Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 23

Future timeline of Earth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted, most of the delete votes were based on the concept that as the article is about future, it is WP:CRYSTAL. But the delete votes ignored the academic field Futurology. This article documented the timeline of events on planetary level which will have great impact on Earth, and these timeline were based on a scientific approach, these were not speculation or personal opinion. These were scientific predictions from reputed scientists and reputed research organisations. Scientific predictions with references from reputed scientists and reputed research organisations are not crystall ball. The article was merged with Timeline of the future. But the two articles, despite similarity in nature, are completely different. The article Timeline of the future documents events of future at every level, it may include future timeline of sports, timeline of technology, spaceflight, timeline of the solar system, the universe everything. But Future timeline of Earth document only the timeline of Earth at planetary level. The specific predicted events were merged into the respective years, but not all year articles are present, and this article will be expanded much more than its original size when it get deleted. WP:CRYSTAL is not apllicable in case of scintific predictions and the facts which are inevitable like population growth predicted by the United Nations, sea-level rise -- all are scientific predictions by reputed persons and organizations. So this article needs much more work, not deletion and it will become a good Futurology related article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse redirect. The article was not deleted as the history is still present. The article was redundant to Timeline of the future and the individual year articles, so there was no sense in having this one around. Redirecting seems like a good decision. --Coredesat 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I said that the purpose of the articles Timeline of the future and Future timeline of Earth are not same. Please read the comments above why these two articles are different. Existence of some facts in the year articles does not imply that one summary article cannot be created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the future is for timeline of future which include social, economic everything, but Future timeline of Earth is for timeline of Earth at planetary level. I have no idea how much time I have to repeat it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure; there's no question the consensus was delete or "merge and redirect". If you were arguing that it should be deleted, a case would have to be looked at, but DRV is not AFD 2.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The redirect is not possible now because Timeline of the future has been nominated for deletion. Timeline of the future is a nonsensical amalgam of various irrelevant facts ranging from near-term sporting events to far-distant cosmic and geological forecasts. But this article is for timeline of Earth in planetary level predicted by scientific studies. The two articles are completely different. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; then the consensus was consistent with deletion, then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and further Delete article if AfD of redirect target is deleted. The close was proper, and as it appears the target is going to be deleted at AfD, the redirect will no longer serve a purpose. Otherwise, re-redirect to Futurology, as that's what the DRV request clearly indicates this is really about. -- Kesh (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

France-Japan relations (19th century) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• The France-Japan relations (19th century) article was deleted by Administrator AGK on the ground that it was related to "Medieval history", an area which the creator User:PHG is currently restricted from editing. However, the 19th century has nothing to do with Medieval History, neither does backgroung material mentionning the second half of the 16th century as the beginning of Japan-Western relations (For most historians the "Medieval" period typically end with the 15th century, or the 1492 discovery of the New World). It is requested that the article be immediately reinstated, so that the author (User:PHG) can continue his legitimate work on it. The creation of this article was also used as a justification to block User:PHG for 60 hours, a decision which is currently highly contested by numerous users on User talk:PHG. This seems to be part of a pattern of harassment following PHG's Arbcom restrictions. Besides his restrictions from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles, PHG was actually encouraged by the Arbcom commity to contribute in other areas, an example of which is France-Japan relations (19th century). Please reinstate the last version of this article. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[1]

• Please note that I have developed a continuation of this article on my Talk Page, which is visible User_talk:PHG#France-Japan_relations_.2819th_century.29_More_text. This will give everyone a sense of how this article is supposed to look like when completed. I am planning to insert this content as soon the article is restored (the sooner the better). Regards to all. PHG (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:This was hardly an "abuse" and while I copied PHG's note verbatim, I consider that a terribly incivil way him to start out. The admin made a judgment based on his own review and the concurrence of other editors that PHG was skirting the lines of his editing restrictions via the recent ArbCom case. At best the period known as "Medieval" is shaky as far as actual dates; the article Middle Ages goes into detail about this conundrum; PHG's claim is that the history in the article he wrote started a few years after the Middle Ages were over, but his history started in the mid-16th century (his talk says 1545 precisely but that was not in the article) and the Middle Ages article states the period is "commonly dated from...5th century to the beginning of the Early Modern Period in the 16th century". I'd ask an expert to figure it out, but as far as I can tell, they don't agree with each other on the subject either ;) Also, its worth noting that this was not the only reason for his block and goodness knows the block doesn't need to be discussed more here. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:PHG for the backstory). Shell ^babelfish 10:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete. As noted on PHG's talk page, I do not think that this article violates the terms of his topic ban, i.e., articles relating to medieval history. The article starts off in the second half of the 16th century, and even that period is only mentioned once; in general, this article is not about medieval history at all. Accordingly, the article's speedy deletion was out of process. — I agree with Shell, though, that the tone of this request by PHG is incivil and disruptive, and that this is not the place to discuss PHG's block. Sandstein (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and possibly list, despite the nominator's tone, this doesn't appear to violate his topic ban, which makes the speedy deletion out of process. However, it looks like the user didn't stray too far on the globe from the previous disputes that ultimately led to the ArbCom case. That aside, though, this should go to AFD instead, if it's to be deleted. --Coredesat 11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn due to being (in good faith) improperly speedied. No objection to AfD listing. Hobit (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just read much of the RfC in question. I stand by my !vote, but emphasize the good faith comment. Hobit (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. PHG appears to have been gaming the system regarding his ArbCom restrictions, creating an article about the "19th century", which was actually a WP:COATRACK to write new information about a period considerably earlier. Per remedies posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, PHG should have just proposed an addition to the existing article, at its talkpage, and then after work was incorporated, a split may have been appropriate. PHG has been disruptively creating many other POV forks like this, which is one of the reasons that the ArbCom case was even needed (see the evidence page). If he creates anything else in violation of his sanctions, it should just be speedy-deleted, rather than requiring an extensive review process on every one. We already have a backlog of dozens of other articles needing cleanup from PHG's work, we don't need him making even more problematic articles in the meantime. Or to put it another way: If all PHG wanted to do was add some information about 19th century relations, he could have easily added it to France-Japan relations, or suggested it at the talkpage. But it is my opinion that he knew that if he added a section about the 16th century to the existing article, it would have been easily seen as a violation of sanctions. So instead, he created a new article, with a title of "19th century", so that he could put information in it that was from previous centuries. This kind of behavior is disruptive, and was the reason he was put under ArbCom sanctions in the first place. These actions continually waste the time of other editors. So if he does this again, we should just speedy the articles, rather than spending days discussing each one. Bottom line: The speedy-deletion was appropriate. --Elonka 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this is highly unfair Elonka. The article is indeed about the 19th century. I only mentionned the second half of the 16th century (which, by the way, is after the Medieval period, and hence beyond my Arbcom restrictions) as a backgroung sentence explaining that the first contacts with the West occured at that time. I have good reason to write extensively about 19th century relations between France and Japan: I actually know quite a bit about the subject and created two FAs (Boshin war and Imperial Japanese Navy) in this area. I am afraid this article is totally legitimate and that it is totally obvious that it has to be reinstated :) Best regards. PHG (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For more of my intended content for this article, please see User talk:PHG#France-Japan relations (19th century) More text. Best regards PHG (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn With the best of motives, this was judged a too stringently beyond the restrictions imposed. There is furthermore no apparent tendentiousness in the editing, and I do not see a recurrence of the problems involved in the articles considered by arbcom. Thesmall amount of earlier background material is totally uncontroversial. I think he needs and deserves the chance to edit things he knows abut that are outside the restriction. Had arbcom wanted to ban from editing on history, they could have done so. If there is a case for extending the ban to history in general, they can be asked to do that also. this is simply a mistake. Elonka, please end this by simply reverting your decision; if there are subsequent problems, they can be discussed when they arise. DGG (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, what exactly is it that you want me to revert? --Elonka 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think DGG means to undo your deletion and just get on with things. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Uhm, Elonka didn't delete the page and the deleting admin has restored it :) Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Right. Never mind then. I'll go back to my corner now. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete; were the blocking admins looking for an excuse to block PHG? It is a pretty extreme definition of medieval that covers the 1550s 17th century. Until if and when you get him permanently banned, you are obliged to treat him fairly; he is entitled to be blocked only for clearly stated reasons that follow WP policy, and pages that he makes, outside any ArbCom ruling, should only be speedy deleted within the rules for speedy deletion and and subject to discussion on DRV and most likely undeleting and relisting on AfD, just like any other article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn aka endorse undeletion that has occurred. I believe this was a mistaken interpretation of the ArbCom restrictions and endorse DGG's view that PHG should be encouraged to edit on topics outside the restriction. As there do seem to be tendentious editing issues, a cite check (already initiated) seems to be the appropriate level of response at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)