsifal Hello 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great I'm a middle aged professional, why don't you nominate me? I've done a little searching and notice that you go around behind User:El C and give him kudos for actions others find somewhat out of line, like in this thread. I admit I'm rather curious about why you might do this... IPSOS (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)I dont think this is the place to discuss more general issues but age does mean better judgement 10 times out of 10, IMHO (though I have no idea how old El C is). I have been thinking about this issue for a long time now thropugh extensive wikipedia experience. Sticking to the point, a half hour assessment of the situation is not a whim, and that is what El C has done so I fully trust his judgement on this one and we still have Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which is clearly notable and covers this interesting subject amply, SqueakBox 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I withdraw the use of the word "whim." But I still don't understand your inverting of the WP:DGFA guideline When in doubt, don't delete, and changing it into when in doubt delete . Would you please explain your reasoning on that, other than by general support of the actions of El_C? --Parsifal Hello 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Er, what are you talking about, IP? I endorse one action of El C in nearly three years and you are giving me a hard time for it, as if I somehow dont have the right to support an admin whose positive actions I have seen so many times over the years. Please stop this line of editing as its not going anywhere and is off topic, we are absolutley not here to discuss either El C or myself, SqueakBox 22:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No SqueakBox you miss the point. You reversed an established recommendation of Wikipedia - reversed it mind you ! - and then have the temerity to gloss over it and comment on a straw man - this is not good enough, is it? What is going on here? El C and his dodgy support? This merits closer attention from other admins, I would suggest. What began as a dubious decision to delete (against consensus) is now a bigger issue, is it not? docboat 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think not deleting is an established recommendation and if it is its one well overdue for review, SqueakBox 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't think that ...." is just not good enough. First off, you are wrong. If in doubt, do not delete - that is the current policy. You may not like it, but there it is. Secondly, because you have an opinion does not justify acting to the opposite of established procedure, does it? If you have an issue with Wikipedia policy, then work to get policy changed. Anything else is anarchy, and admins should not support anarchy, nor should supporters of admins, should they? Mind you, I am a middle aged person, so perhaps my views are a bit suspect too, huh? And thirdly, if you are a fan of El C as appears to be the case, I would really advise you to be "on board" with Wiki policy, or risk jeapordizing El C's position - as it is, he is on very shaky ground with his recent decision. But that is just my opinion as a middle-aged established editr with no axe to grind on the recent article debacle - just a very strong sense of "something being very wrong" with recent events. I am calling now for admin review of the whole sorry affair. docboat 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squeaky, don't forget anyone can be any age with any qualifications on the internets, not that El_C is like that I'm sure and not to say anything against him in any way, but think of Esjay:)Merkinsmum 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe that closes like this (ie, based on arguments and policy, not head counts) are fine, and I don't think the sockpuppets were a big problem, nor was the lack of listing in the daily log a problem. I just think the arguments here for deletion were refuted in Parsifal's comment and so I don't think the debate can be called on the side of delete. I would recommend not relisting until the sockpuppeteers have been blocked, though. After that a relist might make sense. Mangojuicetalk 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to procedural errors and lack of consensus. When in doubt, the result is no consensus, which means keep. Postlebury 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per failure to include on the daily log. If the result of the discussion had been clear, this error would be harmless, but it wasn't. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice to relisting. The AfD really comes down to notability concerns. The notability was borderline, there was no consensus, and the editors as a whole were leaning to Keep. El_C pushed his own judgment in closing this as Delete. Clearly El_C had an opinion just as GlassFET did. There's no rule that a closer has to be unopinionated, but while the first closure did reflect the outcome of the AfD, the second was rather bold in my opinion. — xDanielx T/C 06:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I am an established editor, have no axe to grind, and have reviewed the material. I am sorry El C - your justifications do not make sense, they are contrary to the AfD discussion, and do a disservice to the wikipedia. I would expect a complete explanation of your decision taking into account the statements expressed on this page - statements you have answered very poorly, IMHO. docboat 10:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I hesitate to go through an AfD with all the arguing again (yawn) if the AfD had been closed not long after 5 days there would have been a clearer and less confusing AfD result to read, even if it was 'no concensus'. It's not El_C's fault- I thought of nagging an admin to put us out of our misery when it got to 6 or 7 days, but didn't. Assumed this one would end up a keep to be honest, as it may be more well known/ have more writers members of it than Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. Some people are more keen to delete articles if they are about occult/new age or paranormal groups or subjects. Not saying El_C is necessarily like this.:)Merkinsmum 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, looks like the AfD was poorly handled at several points. Bryan Derksen 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice to relisting. While notability was borderline, there was no consensus to delete. I would recommend that it not be relisted immediately, simply to give editors an opportunity to correct the weaknessess that were identified by discussion. I am sympathetic to the problem of how to determine what groups are notable, and often would argue for deletion of borderline groups, but this one seemed to have potential to be interesting because it illustrated for me the difficulty of tracking lineage in this tradition. Buddhipriya 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as one of the those whose comments were discounted as being an "involved" party, I just want to let everyone know that I am in fact a member of all the religion projects, and have done several assessments for all of them. I don't think I've yet really really edited a single article related to this subject, though. Actually, my specialty is biographies of Christian figures, and my own personal beliefs are pretty much contrary to those of the adherents of the group in question. John Carter 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment me too, I've flirted with various spooky stuff over the years but never been involved in an order based on the 'Golden Dawn' or any of the related orgs. Nor had I edited any of these articles until a few days ago. If you look at my edit history until a few days ago it was mainly on alt med articles, and reading the AfDs. These golden dawn AfDs have inspired me to try and improve some of the articles.Merkinsmum 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist anew - The lack of transclusion on the daily log plus the lack of clear results. The admin closing this DRV should do the listing at AfD to ensure that it is done properly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lolcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was deleted about two months ago due to it's newness and lack of reliable sources or notability. Since then, it has spread surprisingly fast as an esoteric programming languages, including being the subject of a Microsoft joke and Media coverage of that. It was also apparently mentioned at linux.com(another page linking to it, which might be an RS in itself) , although that article seems to have been deleted for some reason. It has been the subject of academic lectures at Australian National University, which according to our own article has been rated as one of the top universities in the world, and the top in Australia. It has also been mentioned significantly in an article by the Houston Chronicle, while it was discussing Lolcats. It has been mentioned in a Computerworld blog, although I agree blogs are almost never RS. In addition, in just two months, it's GHITS have gone from around 750,000 to nearly 950,000. Also, as the original AFD and DRV stated, it has a rapidly growing community, and has made it onto the front page of Digg, Reddit, and del.icio.us. It is clearly 'out there' enough to be notable, if not then, now. Lucid 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I do want to note that someone has already taken the initiative to recreate this at LOLCODE. That particular version doesn't address the notability concerns, though. --- RockMFR 07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, I didn't know about that. Per MOS that page should probably be redirected to 'Lolcode', though. That paeg, as it is now, is rather unencyclopedic, and could probably be speedied for making no claims of notability --Lucid 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article, it's currently a protected redirect to Lolcat, but there's plenty of resource and reference out there for a full article on the topic. Merge in from LOLCODE, as the deleted article was better. Neil ム 11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't seem to be protected, I can edit it fine. I just brought it here to make sure there was a consensus to restore it before I got into something ugly --Lucid 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, you're right. The protection has expired. I'd wait for a few more views, but I would imagine that an article is now fine, provided all those lovely references above find their way into it. Neil ム 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note about that "blog" you mentioned: it's not really a weblog. I'm the (freelance) author of Computerworld's IT Blogwatch column, of which that was the entry for June 4, 2007. It links to blogs, but has a similar level of editorial oversight as other articles on computerworld.com (albeit posted before edit and posted as part of the "Blogs" microsite) ... richi 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, it would have as much reliability as all the news reports going "Hey grandma! Look what's happenin' on those tubes! Look at the CRAZY ANTICS your kids find hilarious!" Thanks for letting us know, although it's kinda creepy you found out about it so soon. Small series of tubes, I suppose --Lucid 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't hurt to have a copy in a sandbox to peak at and merge into a rewrite of the version mentioned by RockMFR, found here. Should just run with that recent edit, source it to the point where NOTE is plainly present, and then move it from LOLCODE to lolcode to preserve the edit histories. Not one hundred percent clear on the point of the DRV, given that the deletion and initial DRV were fairly straightforward. No policy issues/gaffs brought up here, just newly published sources. MrZaiustalk 01:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse well I dont have any articulate reasons right now but if you know me you'll see where I am coming from, SqueakBox 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - LOLCODE is really a perfectly legitimate programming language, with compiled and interpreted implementations. It has become very well known in the programming community, and sources are all over the place. LOLCODE has nothing to do with lolcat, other than the fact that both are humorous and have "lol" in the name. — xDanielx T/C 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The LOLCODE syntax was derived from phrases commonly used in lolcat captions. The two are definitely related. WarpstarRider 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's fair to say that LOLCODE was to some extent inspired/influenced by lolcats, but I don't think the connection is strong enough to embed LOLCODE within lolcats unless LOLCODE is deemed not notable enough for its own article. A popular language with somewhat unique syntax and what not really merits its own article. — xDanielx T/C 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per xDanielx AshbyJnr 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore we have extensive articles on programming languages even more esoteric than this. Tomgreeny 03:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I was the admin who closed the AfD as delete, and I'm satisfied that the primary concern of the AfD -- lack of reliable sources -- has been addressed, and a verifiable article can now be written. --Krimpet 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, now - No substantive reason to restore before, given the rewrite/recreation, but now: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=LOLCODE it's been axed again, and on relatively shaky grounds. This after it having been sourced with several of the links above. A second AfD might have been warranted, but deleting based solely on the first was not, IMHO. (Note that I was not the creator of the recreated page.) MrZaiustalk 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, plenty of sources now. Bryan Derksen 06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_17&oldid=1138429114"