Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 June 2
2007 June 4 >

3 June 2007

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

I nominated this page for deletion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker), and it was deleted because it contained a price list that seemed like advertising. The user has contacted me on my talk page and asked for the deletion to be reversed because he did not intend to advertise, and he was just using his userpage as a sandbox for RapidWeaver, which he has edited. Since I am not sure how to proceed, I seek opinion from the experts here. Thank you. YechielMan 23:57, 3 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.
Miss Dynamite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD result was redirect due to unnotability. Just because five people did not know about it does not mean it is not notable. It is one of the oldest running anime series on Newgrounds. The episodes won numerous awards; the links to the espisodes listed at the Newgrounds collection page (click them) show this. A search for "Miss Dynamite" anime shows that there can be no confusion with the singer, Ms. Dynamite. The singer has also never made use of the name Miss Dynamite. A dablink would have been a much better choice than a redirect! Zabadab (Talk) @ 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Miss Dynamite XXII iraq, Weekly Users' Choice, 3/14/07 2. Miss Dynamite XXII iraq, Daily Feature, 3/13/07 3. Miss Dynamite XXI, Weekly 4th Place, 11/8/06 4. Miss Dynamite XXI, Daily Feature, 11/7/06 5. Miss Dynamite XX, Daily 2nd Place, 8/19/06 6. Miss Dynamite XIX, Daily 3rd Place, 3/8/06 7. Miss Dynamite XVIII, Daily Feature, 8/24/05 8. Miss.Dynamite XVII, Daily 2nd Place, 4/2/05 9. MssDynamitevsTerriSchiavo, Daily 3rd Place, 3/26/05 10. Miss.Dynamite XV, Daily Feature, 8/21/03 11. Miss.Dynamite XV, Weekly Users' Choice, 8/20/03 12. Miss.Dynamite KISS doll, Daily Feature, 3/14/02 13. Miss.Dynamite xmas card01, Daily 3rd Place, 12/25/01 14. Miss.Dynamite VII, Daily 2nd Place, 11/16/01 15. Miss.Dynamite XIV, Weekly Users' Choice, 10/31/01 16. Miss.Dynamite XIV, Daily Feature, 10/25/01 17. Miss.Dynamite XIII, Daily Feature, 4/14/01 18. Miss.Dynamite XII, Daily Feature, 1/22/01 19. Miss.Dynamite XI, Daily Feature, 11/14/00 20. Miss.Dynamite VI Swimsuit, Daily Feature, 10/12/00 21. Miss.Dynamite X, Daily Feature, 10/1/00 22. Miss.Dynamite IX, Daily Feature, 8/12/00 70.53.150.66 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a thread on their forum pointing people here [1]. The Awards on Newgrounds are not "well-known and independent" per WP:WEB. Neverthless, as said above, it's best to present new evidence at DRV, not just rehash the AFD and hope for a new conclusion. --W.marsh 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The Miss Dynamite IP extends beyond online cartoons, to actual Mangas sold online[2] and libraries:

1. Fichtre 436 rue de Bienville (514) 844-9550 2. Marché du Livre 801 De Maisonneuve Est (514) 288-4350 3. Millenium 451 Marie-Anne (514) 284-0358 4. Monet 2752 de Salaberry (514) 337-4083 Jameshmarshall 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • RESTORE Miss Dynamite is higher on Google than Ms. Dynamite. before this I didn't even know there was a Ms Dynamite singer out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.150.66 (talk • contribs) (That wasn't me; I just made a correction; someone's paranoid; check the history for proof 70.53.150.66 05:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable close. The sole keep advocate claimed thousands of ghits for "miss dynamite" +comic actually it's 992 of which the majority appear to be blogs and forums. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm quite surprised at this sudden large discussion over Miss Dynamite's note-worthiness. There is a large body of both sequential art and animation associated with the title, which is rich in political satire. It has been around for many years in various forms including printed media, which can be found in libraries as noted above. As far as web animation goes Miss Dynamite is an icon and this is due largely through the exposure it received on newgrounds. However, the very well-known Miss Dynamite flash animations are posted across the internet, not just on newgrounds.com. (Though I'm personally befuddled as to how newgrounds is not an independant source.) The artist, Sirkowski, is a well-known underground Canadian illustrator who has attended various conventions as a guest, and his fans are populous across the web and otherwise. A search on DeviantArt.com, from which the artist himself was apparently banned, shows an impressive collection of fan-made Miss Dynamite art. As someone mentioned earlier, however, it is easy enough to check the popularity of Miss Dynamite by searching for it in Google or Yahoo where it certainly comes far ahead of the (previously unheard of to me) singer with the similar name. It seems to me something as well-established across the web and otherwise deserves more than this sudden scrutiny. Taintedink 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Miss Dynamite has been published in MensuHell, a Montreal (Canada) magazine pour the last 8 years on a regular basis. MensuHell has it's own Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MensuHell

MensuHell has also published notable artists like Jacques Boivin (Melody, published by Kitchen Sink Press), Michel lacombe (Star Wars comics)and tons of well known Quebec artists. Miss Dynamite has been a featured artist on the cover of MensuHell a few times. Eric Theriault

  • missdynamite.com has a higher alexa rating than msdynamite.co.uk

http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=MissDynamite.com http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=msdynamite.co.uk 70.53.150.66 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse redirect - Lack of independent reliable sources. Winning newgrounds awards (there are thousands) is hardly noteworthy and certainly not independent. Wickethewok 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are the Canadian National Archives not a reliable independant source? 70.53.150.66 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore "The sole keep advocate claimed thousands of ghits for "miss dynamite" +comic actually it's 992". Forgot a zero there mate, Google says ""miss dynamite" comic" has 9,410 hits as of my writing of this post. As has been stated before the comic and animation has been around for a number of years both on the web and published in independent publishers, it is more notable than many of the comics on this list all of which have wiki pages but few have been published by anyone in real world print. Personally I think the artist offended someone (which wouldn't be hard considering the content of his sits) and they are trying to censor him by destroying the wikipedia entry for some of his works, petty vendettas like that shouldn't have any place here. Lando242 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the Canadian National Archives site may be a selective site, or it may archive all Canadian produced webcomics. It obviously makes a difference. DGG 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First appearence of Miss Dynamite in printed media

http://catalogue.banq.qc.ca/cgi-bin/bestn?id=%255FZjow%252F%25E2%257Dt%252DJQNFwwdX&act=8&auto=0&nov=1&v0=0&t0=100%25+papier&i0=0&s0=5&v1=0&v2=0&v3=0&v4=0&sy=&ey=&scr=1&x=25&y=10 100% Papier, is in the Québec National Library since 1995 70.53.150.66 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kessé? where an entire episode of Miss Dynamite was published over the years 2000-2001. "Kessé?" was also sold in librairies in Montreal.70.53.150.66 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the publishers of Miss Dynamite's cartoon (through MensuHell), I find very amusing that printed material isn't considered as evidence in this case, as a proof of history in the use of a name. Sirkowski's comic version of Miss Dynamite was printed and published by several independant (clearly not self-published) organisations in the past:
- 100% Papier #1 & 2 (1995)
- Kessé? #1 to 5 (2000-2001), with the front cover of #2.
- MensuHell (multiple appearances from #10 [March 2000] to 82 [September 2006], with the font covers of #29, 37, 57 & 71)

Other than that, Sirkowski has self-published 4 zines since 2003 using Miss Dynamite's content: 3 comics, and one with only illustrations. You may not like a webcomic entry on Wikipedia, but why sabotage a comic entry too? There is not link between the comic cartoon Miss Dynamite and the musical artist Ms Dynamite, so who can really get confused between the 2? If one form of art has his place here, then why not the other? Who's to decide which arts are good enough for Wikipedia, and which one are not? Will that list of accepted art forms be well placed so that everyone will see it up front when consulting this web-based encyclopedia?

Therefore, a single entry on Miss Dynamite (the printed version AND webcomic) should stay on Wikipedia like before the deletion process abruptedly occured, with a permanent link to the singer's page in case someone mistyped the name (same thing on the singer's page, for the comic). Francis Hervieux 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you mean that only people not officially knowing what they're talking about can add stuff on Wikipedia? Like a scientist or an historian can only write notes outside his field of expertise, because there would be too much chance that he had a conflict of interest? I did not try to hide my status, but merely stated verifiable FACTS upon Miss Dynamite's comics, so that people not knowing the subject were able to make a better decision. Yes, I'm a publisher and I work in the book industry: does that make me a bad person to talk about the subject, since it's my field of expertise, against people clearly not knowing one bit on the subject but who can decide it's not worth existing? I only suggest that Status quo ante bellum should apply in this case. Francis Hervieux 01:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia is not a directory of comics or webcomics", Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics and WP:WEBCOMIC say otherwise. Specifically they what to "...build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia." Printed sources have been provided for three different independent publications, the series has been published online for many years as both a web comic and an animation and the homepage (just this incarnation) has an archive going back 2 years and the web archive as pages from 7 years ago here. I think these qualify under the WEB requirements and that the article should be restored. Lando242 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BnaQ documents everything that is published in Quebec[3], no matter if it is important or not, self-published or independently published or published by a wellknown publisher, ... It documents existence (which is not really disputed here), but asserts no importance, no notability. As for the Canadian National Archives, it has the same mission for all of Canada, and states specifically that "The National Library acquires Canadiana through legal deposit, purchase, gift, exchange and other arrangements."[4]. So it is enough to send a copy of your work to the CNA to be listed there: not really an indication of notability either, only of existence. Per WP:NOTE, these do not make for "significant coverage" and do not "provide objective evidence of notability", only of existence. Fram 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that was made here was that Miss Dynamite's notability was questionable since there was no reliable proof of its publication history by independant editors for the past 10 years. So now that we seem to agree that the source is indeed reliable, then this notability is a fact. That's publication by a minimum of three independant editors (I'm taking about independant, not auto-publication). We shouldn't move the goal post by now claiming that 3 isn't enough and we need 4 (and so on).

Also, the Canadian Comics Ressource page of the Canadian Library and Archives is SELECTIVE. It doesn't list all Canadian comics published, but those they deemed significant. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/bandes-dessinees/027002-3000-e.html 70.53.151.252 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORE70.166.102.157 10:53, 7 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.
Haml (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wrongly grouped with another article for deletion. The Haml article was deleted because a page about me (the inventor) didn't (rightfully) pass the notability standards. It is by far more notable than me. 166 blog posts on Technorati http://technorati.com/posts/tag/Haml. An independent PHP implementation of the markup language: http://sourceforge.net/projects/phphaml/. 1433 messages to the google group: http://groups.google.com/group/haml. This includes an active community writing patches for the primary Ruby implementation. Also, interest in a book on Haml solicited by Apress Publishing (I can forward the email about it to anyone interested). 4 talks at major conferences so far this year about Haml Feel free to delete my article, but Haml is a separate issue all together and I believe firmly passes notability standards for a computer language. I respectfully await a decision. Hampton 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like this article was deleted by mistake... the deletion log says "deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Catlin". But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Catlin which I closed) is only about Hampton Catlin and doesn't mention HAML. It certainly wasn't my intention for my close to be used for deletion of HAML, of which I had never heard. Maybe User:Kinu (the deleting editor) can shed some light on this. Herostratus 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Haml article was included in the AfD nomination with one other program article, and the nominator's statement says "The three articles together prop each other, whilst being very short on evidence of notability or reliable sources, or indeed third party incoming links." This and the other program article both had AfD templates leading to the Catlin AfD; they were all part of a package. The other articles were deleted after this was brought up during the DRV for Hampton Catlin last month. WarpstarRider 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I dabble in Rails. HAML is really neat, but it hasn't risen above techie blog buzz as yet (it was only introduced this January). If it does have a book published and so forth, then the article could be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist there was no discussion during the afd of the notability of this particular article. DGG 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In what way should this be compared against the notability of other off-broadway templating languages, such as FreeMarker? Twifkak 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore It's in real world use, more than just blog buzz. I'm a full time rails developer and my entire company switched to using it well before January so I strongly disagree with Dhartung's comment above. Comparison to FreeMarker is good. Googling for "haml template" turns up 587,000 hits vs 243,000 for FreeMarker. I guess with quickly changing computer related stuff it's hard to define what is notable, but if Haml doesn't pass the test there's an awful lot of other stuff that should go first. TomBagby 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore: Definitely passes the notability test, in my opinion: the author was interviewed on the official Rails podcast (http://podcast.rubyonrails.org/programs/1/episodes/hampton_catlin); Haml has been presented at Ruby/Rails conferences; linked to and recommended by high-profile members of the Rails community (including the official Rails weblog: http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2007/1/19/haml-1-0); and it's post 1.0 and in real use in many, many places... no way this should be deleted 80.58.205.40 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore: I don't really understand the argument for deletion. Is popularity a criterion for keeping an article in Wikipedia? When article deletion/inclusion becomes a popularity contest I think we cross into dangerous territory. The question then becomes "How popular must a topic be to deserve a Wikipedia article?" which, in my opinion, is far too subjective a measure of an article's merit. A more appropriate question to ask would be "Is the article accurate and does it provide information that a certain segment of knowledge-seekers in the world would find helpful?" and I think it is clear from the response thus far that this particular article passes that test.
  • comment: It may be worth considering that there's no article on Markaby, either (though there is one on why). While haml is definitely more awesome than Markaby, I'm not entirely sure it's more notable. njvack 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore: RyanTMulligan 21:17, 6 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.
Professional wrestling aerial techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was incorrectly closed as keep. Rather than overburden this page with a vast amount of information, please see User:One Night In Hackney/DRV which I will summarise here. Five (or six depending on how you interpret the comments from Suriel1981) editors said it should be deleted as original research. Five editors said to keep as it was important or ignore all rules, one said to keep it as other crap exists, two keep per above, four said to keep but it needs sourcing, and only two said it wasn't original research. The sourcing is non-existent. Out of a total of 77 moves, 68 are unsourced, 5 have sources that don't even match the article, and 4 are sourced from an unreliable source as it's self published on a wrestling fan site. There is not one single move that has a description that is reliablty sourced. Per WP:DGFA no amount of voting "keep" can change the fact that this article fails WP:OR and WP:V and should be deleted. One Night In Hackney303 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this is the place for this discussion. I think you need to talk to the administrator who closed this debate, as this isn't "AFD review", it's deletion review. — Moe ε 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. If the wrestling moves named in this article were given their names by the Wikipedia editors who wrote this article, that would be original research. But if these names for the moves previously existed and were used in pro wrestling-related magazines, books, television broadcasts, web sites, etc., then this article would merely be insufficiently sourced. I don't personally know enough to determine which is the case. But given that several of the participants in the AfD discussion said that the article was in the process of being sourced, the administrator was right to assume good faith and take the word of the majority that the article warranted being kept. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not the names I object to, the descriptions are original research. Also the article won't get sourced based on previous experience. At the time of the first AfD in January the article looked like this, when it was nominated for a second time it looked like this. One source was added, and that's on the list of sources that don't match the article. Please see how many sources have been added since the AfD as well. One Night In Hackney303 06:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and no amount of trying to get it deleted will change the fact that the article is linked to by over five hundred articles meaning its deletion will be devastating to wikipedia. My previous objections to the article being considered original research notwithstanding. –– Lid(Talk) 13:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, given that there are attempts being made to add or improve the sources, and these moves are likely described in sources, I think the closer was perfectly reasonable to give sourcing a chance. If you find any particularly egregious statements in the article, tag them or remove them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't delete this article, because it would heavily damage the whole wrestling project. One Night in Hackney, might I suggest you to stop deleting everything and have a go at trying to source for a change? Govvy 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep as per other reasons above and my reasons stated in the original Afd discussion. And for Govvy's comment about Hack sourcing for a change, I asy, "Here, here, I'll second that!" - T-75|talk|contribs 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't a second AfD, this is a review to see if the AfD was handled properly. –– Lid(Talk)
  • Comment I quote from WP:NEO: "Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability." I would personally define many wrestling "moves" as protologisms. Wikipedia policy is against maintainance of an article like this (at least in its current form). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last time the movesets were all up for deletion, it was surmised that the television show can be used as a primary source, which was one of the reasons it was kept (That is if I recall correctly.)--ProtoWolf 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Comment "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. ... Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." That is quoted from policy...--ProtoWolf 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would be a mistake given (a) differing naming conventions in different promotions, (b) some moves never used in some televised promotions, (c) this means a casual reader has to watch endless WWE crap just to see if a move is accurately described, (d) what if the reader has no access to wrestling television?... Whichever way this goes, this will be setting a precedent which will have a major knock-on effect on professional wrestling articles so I humbly request the considering admin to approach this neutrally and give serious thought. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some of the difficulty in using a television show as the primary source, I was just voicing the fact that it had been established before in previous AfD. Thats why it was in a comment.--ProtoWolf 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This and four other articles form the basis of the descriptions of all that Pro-Wrestlers do in the ring, which is about 90% of everything they do, the article may need to be re-written and sourced but the existence of the moves themselves shouldn't be in question, ONIH can watch any episode of any WWE program and hear the announcers refer to moves, the difficulty is taking this that exist and tying them down to be encyclopedic. Of course ONIH prefers to delete, which is his prerogative, but he must accept that WP:PW are trying to get article up to scratch, and when a wrestling article is without merit then an AfD or PROD succeeds, just in this case it didn't, but the point is consensus rules, and if WP:PW have to live with that then ONIH should too. Darrenhusted 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, I'm in the process of adding references, on this and several other articles. In fact, I added three to this article just now. The problem with some of the moves is that descriptions are hard to find because their name also describes what the move involves. For example, a "ropewalk" is clearly when a wrestler walks on the rope. Why cite common sense? (although I will admit that this only applies to only a few moves in the article) Nikki311 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note to reviewing admin, the vast majority of those endorsing the keep are those who voted to keep in the AfD, it would be nice to get some more uninvolved people's opinions. One Night In Hackney303 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't voted keep at all in this, only voted comment to keep myself out of the situation. I believe DRV is to be used to see if an AfD was handled fairly and the correct decision was reached based off the evidence, not a second AfD with delete and keep votes. –– Lid(Talk) 06:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah...I was looking on the wrong line. It was me and User:Theophilus75 who endorsed the keep from the original AfD discussion, not Lid. Nikki311 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also hasn't been brought up that ONIH already discussed the close with the closing admin here, which included another admin reviewing the close and agreeing the keep was the correct decision. –– Lid(Talk) 06:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ONIH has made six edits to the page since the 18 January, 2007. Two weere to add the first AfD and one was to add the second AfD, he has made more edits to the AfD pages for the article and to protest the AfD on this page and on the closing admin's talk page than he actually has to the article, it is clear that he does not want to improve the page but merely get it deleted and even when two AfD's go against his wishes he still complains DRV and the admins, if the page had been deleted then WP:PW would have had to move on and rewrite hundreds of articles (to which ONIH would never have even made on edit to help). ONIH would only have been happy if the article had been deleted and no deletion review will satisfy him because it won't find in his favour, and editors are wasting time here justifying a correct decision rather than editing. Darrenhusted 16:54, 7 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.
Crumb family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This family of artists, four of whom have Wikipedia articles, is clearly notable and their notability was asserted in both the article and on the talk page but an admin speedy deleted it anyway despite the assertion of notability, apparently as the last thing before going on a long Wikibreak. Otto4711 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn clear assertion of notability. ViridaeTalk 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh I have just notified the deleting admin of the DRV. Concerning the article, are there any reliable independant sources that address the work of the family collectively or are we looking at an artile that reproduces the content of the individual articles as an novel synthesis? Willing to consider supporting overturn if there are sources. Not interested if this was original research or a synthesis. Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? telling me that there are other similar articles and that there is a demand for it doesn't address the need for an article to be based on reliable sources rather than a synthesis or original research. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm, I wouldn't personally accept any film as a reliable source to base an article on - there is far too much room for artistic interpretation. Also there needs to be more to the article then rehashing the content of a film. The content needs to be verifiable which doesn't mean it was in a film but that there needs to be multiple independant non-trivial sources. So, I can see that there may be something around which to base an article but not that the contents of said article can be verified. It looks like there is enough support to undelete this but - fair warning - I'll almost certainly be visiting the article afterwards to check for sourcing and verifiability. If its not there, I'll list it at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not claiming anything - I'm not an admin and I haven't seen the deleted article.. I'm pointing out that unless you actually have sources that address the Crumb family collectively, you will be either rehashing what's in individual articles or effecively engaging in original research - otherwise where does the information in the article come from? Spartaz Humbug! 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I just don't understand this point. To me it is self-evident that a family with more than, say, two or three notable members rates a page which can lay out the relationships and "rehash" in summary style the key points about each. Wikipedia is not paper, we can include this type of information with little burden. It seems from what you say that you expect that the article must perforce be about the family as a collective entity, but I don't see why that must be, other than your conception. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is becoming purile because I haven't actually expressed a formal opinion and I asked for some information; so I don't see the big deal. What you are suggesting is that we have a fork of the other articles. Sheesh. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 4 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.
Template:sp (edit | [[Talk:Template:sp|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache| )

I do not believe that consensus was reached on the template's Tfd debate, especially because there was a long-standing debate regarding the utility of such a template at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Votes on tagging pages proposal. I do not think that the admin who closed the debate and deleted the template was aware of and reviewed this page prior to action.

It should be clear that {{sp}} should be undeleted along with the subpages Template:sp/colour and Template:sp/doc per policy on Tfd and consensus. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 3 00:42 (UTC)

I have just gone through the debate at MoS and from a quick tabulation, 29 supported the idea of some sort of localization and 17 opposed.
Additionally, I think that {{sp}} would generally be supported by those who raised support for User:PizzaMargherita's proposal because the template follows it rather closely. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 3 01:07 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you provide a link to the TFD as I can't find it in the page history? Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Found it. Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse I can see where you are coming from on this but the TFD raised valid concerns as making editing far to complicated for the uninitiated. We need to keep it simple to encourage new posters and avoid WP:CREEP Spartaz Humbug! 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse, neither the TFD nor that silly vote for creating the template show any kind of consensus for using this. Using template-based localized spelling is an idea which impacts the entire wiki, and should never be implemented without consensus. >Radiant< 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for WP:CREEP, try explaining to new editors the guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. This is creep, too. Here, for example, is an excellent, recent example of why this template should be given a chance to work. An anonymous editor, probably thinking he or she was improving Wikipedia, "fixed" the "obvious misspellings" of meter, but it was reverted in less than three minutes. What a waste of time for both the anonymous editor and the reverter!
>Radiant<, it is imprudent that a seven-day "discussion" in a context that favors its deletion should suddenly override over a year of discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Votes on tagging pages proposal. The very fact that a majority of editors expressed interest in the idea shows that the template should be allowed a chance.
The "without consensus" part leads me to think that you would like some form of debate, so why delete this template so quickly? Why not let the debate occur instead of deleting within one month of its introduction?
Arguments against {{sp}} are based on supposition; we do not know for sure how novice editors will react to this template. If there are signs that novice editors are getting confused, then an attempt can be made to correct the template, otherwise it should be deleted (and I would personally undo everything). But as of now, the is no evidence that users are getting confused by {{sp}}. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that users are confused by the status quo: [5], [6] , [7], [8], [9] (several items), [10] , [11], [12] (see color -> colour in middle), [13] (vandalism motivated by "improper" spelling), [14], [15] (classic example), [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (excellent example of not understanding MoS), [24] (classic example), [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (petty vandalism), [30] (spelling-motivated vandalism), [31], [32] (endless edits to Etymology sections could go to Wiktionary finally), [33] (soy -> soya), [34], [35], [36] (another Etymology edit), [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] (Etymology edit), [42], [43] (Etymology edit), [44], Frozen yogurt (need I say inconsistent?), [45] (this is interesting), [46], [47], [48]
« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 5 01:36 (UTC)

Closing admin's statement. This TfD was quite difficult to close. Although I agree with dtrebbien that an enwiki without spelling wars would be a beautiful place, I did not feel that this template was the way to do it. Unlike articles, which generally cannot be deleted solely for being poorly written (assuming they meet our notability standards), templates, even ones which accomplish useful or necessary things, can be deleted for being difficult to use or not being used at all. Considering the length of time this template had existed, its relatively few transclusions at the time the TfD closed, and the extreme amount of markup it adds to articles, I was more inclined to call this as a "delete." RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that a single user reverted all transclusions that were added. Regardless, thank you for adding your input. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 6 19:43 (UTC)
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_3&oldid=1136742674"