Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 1

Greenbriar Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Atlanta Mall shooting the other day that is all over the news was at Greenbriar Mall. Not sure if it was the same Greenbriar Mall that was deleted in December, but I believe an article is warranted just like the one for Trolley Square shooting. JAYMEDINC 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to be the same mall, but the deleted article is unsourced links only a primary source and according to the AFD is apparently written from firsthand knowledge. Endorse deletion without prejudice to a proper article. —Cryptic 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Cryptic in endorsing deletion sans prejudice against recreation. Article is not protected so no reason a new and proper article cannot be written now. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) and do not recreate based just on one news event. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. It would be nice if we lived in a world where these kinds of incidents were so rare that they really were notable, but we don't and they're not. Shootings occur at stores every day. Most times, the crime is not notable, much less the location of the crime. Even if this crime does turn out to be notable, the article should be written at a title about the crime, not the mall. Rossami (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I just bet you're going to love hearing that we still have an article on the street the mall's on. —Cryptic 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also note the existence of just such an article about the crime at Greenbriar Mall shooting. —Cryptic 13:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no problem with the previous AFD. If an article could be re-written about this, with suitable sources about the mall (and not ones about the shooting which mention the mall only in passing), then a new, sourced, referenced article could be written from scratch. Though the mall would probably still not be sufficiently notable to keep the article anyway, we can't have an article on the location of every murder everywhere... Inner Earth 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was a redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie, but was deleted due to WP:CSD#R2: the latter page is in the user namespace. However, I contend that "WP:" can not be considered "article space", and in addition, most mirrors do not copy WP: shortcuts, and request that it be undeleted. Gracenotes^T § 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. Unless we intend on killing off WP:VPRF... -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - at rfd, the WP: shortcuts are considered to be in the mainspace (because they technically are), and they are pretty much always deleted under R2, no matter how popular a user page is. If there are exceptions to R2, they should be part of the policy. --- RockMFR 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Again with the WP:VPRF example; it's been through RfD, and it got kept. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There have been a lot of changes regarding the view of cross-namespace redirects since then. I think the main issue here is whether the R2 criterion needs to be changed. Send to rfd and get a read of the current consensus, then we can decide whether R2 needs to be looked at. --- RockMFR 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Works for me, although I think the issue is really whether or not shortcuts constitute a pseudo-namespace. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This works for me as well. Gracenotes^T § 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, quite trivial and of interest only to a specific cliques. Works in User space, but I don't see a need for it on the Wikipedia space. --Sn0wflake 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... the point is that such a claim needs discussion. -Amarkov moo! 00:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Amarkov: do you mind if I close this and take it to the CSD talk page? Gracenotes^T § 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, not at all. -Amarkov moo! 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • This debate may or may not need reopening. Gracenotes^T § 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Exeter School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Arbitrary deletion - no good reason in article history. This deletion has caused multiple red links as the school is very notable Weggie 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Reason for deletion was "poor excuse for an article, I'm tired of babysitting it". It was a frequently vandalised directory entry, which made no pretence to be anything but a directory entry, and the tedium of fixing endless juvenile vandalism on articles with no actual provable encyclopaedic merit will eventually drive even Pilotguy to conclude that it's more trouble than it's worth. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Plenty of articles are vandalised -there are ways and means to prevent this. Exeter School is an extremely notable British school. Just because someone can't be bothered to carry out admin duties, this shouldn't mean deleting an article. This is farcical Weggie 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• But they are usually encyclopaedia articles, not directory entries. Feel fre to write an article, it will probably take less time than has been expended on this DRV thus far. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. That's not even... close to a valid rationale for deletion. There is no reason that something should be speedy deleted saying that it's more trouble than it's worth. List on AfD, and if there's a consensus that it is more trouble then it's worth, that's fine. One admin does not count as a consensus. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage by independent secondary sources is shown - no-one can pretend that there's any point in restoring otherwise. It is much easier to defend articles against vandalism if there is actually some verified encyclopaedic content to defend. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Not sound reasons for deletion, protection against re-creation seems like overkill. 'Fear of vandalism/more trouble than it's worth' shouldn't be considered grounds for deletion. Perhaps expansion/protection over speedy deletion would have been a better course. Unfortunately one can't see the article now to assess it, but fortunately there is still a cached google page, and this shows it to be a valid stub at one point, not a mere directory. I believe there are other schools out there with less than even this. --Keefer4 | Talk 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just got around to checking that cached page; it's worth pointing out that it's in much worse shape than the most recent deleted revision. (Not to say that I'm all that impressed with the most recent deleted revision, but.) —Cryptic 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as an arbitary deletion without consensus of a type of article there is widespread support - after American communities, school articles are just about the biggest group of articles Wikipedia has. Also this is a way above average school that's been around since 1663, and possibly now the only English public school (English meaning of public school) without an article. Osomec 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, protection should be implemented if the article suffers from constant vandalism, not deletion. --Sn0wflake 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, this school seems notable enough to me. --JAYMEDINC 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Deletion reason is invalid, plain and simple. If there are sourcing problems, send to afd. We absolutely must not delete articles because they are vandal targets. --- RockMFR 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and sanction User:Pilotguy for out-of-process deletion. "Article is frequently vandalized" is a reason for semi-protection or full protection, not deletion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV can't sanction anybody, you need WP:DR and even then sanctions are unlikely. --pgk 11:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn All the reasons above. Why do administrators have deletion powers if they're unaware of or unwilling to abide by the rules/guidelines/conventions? Most articles begin as stubs, lots of articles are subjected to frequent vandalism, and lots of existing articles and stubs are in dire need of reliable sources - but none of these are problems to be solved by deletion. bobanny 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn way, way out of process and policy. Articles on schools are always a bit problematic and attract vandalism, that doesn't mean we can just delete them. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone wanted to go out of process for a long-term semi-protection here, I would support that. But deletion is a step too far. Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Notable this school may be, but the article, even in a nonvandalized state, is truly miserable. There's no context - not even a location, other than a category indicating its county - the only sources given are the school's official site and that of its canoeing club, of all things, and most of the assertions in the article cannot be verified from the official page. (I'll admit to not looking at the club website too closely.) We may well be better off without it, and creating a proper article written from sources instead of firsthand knowledge. —Cryptic 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the article was not just deleted, but salted as well. There is no justification for that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I un-salted. Semi-protection is one thing, full protection is quite another. Mangojuice^talk 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If you school proponents can't keep the article maintained, then we don't need the article. --Carnildo 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was a horrible, horrible article. Sending it to AFD will do nothing; how many articles are kept with the rationale "keep and cleanup" and never actually get cleaned up? If you want to make a new article, go right ahead. Maybe Pilotguy shouldn't have salted it. But to overturn the deletion of a crap article just because you don't like the deletion reason or because it was "out-of-process" is silly.--§hanel 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Article appears to be notable and the reasons for deletion are controversial. The semi-protection and full-protection buttons are available for frequently vandalised articles, and poor articles can always be rewritten or cleaned up. Camaron1 | Chris 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The School is very old, with many notable alummni. Justifying a decision to keep deleted based on your personal dislike of the article is even worse than the original reason for deletion. There are numerous other school pages on wiki, and if you have a look you will see there is a consistent style for this article to aspire to. List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom --ADevNull 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

When deleted, the subject was agreeably not notable. However, The Angry Video Game Nerd is now a popular figure in gaming culture, and has recently participated in television interviews. In my opinion, the character is more than notable for an article in Wikipedia. MrHate 08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse continued protection. Unless you're here to tell us about some new sources or a totally new argument for notability, submitting this to DRV (again) could be considered marginally disruptive. Thunderbunny 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and what do you mean "marginally" Thunderbunny? Nardman1 11:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion just like the last 8 times this was brought up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse, no new info. —Cryptic 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:CreekPromoHolmesJackson.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

An image being used to display an award-winning actress in her most famous role with plenty of critical commentary being deleted as replaceable fair use?? How does that work? There's no such thing as a free version of an image of a person in a copyrighted role. It should be noted this was in a former featured article and the image was good enough to display on the main page at the time. Nardman1 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. I don't know whether there was a decent rationale, but a good rationale definitely exists. This image obviously cannot be replaced with a free version, as it was being used to show her in her role on Dawson's Creek. --- RockMFR 03:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I see from the delete log that this image had been deleted and restored more than once in the past. I also find the rationale persuasive, and no response to it or discussion seems to have been made. If someone thought the rationale insufficient, this should have gone to IfD. DES ^(talk) 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - seems to clearly fall under fair use criteria as defined both by U.S. law and Wikipedia policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Vancouver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

It is a subcategory that is consistent with all Wikipedia policies, guidelines, conventions, and consensus decisions; the CfD that preceded the deletion did not result in a consensus. There is a related CfD currently in progress here. Bobanny 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to have been a lack of consensus to merge and (given the current discussions) lack of consensus on a standard. On the other hand, there are so few articles currently; maybe there is consensus for cities with only a few articles. Can we maybe redirect the category? --NE2 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete/ot-Because I feel (in the words of Wikipedia:Deletion review) that "the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." Although I disagreed with the principle of the parent category Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver's creation on March 9, I saw no reason to dispute the basis of this administrator's decision to create it. However, this March 24-30 decision to delete the subcategory at hand follows the same (apparently flawed) logic of streets and squares category precedents that I raised during the discussion. In the decision notes, it is stated that "Despite Keefer's argument, analysis of Category:Streets_and_squares_by_city shows that the cats for most cities are not in fact subdivided into a "street" cat and a "square" cat.". The decision maker has proven in these words, that the "most cities" qualifier used in the decision is their own subjective definition used to advocate the merging of the categories. I had raised the same type of point during the discussion, by pointing out the precedent for "most" cities in North America, which DO consist of separate street and square categories. In addition, none of User: Bobanny's points were addressed specifically in the outcome decision, and the discussion leading to that did not achieve anything resembling consensus. The points made in the final sentence: "It's also rather quickly after an earlier CFD that had the same conclusion, so arguably this cat is recreation of deleted material." is, I feel, erroneous. The earlier CFD (March 9) mentioned, was not of the same subcategory. And, what is being implied in that sentence is that there is a foregone/discussed "conclusion" here stemming from the discussion, which clearly there isn't, as detailed by the lack of consensus. The decision is then made based on what the decision-maker calls "arguably... recreation". To summarize I believe the decision is a flawed one, based on this. Thanks. --Keefer4 | Talk 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for my closing is that I interpreted the fact that ~90% of Category:Streets and squares by city follows the same naming as a naming standard. From recent reactions it seems that this standard is not all that consensually solid, so I would favor more debate on it. In the meantime, I'm overturning my deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) 08:07, April 2, 2007 (UTC).