Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 6 Deletion review archives: 2008 August August 8 >

7 August 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
--Stormie (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IGO Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion without editorial concensus, based on opinion of one single editor, who refused to explain reasons for deletion nomination, despite many comments and questions from the article's author. Suspicion of an extreme case of deletionism and/or abuse of editor power. I would have thought that in Wikipedia it is not possible that one single person wrecks work of somebody else, without discussing, without opinions from other people. I would like to reopen a proper discussion about what, if anything, was inappropriate about the content, so that it could be improved. Marking the work of as 'blatant advertisement' was almost an insult, especially if the person failed to provide any reasons. Thanks for any help on investigating both the article publication and the suspected deletionism issue. Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid my suspicions of deletionism and power abuse are growing. When I asked for more information to the editor who had my article speedy deleted, the editor did not act on my valid complaints and questions, and even deleted my text from his talk page. Here is the last revision, where my complaint was deleted. How can deletions be discussed when people solely responsible for them delete the questions? I call for an objective investigation of this case, or for directions on how to conduct one. Thanks for any advice.--Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greetings, Corvus cornix. Summary: one single person has deleted my page without proper reasons, despite me actively trying to discuss solutions to the situation. What can a simple editor like me do in such cases? Please help. --Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you consider part of your question like "How does it feel to delete someone else's work if you are unsure it was a right decision, while you seem to have been just the only person who was of such opinion. Do you feel victorious? Do you feel you've done a good work?" to be in anyway constructive? I'm not really suprised they didn't want to enter into any significant discussion with you. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anybody looking into this case, please take into account my original points in the talk page which were deleted in mid discussion, and my points to user Corvus cornix at my talk page here, especially the following reasoning I put forward: I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the editor, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion is the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time, don't you think? Thank you. --Tomas J. Fulopp (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The article qualifies for speedy under neither G11 nor A7. The full content was: "' all websites of intergovernmental organization (IGOs) (currently over 3000 bodies). IGO-search.org has been developed in 2008 by the Union of International Associations (UIA), which has been collecting information on international non-profit non-governmental organizations since 1907. All of the IGOs, and all international non-governmental organizations, are profiled in detail in one of the UIA's flagship databases known as the Yearbook of International Organizations (Guide to Global Civil Society Networks). The UIA has created the IGO Search interface to facilitate public access to the rich variety of information that these bodies make publicly available." It asserts importance as the major product of a notable organization. It is a little spammy, but that can be solved by editing. It will need to have sources, however, but that's not a reason for deletion, and certainly not speedy. You did right to bring it here--there is no need to get personal. You probably should have asked the admin who tagged it first, but that's just a procedural detail. It might though have reduced tensions, so it's always a good step to do. You seem to have contacted only the relatively inexperienced editor who placed the tag, but the responsibility for deletion is on the admin who actually does it. DGG (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Assuming that the text quoted above by DGG is accurate, the article was, in large part, a copyvio of this. In addition, it seems to me to fall under CSD A7 (if not G11, which was the criterion cited by the deleting admin) as nonnotable Web content. A mention or external link in Union of International Associations or Yearbook of International Organizations might be appropriate, but a stand-alone article on a search page needs a more compelling raison d'etre than this one offered. Deor (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can write an article that asserts and establishes the notability of this Web content, which is nothing more than a custom-filtered version of a Google search, I don't see anything that's stopping you. However, we're here to review the speedy deletion of a different article. Deor (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Cogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am only asking for undeletion of edit history and (can even be protected) redirect per [2]. Thanks! Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've redirected the article already, as it's pretty simple to just restore the history under it regardless and I'm pretty sure the redirect is uncontroversial enough. I don't really see restoration of the history under it as terribly useful, however. I'm open to being swayed on that, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not. The suggested redirect target doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see any good reason to switch to a pure wiki deletion system on the sly here. The ex post facto redirect suggested is not a reasonable search term and does not benefit from the history of the page being attached (it would, in fact, confuse me to see an article about Toontown online redirected to GoW). The 'redirect and protect' results from the Warhammer AfD's and DRV's were compromises stemming from the fact that a significant amount of information that pertained to the parent existed in the redirected articles--history in that case could be used to selectively merge certain items to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) from a daughter article. It didn't define a new stance toward deletion or set the stage for the same sort of suggestion to be used where the 'parent' and 'daughter' articles have no topical relationship. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it wasn't a legitimate search term no one would have created the article in good faith in the first place. There's no reason not to undelete the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I don't think so. It seems that the validity of this as a redirect to Toontown was discussed and rejected by the closing admin. List of Cogs->toowntown seems like the most legitimate redirect. List of cogs to GOW, the current redirect seems like a real stretch but redirects are pretty harmless. But even if somehow we have decided that it is a legit redirect to GoW, that doesn't make the article history relevant. As for the article creation argument, people create articles all the time that may or may not be search terms for anything notable. Even if it is a legitimate search term for GoW, that still doesn't provide a reason to undelete the history. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it was a bad call, it is being reviewed here as there is no compelling need for the edit history to remain deleted. We don't gain anything from that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that's cool, but in my opinion that means you have an affirmative case to make that it was a bad call in this DRV. We can't just assume that it was and then proceed from there. And assuming that you make this case, you would also have to detail why it would be a matter to bring to DRV and not just discuss with the admin. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I always discuss with admins first, but after a day or so passed, when I elaborated on my request at a redirect and undeletion of the edit history, I did not receive a reply even though that admin was still editing. I have also of course notified that admin of this discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, no no no, I didn't mean that. I mean that if you aren't arguing that there is something wrong with the close procedurally, then maybe DRV isn't really the right venue. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, I didn't see any consensus in the discussion that was adamantly or convincing against some kind of redirect without the edit history intact. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok. But now you still have to make an affirmative case that the refusal to redirect was a bad call and that the retention of the edit history somehow makes sense given the current redirect target. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The fact that someone else went ahead and redirected after the AfD and has not been reverted shows that redirecting is not something being opposed. As to the edit history, those who originally created and worked on the article may be curious why it redirects there and the edit history is part of that story. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • But thats the thing. If it redirected to Toontown, the edit history might be part of that story. but it redirects to GoW. And it is also beside the point. the article was deleted. If you are prepared to argue that the deletion was wrong, then you can of course do so. but if the article was deleted, there is no reason to go around the deletion policy and restore the article history just because someone came along and created a redirect. I can redirect any number of deleted articles. Me doing that doesn't suddenly void the reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As much as I hate to use a WP:HARMLESS argument, having the edit history of redirectable articles undeleted should not be an issue unless if there is something copy vio or libelwise that must be kept from the public's eyes. Plus, one five day AfD with a dozen odd participants is not the end all of any article's content and what to do with it. If AfDs were definitive, then we would never allow renominations (and we do even though off-wiki sites mock us for it). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (outdent). None of those are reasons to overturn the close. the length of time at AfD's is a matter for deletion policy. as is the suggestion of a pure wiki deletion proposal. How did the close violate procedure or policy? Protonk (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I am asking for is to keep the already in place and apparently uncontested redirect, but also just undeleting the edit history. If the close violated anything, it closed as an outright delete even though a number of those who had the bold delete in the arguments actually said in subsequent posts that they wouldn't oppose redirects and if something is redirected there's no real reason not to have the edit history undeleted as well. A discriminate list need not have its edit history removed if redirected. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) unless there's an actual reason to restore access to the pagehistory. The AfD consensus was clear and I can find no process problems in that decision, nor any subsequent reasons here to overturn it. The assertion that the subsequent creation of a redirect is de facto evidence that the deletion discussion was in error or even that it was disputed is false. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no clear consensus for a deletion rather than a redirect with undeleted edit history. Assuming that one AfD is the end all of the matter is false. One AfD is not definitively binding on what we can do with the content in question. There's no actual reason not to undelete the edit history and keep the redirect in place. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no compelling reason to restore the history of the deleted content. Shereth 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus in the AfD discussion was clear that the article should be deleted, and that it did not contain content which was worth merging into another Wikipedia article (it has already been transwiki'd to a more appropriate place, [3]). --Stormie (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. 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 Ort Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Bramson ORT College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Incorrect deletion under G11 and G12 criteria. The G11 and G12 criteria specifically state that a page can only be eligible for deletion trough these category if:

G11 It is blatant advertising
G12 the article is a literal copy of the external source

Both of these do not apply anymore. The Ort Institute has been fully rewritten in a non advertising way (Copy can be found here). Even though the previous version of the page was blatant advertising and a likely copyvio (i tagged it for removal myself three times), In its current state the article does not, to the best of my knowledge, violate any policy in such a way to warrant a CSD template.

I also notice that the deleting admin has also removed Bramson ORT College, a page which has been discussed at WP:ANI for a possible copyvio ([4]). However, Since that ANI notice was placed several editors have completely re-written that article in a way that i cannot imagine it is still a possible copyvio, although i have no way to check this anymore Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn both After some rather sketchy allegations had been made that the Bramson ORT College had been in violation of WP:Copyvio (based on duplicate text on a Wikipedia mirror), the article had been restored to a previous version as a stub. I had added to that stub material that is fully referenced from reliable and verifiable sources. The article does not contain a word that can possibly be deemed to violate a copyright. Even if there was a perception that the policy had been violated, WP:Copyvio provides rather clear instructions for dealing with copyright violations: 1) the infringing material should be removed. 2) if all (emphasis in original) of the material violates the policy, revert to a non-infringing prior version; and 3) delete only if none of these can be done. In both cases, the articles had been completely rewritten to address any possible copyvio issues. The speedy deleting administrator has failed to specify what material has infringed on a copyright and has failed to take the required steps to address the supposed violation without deletion. As the G4 G11/G12 requirements have not been met and as both deletions are completely out of process, both articles should be undeleted. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Ort Institute was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, not G4, and Bramson ORT College was WP:CSD#G12'd. Also, a page with the title ORT INSTITUTE was previously deleted under G11 as well and is currently at DRV here. ORT INSTITUTE is salted due to repeated recreation, so I'm salting The Ort Institute pending the result of this DRV. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, already salted. lifebaka++ 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD justifications have been corrected. The argument that the deletions were improper stands. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops is also the word i need to use now. The template left on my talk page signaled it was deleted due to G4, but the log shows G11. Doesn't chance much to the case though, as the CSD sill does not apply. I updated the text to reflect the logs though. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both Firstly The Ort Institute was completely rewritten from the previous article deleted at ORT INSTITUTE (which I have endorsed the deletion of at the previous DRV) and cannot see it as being a page which 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. It does not look to be a bad start to an article for me. Also it is not a valid G4 as the nominator has stated (no previous AFd) and because it is completely different to the previous version.
  • Secondly the Bramson ORT College article appears to have been rewritten from scratch and not using any copvio material. Again it now looks to be a good valid start for an article. Therefore I cannot see it as being a valid speedy deletion for copyvio. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge discussion to the below DRV on ORT INSTITUTE. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: Both articles were recreated in their entirety after the other DRV had been initiated, and both articles contained reliably-sourced material when they were arbitrarily and unjustifiably speedy deleted. The discussion of these speedy deletions, and that they violated Wikipedia policy, is taking place here. Alansohn (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Both - I was one of the admins who G11 speedied the original version of one of these at ORT INSTITUTE, but the version at the new name looks much, much less promotional. And with the rewrite removing the copyvios at the Bramson article, I would have to say that neither CSD reason properly applied to the versions specifically in question at this DRV. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Astro empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wuite popular among gamers, and GameZone will give it a complete review. I suggest the administrator restore the article and let editors add reception from GameZone later. RekishiEJ (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer: It is my firm opinion that the consensus in the discussion indicates that the game is not yet notable, though the release of the GameZone review may change that. The review has yet to be posted to the site, however (yes, I did just go check), and so the article should not currently exist. I stated in the close that I'm willing to restore when the review is published. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from participant: I disagree with lifebaka. Notability was established early on via an article in the premier newspaper in Portugal. There was much discussion subsequently about whether other sources cited were notable, and I think it was agreed that some of the sources cited weren't notable. I feel the outcome should have been no consensus.--S Marshall (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a previous DRV because of the sources pretty well invalidated the idea that the other sources established notability, in my mind. WP:CORP also explicitly requires multiple sources for notability, which I did not see evidence of. Of course, this changes when the GameZone review is published, which is why I stated I will undelete at that time. lifebaka++ 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think WP:CORP would apply to an organisation rather than a game, and I think WP:CCC addresses the previous deletion review.--S Marshall (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_7&oldid=1144626342"