Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mock Duck

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by User:Cyde. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mock Duck

Another semi-notable gangster. Was speedied then recreated, Never been to AfD Alex Bakharev 11:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my original speedy nomination. Was re-created out of process, should have been taken to WP:DRV. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that is where you are wrong. Speedy deletions are not under the classification that you proposed, ie, db-repost. Ansell 12:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It's somewhat easier to assess the notability of people when they're dead than when they're alive and this case is an example (cf Joseph Todaro, Sr AfD just above this one). Has been mentioned in a novel, a study and a magazine article. Appears to pass WP:BIO even by modern standards.Kavadi carrier 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and severely warn User:Nunh-huh for misuse of rollback, incivility as well as violating WP:ASR. This is not what administrators should be. – Chacor 12:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rollback was not misused, I have not been uncivil, and I made no self-references. - Nunh-huh 12:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback#Dont.27s - "Do not revert good faith edits." – Chacor 12:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I rolled back an edit which was inappropriately made using popups, as the person who did so acknowledged. - Nunh-huh 12:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. Since he noted and apologised you should have manually reverted. To roll it back was absolutely inappropriate. – Chacor 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, manual reversion would have been a better solution. - Nunh-huh 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - referenced, semi-notability asserted. Doesn't seem too problematic right now. The fact that Nunh-huh has behaved inappropriately (and I am rather shocked by his behaviour) shouldn't have any bearing on the article itself. riana_dzasta 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article is referenced. What is the actual reason based on the deletion guidelines? If there is none this should be a speedy keep. Admins edit warring to keep irrelevant db-repost tags on pages should have no bearing here. as stated above. Ansell 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• We are currently undergoing a major cleanup of material which used reference works by Jay Robert Nash as either a sole or primary source. I'm not entirely sure how many details I'm at liberty to mention (I'd have to ask Jimbo, I think), but there are some serious problems. Consequently, the article needs to go, at least temporarily. DS 15:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch, using his books as a source is definitely ungood. If this was indeed a character from his books, delete. humblefool® 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - althought this is moot because mr Cyde speedily deleted the artricle again without waiting for the result of this Afd - Skysmith 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep old revisions deleted, but recreate article from better sources. Naconkantari 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Findagrave.com has a decent bio, with extensive contemporary quotations from the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle". Probably a good place to start. Choess 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to close this as a non-admin, since it's already been deleted. Cyde specifically said recreation was approved as long as better sources are found. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.