Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 July 14
2007 July 16 >

15 July 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dunewood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as no sources although it listed 3. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete or at least userfy to improve. It needs to clarify what it is though... "community" isn't gonna cut it. it seems to be a subdivision or a residential development of some sort, which are not "automatically notable" in the way that towns are. The Fire Island, New York article claims it's a hamlet, which is a legal place, but that claim needs confirmation. Whatever this place is it seems to have some news coverage [1]. But just saying a newspaper wrote about a place (as the deleted article did) is not enough, it will need to mention what article on what date. --W.marsh 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the deleting admin, I ran across this one and was confused. The article contained about four sentences: Dunewood is a very family-oriented community in Fire Island, New York, where they go to shop, that there are tennis courts, and that there is a yacht club. Reading the article, I had no idea that this was a hamlet (as my deletion log rationale states, it looked like a subdivision or homeowners' association group). That being said, I have no objection to userficiation and perhaps someone can assist the article's creator in putting in some sourced encyclopedic information, much as the articles on the other hamlets at Fire Island, New York contain and using those as examples. --Kinu t/c 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was nominated for its 4th AFD on 7/4, but the 3rd AFD was accidentally put on the AFD day log. This was not corrected. The error was finally realized and relisted, but Ryulong closed it within 20 minutes, then refused to re-open it. Consensus is totally unclear because this was not properly listed. It's true that the AFD was "open" for 11 days, but only people who had the article watchlisted or otherwise visited the article would see the AFD, this leads to a very skewed consensus that is not useful in saying consensus was to delete an article. Without proper listing, it would be easy to manipulate the system to generate "consensus" deletes or even keeps for articles by controlling who's likely to know about them, and those consensus are not very meaningful. The community needs to be notified that an article is actually on AFD, and have a few days to respond, if the AFD is to be fully valid. This needs to be relisted properly so we can see what consensus actually is, but Ryulong refuses. This is not "process for the sake of process" - I have no idea what consensus would have been after 5 days of AFD. We shouldn't delete articles on such shaky ground. W.marsh 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse WP:NOT Rackabello 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist per Marsh's logic. Personally, I'd probably prefer to see this article deleted but we clearly can't determine what the AfD consensus was in this case. JoshuaZ 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for proper discussion. I assume the close was due to confusion. DGG (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Krimpet's was, he reopened it when asked... resulting in the first 20 minutes it was actually listed correctly. Ryulong refused to reopen it when asked. --W.marsh 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, procedural error. AecisBrievenbus 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care either way, but this is an extreme example of process for process' sake. There was a complete 11 days on AFD in some fashion (it managed to get a couple dozen !votes). Is this article really all that necessary, or is process all that's necessary?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue isn't the number of people who commented but whether they constituted a representative sample. Samples can be very large and still be unrepresentative. The normal AfD listing process tries to make sure that samples are representative. Given what happened, we have no idea if this AfD was at all representative of the community consensus. JoshuaZ 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryulong, I've explained why this isn't process for the sake of process... it was only "on AFD" for 20 minutes. Not telling the community about a contentious AFD is not an acceptable thing to promote. --W.marsh 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist for 5 days given that the article had not been listed in the daily log. --Coredesat 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist W.marsh is correct. Shalom Hello 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see nothing overly process-bound about making sure the debate is properly visible to the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Process for the sake of process should be opposed at every turn. --Agamemnon2 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you actually explain that, rather than just state it? If it were true, we'd know what the outcome would be, and would just be running it through the process for the sake of process. But we have no idea what the outcome will be. It's process for the sake of consensus.. --W.marsh 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As much as I want to see the article deleted. AfD's need to be listed for longer than 20 minutes to properly gauge consensus. Process is a tool used to determine consensus. In cases where consensus is not clear it should not be lightly ignored. I would endorse if I thought the article had no chance at AfD (see WP:SNOW) but since I don't know what the result would be the community should be given a fair chance to weigh in. Eluchil404 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Because it was probably my mistake that it wasn't put in the log correctly. The # of AfDs was really confusing because several ones were nominated under a different name. Sorry about that. However, maybe consider just re-opening the current AfD instead of starting all over? Bulldog123 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as per W.marsh. Without listing in the daily log, the afd sample may be as baised as if ther was a major votestacking attack. I have no opnion on the articel itself, but there is a reason why we do things in certian ways, and why this is not anarchopedia. The is not "process for process's sake" but "process for the project's sake". DES (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I am no fan of process for process' sake, but this was sufficiently botched to warrant a re-do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkyan (talk • contribs)
  • Relist: I was tempted to cite IAR to endorse the deletion, but there is a nagging voice in the back of my head that says that this may have been the subject of proper scholarly study. Certainly stranger things have happened. So I have just enough doubt to support following process in this case. Xtifr tälk 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong relist. Just like there would be an outcry and public flogging (well-deserved, IMO) if a bureaucrat promoted an admin candidate after 20 minutes of his request being listed at WP:RFA, the so-called "consensus" here has been substantially tainted. If the bureaucrat said, "Oh, but more than a dozen users supported the candidate" he would be laughed off and deprived of his makesysop bit. While the situation here isn't as drastic, there simply is no reason for me or anyone to endorse the outcome, besides "I want that to be the outcome, so let's screw process and use excess process as a justification". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I supported deletion in the AfD - after supporting keep in prior go rounds - and frankly haven't changed my mind again, but let's relist to establish consensus without a cloud of "procedural error". No reflection on the propriety of the close itself, but it's better to have a controversial thing done without the perception of error, since the community has survived 4 of these AfD's a 5th won't kill us. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
FlyLady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article existed since 2005, but was deleted with the reason "Speedy deleted per (CSD a7), was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject.. using TW)".

Isn't having 380,000 members an assertion of notability? Aren't bestseller books (Body Clutter, "Sink Reflections") an assertion of notability? The article also contained external links to The FLY Show on World Talk Radio (but the link was dead), and an article on FlyLady by the author Karen Kohlhaas. Aren't these assertion of notability? How else do you "assert" notability of such a group?

FlyLady has been given non-trivial coverage by almost every single notable newspaper in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.google.co.in/archivesearch?q=flylady

The article had been tagged with speedy deletion earlier as well, but the tag was removed by an administrator saying that it does not qualify as speedy (I can't remember the name of the administrator, because the article has been deleted and history is not available). Then why was it deleted this time? If there are no references in the article, shouldn't it be tagged with {{unreferenced}} instead of being speedy-deleted?

Thank you for your consideration. 202.54.176.11 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete You should have talked to or at least notified the deleting admin first... this DRV might not have been necessary. The article minimally asserted importance (by way of the published book) but needed a lot of work. Nevertheless the news results seem to indicate a proper article could exist here. --W.marsh 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion-I don't know if the article met notability guidelines (hard to say without reading it) but it sounds like there was at least an assertion, making A7 invalid.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Doesn't sound like CSD A7 would have applied here. Undelete article and start a proper AfD discussion if nessacary Rackabello 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no it's not an A7, but it is blatant advertising, or G11. Suggest that the deleting admin be more clear about such issues in the future. >Radiant< 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted under WP:CSD#G11, not under A7. Needs a total rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. I offer no opinion on whether such an article is possible on this subject. GRBerry 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn but if overturned list on AfD. This was celarly not an A7, but is near the edge of being speedy-deletable as spam. I don't think it is quite over that line, but it would need significnt fixup to remain as an article, IMO. DES (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against a proper rewrite that asserts notability and doesn't smell of porcine byproducts. Neither A7 nor G11 precludes the creation of a proper article. If you really want a review, though, I would recommend creating an article in userspace and bringing that to DRV. That might help avoid future misunderstandings. Xtifr tälk 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, G11 is heavy-handed in this case. I can see an AFD nom under WP:WEB, but while the article is, shall we say, upbeat it mostly communicates factual information of varying importance, and the parts that are her philosophy are denoted as such. The article that I see had no nag tags of any sort, and I imagine most of the content has been sitting there untouched from prehistoric Wikipedia before rigorous citation became the standard. --Dhartung | Talk 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_15&oldid=1138430231"