Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December

TS-MA2 Moebius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

conversation seemed to be one sided. the article was removed because of in universe techno babble but we have other articles on scifi and fictional equipment that have content only fans will know and i see no resion to go on a witch hunt on pop culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion. The nomination seems to imply that AfDs with a clear consensus one way with next to no dissenting votes should be overturned due to one-sidedness, which would be scary. Also, note that this is not AfD round 2; you shouldn't come here without bringing up information that was not considered in the AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A one-sided AfD discussion is otherwise known as "consensus". Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A one-sided AfD debate usually results in a pretty one-sided review too. Chris cheese whine 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A discussion about the deleted redirect has been speedily closed (see above). The discussion about the main article is ongoing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

restore judging on he debate on the rest of the relater articles we should probably put it back up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.118.124.12 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TS-MA2mod.00 Moebius Zero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

was removed with the article TS-MA2 Moebius over the idea of it being fancruft there are ways to cite these articles including the source material they come from there were some argument due to translation errors in fansubs and the translation of some of the manga in to English but the fans would like the chance to clean up the mess themselves so we ask that our articles be restored so we can repair them. fans of other scifi properties have gotten a chance for theres —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.193.171.117 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I speedy deleted this as a redirect to a non-existent page, as the deletion log shows. If you are going to contest a deletion, I suggest you contest the deletion of the target, TS-MA2_Moebius which was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TS-MA2 Moebius. --TheParanoidOne 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pear Cable Audio Cables

Pear Cable Audio Cables (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

Notable Company that is not a Spam Entry. I would like to request that Pear Cable Audio Cables be considered for undeletion. The article was deleted, then reposted with the addition of 3 links to point out the notability of the company. This repost was also deleted. To address the complaints specifically: The page is factual material that does not make any biased claims whatsoever, ie the article does not state that Pear Cables are the best, or anything of that nature. The company is notable due to the fact that it has been written about by multiple independent organizations (3 links were provided). If Pear Cable Audio Cables does not qualify for notability, then virtually every company on the High-end audio page should also be deleted except for perhaps a couple of publicly traded companies. The complaint posted by Tubezone that complains about the price of 1 product sold by Pear bears no relevance to the subject of deletion. However, it does exhibit a bias that is exhibited by some who do not believe that high-end audio cables are worth the money they cost. This opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinion of virtually all respected high-end audio publication reviewers, but more importantly bears no weight on weither companies should have articles in wikipedia.

• Be bold and recreate it. The second speedy was inappropriate on two counts, and it obviously did not fulfil the requirement for G4 speedies. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Most (but not all) of the companies on the High-end audio list are companies of long standing with plenty of notability outside the high-end stereo press clique. There are only two cable companies listed, one is up for AfD, the other is an iffy call for encyclopedic notability, none on the list qualify as a notable players in the wire and cable industry, rather, they're cable assemblers for the niche market of high-end audio. Tubezone 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In response to TubezoneThere is no age requirement for a company to be considered notable. A company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Pear Cable Audio Cables as well as Nordost (the other cable company you reference) both meet this requirement. Personal disagreement with a certain industry is not justification for removal of pertinent information. Your removal of a perfectly justified link to a white paper published by Pear Cable Audio Cables on the High-end audio cables page, but the keeping of a link to another manufacturer's white paper, is further evidence of a personal bias that seems to exist either against Pear Cable Audio Cables, high-end cables in general (as Belden is generally not considered a high-end manufacturer) or both.
  • Or maybe he simply feels this one is not notable? Assume good faith please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My biases are not up for debate here. I made an observation that the cables made by Pear and Nordost are pricey, and they are, but that in itself is not a reason to delete, nor was it given as a reason. My contention was and is that this company (Pear) fails notability criteria, no evidence or references have been brought forth to dispute that. Your say-so doesn't count, and I am not the author of the article. A company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." OK, so what are these multiple non-trivial published works? If I were you I would follow Amarkov's advice, Be bold and recreate it, with proper assertions of notability and references to document that. The best defense against an argument of non-notability is to document that the subject of an article is notable. The linkspam you are inserting into High-end audio cables is a sales presentation for Pear, and does not belong linked to a WP article. See: WP:EL.

Lastly, I am not an admin, it's up to them, not me, to decide whether an article remains or not, and judge whether the arguments given for deletion or retention are valid. They aren't going to be persuaded by comments (by me or others) on the price or worth of the products. Tubezone 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• CommentSo now I do not know what the protocol is here. I reposted the article again on Dec. 2nd with 3 links to non-trivial independent writings about Pear Cable Audio Cables. This was deleted again by the admin. 2 people here are suggesting that the article be reposted. So, should I repost the article now, or wait for this undelete process to go on?Apblake 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Recreate it, as long as the sources were not in the original article. And mention that to the admin who last deleted it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Article has been recreated with 3 links to show notability that were not in the original article. All 3 sources are completely independent from Pear Cable Audio Cables
• I don't see any pressing reason why this can't go to AfD, given that there seems to be at least some claim to notability, even if it is considered questionable by some. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The reposted article is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables (2nd nomination) Tubezone 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (MfD)

Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism. ThisIsOnlyMe 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Who would look through old LTA cases to find how to combat vandalism? Just add any good advice somewhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse original MfD, I assumed due to the lack of the link that there wasn't one. I think it should be deleted, but not against a lack of consensus. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse original MfD, which was no consensus. Not a speedy candidate, if it's that important to get rid of, send it through the proper channels. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Weak endorse MfD Not sure how to go on this one. KV has become active in the last hour or so, but it is most likely passing copycat vandalism. I agree that it probably should be deleted, but WP:DENY isn't really an argument for deletion. Put back through MfD if it is felt necessary. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion nominators only edit is to try and recover this, whilst the vandal (or imitator) has apparently become active again, right. The vandal in question blanks pages and adds image of a kitten saying that if it is reverted he'll kill a kitten (or along those lines), there is nothing subtle about this vandal, not information on the page helps anyone notice this any better or revert it any better. Don't feed the trolls. --pgk 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. Even if he is the vandal or an SPA or something else, he's still not wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF is not a call to shut your eyes and hope, or a suicide pact, a brand new account turns up requesting undeletion of a page coincidentally at the time when vandalism of that type is recurring after an break, this is exactly what WP:DENY is about. "He's still not wrong" - so he says "Useful page containing information on how to combat such vandalism" what useful information do you think it contains? I describe the vandalism, you don't need a page for that, see someone blanking a page and replacing it with an image (irrespective of threats to kill kittens), revert it, this isn't rocket science, there is no subtlety just bog standard vandalism. If ever a vandal was merely trying to get attention it's this one. --pgk 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Vandalism is obvious and does not require documentation to counteract, we do not keep trophy cabinets for vandals anymore. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No new information/evidence has been given to undelete this article: deletion was warranted. --SunStar Net 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "No new evidence" only applies when we're reviewing a discussion. The discussion resulted in no consensus, and then another admin deleted it per WP:DENY. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was still in the same mindset as to when someone requested that Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels was undeleted - they had given no specific reasoning as to why it should be undeleted. Anyway, I endorse the deletion, it was necessary. --SunStar Net 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Is this a good suggestion for when people bring up Wikipedia:Long term abuse/X pages/templates on DRV??:

Salt the page to prevent re-creation, but perform a history-only undeletion so that people can look back through the page history if they really want to read the old pages.

I wonder if this is a fair enough solution for such pages: this way it should keep both sides satisfied. --SunStar Net 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Fantastic solution, that way the page cannot really incur WP:DENY or WP:BEANS, but people who are perhaps new to countervandalism can view the history. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment doesn't work for me, many of the LTA pages were deleted not as such for WP:DENY or WP:BEANS reasons but because they were simply junk. (I'd say this was one of them), they don't help anyone detect or deal with this type of vandalism any more, or less, effectively since the vandalism itself is so blindingly obvious and the "details" of the vandal are so generic as to be meaningless. Since then after discussion and agreement, WP:LTA now has a definition of when a subpage could be created, merely being prolific at obvious vandalism isn't one of them. You can sum this vandal (and many of the others) up in a sentence or two and add it to the list on WP:LTA and that's where it should go (if it should go anywhere that is). --pgk 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My own opinion on this (Sun Star's already heard it) is that either the page contains useful information for fighting the vandal, in which case we should keep it somewhere, or it doesn't (as in this case), in which case prurience isn't a good reason to keep information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • About the only relevant LTA pages are: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis - since these users are more than vandals. --SunStar Net 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:DENY. There was nothing special about this vandal, and we don't need a dedicated center for dealing with kitten vandalism. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Megan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Old deletion happened here back in 2004. Since that time, many single-name articles such as Amy, David (name), Victor, etc exist. I believe consensus has changed and that a disambiguation-style page would serve the needs of the encyclopedia better than a deleted/protected page. Rather than acting unilaterally, I'm asking for a review here (at least one old revision contains something salvageable, that mentioned in the VfD). -- nae'blis 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse creation of a new article like the name articles mentioned. We have issues with occasional vandalism or kids adding themselves to those, but it's manageable. (Or you could restore one of the old ones: I like "Megan is an awesome girl.She pwns your life, yo.She's soo much better than you.") Fan-1967 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse unprotection and creation Encyclopedic things can be said about many names, and they may also serve as useful disambiguation pages. I see no particular reason to exclude this specific name. Shimeru 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse unprotection and creation. Perfectly legitimate request. --Aaron 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse unprotection and recreation. It was only salted due to constant NN bios. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can an admin please just speedily unlock this and allow for recreation of a dab page? - hahnchen 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Naeblis, you're an admin anyway? Be bold and do it. - hahnchen 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Unilateral actions 3(?) days into adminship generally doesn't go over well. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • They do when its an astoundingly simple decision which requires little thought and little discussion. Decisiveness is something an admin needs to have. - hahnchen 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Wait two weeks and you'll get your 'unilateral action' button :) Unprotected and populated with a bare minimum of content; needs someone to add famous Megans so it can be a proper disambig. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You don't earn your colours in the first week :) Back on-topic, and endorse unprotection and recreation request per precedent. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

List of idioms in the English language (A) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

• IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSWIKI AN ENTRY THAT IS DELETED.

from Wiktionarian comments misplaced at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A)

Reading this AfD page is disgusting. There is very strong consensus to transwiki, yet the article was DELETED instead? Wikipedians are the ones that always complain that Wiktionary is chaotic and follows no process - doesn't that imply you are supposed to be diligent policy wonks? Why was process not followed at all, here? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I see as much argument that transwikiing is the wrong thing to do as I do argument that transwikiing should happen, so I don't believe there was any consensus to transwiki. Thus I see no abuse of discretion by the closer. Pieces could appropriately be transwikied, and the deletion summary says "The result was Delete, userfy to transwiki individual idioms on request.". If you want to transwiki pieces, ask the closer to userfy, or ask above at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Content review. GRBerry 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. The closing admin made a valid (and I believe, correct) closure of this discussion. I would disagree that there was a "strong consensus" to transwiki. In any event, I don't think a global transwiki is proper given that not all the items on the list are necessarily idioms, and the sourcing issue was never fixed. Agent 86 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. SIXTEEN deletes. FOUR transwiki. Where do you see a consensus to transwiki? The article was a mess, the AfD was properly closed, and the only consensus I can find is that most people felt that transwikiing was the wrong move. Ask for a userfy. You are not following process, and quite frankly, deliberately misrepresenting a clear-cut AfD decision. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Uh, this has already been userfied on request here. Feel free to help transwikiing. About the closure, we have no jurisdiction over Wiktionary, so it is not my call to make if they should be moved over or not. My call is only on whether this should remain in en:wiki article space, and the consensus here was clear. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, already userfied, so anyone who actually wants this transwikied can do so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, given the userfication. Considering this answers the request of the applicant, urge speedy close as we don't have juristiction over Wiktionary. We've done as much as we can, now. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gimpsy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• GoGuides (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• MusicMoz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Skaffe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — Group AfD

I'm trying to understand how a 6/6 !vote is being interpreted as concensus. Taking them as a batch may not have been the best course of action as some comments referenced specific articles and should not be weighed against others, which is always a danger in batching. --StuffOfInterest 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion if you're taking them as !votes, then don't count them like votes. All the keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT style arguments; all the deletes were asking for verification in third-party reliable sources. ColourBurst 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion per ColourBurst, the arguements are weighed on their strength not just on the numbers. --mathewguiver 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The few keep votes that weren't WP:ILIKEIT or WP:YOUREANEVILDELETIONIST just said "Oh, but there ARE verifiable sources!", without bothering to provide any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:V, specifically:

  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

  Contact me on my talk if you think you fufill this, and then I'll re-evaluate my position. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Failure to meet WP:V is an automatic delete, and in such cases any argument that doesn't at least provide a source is de facto not valid. Chris cheese whine 07:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vek'nilash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

I'm not sure whether or not mobs have been discussed before - and whether they merit a page or need to be merged into a larger article. If this gets speedily deleted, i'll merge it into the wider article on Warcraft realms. Personally, I think this article should be kept - it's not only a realm but a mob. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Australian Matt (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion. Neither realms nor mobs are notable enough for their own article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as deleting admin, for reasons succinctly stated by Amarkov. NawlinWiki 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD A7 doesn't cover this subject in my opinion as it is not a person or group of persons, so I removed the speedy tag and placed this page on AfD. (The original deletion does not appear to have been effectual for some reason). Eluchil404 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: AFD was closed as speedied A7. -- nae'blis 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  I was the second admin to speedy delete this article, and then noticed the AFD page, so I closed that too, citing the action I took. Hence, it's best not to cite the AFD to support claims, since it essentially begs the question. Mindmatrix 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  Considering the number of people who have expressed the opinion that A7 does cover this content, I'll switch to a weak endorse since deletion is the correct ultimate result there is little point in running a snowy AfD. Eluchil404 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion on the grounds that this would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in a million trillion bazillion years pass AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)