Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 24

Michael Gruskoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I work for the guy who wanted to put a page up of himself, and he gave me the copy to use. I don't think anybody has a copyright on his biographical info.... Aehc (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the article was a verbatim copy of [1]. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Aecis, did you consider he wrote both freakin' copies? Also, it isn't verbatim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aehc (talk • contribs)
    • In that case, it's his copyright that was violated. And it's certainly verbatim enough for speedy deletion criterion G12. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This is confounding. A man wants to enter information about himself into wikipedia. He uses an updated bio that he wrote before. Wikipedia says that he can't enter his own bio into his own name's entry. What kind of a bureaucracy is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aehc (talk • contribs)
        • Entering info about yourself, or having someone else enter info about you (autobiography-by-proxy) is strongly discouraged. Doing so creates a conflict of interest that makes it very hard to write a neutral article. Since copyright violations violate the laws, I hope you can understand that we can't take any chances with it. If you can't prove that you own the copyrights, agree with putting the content on Wikipedia and are aware of the consequences of this under Wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License, the article can and will be speedily deleted. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy deletion fits the copyvio. COI aside, creating a page from scratch and writing in your own words is recommended. - PeaceNT (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no access to the page but copyvios cannot be recreated. In addition to the suggestion, above, there is also the route of demonstrating permission by WP:COPYREQ. BlueValour (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without prejudice against recreation. The copyvio argument is not really convincing. The author is right: If the subject released his own text for use here, there is no copyvio, thus no grounds for speedying on that criterion. Remains the COI/advertisement. Creating an autobio is discouraged, but not grounds for automatic speedy deletion either. The only reason I'm saying keep it deleted is that the text was not very good. Post a new, rewritten version in good, neutral encyclopedic style, and then re-evaluate that against the normal notability criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Aehc's word that the subject has released the text for use here is all we have. We need stronger evidence than that. As it stands, the subject hasn't formally released the text for use here, so it is still copyrighted, so G12 still applies. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe picking at words, but to be clear, release for use here means release for use anywhere under the terms of the GFDL. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Until it's released it's a copyvio, afterwards it's self-promotion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Teabagging (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

extreme teabagging should be allowed it own page on wikipedia and is not a nonsense article as extreme ironing has its own page so other unusual sports should also be allowed their own pages and there is quite alot the extreme teabagging relates to such as projectile physics and the chaos theory as well as tea(obviously) and if allowed to remain on wikipedia the page will be an immformative page on the margin sport of extreme teabagging and will promote the sport. and the other type of teabagging has its own page which frankley i find vile as it is frankly disgusting and there is a link to a list of shock sites allowed as weell so how does a harmless non mainstream sport get banned yet these obseneties are still allowed on your site?

• Endorse deletion of utter crap. I'm sure that Jimbo didn't create wikipedia to showcase videos of spoof sports where people chuck tea bags into a cup. I don't mind if someone comes and closes this as an abuse of process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse Deletion, article was utter nonsense. Nakon 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This page has been redirected to Obesity for months, but MZMcBride (talk · contribs) decided to delete it, the reason for the deletion was because of vandalism. But it was all wrong. It should never have been removed, instead it should have been a protected redirect. Please don't close this discussion until it's time, there really need to be a discussion on this. People looking for fatass would expect to find information about obesity, can I also remind you that there are redirects out there that are redirected from bad words, or offending words? See also: Ass fucking and Human Shit, those are redirected from offensive terms, so I see no reason why Fatass shouldn't redirect to obesity. My vote is Revert back to the redirect and protect it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• MZMcBride (talk · contribs) has never deleted that page. You appear not to have tried talking to the administrators who actually did. Please try talking to them. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, but he did protect it from recreation. That's the reason why I told him to come here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But I did do what you told me too though. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am the admin who most recently deleted the article (and I believe I protected it from being re-created as well). I believe Ass fucking redirect should be kept (though the argument for it is marginal) but I see no need for Human Shit although Shit is fine because it is an article about the word, not the stuff itself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of English slang and there is no need for fatass, lardass, lardbutt or blimp as redirects to Obesity. Of course, I will abide by the consensus of this deletion review but that's my perspective FWIW. --Richard (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - Yes, even though I think this should be deleted, I'm supporting the overturning of this speedy per Rossami below. It should have gone to AFD instead. I was just being lazy. --Richard (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm almost certain that nobody looking for fatass would expect to find information about obesity, otherwise, they'd have looked for obesity. And per Richard, there is no need to keep a compendium of slang at Wikipedia. --Kbdank71 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Stop leading to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Redirects aren't dictionary entires. And I highly disagree with the fact that fatass is not a common term. I think it's notable enough to be a redirect. Has any of you seen a lot of movies recently? Or shows? Doesn't anyone besides be realize that fatass is a very common term for a very fat man? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Fatass as a term means many more things that obesity. It can mean a body style for corvettes, a type of motorcycle, etc. No reader would use the term fatass to find an article about obesity. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't use the term "no reader", use "few" instead, "no" is too strong term, and not true at all, I was looking for information about fatness when I looked for fatass, hell, I even made a plural form to match it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, suffice it to say it is not a plausible or reasonable search term. Generally speaking, people looking for information on excess body fat in humans would come up with several valid search terms on their own without this redirect to save them. So maybe "no reasonable reader would expect". JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm damn reasonable, but I get the point. A lot of people would look for something else, but I still think there are some people that would expect this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Wouldn't it make more sense to create an article about the body style for corvettes, type of motorcycle, etc. and have a link in it for either the Fat article or Wiktionary's article on it? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse there just isn't a compelling reason to redirect a (derogatory) slang term for an obese person to the obesity article. It's not a terribly likely search term and someone using it is most likely not looking for information on obesity but something else. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Important Comment Ok, fine if we can't redirect this to obesity, at least do this: Make a protected redirect to Wiktionary, that way everyone will find what they're looking for. Let me tell you guys something, dumbass is a great example of a protected redirect. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the point, even if fatass is in Wiktionary (which I disagree with as well, but whatever). So few people would expect to find fatass in an encyclopedia, and I'll be willing to bet the majority of them would immediately text their friends to say "d00d, it says fatass in the wikipedia". --Kbdank71 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nobody would expect to find dumbass on an encyclopedia either, but guess what? It redirects to Wiktionary. That's right, they can tell that the info is somewhere else if page tells them. Plus you didn't explain clearly enough why it can't just redirect to Wiktionary, not seeing the point is not a good reason in my opinion, explain more specifically why it shouldn't redirect to Wiktionary, please. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Already did. there is no need to keep a compendium of slang at Wikipedia Regardless of whether it redirects to another article here or wiktionary or wherever. And if as you say, nobody would expect to find dumbass in an encyclopedia, that should be deleted as well. --Kbdank71 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Then nominate it. And again, you are missing my point. They won't find it in an encyclopedia they will find it in the wiktionary, of course they wouldn't expect that, why else do you think dumbass is redirected to Wiktionary? You are missing the whole point of cross-redirects. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I get your point, I just disagree with it. --Kbdank71 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
            • If you disagree so much why not nominate it? Yes, I know I should avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but there is no other way to get my point across. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to RfD. This redirect did not meet the strict speedy-deletion criterion of an attack page because it was not created as an attack on a person. It's an impolite slang term and probably should be deleted based on the some of the points raised here but that's an issue for RfD to sort out. It was an improper speedy. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & list on RFD per Rossami. This wasn't a speedy candidate, though it's certainly worthy of question -- which should be done by consensus. I woudl vote to delete, as it just doesn't seem like a search term we need to worry about. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at RFD. Inspection of the page's deleted history indicates that it's going to end up protected one way or another, whether as a redirect or salted, and which does the least harm is debateable. The only one of its five deletions that was proper was Geogre's in February 2005; all the others could have been solved with reversion. —Cryptic 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You forgot to bold, no worries, I did that for you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I forgot no such thing. Kindly do not edit my comments in the future. —Cryptic 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Woah chill, I didn't know you didn't want this bolded, I was only trying to help. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:202.76.162.34 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Okay. I'm going to tell a good reason for having these comments back. I would like them back, and here's why. It's a school IP address, and it is infact my school. Since this is my talk page - sort of - I can ask for whatever I want with it. 58.168.213.239 (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you want to take on the 1 year block which goes with it also? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close. Again - Wikipedia is not your toy that bends to your whims. --Smashville^BONK! 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey that's not fair! I need MORE answers before closing this! Firstly, without those comments, we give the impression that these are constructive contributors and not a vandal! Secondly, do you realise that those comments were deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson, aka the most disliked administrator on Wikipedia!!?? 58.168.213.239 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jawahar Shah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There were 7 votes to keep the Jawahar Shah article and 6 to delete it, and yet it was promptly deleted. Jawahar Shah is a homeopath that is known world-wide for his lectures and writings, and has created educational CD-ROMs and software for practicing homeopaths. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Relist The correct close would have been no consensus (though I myself said a weak delete). There was the interesting question of whether this Indian homeopath was notable within the group of his colleagues, or whether orthodox US/UK publication standards should apply. I can see it either way, & it needs further discussion. DGG (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion most of the keep voters didn't meet the sourcing concerns, instead voted keep because of a grudge with the nominator. AFD isn't a vote Secret ^account 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist No consensus was apparent to delete. —Whig (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the delete !voters didn't back up their opinions with realistic arguments. Corvus cornix_talk 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist, there were more voters to keep this listing. I voted after the vote ended without notice...I sought to add to support for keeping this listing. Dana Ullman ^Talk 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the 'keep' voters arguments were poor and didn't demonstrate current notability, and didn't address the points raised. The 'delete' voters generally made good arguments. The article was correctly deleted per WP:Notability, WP:Prof, etc --88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the 'keep' voters where mainly "I don't like Adam, therefore this article should stay". The deleting admin noted this and made it quite obvious in the closing arguement. Perhaps the POV pushers need to understand the process of AfDs which isn't about "votes" but rather about the quality (in this case the complete lack thereof) of the article. This relisting should be seen for what it is, which a WP:GAMEing of the system, something other POV pushers are pushing right now throughout several noticeboards in WP. Shot info (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion An AfD isn't a popularity contest, and the deletion rationales were correct and well argued. The oppose opinions were mostly "I don't agree" or "he might be notable one day" kinds of arguments (go and look, this is flagrant paraphrasing on my part). This does appear to be a gaming of the system, no new keep arguments have been presented, and the delete arguments were good and still stand --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist with an eye to keeping and improving the article so it conforms to wikipedia notability standards. Abridged ^talk 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Dislike of the nominator is not a reason to keep. --Kbdank71 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Nakon 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, keep !votes did not provide reasonably sound arguments that were vested in policy or guideline. AFD is niether a vote not a popularity contest. The adminsitrator got this one right. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Pretty much, the closer was right. As stated above, about half the keep !votes sucked and the delete !votes were stronger. Looks like a well sourced article isn't prejudiced against by the AfD though, so feel free to recreate a better version. Might be a good idea to work with some other editors on it first, though, just to be sure. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - clearly no consensus --Rumping (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist - more people entered "keep", and some of them made good arguments. There was not a clear consensus to delete. --Publictransport (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Votes" with no basis in policy are ignored. Consensus does not mean "majority." We base our decisions on existing policy and common sense. If you wish the article kept, the burden is on those wishing restoration/recreation to provide proof that the article did, in fact, comply with our various article policies. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Several votes provided evidence of notability and made cogent arguments. If you are going to disregard the count and pay attention to the arguments, then those should be considered. —Whig (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)