Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 June 23
2007 June 25 >

24 June 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
William and Mary High School Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WMHSMUN is a major conference on the East Coast of the United States; how is it not "notable"? Also this page has existed for several years and has been updated a number of times; it has repeatedly been contested and revised. I don't understand why it was suddenly deleted (apparently with no discussion since those of us who have been writing it and keeping it up-to-date didn't know it was up for deletion until it was already gone).

  • It was apparently deleted under proposed deletion (prod), which means it was tagged for a few days and then, because nobody removed the tag, deleted. It can be undeleted if you intend to fix any problems, just ask. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have Restored the article and associated image as a disputed prod but the image was fairuse with no rational for use so has been tagged as such and is subject to deletion. Please see WP:FUC. Now how do I close this danged DRV? Spartaz Humbug! 05:41, 25 June 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.
Louis Jolyon West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Section added yesterday was deleted for no given reason Larryj53 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close Then discuss it on the talk page of the article. Deletion Review is for articles that were deleted, not for content disputes. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • R. Weldon Smith – Result was deletion endorsed. However, a substantially improved version (although still needing quite a bit of work) exists in userspace, so I am undeleting this and performing a history merge for GFDL compliance. – IronGargoyle 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
R. Weldon Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No reason given: just poof! Gone ! A full week of gathering info, testing publication, award winning search engine results, edits, code, everything gone. Who will ever know the full extent of the wasted effort. Two administrators took it upon themselves to delete an unfinished work, in the middle of creation. Picaroon9288 will be getting a message from StationNT5Bmedia, but the User_talk at that address specifically says "unavailable" until July. see Picaroon9288 Wafulz deleted another unfinished version of the page. Citing no substantial reason, the User at that desktop began the dictatorial process of sequestoring new knowledge. A message will be soon arriving at that URL also. For more info write User_talk:Wafulz

  • Both deletions were under WP:CSD#A7, which means that both admins felt that the article "did not assert the significance or importance of the subject". IMO that is incorrect, at least for the second deletion. The claims might not be enough to pass an AfD, and might well need better sources, adn there does appear to be a possible Conflict-of-interest issue, but IMO this should have been proded or taken to WP:AFD, not speedy deleted. Overturn and List on AfD to get consensus on notability and other issues. DES (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I deleted this, I won't bother endorsing it. The subject is "Owner/author/editor of StationNT5Bmedia" and the article was created by User:StationNT5Bmedia, which brings up issues related to self-promotion, and the best assertions of notability were reviews by a community newspaper and local radio shows.-Wafulz 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DES. Although at the time of the original construction of the article, few references, if any had been included at that point, perhaps the article was not ready to "go live". However, with the accumulation of the work in progress, now it is plainly becoming visible that this is not the work of a single individual, but a collection of many years of creditable & verifiable references. If the article were published by another volunteer, and the article code referred to the proper search engine find ie. "R. Weldon Smith", then perhaps a larger audience would be willing to endorse it as a Wikified encyclopedic article. I would hate to think that all volunteers and contributions are so quickly discarded without discussion. 72.73.136.108 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to improve the notability of the article can be found at the following: R. Weldon Smith 72.73.136.108 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in correspondence about this having several other creditable articles that are candidates for encyclopedic content, other than the scientific articles contributed on aspheric lens, non-synchronous transmissions, Immigration Reform, and the PTDA, Wikification for "R. Weldon Smith", the pen name & other folks having made literary contributions should be considered. Before the community reaches a verdict, realize that if the article being constructed is of value to Wikipedia, it's code can be copied from User:StationNT5Bmedia/Sandbox, and re-integrated to it's page.StationNT5Bmedia 00:51, 30 June 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.
Pucho & His Latin Soul Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No discussion, side-stepped all protocols. This never even should have qualified as a speedy deletion, and was deleted anyway by someone who obviously did not check their facts.No explanation. Nothing.(Mind meal 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Very strong undelete and don't AfD I'm really surprised this was deleted. Not even close to a speedy cadidate! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I disagree - this is a clear speedy candidate because the article doesn't assert notability. The article does pass WP:MUSIC because a band member went on to be famous but that'd for the article to assert not for the deleting admin to guess. That said, this is clearly a valid article so we may as well undelete to preserve the history. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the contrary, User:Spartaz, this article asserted notability from the start by stating it was the band of Henry "Pucho" Brown, who is a notable musician. The lack of an article on him certainly does not mean that his leadership of the band does not demonstrate notability. Also, Chick Corea having been a member equally demonstrated and asserted notability. The article is a stub, and I never claimed it to be perfect. But notability was, in fact, established. Also, no discussion was had prior to the deletion; that is despite myself and User:Lior having contested it on the article talk page. The notability was asserted, despite claims to the contrary. (Mind meal 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Er why are you arguing with me when I agree that the article should be undeleted? The point is that the article needs to unambiguously assert notability and I can understand why the deleting admin saw no evidence of this. I have never heard of Mr Brown so his name means nothing to me. You are clearly going to get your article back - just be patient. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AFD It's clear from the discussion that notability is just this side of borderline. That's why God created the AFD process. :) YechielMan 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have 25 albums, notable members, loads of mainstream press attention, a 50-YEAR career, and Pucho is one of only 2 black people in the International Latin Music Hall of Fame (along with Dizzy Gillespie)! This is not even close to borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Starblind. AFD on someone in a music Hall of Fame and with a large number of published albums is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the admin who made the deletion, and as it stood there was absolutely no assertion of notability. It just said it was the band of some Mr. Brown and Mr. Corea. And since notability is not inherited from association, this does not qualify as assertion of notability, which made it a valid speedy candidate. But since notability has been asserted here, it can be overturned. --soum talk 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we seem agreed on this, does anyone object if I just go ahead and undelete this bearing in mind that I commened on the discussion? Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)@[reply]
  • Comment: If the article was so sparse that it was deleted as A7, is it actually worth undeleting? Or might it be better to recreate from scratch? I can't see the undeleted article, so I can't judge. But an A7 is no bar to creating an article that does assert notability. And if there were a good new article, that would make the debate academic. Xtifr tälk 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the content is essentially going to be a recreation of what was there before the GFDL more or less requires a history undelete so we may as well go the whole hog. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 25 June 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]
  • Request for this to be relisted for consensus to be obtained (unless you want to go on the two people who have already commented, one of whom is the deleting administrator who believes it was fair use). -N 02:55, 1 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.
Template:Good article (edit | [[Talk:Template:Good article|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD|DRV#1|DRV#2| DRV#3|DRV#4)

The GA process has been improved since it was discussed during the template deletion discussion in March 2006. As for some editors who oppose having metadata templates in Wikipedia, it is already widely used and accepted such as Template:Cleanup, Template:Administrator, and many others. I think it's time to reconsider the deletion of this template. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Links to previous DRVs added. This is not just metadata. Templates which use absolute-placement code to add icons to the upper right corner in article space are routinely deleted at TfD, such as S60C and Page subtitle. Gimmetrow 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gimmetrow makes a strong argument. I'd err on the side of maintaining status quo. YechielMan 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments provide no reasoning to why this template should be deleted. Yes, we don't need a symbol to show that the article is part of Wikipedia's coverage on a television show and text shouldn't be up there either. Are our readers going to be shocked and disturbed by a green symbol at the top? No. Provide some arguments on why this specific template is a bad idea. Psychless 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I didn't intend to provide any specific reasoning, I intended to provide information the opener omitted. The original TfD and the first two DRVs contain plenty of specific arguments. The third and fourth DRVs were basically speedy closes based on the first two DRVs. Also, please note that template "Page subtitle" was being used mostly to put a GA icon in the corner. Gimmetrow 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me ask something... is the policy always keep until proven delete or always delete until proven to be kept? The most important point is that people disagree on the GA assessment system because it was faulty when this template was deleted. But now it is improved, so this template deserves a chance to be undeleted. This was the main point of discussion in DRV 1 and 2. If metadata templates should be removed, why delete a small icon on the top right corner when there're ones that are right inside the articles? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I still think the GA process is badly flawed, and there is no comparison between GA and FA status so no compelling reason to restore this mainspace template. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Simply we don't need little signs to indicate good articles. Its just clutter - anyone interested can find the information on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are wrong there. I have discussed Wikipedia with a number of fairly casual users who are not editors, and one complaint that several made is that they have no way to tell much about the quality of an article without following reference links and in effect verifing its content for themselves, which is not what tbey expect of a reference work. The use of the talk page is not at all celar to many casual users of Wikipedia, and having this kind of metadata on the article iteelf is IMO a very positive thing. The precise design of the template might will be subject to change, but I think that having it on the article proper would be an improvement. DES (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you are "in the know" its just an image. I guess that most people should be able to tell whether the article is any good or not based on how much it sucks rather than needing someone else to tell them. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may not do the job then, but soemthing should. I find that quite a number of people I describe/demonstrat wikipedia to want some assurence that an article has been double-checked by someone. Not a guarentee that everyhtign there is perfect, but that there has been some validation, that it isn't a piece of subtle vandalism, or soemoen who doesn't really know the subject blowing smoke that looks like a plausible article, but is in fact wildly incorrect. And you know as well as I that we do get those kinds of things. Not long ago i reverted a change to SOS which had inserted an urban legend origin story in place of the correct origin of the distress signal. The vandalism ahd been there for weeks, and it looked reasoanble, unless you knew the answer or did research to verify sources. I already knew the answer and it took me quite a while to restore the article to proper shape -- and it would have taken longer had I not known how to use the history tab or if the correct info had not been in an earlier version. Maybe nothing but "stable versions" will really answer this need, but the need, or at least the desire, on the part of users, is there. DES (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — "Good article" is sufficiently informal that it doesn't deserver a metadata template to go cluttering up articles with. --Cyde Weys 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it at least checks for prose, NPOV, and image copyrights so they are in fact, checking the articles if it obeys MoS guideline and copyright policy. If you think GA is not informal yet, take it to the project page, and not using this template as a punching bag. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:57, 26 June 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.
User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I respect the right of admins to delete (and to protect) their own user pages and even talk-page archives, the deletion and protection of his talk page makes it tough to communicate information to the user in case there is an emergency, or in case he goofed, especially since he is still showing signs of being an active sysop. That is the reason why I'm questioning the deletion and protection of his primary talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 07:59, 23 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson"
  2. 16:47, 5 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) protected User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ([edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • Agree I think deleting his talkpage was acceptable (right to disappear and all that) but keeping it protected is inappropriate if he's going to continue making admin actions. Suggest bringing this up on Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - it is now on Requests for unprotection. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn while you do have the right to disappear, if you're still here deleting the talk page seems wholly inappropriate. If it contained material that shouldn't be viewed individual diffs could be deleted. -N 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder how ethical cascading protection is, anyhow. It's probably fine if it is being done for artistic purposes with no harm done to communications, but when it shanghais communication... — Rickyrab | Talk 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I am unhappy with the restoring and unprotection of a page without discussing it with the deleting/protecting admin (especially in a non-urgent case such as this) there doesn't appear to be any way to get in touch with Jeffrey for discussion. He has disabled the "E-mail this user feature" and is not as far as I can see to be found on IRC. Jeffrey has continued to carry out admin functions so it does not appear he has left.... WjBscribe 17:09, 24 June 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.
GearHead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus for deletion on AfD, nomination improperly extended (should've been closed as keep after 5 days passed).  Grue  12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pardon me, because I don't do a lot of DRV, but I really don't get it. Basicpally you're suggesting that the three last votes to delete should be discounted on procedural grounds because they were ineligible - the admins already had enough information to close as "no consensus." Am I the only person who is thoroughly baffled by this reasoning? Endorse. YechielMan 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last three votes don't matter. They were after the deadline, and still hasn't changed consensus in any way. There is equal number of keep and delete !votes. Also, keep !votes thoroughly debunk every argument for deletion that was provided. Deletes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is obvious that the closing admin did a mistake.  Grue  07:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (Keep Deleted) per YechielMan. Correct procedure that the nominator thinks was wrong? Baffling indeed. --tennisman 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad endorse Sad because I have very fond memories of this great game, but the AfD was handled correctly. Each of the early keep votes was convincingly rebutted, so extending the debate was the correct thing to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse can't see anything wrong with the close and if there are no sources the information can't be verified. Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the AfD discussion? Because there were several reliable sources mentioned.  Grue  06:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were several sources mentioned but they were all subject to concerns raised in the AFD, so no, there does not appear to be multiple reliable sources for this. Spartaz Humbug! 08:29, 25 June 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.
Melissa Scott (televangelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

improper procedure for deletion jmcw 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, not only was this a copyvio (check the deletion log), but it was also an attempt to recreate content deleted per WP:BLP and endorsed in this DRV. --Coredesat 10:11, 24 June 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.
Forensic animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted under criterion A1 and/or A3 for WP:CSD. This article had both content and context. Thanks, Navou 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from the deleting admin I might have been a bit trigger happy on this one but I still think it had very little content or context. It was an orphan and really did not seem to provide much information beyond a short definition of the term. I have no problem with the recreation of the article though as I'm sure interesting things could be said on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 03:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you undelete it, I'll close this DRV and add to the article, as I have more sources now. Navou 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deal. Please also make sure to link to and from other articles and to properly characterize the stub so that it gets some attention. Pascal.Tesson 03:47, 24 June 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_June_24&oldid=1140245183"