Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 1

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)