Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 23	Deletion review archives: 2008 February	February 25 >

[edit] 24 February 2008

Anarchopedia – Deletion endorsed; will provide deleted content if requested – --PeaceNT (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Two years ago the Anarchopedia entry was deleted due to it was not considered relevant enough. However, I think that nowadays the project has grown enough to be taken into account. Here I give some arguments:

Anarchopedia is mature enough. Far from the few hundreds of drafts of the beginning, it has now 4,152 articules in the English version http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Main_Page together with the 2,446 of the German, 985 of French, 797 of Spanish one... Besides, and following the steps of Wikipedia, with the growing number of articles and users, the quality of the articles is improving too.
In 2006, where the last discussion considered it, Anarchopedia was receiving just a few visits. Nowadays http://anarchopedia.org has a Page Rank of 4 and its visits have grown significantly, achieving the needed critical mass.
There is an entry of it in the Spanish Wikipedia, the Italian one, the Chinese, Japanese, Norweigian, Indonesian... even in the Simple English Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchopedia. Samer.hc (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
comment Whether another project chooses to have an article on something isn't relevant. What we need are reliable sources. If you have non-trivial, independent, reliable sources then you can have an article. I've found three possibilities. this one is a passing one sentence mention. There are two others that are in German [1] [2] but both also give only passing mention. If you can find additional sources that would go a long way to allowing an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per lack of additional reliable sources. I also notice that while its number of articles may have grown, its reach seemingly hasn't: Alexa rank is a paltry 250,000 and over 3 years has been virtually flat, apparently never scratching even the top 100,000 websites. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Improve and show us in user space which is pretty much the usual response to request like this DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse longstanding deletion. If I'm counting right, this has been deleted 8 times, 3 times through the AFD or (earlier) VFd processes. The title has been Protected twice. Hardly seems plausible that it will just be undeleted because some time has elapsed and it (anarchopedia) still exists, you'll likely need more of a case than what you've put here. I also agree with DGG here, Samer.hc - start from scratch with what you think would be a viable article in your userspace or your sandbox. (User:Samer.hc/Sandbox) Bring it to some other editors' attention for reviewing. If you get generally positive feedback, then it can be moved to mainspace to see if it survives an AFD on attempt #4. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse for now, but per DGG and Keeper, I have no problems with a rewrite in your user space. --Kbdank71 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn, improve, and list at AfD. Per the nominator's comments, this may fall under the realm of semi-notability. Editor of the wiki 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "semi-notablity?". It's notable, or it isn't. Is there a guideline for "semi-notability?" Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "semi-notability", but if you're impressed by the "large" number of articles, don't be. I just had a look at about 15 random Anarchopedia pages (using the random pages tool) and all but one was either a copy of a Wikipedia/Wikia article, or a tiny substub which would be speediable by WP standards: for example, their article on School reads "School is a place where students learn the "sellable" skills." ...and that's all. As far as I can tell there's very little substantial original content there at all. Besides, even if these were decent articles (and they're not), 4000 isn't very impressive anyway: Bulbapedia, a Pokemon wiki, has twice that. And of course, still no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told many times, many places...there is no such thing as semi-notable. You either are or aren't. -Djsasso (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse for now. As people have said above, if you construct a good draft in your userspace, feel free to restore it. But right now, I don't see how you would do that. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, looking back over the history of many deleted revisions, I'm not seeing any that ever had any quality, sourced content. If you can demonstrate notability (via "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") I recommend creating a well-sourced version in userspace, and then bringing that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion absent credible evidence of non-trivial independent sources. A properly sourced user space rewrite is required before we allow this one, given its history. Guy (Help!) —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, nothing to indicate there is any non-trivial independent coverage. --Core desat 05:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c – This was a particularly difficult DRV to close as it pits two very important behavioral customs against each other: Namely the preservation of discussion and the removal of personal attacks. In considering the arguments below from a policy perspective, I do not see consensus below for any particular outcome (some discussion fatigue is certainly present I think). There was no strong consensus for deletion at the MfD either, so the default would normally be for keeping (bearing in mind that redirection is a form of history preservation/keeping). What is more troubling from a policy perspective is the pre-emptive protection of the redirect. This violates protection policy and seems to me to be a rather large assumption of bad faith. For these reasons I am unprotecting the page and removing the redirect. I am also courtesy blanking the discussion on said page because it is a more customary method of removing past unpleasantness while retaining a record of the discussion that did occur in history. I strongly urge editors to heed the courtesy in courtesy blanking and leave it stand. If there is anything that discussion on both sides of the BetaCommandBot issue could use, it is a lot more courtesy a lot more good faith. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus for redirect. Page is an historical archive of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)

Version before redirection and protection is here

Overturn and keep discussion visible. What has happened here is a lack of proper archiving or merging with the destination page. Although this archiving could be done without admins tools, I note that the redirect was protected for some reason. As far as I can see, there is no need for the redirect to be protected - where is the edit war? The discussion on the page in question should be visible so that it can be read in the future. We do not point people to page histories to read old community discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The more I look at this, the more I'm shaking my head in dismay. Redirecting without merging, and then claiming that it wasn't deleted? That is blanking of discussion, pure and simple, and the technical difference between that and deletion is purely semantic. People signed comments they put on that page. They don't expect it to be only accessible in the page history. And protecting the redirect stops anyone from editing the page and undoing the blanking. I suppose someone could copy the stuff out of the page history, and then archive it properly, but that would be equally silly. This needs resolving at DRV and I'm somewhat disconcerted that MZMcBride thought it was appropriate to go to MickMackNee's talk page and ask if he (MZMcBride) could close the DRV. It might have seemed the right thing to do at the time, but it fails to respect both MickMacNee and the DRV process. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Question: The main concern about the thing was it read like a giant attack page. Where would the benefit of leaving the text up be, seeing how the attack rationale was the main one at the MfD? Remember, the decision has been made, DRV is for procedural violations and the like, not as a second MfD to fight. -M^ask? 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Oh, there are tons of procedural holes in this. Where was the consensus to redirect (see below), is the most pressing one. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      - You'll notice im not endorsing the decision quite yet, and im really not trying to needle you, I promise :) But you really didn't answer my question. The issue of turning it into a redirect as the vehicle to accomplish this goal aside, there was great concern by many established, respected editors that it read like an attack page. As any deletion is not a vote, but rather a reasoned debate, it's obvious that these concerns had merit to the closing admin. This being the case, where would the benefit, or even compliance with the spirit of the close be, if the comments were just left in the open? I suspect the redirect and leaving them in history, as opposed to an outright deletion, was intended as a sort of compromise. -M^ask? 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Examining the redirect option - MZMcBride closed the MfD as "redirect(fully-protected)", but in the actual discussion, redirection had only been mentioned three times: "deletion or redirection to an RfC"; "Delete and then redirect to a neutrally worded RfC based around finding solutions, instead of apportioning blame"; "Delete or redirect to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance". There was also the related option "Merge it into the AN subpage". The actual closure did none of these, but instead blanked the page and turned it into a redirect to the AN subpage. Surprisingly, no-one thought of moving the page to an RfC (which would have changed the title, left a redirect behind, and preserved what was said). There were many better ways of dealing with this, and the option chosen is, I'm sad to say, not one of the better ones. If the result had been keep, I would have supported any number of refactorings, movings, archiving and improvement of the page, but this protection of the redirect means all this is no longer possible, as MZMcBride has literally said: no need to edit this page, thus removing the option of many of these other possibilities. If MZMcBride will unprotect the redirect, I would be willing to try and find a more equitable solution such as marking rejected and moving to a subpage with a different name. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The votes were pretty much split between keep and delete, with a slight favor to delete, as I recall. I was strongly inclined to delete, however, I chose to redirect. "Merging" two pages is not possible with MediaWiki, and any type of history-merge would have destroyed the pages. I redirected because it left the revisions in place and visible to the community while directing people to the appropriate place for ongoing discussion. I protected the redirect to avoid any further comments in the "wrong" place.
As for moving the page to an RfC subpage, that would be absurd -- admins are in no way empowered to begin an RfC like that. The full history of the page has been preserved, something that I honestly believe some people failed to realize. No revisions are gone, everything is still visible to those who wish to see it, and in fact, people can move their comments if they see fit. This is advantageous to me (or another admin) simply copying over all the text from one page to the other, as it makes attribution of edits far easier.

As for marking the page as historical or rejected, there were strong concerns that the page was being used as an attack page against Betacommand, something that simply will not be tolerated. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do I start? It's not a vote, for a start, but if you think there was a slight favour to delete, it was 17 people mentioning delete, and 21 mentioning keep. Would you like to retract your "slight favor to delete" comment as misleading, or try and justify it with reference to what was actually discussed, rather than vague and inaccurate references to counting votes? As for your "merging" comment and MediaWiki page history comment, you know full well I wasn't talking about a page history merge. I was talking about the sort of merging that saw lots of AN and ANI threads consolidated at the AN subpage. The move to an RfC should have happened at the start. Of course the full history of the page has been preserved, but the discussion hasn't. People don't look in page histories to see what was discussed. They look at archives of discussions. Do you see the difference? And no-one has substantiated the attack page concerns. Simply "concerns" that something is an attack page doesn't make it an attack page. I count seven people calling it an attack page: MBisanz, Redvers, Hammersoft, LaraLove, ThuranX, Coredesat and AKMask. However, most of them (or those supporting 'per' their comments) say why they think it is an attack page, but simply assert that it is so. Only MBisanz and LaraLove made any attempt to explain why they thought it was an attack page, and many editors explained why it wasn't an attack page. So how can the closing admin decide when opinion is polarised like that? Simple. They can't. I have no problem with the redirect, but there is no consensus for it, so it should be unprotected so others can try other solutions (before or after discussion), rather than having this one imposed by fiat. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the comments should be moved similarly to AN and AN/I comments, you're free to. That's exactly why I decided to preserve the history. My protection stops people from editing a page that shouldn't be edited (i.e., centralize the discussion). My protection does not stop anyone from copying and pasting. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This doesn't preclude the redirect being unprotected and restored later, depending on what this DRV outcome is, but I've made a start here. I intend to do the same for the main page (extract and archive useful comments), but will wait and see what people think of that first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse redirect - I voted delete in the MfD because the page is a borderline attack page in my opinion. I don't think there's much of anything on that page of relevance that's not already somewhere else. However, if it isn't going to be deleted, this is the best alternative. It's not semantics. Only admins can see deleted pages. This allows anyone to see the page via the history. It allows anyone to link to a permanent version visible to everyone. I don't see a problem with this. Lara❤Love 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- By semantics, I meant that there is little practical difference between the visibility (as in people being aware of it, not whether they can physically view it) of a redirected page and a deleted page. "I don't think there's much of anything on that page of relevance that's not already somewhere else" - I strongly disagree with you there, and I am actively archiving the useful parts of the page (will be done in a few days). Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- What aspect or part of the page, specifically, makes it an attack page? This accusation keeps getting bandied about, but I've yet to see any real evidence to support it. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
ugh. Endorse redirect. Better yet, delete the damn thing, as an attack page. ~~You kept your promise to drag this crap out on DRV, no? Congrats, good work.~~ unsigned comment, misidentified user bringing this to DRV, sorry. This is exactly why it is best to sign your comments. SQL^{Query me!} 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am trying to keep my arguments to procedural ones about MfD, believe it or not. But I do worry when SQL thinks I started this DRV when it should be plain that I didn't. For the record, I added the "unsigned" tag before SQL made the above comment, so I am still mystified as to why he made the comment he did, despite him striking it out. When people make mistakes like that over BetcommandBot, they get attacked. When people make mistakes in other matters, people are more forgiving. Like I'm trying to be. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse - as I said on the MFD, we don't need two pages discussing the exact same thing. Closing admin must've thought along those lines too, and thought that would be the most sensible and least inflammatory option. Will ^(talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right. But surely it'd be far better to simply tag the page as historical, leaving it easily visible? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse redirect getting tired of all the antics. Also getting tired of the revert warring trying to maintain visibility of this page [3][4][5][6][7][8]. 6 times in less than two hours? After being blocked a week ago for 3RR violation? Wow. I mean WOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see your six ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), and raise you a clean block log. Clean block log? I though Betacommand had been blocked before. Oh, hang on, this is his alternate account. </sarcasm> Seriously, if someone had come along and blocked them both for edit warring, does the main account or the alternate one get blocked? (Yes, I know, Black Kite protected the page and warned them both and that is an end to it). Oh, and let's throw in a parody for good measure: "6 times in less than two hours? After being warned for abusing a bot to spam this editor's talk page and after being warned for incivility? Wow. I mean WOW." There. I hope the karma of the universe has been restored. Hammersoft told the MickMacNee version. I told the Betacommand version. But seriously, Betacommand is developing a real pattern of borderline and unacceptable behaviour here. His supporters need to be less uncritical and to have a quiet word with him (if they can) and get him to settle down and not get provoked so easily over so little. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes I did tell the MickMacNee version. That's because I'm tired of his antics. I'm not tired of Betacommand's. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Hammersoft, is that not... inconsistent? Or at the least biased. (Seriously). Imagine someone said this about you. How would you feel? I know we shouldn't treat people differently according to how long they've been around, but MickMacNee's been around since 30 October 2007. Betacommand's been around since 7 November 2005. Both are giving as good as they get, in my opinion, and both need to calm down and learn to get along. I'd give MickMacNee a bit of slack because he has only been here a few months, and I'd give Betacommand a bit of slack because he is a long-term contributor and does useful work. That has to be balanced though, by his having been here for over two years so he should know how things work around here and people shouldn't defend him all the time. Equally, as others say, he does get a lot of aggro for his image tagging work, and, as long as he apologises, he should get a little bit of slack for that, and if he reports attacks on him (I mean the stuff on his talk page, not the alleged attacks from MickMacNee), then warnings should be given to those attacking him. Despite what people like ThuranX have said, I'm very unlikely to ever call for a community ban or permenent long block of any established good-faith contributor. But I do speak my mind and tell people when I think they are wrong, or if I think they can do things better. I do realise that sometimes cajoling is better than shouting or lining up the evidence, but I genuinely do hope that people take the criticism in the spirit in which it is given - the intention being to help people improve how they collaborate and communicate with others. The single largest barrier to this is intemperate, curt, incivil language, which is why I try to avoid that as much as I can - maybe all the time. I have criticised many admins and editors for their actions, and I've praised others as well, but I always try to do so in calm, constructive, civil language (if a bit verbose). Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Um...do you really think that "getting tired of all the antics" is anything even approaching a good rationale? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Certainly. MickMacNee is seriously on about BetacommandBot and I see this is just another permutation of that. Over and over and over again he keeps trying to attack, cattle prod and disparage Betacommand and his bot. At some point it needs to stop, and MickMacNee needs to take a time out. There. Longer version. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Well, for starters, there are the twelve other editors actually supporting his proposals. Why is this anything more than legitimate criticism of the actions of BCB? David Mestel^(Talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      - So you're saying the page was really just a vehicle for criticism of BCBot? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Well, it was a page for the discussion of BCB's activities, and MickMacNee's (and many of the other commentators') opinions happened to be critical of said activities, and it seems to be those opinions about which you're complaining. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        No, but thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Come again? David Mestel^(Talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Why should I? You're doing a wonderful job stuffing words into my mouth. Please, feel free to translate my latest response to whatever form you feel necessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I just don't understand what you're saying. With the greatest possible respect, if anyone's been stuffing words into anyone's mouth (not that I allege this), it's you: see your comment above starting with "so you're saying". If you're referring to my suggestions about what you were complaining about, I am prepared to be corrected, but I thought that one of your main points was that these criticisms was that these criticisms were a thinly-veiled attack on BC, no? David Mestel^(Talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn: AfD is not a vote, but there was clearly no consensus to get rid of it, and the arguments to delete were principally "it's an attack page", for which they provide no evidence whatsoever, and "any criticism of BCB is a thinly-veiled attack on BC", which is a monumental failure to assume good faith, and for which there is likewise no evidence. If this really were an attack page, that'd be an excellent reason to delete even in the face of a lack of clear consensus. Give me some evidence, please. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse redirect per AKMask. Nothing there worth merging. Mr.Z-man 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's an editorial decision. I'm torn on whether to complete the merger I started, or wait until the DRV is finished. There is good material on this page, and I want to use it as part of productive discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Carcharoth, if you can spend the time to remove the miss-information that the page was based on and propagated. it shouldnt be an issue. But as it stood the purposeful mis-information and blatantly wrong comments should not be merged. β^_command 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Part of the reason I haven't merged yet is because almost no-one who has said there is "bad" content has told me what they think is "bad". But if you are happy to trust my judgment, I'll finish the merger later tonight. And hopefully get some credit for trying to end this peacefully. Though I doubt it. (And no, walking away isn't always the best way to end something). Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      - I don't see the benefit in attempting the merge. That page generated a hellacious debate that will only fame flames if the material is merged into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. The latter page does as well a job as can be regarding the issues. We do not need to keep relighting the fire under this kettle. In this case, walking away IS the best move. Let it die already. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse redirection. Concerning the Betacommand debate, there's arguably nothing anywhere really "worth" saving. In this case, we have two pages which discuss the materially same thing. That is unnecessary. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I understand what you are saying, but can you show how the pages are the same? Why was one MfD'd and the other one not? Bad things have been said on the destination page as well. At root, I suspect that this is a "fruit of the poisoned tree" debate, but those with long memories will remember the DRV I was heavily involved in, where a page started by a banned user got undeleted. Just because someone objects to who started a page and how, doesn't always mean it is unsalvageable, or doesn't contain useful content. Carcharoth (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - it was this one, in case anyone was interested.
  - Well yes, this is probably why it wasn't deleted. Not to speak for the closing admin here, but this seems to me an attempt to consolidate discussion. This is generally desirable, and even though there was no consensus to delete one or the other, I would be willing to wager that there is consensus as to which one of the two pages was the more congenial place to continue discussion. This redirection has two effects - consolidating the discussion into one place which (most) everyone can agree is appropriate and sufficient, and leaving the non-used page accessible to non-admin users. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - You should be my spokesperson. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      - The Mfd'd page does not cover the same topic as the redirected page, and also pre-dates it. If anything, it would fall under just one heading of the betacomand AN sub-page, had it actually existed at the time. A closure in this way is the first time I've ever seen a discussion closed like this, if the closing intent is actually to retain archived discussion. Also, the stated reason for closure: "The result of the debate was redirect" is also just plain false, as explained above. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Ryan, your comment about "consolidating discussion" seems to suggest to me that you think the content has been merged. Do you have a definition for what you mean by "consolidate"? In my view, this was a "blank all content and redirect" result, not a "merge useful content and redirect". Do you see the difference? That is why I'm proposing to merge the useful comments, despite Hammersoft taking the line that nothing is useful. I also have more faith that a proper merge will allow some of the unanswered questions to be resolved, and some of the worst of the "discussion" on that page to be quietly left behind, and that could have happened if people hadn't shortcircuited the process with a premature MfD'. I could also just summarise what the page said and rewrite it, in what I think would be a more acceptable form. Betacommand has said he has no problems with that, so I don't quite see why Hammersoft is objecting. But it will now have to wait until tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      - So then merge any comments you think are useful. To be blunt, it's a redirection, not a black hole. We don't need two grocery stores if the only difference between them is that one sells a variety of grapes that are more sour. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I fear that my definition of "useful comments" might annoy some people who define some of what I see as "useful" as an "attack". If anyone can clearly state what is an attack, and needs to be left off, then I will archive the rest - but failing that, I will end up archiving the entire lot, though not quite yet (want to let the DRV finish and for things in general to calm down). Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Make visible - There's really no reason to remove this from easy view, even if it is a rehash of the same old thing. There is a lot of constructive criticism in the page, and relatively little attack. The page should be made visible or added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand as a collapsed section (like the completed discussions here). It seems like many of the people claiming that this had no purpose other than attack are no longer willing to view any criticism of this process as anything other than an attack. Read even the opening support/oppose section for evidence of this. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion What about changing this to {{softredirect}} & possibly adding {{historical}}? The closing was a little terse - was this redirected because the closer decided that it qualified as an attack page? If so, then it should have been deleted. If not, then it should have been tagged as historical or at least {{courtesy blanked}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to need undeletion. The page history is already visible. I like Anetode's suggestion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see no need to create new precedents in how historical debates are retained. How about the closing admin clarifies the postition, was it deleted for being an attack page or not? Is the page history needed or isn't it? MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The real sticking point is the protection of the redirect. Without that, people could have tried other options after the (effective) keep. And yes, a redirect does keep the page history, and this wasn't deletion. There is a difference between blanking something and deleting it. For what it is worth, WP:AN/B now has an archive. Is there any reason not to just stick a disputed or rejected sign on the page being discussed here, and dump it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 0? Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  
  Yes, marking it historical might work, but this discussion is still misplaced. It hasn't been deleted. To stick a historical tag on it all you need to do is unprotect, revert and tag. Have a natter with the closing admin and Bob's yer auntie. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 07:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur there's no support (not to mention consensus) for a redirect. The !votes seemed to be delete (some delete and redirect), keep, and mark historical. (I !voted keep and/or merge to AN/B, I believe.) Carch...'s suggestion above, revert to last version, remove the the MfD from the article, mark historical (or unproductive, which I think I'd agree to, whether or not "historical"), and move it to an archive of AN/B, and restart relevant threads in AN/B, seems the best available option. I don't really see a reason not to merge it to AN/B, except that it has independent discussion of whether any bot could enforce NFCC 10c, with my reasoned decision being negative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Overturn WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL do not make one immune to criticism. Furthermore, hiding the entire thing stinks of censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Jtrainor (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect; no consensus for this action to be found in the discussion, and protection of the redirect is not supported by the protection policy. Whether the page should be redirected or not can be discussed on its talk page once protection is removed; the MFD had little to say on this matter. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse redirect I would prefer it deleted, but anything that makes that attack page less visible betters the camaraderie of the community at large. -M^ask? 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For what reason do you think that it is an attack page? What specific section or aspect? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kick in the Ass – Request withdrawn pending discussion with closing administrator. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

In a nutshell, the delete vote was 3-2 and not enough to form a consensus and the keep votes were far more well explained, per wikipedia rules it’s a discussion not a vote. The motivational theory was coined by a famous business philosopher Herzberg on how not to deal with employees and is in academic textbooks. The delete votes were all based on it being “made up” which per the references and the discussion it clearly was not. Any search of google books proves this. I find it hard to believe that this would be deleted on it’s content and believe it has been deleted on it having a funny name. Englishrose (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gavin Donoghue – Deletion endorsed – --PeaceNT (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Some say this may not satisfy the notability treshold, but it is very well referenced and he has played for Ireland under 17 and Ireland u19 and i think that is more that notable. Sunder land 06 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Player still fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never actually played for Sunderland. Consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Number57. Only Under-21 caps should confer notability. – Pee Jay 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per current established notability rules. --Angelo (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion has not played on a team in a fully-professional league nor been in a competition at the highest national level. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Number57. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn Article meets our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Number57, fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per User:Jerry, User:Number 57, and most everyone else above. - fchd (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/AGK – Undeleted by deleting admin. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I do not think it is proper for consensus-forming processes to be deleted. Candidates for crat should understand and appreciate that an unsuccessful outcome is possible, and that there will be feedback given during the process that may be hurtful or unpleasant. Future candidates should have the benefit of reading over both sucessful and unsucessful candidacies to determine if they think they are ready for the feedback, and if they stand a chance. If there are WP:BLP-violating or other unacceptable comments in the RFB, they can be redacted without deleting the entire debate. This deletion was done by the candidate, and therefore represents a COI that could be considered an improper use of the sysop tools. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Overturn deletion - we do not, in general, delete discussion archives, least of all RfA and RfB. Happy‑melon 20:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn RfAs and RfBs shouldn't be deleted without a REALLY good reason, and the deleting summary didn't suggest there was one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Abongo (Roy) Obama – Deletion endorsed. Consensus suggests that this page violates CSD G10. No consensus for undeletion exists, nor a version in history that serves any purpose but disparaging the subject. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted less than a minute after it was put up, despite the fact that included sources such as the article in Investor's Business Daily that raises the fact that some might be unconfortable with a president who has a half-brother who self-identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim. Abongo has gotten a lot of attention recently and I am curious why there is no information about him on Wikipedia about him.

AJmed (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Article was deleted under WP:CSD section G10 (G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP). As the original CSD tagger i am not aware that there were any references added, which is why it was originally filed under section A7, Not Notable. I however, agree with the decision to G10 the article as the article contained only negative information, which violates WP:CSD and WP:BLP Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment recreating a G#10 deleted article in the middle of DRV is not usually a good idea, especially when the only comment is somewhat negative. Happy‑melon 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. This is a straightforward attack article. I agree that recreating it after it was speedied under G10 wasn't the cleverest thing to do. It should be deleted again immediately. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have re-deleted the article pending discussion here, as a possibly negative BLP it should not be recreated using virtually exactly the same text unless discussion here reaches consensus to restore the article. Davewild (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep deleted. Googling for sources gave me a top hit of a whitepride website.......if this is encyclopedic I'd want nothing less than major reliable sources.--Doc^g 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - it seems at least one reliable source on this man does exist: an article in the Chicago Sun-Times [15]. There's also an Investor's Business Daily editorial about him [16] and a post on Mike Huckabee's website regarding it. [17]. I didn't read the article, so I can't comment on whether it was an attack page, but perhaps an article should exist. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Restore with the added sources. I think he's enough of a public figure to justify inclusion. We seem to be seeing lot of BLP requests for people who have some less than favorable relation to presidential candidates. I expect we'll see more as the year goes on, and I think we should make it plain now that the campaigns of the likely candidates of the major parties are so notable that anyone mentioned in a substantial way by the press in connection with them justifies an article to the extent the responsible sources permit. DGG (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is not really about notability, but rather about the page not meeting BLP guidelines (By a long stretch). I deem the person notable enough to be on wikipedia, but in its current form, this is a mere attack page. Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If he's notable for more than one isolated event--as he is--and the negative material is sourced,as it is, how does it violate BLP? It should simply be expanded further. But if we endorse, we should specifically say that we permit recreation. DGG (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It violates the BLP subsection on criticism. As quoted from the BLP guidelines: so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics;. There is absolutely nothing constructive as is, which means that it violates this second requirement.Also, it does not seem to comply with WP:NPOV. Excirial ^{(<fontcolor="FF8C00">Talk,Contribs)} 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs to stay deleted for now. There's nothing substantial about the reporting, quite the opposite. We don't have enough information to write an NPOV biographical article, so we don't have enough to support any article. If things change then we can look at this again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Straightforward per BLP. Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
overturn carefully Obviously we need to be careful about this sort of thing but if there look like there are enough sources (and there appear to be) we should give people time to make a decent stub and if necessary send that through AfD. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for more discussion about why AfD is a better route. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion Notwithstanding the attack page issues, it doesn't seem to me that this guy would be notable if he wasn't Barack Obama's brother--and notability is not inherited. Blueboy96 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what that means at all. Notability isn't inherited means that we don't have an article on X because X has notable relative Y. That doesn't mean we can't have an article on X even if the reason that X is notable is due to X's relationship to Y. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I disagree ... if it's his only claim to notability, he doesn't get an article. Michelle Obama has claims to notability outside of being Obama's wife--from what I can see, this guy doesn't. Blueboy 96 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eau Gallie Yacht Club – Overturned. Page already undeleted by User:King of Hearts – --PeaceNT (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted within minutes of it being launched. The Brevard County Historical Commission (an independent, 3d party org that researches & assess historically notable items for the county) has already determined it notable enough to place a historical marker on it & they are the experts -- not me. I believe that the last sentence of the history section establishes the historical notability of the building. Besides, this article was a stub about a building/org & not nearly in a final state. IMHO, it simply was premature to delete this article & should have been tagged for improvement rather than speedy deleted. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Undelete There was definitely enough there to avoid an A7 speedy deletion. As a suggestion, though, the author should find better sources than relying on the club's own website. There should be newspaper sources, find those instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - as the original deleting administrator, this was very much a borderline case, but I stand by the decision to delete. The article, in my opinion, doesn't sufficiently assert or verify all the substance the club may contain, plus the comission that put a marker on it for being historic, isn't even notable itself to have a page. Rudget . 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a building & a club, not just about a club. The fact that the Brevard County Historical Commision does not have an article in Wikipedia does not mean its not a legitimate or notable organization. In fact, I just wrote an article on the Florida Historical Society, the state level historical society within the past few months. Historical societies across the globe are way underrepresented in Wikipedia....take a look at List of historical societies. Only a few articles exist for historical societies even at the state level. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Undelete I don't know if my vote counts because I submitted this article. However, if it does count, I would like to go on record with a vote. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
List at AfD - There is an assertion of notability, in that a local society deemed the building historical, but I seriously doubt that would survive an AfD. I have to agree with Rudget . that this is a really borderline case, but WP:SPEEDY does say that if there is even an assertion of notability, it should go to AfD instead. I personally think this should be a Delete, as there are thousands of non-notable buildings marked "historical" by non-notable societies, but this one squeaks by into AfD territory. -- Kesh (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Their seems to be a repeated question as to the notability of the Brevard County Historical Commission. It is the official historical agency for the county. I know it’s not a big county (about the size of Rhode Island), but IMHO, I would think as an official government agency, it would be considered notable. FieldMarine (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Undelete. This club (can't vouch for the building) is very noteworthy in South Brevard County. Like most articles (!) it needs editing, but no time was allowed for that. 97.101.81.249 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Undelete Asserting that a club is in a historical building is at least an assertion of notability and that is enough. CSD is not AFD. Rudget, you say as the deleting administrator it was a borderline case. If it was in your opinion borderline it was not a speedy--speedy is for unquestionable. If one needs to cogitate over it, its better for the community to do the cogitation. And it's time we actually made a rule that deletion so soon after an article was made can be reversed as a matter of course by a good faith request, without requiring discussion--just as if it were a prod. DGG (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spimes – Deletion Endorsed; while it is certainly regrettable that the deleting administrator refuses to discuss administrative actions, this request has failed to assert sufficient grounds to overturn the closing. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion of this article seems unreasonable, the term has got quite a bit of currency in futurist discussions, and people would expect it to have a page on Wikipedia (certainly I have referred to wikipedia for this word before myself). I had a look at contacting the Admin who had deleted it, but they say on their user page that they don't want to receive any communication on Wikipedia - so I'm writing here.

Charlie Stross also thinks Spimes shouldn't have been deleted, fwiw: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/02/news_of_the_weird.html Winjer (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion when something has been deleted by AfD three seperate times, and endorsed by deletion review at least sonce before, you'd have to bring forth some pretty amazing new sources in order to get it undeleted at this point. Deletion review isn't the place to keep bringing back the same old debates again and again without substantial new information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Buy.com – Overturned. I've undeleted, heavily trimmed, and added mention of the $290m revenue for 2004 as an explicit assertion of notability. The article requires further work. – Splash - tk 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion through G11 was totally inappropriate. Clearly, the article (and subject) are already encyclopedic. Buy.com had $290.8 million in revenue (as of 2004).[18], and the company is regularly mentioned in mainstream media. It is true that parts of the article show a slight bias towards the company, but that is hardly justification for speedy deletion. Superm401 - Talk 10:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is the google cached version, I can see why it would be perceived as an advert in parts (though in parts would mean it's not totally unsalvageable, so not G11, removal of those parts would probably have been better). Detailing how to go about returns, shipping , customer service contact details etc. is not really encyclopedia material. Contrast it to say Amazon.com. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn, but then remove the incorrect advertising information, per the above anon. the net effect was not that of an advertisement, but informative, and it was fixable. Deletion is not a substitute for editing--speedy least of all, for it give no opportunity. DGG (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn not blatant enough to meet G11. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong overturn extremely notable ecommerce website, Alexa rank about 1000 and plenty of mainstream media sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn. I agree with the above commentors that advertising could have been addressed and that this was not a speediable level of spam. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn clear bad choice for a Speedy deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Overturn - this absolutely should have been edited rather than deleted. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment As the closing admin I have reviewed the article and am still confident that it falls under G11 and/or A7 as lacking a claim of notability. Obviously some contributors here are more familiar with this company than I am, but of all the reasons given above for why the company is notable or encyclopedic, none of them some to be referred to in the article (no mention of revenues or media coverage for example). If this is a massive, notable company then the article needs to say so, the deleting admin is under no obligation to research the subject of every article to verify it is not notable when there is not claim of notability - and I have never heard of the company. Also, if the nominator had come to me with this information, rather than just notifying me that they had raised it here, I would have almost certainly restored it without the need for this discussion. So I think that I followed the process just fine, but have no objection to having the article restored.TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is looking a little WP:OSTRICH. Not only should AfD nominators do at least minimal amount of research on topics they are considering nominating, but the same standard needs to apply to administrators who consider speedy deleting a topic, based on G11, A7 or anything else. It only took a few few seconds google search to find an overhelming amount of secondary coverage on this company [19]. That few second google search would've saved editors a great amount of time of having to overturn this notable company's article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good in theory, but in practice it takes a lot longer to perform such research. I tried putting the term in Google as you suggest, but it is not clear that the hits relate to this site, or that they are not trivial references that you would expect of most online retailers. So, in fact, for any speedy deletion the admin would actually have to take several minutes to independantly verify an article. On the fact of it, this sounds reasonable, but realisitically there needs to be a risk assessment applied here. The speedy criteria are deliberately extremely narrow, and in the vast majority of cases any article that falls within them is not going to be a problem. On this basis, it is unreasonable to expect that an admin is going to perform their own research to see if the article could have been written to fall outside of the speedy criteria. The issue with this article is that the subject appears to be certainly notable, but that the article did not reflect this - in such an extreme case it can appear obvious that a check should have been performed, but this is like somebody getting electrocuted by a light switch and then it being "obvious" that it would have been a good idea to check them every day for loose wires. There are processes in place to capture problematic deletions in such extreme cases, but I will say again that the actual way this discussion could have been avoided is for the nominator to have brough the facts tome first, rather than going straight to DRV. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One second Google search brings up this CNN article entitled "Buy.com taken down by cyber-attackers" in which the first sentence starts with "Buy.com, one of the biggest e-commerce sites on the Internet..." Also in the same 1 second Google search is this CNET article entitled "Buy.com threatens wider price war." These are nowhere near "trivial" One second search. It took about 5 seconds more to open these articles and confirm what I wrote here. Not "several minutes." You jumped the gun on this one Tiger. Let's hope the press doesn't find out. Wikitruth would have a field day. --Oakshade (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Readers Poll – Overturned, relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 26#Template:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees. – Happy‑melon 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template has a useful purpose and deletion was made without discussion with the creator, who acted in good faith. Two other related templates are involved with this undeletion request. Jazzeur (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think TFD would have been much better than speedy. The template was speedy-deleted using "G4" which talks about a page; I generally think of that as referencing articles. Sure, if an article is recreated that is substantially the same as another article, it should be deleted. But this template was created as a navigation aide, in lieu of a category; templates were discussed at the CFD & related conversations as a potentially appropriate replacement for the category, referencing WP:CLS. Replacing one navigation aide with another navigation aide is perfectly contemplated by WP:CLS, and it's certainly something we deal with all the time at WP:CFD -- recommendations to create lists for things rather than categories are the most common, but navigation templates are also good solutions. That seems to fit G4's exclusion criteria of "provided ... that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The reason the content was deleted was that it was "overcategorization", which is nicely addressed by putting it in template or list form. Indeed, looking through the various "awards", many of them seem to be handled quite well with navigation templates, which is why I suggested a template might be the better approach. Given that all this seems reasonable, I don't think speedy was appropriate. It would be better to have a fuller discussion, that referenced the lengthy CFD, including the various jazz aficionados who weighed in on this award. --Lquilter (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

G4 does indeed apply Generally, if it were merely articles it would be in the A series of criteria. No opinion concerning the validity of the deletion itself. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I get that (although I still think it's a bit article-oriented); but I also felt G4 wasn't quite right for a second reason, which was that the template did address the reason for deletion. It was deleted as overcategorization, specifically talking about categories, and templates was a possible alternative. --Lquilter (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- There has been a TFD. The Speedy was requested because this template is a re-creation of a template deleted via TFD earlier the same day. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Question How was the template being used, intended to be used? i.e. Which articles was it placed on/going to be placed on? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of the templates, I will answer the above questions. I am planning on the use of three (3) templates:

one template for the Jazz Hall of Fame inductees elected by the Down Beat magazine readers
one template for the Jazz Hall of Fame inductees elected by the critics of the Jazz music scene
one template providing a global overview of all the inductees and indicating who elected them into the Hall of Fame

Template number 1) is to be used at the bottom of the Wikipedia articles devoted to an artist (musician, composer, singer and band leader) elected to the Hall of Fame by the Down Beat magazine readers (i.e. Charlie Parker). Template number 2) is essentially the same, but for the inductees elected by the Jazz music scene critics (i.e. Art Tatum). Template number 3) is to be used at the bottom of one article only, namely the Down Beat page (please note that I am currently going through a complete revamping of this page and that the current list will be replaced by template number 3). Also, the templates have been created with the objective to take the least amount of space (autocollapse state, small print and located at the bottom of the page). Finally, the templates are on my watchlist. Contrary to the category setup that was used previously, it will therefore be easy to monitor vandalism and abuse on those templates and bring corrections if the users express any difficulties. Hope this answers the question. Jazzeur (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Deleting admin) My interpretation was that it consisted of an effective recreation of Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame, which was unanimously deleted, recreated as Category:Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees, deleted again, then recreated in template form as {{Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees}}, {{Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Critics Poll}} and {{Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame inductees - Readers poll}} by the same editor. Although the precise nature of the content has changed, from a category to a navigation box, its purpose - to provide quick links to all the pages in the series - remained unchanged throughout. In my opinion, a deletion review is necessary to establish that the consensus from the previous CfD discussions has been overruled. Happy‑melon 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the CFD consensus to delete the category can really be extended to the template. The first discussion was quite brief and unanimous only because there were only 3 commenters, I think. The second discussion was much lengthier and brought in jazz participants who had some useful things to say, and the upshot was that while award-winner cats are overcategorization, there are other ways to handle this -- e.g., templates. So if the template is kept, it doesn't "overrule" the CFD. I can't personally state whether or not the template should be kept; I'm not very familiar with the standards for navigational templates. But WP:CLS makes it clear that categories and nav-boxes are different, so I don't think the rationale just ports directly over. --Lquilter (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Really this is why the question I ask about where the intended use of the template was. If it was intended to go on all the individuals articles, then it is providing pretty much the same function as a category and thus the overcategorization argument would be every bit as applicable. In fact it would be providing more functionality than a category in showing all winners on all the pages where the only link is the winning. The argument with navboxes is pretty similar to the overcategorisation argument, if we did the same for every award, prize etc. there would be many articles with more space occupied by these boxes than real content. Extend that to navboxes linking tv series together (say) if we started including those on actors who made an appearance (even a cameo), then we'd be hugely overloaded, we'd have overcatgorized through templates. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore and let TFD run its course. The template was created in good faith per suggestions at the latest CFD and was already listed at TFD. Speedy in this case seems needlessly brutal. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- No objection to this course of action. Happy‑melon 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Question I'm not familiar with the terms used here: "Restore and let TFD run its course". My question is: "What does it mean concretely and where do we go from here?" Thank you, Jazzeur (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - If another TFD is created, I would appreciate it linking the previous TFD for this template. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - redundant to the list in the main article and clutterful on the individual articles, many of which are already cluttered with templates. Otto4711 (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The degree of clutter in many of the individual articles is another matter altogether. Initially I had engineered the templates with the autocollapse state. The setting to the collapsed state could easily be done. Jazzeur (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- The list: Down Beat#Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  - The problem posed by this list is that you have to have prior knowledge of its existence before you see it. Jazz music scholars, fans and researchers do not usually approach their encyclopedic work this way. They first go to the article of a Jazz artist that they know about. Then, they learn that this artist's lifetime achievements have been recognized by making him/her an inductee in the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame. Finally, their interest in other artists which have received the same recognition greatly benefits from a navigational tool, such as the proposed templates, enabling them to get the other artists' pages. Jazzeur (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    - It is actually a very good list for jazz beginners. However, using the Down Beat Hall of Fame as a canonical list of jazz greats is rather POV, promoting Down Beat over other representative publications such as Cadence Magazine or the Penguin Guide to Jazz. Also, sooner or later there would be similar templates for jazz guides from Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone. And then bloodshed.
      I suspect this discussion really belongs in a TFD. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mohammed Al Amin – Already userfied. Because these were not deleted as part of an XfD process, these may be moved to mainspace at will (although I do not directly suggest that the nominator do so). I agree with DGG below that these no longer meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so if they are moved to mainspace I suggest that any editor who feels they do not meet notability guidelines should nominate them for deletion via AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article, and two others, Sarfraz Ahmed (unnumbered Guantanamo captive) and Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee) were deleted within a few minutes by the same administrator. The admin deleted all three for A7. I requested a pointer to the location of the discussion the preceded the deletion. And I requested userification.

Then I noticed the deleting admin has been off-wiki for three weeks. Would someone please restore these articles to my user space, so I can decide whether I make the effort to address whatever concerns triggered the deletion? Specifically, could someone userify:
*Sarfraz Ahmed (unnumbered Guantanamo captive) to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Sarfraz Ahmed (unnumbered Guantanamo captive);
*Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee) to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Abdur Rahim (unnumbered Guantanamo detainee); and
*Mohammed Al Amin to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Mohammed Al Amin.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This request seems better suited for AN or AN/I than for DRV. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Overturn I have offered there to userify them if nobody has done it already--but I also say here that the deletion was in my opinion altogether unjustified for adequately sourced articles. These are generally defended at AfD, and sometimes kept, sometimes not. the admin is not justified in using his own opinion about this. As he's off wiki, I think there is good reason for a direct restore to WP space. If anyone is around who does not think them appropriate, AfD will be the place to get the community opinion. The admin';s action should be discussed at AN/I; the undeletion should be done right here. DGG (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 24 February 2008

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search