Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 June 6
2007 June 8 >

7 June 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Rickyrab/Hasidic nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Personal joke page, intended to be a complement to WP:BJAODN. It had been deleted as an "abandoned sandbox" during a dispute (over the mass deletion of WP:BJAODN articles) with the deleting admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and it was NOT a sandbox. It contains material sporked from Biala (Hasidic dynasty), which can be attributed on the basis of the creation date of the "Hasidic nonsense" article and some work on documentation of the edit history. Since some subpages of BJAODN were restored to allow work, it follows that this non-sandbox also be restored to permit me to work on attribution, too. If this article is not fit for Wikipedia, I am ok with a history-only undeletion which would allow proper attribution to the authors of the Biala (Hasidic dynasty) page, and subsequent removal to Uncyclopedia. — Rickyrab

  • Divide this review I would like to discuss these one at a time--the same rationale will not apply on each. i am certain that some of them are totally unsjustified, but not so sure about others. DGG 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, DGG, I recused all but the Hasidic nonsense page from the DRV for now. I have Ali Sina backed up on my home computer anyhow; moreover, a couple of the pages involved may actually be someone else's creation. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, now this makes it relatively straightforward.

Restore history to permit re-creation of any appropriate material in whatever format at whatever location consensus agrees on. I can understand considering it abandoned since it had not been worked on since August 06, but I accept the assurances of the editor involved that it will be used appropriately. it is good to start with a straightforward one like this.DGG 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll use it appropriately (that is, I won't restore it to Wikipedia against a consensus, and I won't use it on an anti-Wikipedia rag like WR), as promised in the e-mail. — Rickyrab | Talk 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sporked to Uncyclopedia. Original edit information/ attribution was part of first edit, but then blanked; however, it's there for anyone who wants to look. See [1] — Rickyrab | Talk 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • HHO gas – already restored, moot point, let the AFD run its course – The Evil Spartan 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The sudden speedy deletion of this article while it was under considerable debate and discussion is way out of line. Closing admin cites that it is recreated content/promotional material. Although the article existed before, this version was not recreated with the deleted material and should not qualify as a speedy deletion. As far as calling it promotional material, again, there is significant discussion going on regarding the fate of this article and how to make an encyclopedic topic out of it. Overturn the speedy deletion of this article as well as Brown's gas and allow the AfD debate to come to a conclusion on this topic.

Note this has gone through multiple AfD discussions, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination) . Also note previous DRV on the topic which concluded with the unprotection of these articles and allowed for recreation - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_14

The speedy deletion in the midst of a constructive debate is not helpful to reaching any kind of consensus on this topic and should be overturned. Arkyan • (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, so it was deleted, the deletion endorsed here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 14, and a whopping great article was dropped straight back in less than a fortnight later. It's been deleted under several titles for the same reasons (sourcing and neutrality), was worked on by the same editors, exhibited the same problems, and got nuked again. How many times do we have to go round this loop? Guy (Help!) 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that the 3 previous AfD's were all pretty much uncontroversial delete decisions, and there was little in the way of constructive ideas from the article's proponents on how to clear up the problems with it. However this time the discussion is significantly different, many editors have become involved and serious effort is being made to try and determine the best course for eliminating the sourcing and neutrality concerns. Whether there exists a solution or not is not my point - my point is this AfD is far more productive than the last 3 and should be allowed to conclude, as it would provide a far more satisfactory conclusion to this loop than a unilateral decision by one administrator. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I will admit that the promoters of HHO gas are this time doing an excellent job of making the topic look and sound notable, but once you look "under the hood" the real purpose of these articles are to promote the hoax. IMO the 3/14 DRV decision to permit recreation was based on false pretenses, and these topics should stay deleted and salted. BTW - I was a participant in the AfD. --EMS | Talk 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The fact this has been deleted four times, and in all that time people are still unable to address the problems voiced in each AfD, is the principal reason it does not survive repeated AfD's. So get out there, find reputable sources that are not a promotion for some company and we may gain a valuable article debunking this scam. Untill such time it cannot exist as the community apparently agrees violation of WP:SPAM (company websites), WP:RS (no scientific article debunking the stuff), WP:NOR (because of the previous stating it is a hoax is a violation) and WP:NN (only company sites and news reports on the promotion of the thing) is not compatible with accepted deletion policy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and stop being so silly. This useful, well-constructed article was deleted because it was notable enough to get noticed. Man with two legs 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd more than happy when this stays deleted. Yes, hypothetically there can be a good article about HHO fraud, but I fear, not on enwiki anymore. The negative attitude toward domain experts and the the change from aiming for correct information to aiming for a lot of cites makes this nearly impossible. Look at Water fuel cell for comparison, which is pure bollocks. For some months in a year it is a rather decent article, thanks to an actual court case debunking this stuff. But every attempt make the information correct is met by newly invented templates like Template:Syn and whatsnot. --Pjacobi 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Closing" admin Tom Harrison has not closed the AfD yet (and while he has provided a rationale in the AfD Talk, there is obviously no closing justification above if it hasn't been closed yet.) Not trying to Wikilawyer, but can we get either the AfD closed, or the delete speedy undone? This is confusing. (He has been asked to close on the AfD page. Haven't yet checked his talk, but will.) - LaughingVulcan (Talk | contribs), 23:05, 7 June 2007
  • Comment/Question: Does this have anything to do with the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omegatron has restored both pages. Obviously I am not going to wheel war about it. Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close DRV as moot and allow AfD to run. No need to discuss this in two places at once. Eluchil404 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
right.DGG 00:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music – Already restored by deleting admin – The Evil Spartan 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Survived unanimous AfD a year ago, but was just speedied as NN. It's apparently notable in its field. Lots of blog/forum links: for example, [2], [3], [4], [5] Overturn as nom. SarekOfVulcan 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list. Previous AfD invalidates the speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator: Have you requested reconsideration by the admin who deleted the page before posting here? Newyorkbrad 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't, but someone else had. If it's a requirement that this be done, it should probably be added to the instructions...--SarekOfVulcan 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly a purported POV-aligned deletion campaign without proper discussions following a debate in ru ([6]). Notice the brief wiping out links to the page in other articles by User:Minor_edit ([7]). --ssr 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I recognize this on sight. Notable in the community, and quite a substantial piece of work (the guide, unviewable article not withstanding) --Auto(talk / contribs) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy; asserting notability was expected a year ago. It survived unanimously; even the nominator withdrew; so it indicated notability then. It has be relisted, but it should be restored, and the situation explained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overtuned and restored, would have been easier to just ask me! --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:08, 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.
Vault_(company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable company and publisher of well-known ranking guides. Nearly every law school in the country provides it to their students (e.g. [8]), numerous legal commentators discuss the rankings (e.g. [9]) and many large firms cite their Vault rankings in press releases (e.g. [10]). There's no way it should have been speedily deleted. Cheapestcostavoider 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete wasn't blatant advertising and asserts importance. But like seemingly every website/business article that's been speedy deleted lately, just citing some independent sources probably would have avoided the deletion. I remember when inline sources were just something you saw on featured articles, but the times are changing. --W.marsh 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator: Have you requested undeletion in the first instance from the deleting admin? Newyorkbrad 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted this because it gave no independent sources for its notability, and read like promotional material. However, I would now accept that it could be rewritten and restored (and no, I wasn't asked to review my deletion.) Jimfbleak 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid speedy. ViridaeTalk 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this advert, without prejudice against creating a sourced, neutral article which demonstrates notability. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion more than 3,500 employers, thousands of undergraduate, and over 3,000 companies and 70 industries -- big claims with big numbers make an article sound like ad copy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you're saying. Making claims with big numbers means it's an ad? Every article about every company mentions the number of employees they have. Cheapestcostavoider 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too consider it a valid speedy--as such, there is not bar t o re-creation if there is more material. For something like this I would expect to see references from at least two substantial published works--there is no point in re-creating it otherwise. DGG 00:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are dozens of references to the company and especially to the ranking guides. There were several in the article itself, or at least there used to be. I have no idea what it looked like when it was deleted. Cheapestcostavoider 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; totally valid speedy. Heather 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it if you could provide some kind of reasoning, since this isn't very helpful otherwise. Cheapestcostavoider 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can we see the history here? I'm inclined to endorse the speedy w/o prejudice, but if there are non-spammy versions in the history, it might be worth restoring one of those instead. Xtifr tälk 22:33, 9 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_7&oldid=1089027702"