Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 July 1
2007 July 3 >

2 July 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wealthy fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Restore There was patently nothing close to a semblance of a consensus that this category should be deleted, as there had not been in the previous discussion, or in the one before that. The discussion was moving strongly towards retention, with many answered reasons put forward for retention. The same admin had deleted it before, and his heated closure notice is not objective or a reflection of the clearly expressed will of the community. The category should be restored, though with the name in the correct form, which would be Category:Fictional wealthy characters. The repetition of incorrect closures in this case is quite alarming. Choalbaton 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - reasonable closing by admin. Addhoc 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you using "Reasonable" as a synonym of "I agree with it?" That is not what this page is about. The question is whether the admin applied consensus. He did not. Haddiscoe 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a fair closing & the haphazard nature of the items categorized didn't help. DGG 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you using "Fair" as a synonym of "I agree with it?" That is not what this page is about. The question is whether the admin applied consensus. He did not. Haddiscoe 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore For the same admin to delete the same category twice without consensus on either occasion is really out of order. Haddiscoe 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable interpretation of the discussion; consensus is more than numbers. Eluchil404 00:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus. What "interpretation of the discussion?" The deleters just kept repeating a mantra about so-called subjectivity, and had no answer for the detailed counter arguments that were put forward. The closer said nothing that hadn't been said many times before and all of his comments are highly controversial. He did not act as an impartial judge, but as a longstanding advocate of one position. Craig.Scott 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted on the recent nomination on the July 1 CfD:
    • The original cat was placed on CfD on October 2007 and closed as delete on Oct 23.
    • No deletion review was submitted regarding that delectation and the cat was recreated sometime between Oct 23 and May 15 2007.
    • The recreation as placed for CfD on May 15 2007 and closed as "no consensus" on May 26 2007. No mention of the prior CfD was made during that discussion.
    • It was placed for CfD again on June 12 2007, with the previous CfDs both mentioned. This one was closed as delete on June 20 by the admin that closed the October CfD.
    • Again, no DRV was filed and the cat was recreated with a varied name sometime between June 20 and July 1.
    • It was placed for CfD on July 1.
    • As of July 2 it appears to have been deleted without the last CfD closing and just before this DRV was posted.
- J Greb 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no deletion review before we can't be sure of the outcome, but the natutal assumption to make is that it would have been overturned as there was no consensus to delete. Wimstead 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, I obviously endorse. This page is not about whether the admin applied consensus. This page is about whether the discussion was closed properly, and I continue to assert that it was. But if you want to talk about consensus, I'll give you a quote from Doczilla which sums up the closing quite nicely: As the CfD guidelines clearly state, a CfD discussion is not a vote. Consensus can be wrong. The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. A subjective name for a category is wrong, no matter how many people say they like it. --Kbdank71 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subjectivity issue has been satisfactorily overcome by the suggestion that the category should be used for characters whose wealth is utilised as an aspect of the work, meaning that there is no need to make judgements about whether the character is wealthy by any other standard. Therefore this is not a subjective category. Wimstead 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wealth is utilised as an aspect of the work. As I asked in the closing, who determines this? Can you verify it? It's still subjective, even with that explanation. --Kbdank71 14:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore This is an open and shut case of incorrect closure. Wimstead 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until an independently verifiable defintiion of wealthy can be found and objective independent sources for the valuation system can be established. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore As this is clearly controversial, closer should at least have left the decision to someone who came to the discussion from an impartial position. AshbyJnr 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Kbdank71. Reasonable consensus reached for this to be deleted. Seraphim Whipp 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore - It could be a category descriptive of some useful information. I'm of the opinion that we should include more and try to make it better. --Rocksanddirt 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Kbdank71; there are no objective criteria for what is "wealthy" in the real or fictional world, making this category entirely OR, POV, and therefore entirely unencyclopedic, regardless of how one counts noses. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The "keep" and "delete" votes were actually close to evenly split in this discussion, although slightly more people voted to "keep". The closing administrator could have closed this as "no consensus" but instead chose to use his/her perogative to make a definitive decision based on the arguments in favor of and against the category. The administrator found the arguments for deletion more persuasive and so chose to delete the category. As indicated by a couple of the above comments, this is a perfectly acceptable way to close a discussion on Wikipedia. These discussions are not necessarily straight votes but are instead discussions were the substance of the comments are also important. The deletion should be allowed to stand, and the category should not be recreated. Dr. Submillimeter 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That hands all the authority to a single user. Would you feel the same way if you disagreed with that user? Sumahoy 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The administrator was not acting alone. Close to half of the people in the discussion advocated deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There was no consensus. The advocates of deletion lost the debate. This same closer has ignored consensus in two closures which I have just listed. Sumahoy 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore as Category:Fictional wealthy characters. No consensus, and the debate has moved towards retention. Not within the bounds of reasonable admin discretion. Olborne 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer did not come to the matter in an impartial frame of mind as he had closed a previous debate, and did not act in accordance with the will of the community. Aviara 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore There's nothing wrong with this category, but plenty wrong with how it has been treated. OrchWyn 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable interpretation of the debate; policy is more important than the raw vote count. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't get how you can think that. Say, "the keep votes are ignorant and deserve to be ignored", but don't say it was a reasonable interpretation, when it was nothing of the kind. The most that can be said is, "The closer is evidently a person of superior judgment, and therefore his decision to ignore the debate is acceptable.". OrchWyn 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleting it is most certainly not a reflection of the discussion but rather a result of the closer's personal taken on the matter. Let's not invoke "but CfD is not a vote!". Indeed it is not: a discussion took place and that discussion resulted in a lot of noise and, at best, no definitive conclusion. The argument was made that this was an inherently subjective category. That's a pretty good point. The response to that was an eloquent appeal to common sense by Annandale: It should also be quite straightforward to use: fictional characters are defined by wealth if their wealth is a feature of the story. There's usually little doubt as to whether or not this applies, so this is not a subjective category. I can't say that I have a strong opinion on the existence of the category but the fact is that the closure is at odds with the discussion and such closures are just bad practice. We can live with imperfections of Wikipedia and if you think it's a stupid category, well, tough. But involving people in a discussion and then ignoring the outcome and doing so with a pretty arrogant concluding sentence is a surefire way to drive people away from the project. Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. CFD is not a vote count, and the fact that this is an arbitrary and subjective categorization makes it impractical. >Radiant< 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per admin rationale. --After Midnight 0001 12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn CFD is not a vote count, but admins are not supposed to act in an arbitrary fashion to impose their own will. The closer acted as a participant in a dispute, not an a neutral arbiter. Osomec 13:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore If the closer felt he had a strong case, why didn't he play fair by making his points as part of the regular discussion for consideration by someone else at a later time? Annandale 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is really OTT (and subjective) overcategorization as far as cats go; no one made a case for the value of retaining the cat. Procedure is one thing, but if an admin can IAR and use his/her own judgment (which is not what I think happened here - the strength of delete arguments outweighed the strength of keep arguments), then procedure was followed, and the category should not have been recreated. Basically, somebody's idea got rejected, and they're having a hard time dealing with it. MSJapan 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the strength of delete arguments outweighed the strength of keep arguments Just thought I'd repeat that. As for Annandale's question "why didn't he play fair", please. This is not a game, and you are not children. I don't have to make sure your cookies are all the same size, and you all get the same amount of toys to play with. I'm here to close a discussion for the best of wikipedia. Sometimes that means I have to determine who has the stronger argument. Otherwise, all we'd have is a vote count, and that's not what this is about. --Kbdank71 01:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of horribly subjective category. I strongly commend the admin for weighing the quality of the arguments instead of the quantity of "I like it" remarks or other insufficient arguments to keep. I really wish more admins would show this much sense. Wryspy 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn no consensus, clear as daylight.  Grue  21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore there was no consensus and the points about it being subjective have been answered particularly be Pascal.Tesson. Davewild 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. There was consensus to delete and recreations can therefor be deleted. The fact that the same admin closed multiple discussions is not a problem unless there is some allegation of bias or violation of some rule over closing. As far as I can see, the closings were done according to policy. The discussion on 2006 Oct 12 was closed as delete and that is what deleting the recreations are based on. The discussions are just that, discussions, and the decision is based on the content of those discussions and not simply a counting of the 'votes'. Also the closing admin needs to be consistent when you take into account decisions on similar categories. Since the 2006 closing went unchallenged one must consider that it was a valid closing. Vegaswikian 19:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, what I see at the CfD, to be quite blunt, are a lot of garbage keep arguments, such as "It's harmless! It's fun!" (I'm not kidding, that's in there...). The closing admin properly disregarded these, as categories are not kept around because they are fun or interesting. If they are not verifiable and objective, they must be deleted, regardless of how many like them. Anyone closing any debate having anything to do with fiction does well to give a very, very low priority to head count, and a very high priority to strength of argument, as there tends to be a lot of rabid fannishness in these areas. "Inherently unverifiable and subjective" is a strong delete argument. WP:ILIKEIT is not a strong keep argument. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 7 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 SMS abbreviations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article is still linked to in the SMS language entry. While its value may be somewhat dubious, it is the only list I have found with a GFDL license and that in itself is useful. PaigePhault 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • undelete forimprovements. Deleted only as an expired prod. DGG 18:12, 2 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.
Image:Mimi_mariah_carey.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Mimi_mariah_carey.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There should be discussion before deleting an image on the grounds the rationale needs improvement. Addhoc 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - on July 6 a replacement was uploaded including another rationale. Addhoc 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Ther was a rationale. Assuming that the iamge was in fact being used on the paage about the album, all that was missing was the obvious words "This rationale supports use in...." which anyone trying to improve the project should have added, rather than deleting or flagging for deletion. DES (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the deleting admin. Note that WP:FURG applies here. No explanation was given as to which article the image was for, nor why that article required multiple different fair-use album covers in violation of WP:FUC 3a. Additionally, there is no reason the image could not be reuploaded provided such a detailed fair-use rationale be added. --Yamla 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image listed is the principal version of the album's front cover, I'm not sure if the back cover and special edition covers are required, but they could be discussed separately. Saying there is no reason why the image can't be re-uploaded is ok, but if there's no real objection, I would suggest the deletion should be overturned and the rationale improved. Addhoc 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Addhoc and DESiegel. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If an image is in fact only being used in one article, and the fair use rationale given applies to that article, I think it is safe to assume that the rational is intended for that article, and the admin couldf very well add such a statement to the rationale rather than ddeleting. If the image is an album cover, and the article in question is the article about the album it is obviuous what purpose the image is serving (identification) and if this needs to be mafe more explicit, it shoul;d be made so. If ther are multiple fair-use images involved, any of which could reasonably be sued, but at elast arguably all of which should not be, tha tis a case for IfD, not for speedy deletion, where the reaosn for using one image raher than another could be discussed. The deletion was therefore improper. DES (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your claim that despite WP:FUC, we don't really need the rationale to adhere to this policy? Specifically, that 10c does not really apply? Please also note that I gave nine days rather than the 48 hours for this to be fixed. While I am more than happy for this image to be reuploaded with an acceptable rationale, I really do not think my deletion was inappropriate given that the image clearly violated WP:FUC, particularly given that it was uploaded by a user who has received numerous warnings about WP:FU. --Yamla 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:FURG "If disputed or incomplete rationale exists that cannot be fixed, the image should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and Media for Deletion." In this case the rationale could easily of been fixed. Also, the image should have been nominated for IfD instead of being speedied. Addhoc 06:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not saying that we dont need the rationale to spell out what articles it applies to, I am saying that any editor who can improve the project, should do so. That if a rationale is incompelte, but it is reasoanbley clear how it should be completed, and when so compelted it is valid, it is better to complete it than to delete the image. This is not about makign uplaoders jump through hoops, this is about properly documenting how and why we are making fair use claims. I have added many rationales to images I never uplaoded, but found on deletion patrol. If it is clear to an admion or other ediotor how the rational can be corrected so that it is in full compliance with WP:FUC, then i am saying that it is better to correct it than to delete. And I am also saying that if it is obvious at DRV how the rational could be corected to make it valid, then the image should be undelted and the rational corrected. I am NOT saying tha tthe image should be left with an incompelte or incorrct rationale. DES (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn - make the article better, explain what the image is for, more encyclopedic action, less deletion.--Rocksanddirt 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if (as is usual) the image was only being used to show what the album cover looks like. Fair use images have to be used for critical commentary - if there was discussion in the article about the significance of the cover art, then undelete the image and write a rationale. If it was just being used in the album's infobox, then keep deleted. —Angr 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Non-free album cover}} template advises:
what makes you believe this isn't correct? Addhoc 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn album cover.  Grue  21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until somebody actually comes up with a rationale. We must not keep non-free images. on Wikipedia unless we have a good reason. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Starchild Abraham Cherrix – As the consensus below is that BLP questions are disputed, with many experienced admins saying that BLP concerns do not exist in this case, the article be restored, protected blank, and sent to AfD. – Xoloz 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starchild Abraham Cherrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think there's enough material in this article to at least merit a formal deletion discussion; was speedy deleted by Doc glasgow. Apparently he's been on vacation. Andrew73 12:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure we did this before. This was deleted as a BLP violation. Marginal notability is less important than basic human dignity. Endorse Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I could agree to the basic human dignity issue, but we shouldn't determine for other people what violates their dignity. In this case, the family in question actively maintains a public web site of all legal decisions and news stories, at http://abrahamsjourney.com/ so they don't seem to feel their dignity is being violated. They've founded a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization for people in similar situations. We shouldn't assume every possible article we could write about this person would be a personal attack. He's sick, and choosing an alternative form of treatment. The family seems to feel this isn't something to hide, but something they're proud of. Why should we hide it despite them? Oh, by the way, sources include CNN and USA Today. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The article was sourced and any BLP issues could have been handled by trimming content as opposed to outright deletion. What is "basic human dignity"? Is a person with a serious illness somehow less dignified than others? A healthy person is more dignified? Is that what this deletion implies? Does dignity have anything to do with factors other than a person's character, which is something that we cannot hope to determine from news reports, journals, and books? Concepts that have been debated by philosophers for thousands of years and which will be debated for thousands more should not be thrown around so lightly. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Article is well sourced, there is no negative or controversial information included. That alone should be enough to avoid any BLP concerns, but in this case there is no evidence that the subject or his family wish to avoid publicity, and significant evidence that they seek it. Thuis protecting their privicy (or "dignity" whatever is being meant by this very loose use of a vague term) canno be a ratiopnal consideration. DES (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn though the specific facts should be specifically sourced.& some more refs to show notability would help. I dont think speedy was the best choice if Doc thought this long-standing article should be deleted. DGG 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There are no significant BLP issues with this article. It is not negative in tone; it attacks nobody. The material is also all sourced. Notability is for an AFD decision, not to be made by whichever admin is most hair trigger with the delete button. AFD participants and/or editors should look for an opportunity to merge it to a broader topic, possibly Abraham's law, since the proposed law ever passes has passed and been signed into law in Virginia. GRBerry 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but allow temporary undelete, move to a subpage and redirect, to an appropriate article. This person is not in any way notable. The case is somewhat notable, but not the person. It's a news story masquerading as a biography, like so many others deleted around that time. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh ... what's the purpose of moving to a subpage or of subsequently redirecting that subpage? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in any way notable? With respect, this person has had widespread coverage, and a law named after them. Surely that's at least one way the person is notable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There are substantial public policy and legal issues in this well publicized case and a single administrator should not just be able to say "BLP" and end all discussion of the appropriateness of the article. -- DS1953 talk 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn covered in more than enough sources to make encyclopedic inclusion worthwhile. -N 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD while protected blank. Whether there are BLP concerns can only be determined after thorough vetting of the sources, so it should be blank while notability is discussed. Chick Bowen 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BLP" is not a magic wand that trups all other considerations. That one person asserts there is a BLP concern does not mean that one actually exists, and doing an AfD while the article is protected blank would rob the AfD of more than half of its point. In some cases this might be needed, but there would have to be some pretty celar reason for the concern -- here no credible reason for such an action has been asserted. I see no reason to list on AfD at all, much less protected blank. This should simply be restored for normal editiong. If anyone choses to then list on AfD, so be it. DES (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • uphold - Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, doc G acted in accordance with policy. --Rocksanddirt 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That arbitration said that when a deletion based on BLP disputed, we should discuss and form a consensus as to whether deletion was correct. At least 4 admins above, who can look at the deleted article, have concluded that the deletion was not correct. What aspect of the deleted article leads you to believe it was? GRBerry 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) The way I read the discussions of the arbitration and the final decision is that something that is brought to an admin's attention as a BLP violation for negative content, should be deleted first, then discussed and consensus achieved. So, I agree with the deletion, and now the article can have the conversation about what should be in it or not. --Rocksanddirt 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, an excellent fine point that a thousand angels can dance upon! Technically DRV should be about whether the deletion was proper; the Arbcom says a disputed article should be deleted; therefore the deletion should be endorsed! :-) Except, then, where do we have the conversation? Rocksanddirt, I propose that you misunderstood slightly. This is the conversation. Please state your argument and opinion about the existence of the article (since you can't see the deleted form, the best possible article that could be written about this topic). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(furiously dancing on a fine point)...well...I agree that this is the place for that discussion. I'm generally of the "include more stuff" camp, but an article about a child who is only notable for dying unpleasantly is likely over the line. So, in that sense for the article I would say delete. But I think there needs to be a way for interested parties to actually review the articles that fall into this camp. I don't know enought about the software backbone of this extravaganza to comment on what that might look like or how feasible it is. Maybe something like, a place that only registered/logged in users can go to read, but not edit an article in this situation in order to make intelligent comments on either an AfD or DR? --Rocksanddirt 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for not summarily undeleting this article. It seems to be about a teenager who has a rather nasty cancer, and has discontinued chemotherapy, a decision his family supported even though it led to their being prosecuted for child neglect. In its deleted form, it's a rather distasteful bit of tabloid muck, but there seems to be an article about the court case and the proposed "Abraham's Law" (apparently a Bill before the Virginia Senate by Virginia Senator Nick Rerras) in there. But obviously not about the boy. I endorse deletion but it may be undeleted if someone wants to turn it into an article about Abraham's Law. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarify: you are arguing that it should be deleted because you personally find it distasteful? Not because of any effort to protect the living persons involved? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's already been deleted. I'm saying that it's a bit of tabloid muck (and obviously against WP:NOT) but there is salvageable information that could possibly be used to produce a good article about the proposed legislation placed before the Virginia Senate. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This appears to be a serious topic of note in a large U.S. state. Aviara 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn improper speedy deletion (wasn't tagged at the time of deletion) and the person is clearly notable enough for an article.  Grue  21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: This person meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. It is undoubtedly possible to write an article about him that contains real information but respects his basic human dignity. I don't see how presumption in favor of privacy applies to information which the subject himself (and his family) have publicized. I don't see how documenting the widely reported facts of his situation, which are relevant to proposed legislation, is "doing harm". MastCell Talk 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Having viewed the most recent deleted revision, while it's not great writing and would need substantial improvement, I don't see it impinging on Mr Cherrix's basic human dignity or presenting him in a negative light. "Tabloid muck" is an odd characterization. MastCell Talk 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This is a notable individual who has a law named after him no less. The individual is clearly notable with many different reliable sources. Since the law was passed this isn't just a transient news topic but is something that has had long-term effects and is therefore encyclopedic. While we do need to balance privacy and dignity issues against compiling encyclopedic information, the weight in this case favors having an article. JoshuaZ 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but change to an article and title about the event rather than the person. This isn't a biography, but it does appear that the event (especially if it led to a law in the person's name) does merit mention. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:00, 7 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.
Cliff_Hanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cliff_Hanley,novelist has been replaced by Cliff_Hanley which is confusing as the novelist is dead and the artist lives. Cliffhanley 10:09, 2 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 common phrases in various languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

At 13 out of 34 participants opining that the article should be deleted,I do not believe that there was any consensus on deleting this article. The deleting admin is open to do a transwiki of this article, however I do not believe that there is any consensus for that either. As far as the content of the article is concerned, I argue that it is encyclopedic on the basis that Encarta has a similar, more expanded module in their software that compliments their languages article. Thanks. --Chris S. 07:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (my) deletion. Firstly, if we're going by head count (which I don't anyway), there were several additional arguments to transwiki in addition to those for outright deletion. An argument to transwiki effectively states "This content is appropriate somewhere, but it's not here," and is in essence an argument to delete from Wikipedia. Regardless of this, however, and while many arguments on both the keep and delete side were less than impressive ("useful", "effort", "cruft", and so on), good points regarding the issues of verifiability and suitability here were brought up. Encarta may well include similar miscellany, but they don't have other projects in which it would be more appropriate, and which are better geared to handle material of this type. We do. It's educational, useful, and reasonably well-done, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This comment addresses two points. The first is the AfD procedure. Combining both the deletion and transwiki opinions is a creative effort. You're right, that 60% (is that consensus?) of those felt that Wikipedia wasn't the right place for this article. However, let's dig further. Despite seven people opining that the article should be Transwiki, there was no consensus on where it should have been done. Only four editors felt that it should be sent to Wikibooks with only two out of that four stating it as their only choice (the other two where undecided as to where). Dealing with the other pro-Transwiki editors, two did not know where to put it. And one other person decided that Wiktionary would be an appropriate place.
Now, don't get me wrong here but I think two out of 34 barely qualifies for consensus. But still, it is pretty clear, Seraphimblade, that there is no consensus on what action to take as far as Transwiki is concerned. Neither was there consensus to delete it. If Transwiki is the desired option, then perhaps the article should be restored and from there, another AfD should be started in order to make a strong case for Transwiki to a specific Wikiproject. But short of that, I do not feel it is justified to be Transwikied now, under this particular AfD ruling.
My second point is about the article itself. You're right, it is not an encyclopedia article. It is a list. I regard this list the same way I do List of numbers in various languages, which supplements the numbers article. This list of common phrases (and I do agree that the name should be changed) is a supplement to the language article because it gives the encyclopedia reader information, all in one place, on how various languages say particular words or phrases. In this respect it is not a usage or style guide or even a touristy phrasebook. And if the article is overturned, then steps should be taken in order to assure that doesn't happen. The purpose it serves is to give a survey of language. I have cited Encarta ad nauseam but the "New Book of Knowledge" (I believe, I may be wrong. It could be World Encyclopedia) has done it on a smaller scale for Romance languages. --Chris S. 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of agreement on where to transwiki isn't really an issue, that's between the editors who wish to transwiki and the policies of the other wiki(s). Let's say, for example, that Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity all are willing to accept the material. We don't have to choose, "all of the above" is a perfectly valid option in such a case! We're not dealing with a situation of mutual exclusivity on that note. As to your statement that reading "Transwiki" as I did is creative, I'm not really sure why. "Delete" expands to "This material is not appropriate for Wikipedia." "Transwiki" means that too, just with "(but we can transfer it to another project)" added. Even a unanimous consensus to delete wouldn't prohibit someone from doing a transwiki if they wished to, no consensus here is necessary to do so—only a consensus at the receiving project that they will accept it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, agree with Chris. --Node 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - Mostly per nom, but also per WP:PAPER and Wiki is not paper. It is definitely an encyclopedic topic. Just because we can export it, doesn't mean we should. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at it this way: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." This improves the encyclopedia just because it fails WP:WHATEVER doesn't mean it doesn't improve the encyclopedia. This is encyclopedic material. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IAR has no relevance here because no rule-lawyering has been done. Wikipedia not being a dictionary or usage guide is both a basic policy and a corollary of the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision to delete was right. Consensus should not be determined by counting the bolded votes but by looking at what the discussion reveals about how policy applies to the article. No serious argument was advanced at the AfD that this page is now, or could ever be, consistent with the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chris S.'s point in the AfD that the article is not a dictionary because it's not comprehensive is of course true, but not really relevant to WP:WINAD. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/Endorse deletion from Wikipedia - Only a minority of people (approximately 1/3) wanted to keep the article, and most of the "keep" arguments described the page as useful either as a general reference or for lingual research. The other 2/3 of the people indicated that the material does not belong in Wikipedia, thus providing adequate consensus for deletion. The best solution is to copy this to a more appropriate Wiki, as suggested by 1/3 of the comments. The administrator even offered to provide the text of the old page to any editor who wanted to do this. Dr. Submillimeter 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close this was really non-encyclopedic. Encarta positions itself as an encyclopedia and a dictionary & many other encyclopedias, print & online, have had a dictionary as a separate supplementary work--and so does Wikipedia. DGG 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear and obvious endorse deletion. Define "various". Define "common". Completely arbitrary, can't be anything else. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Seraphim completley justified. Bulldog123 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion It isn't relevant whether people commenting here think the article merited retention. The question is whether procedures were followed. There was no consensus to delete this so it should not have been deleted. Haddiscoe 23:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. The decision to delete was obviously wrong, as there was no consensus. Moreover, I can't see in the AfD any solid argument for deletion, quite on the contrary. Deleting this article is just as bad as removing the language sample sections in all the language articles, because they belong here and are verifiable just as much as this list. Sure thing, the article has its problems, starting with the title and the introduction, but that is certainly fixable. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples of languages can in most cases by provided by using excerpts of good literature. Considering that sentences like "where's the toilet" is among the most advanced examples provided in this unwieldy monster of a list, it's anything but representative of genuine languages. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excerpts from literature are good if you want to get an impression of one language, but they do not allow comparison. "Where's the toilet" was indeed a bad choice, but we don't have to delete the whole article for that. — AdiJapan ☎ 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has already been pointed out[1] by an actual linguist (who, like Angr, has a Ph.D.) that so-called common phrases are pretty worthless for linguistic comparison. Swadesh lists have more merit, but the problem is still that the place for it isn't Wikipedia, but other projects. It's at best whimsical and overly colloquial, even without the silly bathroom request. No matter how much you try to reform the article/list/whatever, it's still going to be either a guide for how to get along with the locals as a mere tourist or completely arbitrary "common" phrases, which amount to nothing but a phrase book, dictionary or crash course in a thousand languages all at once. Bishonen summarizes the awkardness of the article very eloquently and (or the umpteenth time) I have to stress that neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary nor Wikibooks or any other of our projects benefit from us trying to keep stuff simply because we like to see it included here. Go help the other projects instead of forcing us to be a mere information dumping ground; we already have a place for that and it's called the internet. Peter Isotalo 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're comparing apples and oranges. Two types of comparisons are being dealt here. The first is within the realm of historical linguistics or more specifically, comparative linguistics. This is for a very specific purpose, and only linguists would make use of it. Mark Dingemanse is correct in saying that it would be uninteresting or practically useless to linguists (they'd have to be related, first of all!). However, the article is not about historical linguistics and neither is it solely intended for linguists. There is a wider audience, who have had no training in linguistics. This is an article about languages, by the way, and not linguistics. So the second kind of comparisons is a survey, just to give a reader an idea on how certain language express certain concepts - these are concepts that just happen to be useful for tourists, and so what is wrong with that? It does not necessarily indicate that it's meant to be a tourist guide, although with certain languages it has certainly evolved to that stage. And as I said before, it's fixable. --19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't a place for original research even of the "useful, interesting, I-like it" kind. Peter Isotalo 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just how exactly is it original research? --Chris S. 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. It's hard to say what an encyclopedia is, considering that we're now the largest one in human history; but it does seem that Encarta is an encyclopedia, and has such an article. That would seem to be strong evidence that this article is encyclopedic. It's still debatable (for example, we're not Encarta), but the debate was held, and it seems clear that side won the debate. We with the mop aren't supposed to set consensus, merely carry it out. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore We can't have Encarta be more comprehensive than Wikipedia, can we? --Xiaphias 19:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as encyclopedic content and the "consensus to delete" was marginal at best. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore There was no consensus to delete. Sumahoy 22:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This title does not belong in a dictionary, as it is not a dictionary definition, but it would be no surprise to find it in any encyclopedia as a part of its encyclopedic coverage of lingustics. Olborne 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I had always found this page very useful. ErikB 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I'm glad you wish to see the article restored, it's been established that usefulness is not a valid criterion. If you or anyone else have other justifiable reasons, please share. --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. >Radiant< 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither is this article. It's a list of phrases giving a survey, by use of common phrases, of various languages. --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content of this article is dictionary content. Wikipedia not being a dictionary means this kind of content goes on Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. I encourage everybody who is interested in adding information to a Wikimedia project about phrases in various languages, to do so at wikt:Category:Phrases. Pan Dan 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because AFD is a discussion, not a vote. The arguments to keep boiled down to "It's useful" and WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which (regardless of the number of people repeating them) can overcome the fact that it was a blatant violation of WP:NOT, not to mention being almost completely unverified. The last makes tranwikiing not an option, since Wiktionary won't accept unreferenced, unverifiable lists of tourist phrases any more than Wikipedia will. —Angr 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've been avoiding the term "vote" since clearly this is not what it should be about. I am familiar with the AfD process, and I know that it is based on consensus. How can consensus be determined by a minority of editors? The thing about the unverified content of this discussion is that it's easily verifiable, since there is a wealth of information about various languages. My point is, it may be a flaw, but it's a fixable one. And what, may I ask, is this article violating about WP:NOT? --Chris S. 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still an issue of not being a dictionary, and this is quite clearly something that attempts to list translations of the same phrases in as many langauges as possible (making it utterly undoable and arbitrary). We have Wikibooks and Wiktionary to help people learn languages and we're only making their job harder by trying to make Wikipedia something it was never intended to be. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's not a vote. It was appropriately deleted. Wryspy 06:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of course it isn't a vote. But where is the consensus and the valid arguments for deletion? Let's review the deletion arguments:
      1. The nominating editor (and five other editors agreed) said "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage guide, an idiom guide, or a travel guide. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and OR-prone; the title too is awkward." It has been established either here or in the AfD that the article was not a dictionary, usage guide, idiom guide, or a travel guide, but instead as a supplementary article to the the articles on language. I'll also repeat by paraphrasing that the lack of sources and verifiablity can also be changed. Even the awkward title.
      2. Three editors, with one concurring, have said that the article is cruft. I'm not even sure that's even a valid argument (it's as valid as saying it's "useful").
      3. Two editors said that it was "unmaintainable." The article has been maintained for almost six years. There was no direction then until recently. Now we have a guide, Encarta, to work from. The article should more or less conform by the standards that Encarta has set forth in its own similar article. Yes, it's pretty clear that it needs a clean-up (which I stated in the AfD) and now there's direction to do so.
    • So there you have it, folks. I could not find a strong argument from the deletion side. Many of the deletionist arguments are based upon the negative attributes of the article (duh). However, these negative attributes are fixable - especially verifiability, which is why closing admin, Seraphimblade, moved to delete it (according to his closing statement). But the verifiability criterion is clearly a weak argument since vast sources are available, just head to your nearest bookstore or library. There is hope for the article to be improved. It is not a hopeless case! --Chris S. 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clearly no consensus for deletion there.  Grue  21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is simply a misplacing of information. It's the equivalent of having a full-blown treatise on gladiator combat in an article about Spratacus. That's something usually defined as a lack of focus and is actually not very useful to readers. Peter Isotalo 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The AfD was properly closed per cogent arguments on the Delete side. A list of phrases for tourists? When did Wikipedia become a how-to guide? The introduction reads "Tourists to a foreign country often get along with a surprisingly short list of phrases, combined with pointing, miming, and writing down numbers on paper. This list is intended to serve as a comprehensive basic introduction to those languages." Please explain what's encyclopedic about such a purpose. And if the introduction is blanked or rewritten, per being "fixable", the purpose and supposed usefulness of the page will remain enshrined in the lists of phrases themselves, as they are tourist phrases. "Where's the bathroom", indeed. Hello, goodbye, do you speak English. This page is an embarrassment. It's the equivalent of pointing and miming. Bishonen | talk 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The late Charles Berlitz wrote a book titled Native Tongues which was designed to deliver facts about the world's various languages. I recall there being a section outlining how certain languages express certain things. This was given in a format giving the basics - greetings, the words for yes/no, thank you, etc. Just like the article in question, this section of the book was in no way intended for tourists as it was too rudimentary to be so. The intent of this article is not to be a tourist guide. If a tourist were to use it, then good luck to them, but they won't get very far as the article isn't that comprehensive to be one. What use would a tourist bound for Madrid have for this article when there are other languages on it? He'd be better off with a, uh, Berlitz phrasebook. --Chris S. 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it's a quick-reference phrasebook for advanced language learners. What's the justification for housing something like that in an encyclopedia? Peter Isotalo 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it isn't a quick-reference. Please reread what I wrote above. Thanks. --Chris S. 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary! Goodness gracious, people, we have an entire dictionary for this sort of thing. Send it there; it's useful information and they are quite capable of deciding whether they can do anything with it or not. This editing community shouldn't be making that editing community's decisions for them. And that's what Wiktionary *does* -- the ability to compare phrases in different languages that they have is very helpful. If not that, don't we have some "learning languages" wikibooks? This shouldn't be an argument over whether this page would ever be helpful to someone -- of course it would be, and anyway that's not how we judge articles. It's verifiable content -- just not perhaps in exactly the right form for Wikipedia. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:47, 7 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.
Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

I'm having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States -N 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who deleted it. Yeah, I thought that the images was (barely) acceptable in the article it was in. However, it looked to me like the consensus was against me and N, and the most knowledgeable policy-wonks thought the image violated NFCC#2 and possibly #8 as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -N 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - news media photos are not acceptable for fair use. The moment may not be repeatable, but that doesn't give us the right to use somebody's photo of it unless the PHOTO ITSELF is iconic. This one isn't - any photo of the event would do. To use this image would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 06:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this is basically to show what the event looked like, not a place where inclusion of the photo is necessary as the photo itself is being discussed or is a critical part of the story. (For appropriate use of a photo under "historical" claims, see Kim Phuc, where the photo itself is an integral and iconic part of the story.) I imagine we could get a free-use photo of someone swearing on a book other than the Bible as this practice becomes more common; there might even be a federal-government photo of the event available somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This was delted basically on the same arguement that Seraphimblade makes above. But that arguiement is not supported by WP:FUC. FUC says that the image can only be used if no obtanable image would "serve the encyclopedic purpose". But most encyclopedias use images of acrtual historic events, not reproductions, when available, and wile possibly not essential, such images to help users (humans are visually oriented beings) to grasp the event. The event itself was a mattr of significant interst, adn anothr simialr event, ort a astaged reproduction, whould not have the same encyclopedic effect. DES (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaceable doesn't matter when it's a news media photo. To use it without permission or paying royalties would be a flagrant copyright violation. --BigΔT 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said above, where exactly is this special rule for news media photos spelled out in a policy page? I can't find it in WP:FUC or any other relevant page. As for being a "flagrant copyright violation" fair use is precisely about the right, granted by law (the same law that protects copyright in the first place) to use copyrighted content without permission or payment under limited circumstances. Content from the news media are used under fair use all the time. They have no legal exemption. if you are arguing that one of the particular limits on fair use, or in Wikipedia policy, is violated here, than please say specifically what legal or policy provision is involved. Simply saying "news media photo" is not a magic wand -- they news media get, and should get, no more (and no less) protection than any other content creator or publisher. DES (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:FAIR#Examples of unacceptable use #5. Further, regardless of Wikipedia policy, use of a some random person's photo where there's nothing special about it and it just happens to depict the thing you want to show is a copyright violation. If DRV, IFD, and Wikipedia policies fail to recognize that, then they are hopelessly broken. One interesting read would be this IFD, which dealt with the same kind of image. It was from a book, not a newspaper, (see [2] for the original source) but it's the same class of photo. The arguments were basically the same that they are here. Someone went and asked a Wikipedia user who just happens to be an intellectual property lawyer about it. He said, among other things, "The use of this image is a clear copyright violation, and not a fair use. The fact that it is particularly useful to the illustration of an important article is irrelevant." Contrary to what we seem to think on Wikipedia, "just because I want to" isn't a fair use defense and consensus can't override copyright law. --BigΔT 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I remember that image, and the DRV on it. While I am not an IP lawyer, I am fairly well read in copyright law, and i think the lawyer's arguemnt there is wrong, or more exactly too broadly stated to apply to the particular case. In any case, your argument on that IfD (which exactly parallels your argument here) would convert "transformative use" from one of four factors to be considerd to an essential requirement of fair use. That is clearly not merely wrong but absurd. Well, I have made my point, we will see how others react. DES (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; violation of WP:NFCC #2 at least, maybe others as well. —Angr 20:01, 4 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.
WPARanormal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was originally deleted for NN the article as it was originally reposted still failed this check however I do believe I fixed this issue after Pablothegreat85 flagged the article for that same short-coming Wantmy442 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse this was deleted after an AFD in 06 and then recreated. The last version is short on multiple independent sources. Most of the sources are self referential and therefore invalid. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The AFD was unambiguous, and it's hard to believe the subject will ever be notable enough for an article. Shalom Hello 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, while one independent source is cited, it's a human interest piece in a local paper, and certainly isn't sufficient source material for an article. The rewrite doesn't seem to substantially address the concerns raised at AfD, and from the lack of sources available, I don't think those concerns can be addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re looked at the article and realize now I only pointed out the notability on the talk page which has now been deleted but forgot to reference them in the article given a chance I would fix that.

The notability fixes would include reference to the fact that the hosts of the show have been mentioned in many books including but not limited to

  • Asfar, Dan (2002). Ghost Stories of Michigan. Lone Pine Publishing. ISBN 1894877055.
  • Asfar, Dan (2003). Ghost Stories of the Civil War. Ghost House. pp. 149–152. ISBN 1894877160.
  • Asfar, Dan (2005). Ghost Hunters Of America. Ghost House. ISBN 9781894877695.
  • Belanger, Jeff (2005). Encyclopedia Of Haunted Places. New Page Books. pp. 120–122. ISBN 9781564147998.
  • Hunter, Gerald (2005). More Haunted Michigan. Lake Claremont Press. ISBN 1894877691.
  • Godfrey, Linda (2006). Weird Michigan. Sterling. ISBN 1402739079.

I hope this is of some help. Wantmy442 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Few eyes but valid result. Sorry, Wantmy442, I know this is your first and thus far only contribution, but this really is just a directory entry for a local ghosthunting club. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 2 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.
Elvis Presley's favourite books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page is relevant to those who want to know more about a major entertainer who sold 1 billion records.

Imagine if you and I were in a Starbucks and I asked you what your all-time favourite CDs were. Do you think your list would tell me something about you? Of course it would.

At an interview, prospective employees often ask what your hobbies and interests are. Why do you think they do that? If you answered I’m a huge Bruce Lee fan and I love boxing, kung fu, and Zen meditation. Do you think that would say something about who you are?

Same with a list of books Elvis Presley liked. Elvis has an enormous fan base (probably not many Wikipedia moderators) and people want to know more about him, what made him tick, what made him so charismatic. This list of books tells so much about Elvis that I’m staggered that it is not considered to be good enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I’m flummoxed, stumped puzzled and mystified.

If the religious right is behind Wikipedia’s refusal to post “Elvis Presley’s favourite books” then please forgive me for my impertinence. Bruce7777777 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close - the AFD doesn't appear to have been a problem, was uniformly delete when closed, and the arguments seemed to follow policy with regards to indiscriminate lists and verifiability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus on the AFD. Two points about the nomination statement. First, Presley's favorite books might have been relevant if he were notable in the field of literature. However, his notability comes from the music, making discussion of his literature preferences rather irrelevant and indiscrimate. Second, the "religious right" has nothing to do with the deletion of this article, the arguments were based solely on the encyclopedic merit of the page, which was found severely wanting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Valid afd, plenty of discussion, clear consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Elvis's favorite books - if this can even be verified; he did not continue past high school if I recall correctly - are indiscriminate information. The fact that they tell us something about his personality makes no difference. Shalom Hello 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the arguments at the (unanimous) AfD certainly look like valid ones to me. Basically just a trivia list, might be suitable for a fansite, but not an encyclopedia. (And what's the "religious right" got anything to do with anything? If you think I'm religious or right-wing, you're already wrong twice...) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There's no relevant policy cited to overturn this. It's not the article, it's just the topic isn't good. Wikipedia isn't the place to help with your job interview, or have a cup of coffee. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:NOT Starbucks. I'm amazed we had to point that out. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's back under a different title: Elvis presley spiritual books. Oh, and endorse deletion per everybody from the AFD onward. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should that be put up for deletion (MfD?) as well, perhaps? Keeping content of deleted articles in userspace is frowned upon I believe. Tarc 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce has apparently given up. -- Kesh 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - "I like it" and ramblings about right-wing religious conspiracies are not a very compelling arguments. Tarc 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Serious case of WP:ILIKEIT, despite the fact that Majorly and I have already told Bruce why the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless we want 1000s of these lists because we could likely create them for everyone "notable" by WP standards; and we could create their favorite songs, and if we did see them at Starbucks, perhaps their favorite take on whether the half-caf frappaccino beats the soy-latte... Carlossuarez46 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of non-defining category. Wryspy 05:59, 5 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_2&oldid=1136100843"