Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 March 10
2007 March 12 >

11 March 2007[edit]

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

It shows skills that could be useful to new chess players — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.75.73 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion, since usefulness does not make it encyclopedic, but this article was never deleted anyway. Do you have the wrong title? -Amarkov moo! 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (the title was incorrectly capitalised in the nomination). The article was transwiki'd to Wikibooks. It is currently at b:Transwiki:Sample chess game needing "bookified", apparently. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Twasn't encyclopedic, far more appropriate at wikibooks. Wickethewok 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse transwiki. It was more a textbook piece than an encyclopedia article piece. It was well-written but is more appropriate for the Wikibooks project than the Wikipedia project. Consensus was pretty clear and got it quite right here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure was fine. Trebor 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I find no process problems in the AFD debate. The conclusion was clearly in accordance with Wikipedia (and WikiBooks) policy. Rossami (talk) 15:06, 15 March 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.
Category:Fictional characters who have the power of vocal persuasion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

Wrongly closed with no consensus to delete. Five !votes to delete, two !votes to keep and two !votes to rename to address the concerns of the nominator does not a consensus make, especially when the reasons to delete are, frankly, absurd and unfounded and the category was included in a mass nomination of the entire superhuman powers category tree here which looks to be heading to a "no consensus" closure. Otto4711 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn And link it to the larger debate. JoshuaZ 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Listen to me, concentrate on the sound of my voice - you don' want this category, it's fancruft, you want it gone form the project, you are feeling very sleepy... Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This category is also included in a larger debate over Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. --Stratadrake 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, along with there being no clear consensus to delete, is why this should be overturned. Otto4711 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer, even the deletion review nominator only asked for a "weak keep" so must have had his own doubts? Tim! 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I change my opinion to "incredibly strong, never wanted a category kept more, keep" and you still made a mistake in closing this category on a 5-2-2 discussion when the entire category structure was under a new discussion that's clearly trending to a no consensus conclusion. The reasons given for upholding your actions range from "it's fancruft" to no reason so I hope the fact that no legitimate reason either for deleting or upholding your error has been offered will be taken into consideration. Otto4711 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Listen to me carefully; overrrturrrrn. overrrrturrrnn. Did it work? Guess not. Keep Deleted.--Tbeatty 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, what Guy said. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it's likely to matter given that people would rather make hypnotist jokes than comment substantively on the DRV, but another powers category nominated at the same time as this one was closed with no consensus in deference to the mass nomination. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that both nominations be treated the same. Otto4711 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nom here evidently missed the point made that the the editor sho created the cat blanked it just after it went to CfD. Additionally, the nom seems to be "cherry picking" to an extent. This is one of three cats on the CfD that day that were under the latter CfDed parent. All three were closed as delete, on as "speedy & salt". IF one was wrong in light of the later debate, all are, as are any CfDs closed while the cat is part of a parent cat that is subject to a later CfD that is, or was, still in progress. — J Greb 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I don't see it as relevant that the creator blanked the category because several other editors utilized it. It's not like the category lay fallow for any length of time.
  • 2) You are not correct in several points in your statements about the various powers CFDs nominated the same day. There were a total of four nominated that day: Vocal persuasion; Generate/manipulate radiation; Advanced hearing; Electronic data transception. Data transception closed March 4 as "delete (already emptied)" with no one in favor of keeping. Advanced hearing closed March 6 as "delete" with no one in favor of keeping but a couple of "rename" !votes. Note that both were closed before the March 7 mass nomination. Vocal persuasion closed March 11 as delete with a number of !votes to "keep" or "rename," after it had already been included in the mass nom and after the nominator had noted that the discussion was ongoing there. Radiation closed March 12, both after vocal persuasion closed and after the mass nom was opened and noted in the radiation debate, and it closed "no consensus" based on the existence of the mass nom. So, yeah, your assessment of number and the outcome of the nominations? Not accurate, and the conclusions you drew on the basis of those inaccurate assessments were similarly faulty.
  • And as for your suggestion that I'm "cherry picking," I find that nonsensical and insulting. I agreed with the decisions in the other three cases and disagreed with this one. What do you suggest, that I ask for review of decisions that I agree with? There's no reason for me to do that. Of the four this is the only one that I believe was handled improperly so trotting out this "cherry picking" business is just silly. Otto4711 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this one as it's rather silly. Any fictional character who can speak has the power of "vocal persuasion". >Radiant< 12:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Reviewing the discussion, I find a narrow consensus to delete. This was within reasonable administrator discretion. As to the related discussions, Wikipedia is sometimes inconsistent. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I don't quite see the CfD discussion as being that productive in this case. The arguments for deleting the category were particularly weak (starting with the nomination itself). Just because some idiot might throw Matlock in the category does not mean the category is meaningless. That being said, the arguments in favor of keeping the cat were equally weak and all in all I see no need for the cat. Pascal.Tesson 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original closing decision. The rename positions reasonably could be understood by the closer to be comments on rewording the list membership criteria rather than a keep or delete reasoning. I count six delete positions and 1-1/2 keep positions. The consensus seems to have been delete since the topic does not lend itself to an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources as suggested in WP:LIST#References_for_list_items. The listed outcome of the deletion debate was delete. Also, significant new information has not come to light since the deletion. Thus I endorse the original closing decision. -- Jreferee 14:41, 16 March 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.
Talk:Glitches found in the Pokémon video games/Missingno. (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Glitches found in the Pokémon video games/Missingno.|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Archived Talk subpage originally moved from Talk:Missingno.. Out-of-process deletion (no speedy criteria applies). --Stratadrake 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion. The archive was deleted for being a "talk page of a deleted page". However, the Missingno. page was never deleted, it was merged and redirected to Glitches found in the Pokémon video games. I don't know of any policy that supports deletion of a talk archive in this case. WarpstarRider 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually talk pages of pages that don't exist are a valid speedy. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist." Glitches found in the Pokémon video games, the top level page, exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Similarly, WP:SP specifically mentions Talkpage archiving as legitimate use #4. --Stratadrake 23:36, 11 March 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.
Category:Economy of mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD (March 2006)|CfD (June 2005))

Useful and neccessary category for articles related to the economy of mainland China (more commonly known simply as "China"). "Mainland China" is the official terminology to refer to the People's Republic of China excluding Hong Kong and Macau, which remain separate economies. There are topics related and relevant to mainland China. This category was voted to be kept in June 2005, but was emptied some time before the March 2006 CfD. It was deleted when a user "ignored all rules" and decided not to follow CfD procedures. - Privacy 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted It was deleted, rightfully, after extensive discussion, because it is a POV re-structuring of Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China. "mainland" is the adjective used to differentiate the PRC (the current government of China since 1949) from the ROC (the exile government on Taiwan from the 60 year old civil war). By argument, any "Chinese" article could be scoped to be "mainland". The usage to "exclude Hong Kong and Macau" is a red herring. We do not title articles and categories on parent countries because of administrative divisions that keep separate statistics. Hence, no "Economy of the Continental United States excluding Guam and Puerto Rico" nor "Economy of metropolitan France" nor "mainland Finland" etc etc etc. SchmuckyTheCat 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not agree it was deleted rightfully after "extensive discussion". It is not a POV (point of view?) re-structuring. "Exclude Hong Kong and Macau" is not red herring - it is official usage even by the People's Republic itself. Nor do I agree Continental United States and Metropolitan France are comparable to Mainland China. Guam and Puerto Rico are not part of the U.S. while French Guiana, Reunion and so on are integral part of France. - Privacy 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was left intact for a year after a CfD. Then discussed for a week, than a closing admin left it open for a week specifically to get more discussion. That's extensive. SchmuckyTheCat 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. "Mainland China" is the only accurate and precise term to refer to that part of China. It is not truly correct to simply call that part of China "China" or "People's Republic of China". This is particularly true in the case of economy which Hong Kong and Macau are considered to be foreign (to mainland China). It would be ridiculous if there isn't a subcategory specifically for the economy of mainland China. Without a mainland China economy category, it is not easy for readers to understand why articles right under Category:Economy of People's Republic of China would say investment from Hong Kong is foreign investment, and trade with Macau is counted towards international trade. It is much easier to understand when such articles are kept under a category specifically for mainland China. Michael G. Davis 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • POLLY WANT A CRACKER
  • Keep deleted, especially when the primary reasons to delete it after extensive discussions remain valid. Both Michael G. Davis and Privacy are not independent contributors, and have known to take a strong political viewpoint over the political status of the SARS of HK vis-a-vis the rest of China (informally referred to as Mainland China). Their continued promotion of the later term is politically motivated, is not NPOV, and is not "more accurate", just as User:Instantnood has done and continued to do so, resulting in three arbcoms. It is obvious that subject matter related to the concepts of "China", "Mainland China", the "PRC", "ROC" and "Taiwan" should be reviewed with care, which the above users consistently fail to.--Huaiwei 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "Mainland China" is official and is used formally. The government of the People's Republic of China itself uses it (either 内地 or 大陆 in Chinese; immediately verifiable by looking into gov.cn websites or the government-sponsored newspapers and wires). Non-Chinese English language press also uses it. It is because of political motivation that Huaiwei and Schmucky deny it's official and formal. They confuse readers on whether Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China, such as calling Hong Kong banks foreign in the People's Republic of China. (Hong Kong banks are indeed foreign in mainland China, but not in the People's Republic of China.)
    • What SARS are you talking about? The SARS of HK vis-a-vis the rest of China? Two types of SARS? The Hong Kong type of SARS vis-a-vis the type of SARS in the rest of China? How far do you think Hong Kong is away from the rest of the People's Republic of China? - Privacy 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as explained upon DRV request. - Privacy 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, or else relist at CFD without restoration (i.e., defaulting to 'delete'), until such time as there's an evident consensus to scope the-entity-formerly-known-as-the-People's-Republic-of-China as a discrete concept for categorisation purposes, and to describe it as "mainland China" in such contexts. Absent such consensus, we seem to get total inconsistency in categorisation, edit wars, and arbcom cases. This seems to be especially evident in the stub categories, where any time there's an attempt to make things consistent with the rest of the category structure, several otherwise at-most-sporadically-active editors turn up en bloc, 'vote' "keep mainland China, no matter what", and then lurk off again. Their activity during Instantnood's supposed "absence" from Wikipedia seems especially striking. "Lack of consensus to make things consistent" is not a good argument for inconsistency, and in particular, for keeping the categories causing said inconsistencies. Alai 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Alai doesn't seem to understand that "People's Republic of China" and "Mainland China" are not the same thing. The two terms mean something different from each other. Encyclopedic materials should be able to reflect their differences. Neither should be used in place of the another. Passer-by (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • POLLY WANT A CRACKER
    • I think I understand the distinction just fine, thanks, and I think it's in fact fairly clear I'm not suggesting using one "in place of" the other. What I'm concerned with is whether "mainland China" is sufficiently encyclopaedic scoping and naming at all, since it a) is precisely (or de facto precisely, at least) what used to be the People's Republic of China, which so far as I know wasn't formally renamed in 1997, b) doesn't appear to be a subdivision of the present PRC (but rather, 31 such subdivisions of various types other than SAR), and c) doesn't appear to be a formal designation used by the PRC for that area, but rather an occasional descriptor used in contradistinction to said SARs. As I've said, I have no objection to such categories if they're to be used on a consistent basis, and if there's a consensus for them to exist on such a basis (and if that happens only because the PRC^W^W MC is daft enough to filter wikipedia so that their editors don't turn up to tout the party line, then more fool them), but not if they're going to exist in a limbo of mutual inconsistency, and neither-consensus-to-delete-nor-consensus-to-keep, which appears to be the state of play at present. (Thank you for (mostly) fixing your sig, btw.) Alai 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not supposed to be a POV issue. There is very little, if any, dispute about following statement
    HK is politically part of the PRC
    The economy of HK is separate from the economy of Mainland, de jure as well as de facto
    HK has its own currency, its own monetary policy, custom, court of final appeal, etc
    Even supporters of Taiwanese independence (a separate issue) would agree with the above bullet points. Huaiwei repeatedly try to make HK and Macau to look like integral part of the PRC, such as this edit. He/she is trying to make a non-POV issue POV. The term "Mainland China" is only controversial in the context of Taiwan, ROC v.s. PRC. "Mainland China" is not controversial in the context of Hong Kong. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I and I alone was somehow able to turn a non-POV issue into one, then mind explaining if the current status quo was a result of my efforts alone? To say the term "Mainland China" is non conroversial with regards to the SARS is itself a POV, and that is not to say I do not have a POV of my own as well. Treating the SARs separate from the rest of China, and listing them as separate entities is not a non-contested issue, especially when one tries to promote the term "Mainland China" just to emphasize political differences. And may I point out that HK does not have a central bank, and has never officially designated any entity as one, hence the edit you cite above. HK may enjoy high autonomy in running its economic system, but it is not separate to the point of being equated with that of an independent state's economic system. The Central government can, and does, exert its influence on the HK economic system, including removing its autonomous status altogether.--Huaiwei 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because the previous decision was to delete doesn't mean it should stay deleted forever, otherwise we wouldn't ave this system of deletion review. Hong Kong is a separate economy from the Mainland, and it's hardly contested. If you say you're contesting it, then let me ask you, under what condition would you justify an "Economy of xyz" category created on Wikipedia? And year, Pakistan and Canada and form a political union and an integral economy. But until then, Category:Economy of Pakistan and Category:Economy of Canada should remain. If you want to put Economy of Hong Kong under Economy of the People's Republic of China, that's fine, but economy of mainland China is a real and meaningful entity. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The political situation of Hong Kong has nothing to do with the name of the People's Republic of China. There is no economy called "mainland China" except when it is useful for the PRC to distict itself with it's own constituent parts. SchmuckyTheCat 02:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam Readers of this debate may be interested in participating in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideogram (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn Changed to abstain. Nominator's statement about its history seems to be correct. Back in the days when I was more involved with CfD, it always bothered me when a category had been suddenly emptied, and I usually voted "keep" when that happened. That seems to have been the case with last year's CfD. — Sebastian 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was emptied, properly, as a POV fork of Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I remembererd from 2 years ago, when we had a similar discussion. However, I'm so taken aback by this weird contribution that I prefer to abstain from this vote. — Sebastian 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at CfD - The resolution of this deletion review requires review of the 13 March 2006 CfD, the 25 November 2006 speedy deletion, and the 12 March 2007 speedy deletion. (i) The 22:30 13 March 2006 close by Syrthiss was improper. Although Syrthiss wrote "The result of the debate was delete."[1] Syrthiss also commented that he/she viewed the results as "no consensus" and listed two proposal position for which Syrthiss solicited input as part of that 13 March 2006 CfD. Given the edit war going on over the use of "mainland" vs. "People's Republic of China" for China (which apparently still is going on a year later), this seemed a reasonable mediation attempt. However, since more CfD discussion was solicited, the 13 March 2006 debate was not properly closed. (Another reason that the 13 March 2006 debate was not properly closed is that closer stated that he/she viewed the results as "no consensus" and yet closed the debate with "delete" consensus. -- Jreferee 05:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)) Instantnood subsequently modified the 13 March 2006 CfD postings a year ago (which I just reverted).[2] (ii) The 25 November 2006 WP:CSD#C1 speedy deletion[3] was improper since the category had contain significant content. (iii) The 12 March 2007 speedy deletion[4] asserted recreation of deleted material. However, since the 13 March 2006 close was improper, the original material was not deleted as the result of a CfD debate. To resolve all this confusion, the 12 March 2007 speedy deletion should be overturn and the Category:Economy of mainland China material deleted as the result of the 12 March 2007 speedy deletion should be listed at CfD. -- Jreferee 15:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Syrthiss's close was entirely proper. In the first place, prior to being on CfD there was a massive rename proposal where the idea to rename the PRC to mainland for categories was rejected. The category was an orphan/redirect to the proper PRC category and certain POV warriors kept populating it. That whole issue went to ArbCom. After it was over the category went to CfD, it had no consensus because the same POV warriors insisted on keeping the categories around for future use, so the length it was on CfD was extended. Syrthiss re-framed the discussion and after an extended discussion it was much more clear that it was a POV fork and he ruled it delete. In sticky cases like that we expect administrators to use discretion to make the correct decision.
And forget process! To accept that this category should exist at all you have to think it is ok to create a POV fork. There is a choice here, either the economy of the China is "of the People's Republic of China", ie, the name of the country, or the economy is "of mainland China" which is a term of convenience when it is necessary to distinguish the parent country from it's special regions and those KMT who still say they are the real China. To think there isn't a POV problem naming the place using a term originally coined by the opposite side of a civil war is ridiculous - the country is named People's Republic of China. When both names exist you simply get teams of editors from countries involved in a 60 year old real life war edit warring putting articles back and forth between the forked categories. SchmuckyTheCat 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Economy of the Unites States would be different than Economy of the continental United States, albeit there will be items that go in both. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undelete to view the page, cannot make a decision without seeing the article's state. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not an article, it's a category: the contents of the category page are very much secondary to the structural and naming considerations. But for the record, on 1st July 2005, prior to its last listing at CFD, the contents in full were: {{catmore}}[[Category:Mainland China]]. Alai 00:24, 18 March 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.
Fields (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Notable Band on major record label (Atlantic/Warner)

Having not seen the original article I do not know what the content was. The band Fields are less than a year old but have been on two MTV sponsored UK tours, toured supporting Bloc Party and are doing their own headline tour [5] in April. They have had numerous articles in the UK music Press (including NME [6] and [7] & The Fly) and online with sites such as Drowned in Sound [8], the album is still being recorded and produced by Michael Beinhorn as far as I know and is out 2nd April [9] with a preceding single [10] on 26th March.

To be honest the arguments for non deletion in the article summary were vague at best and did not cite sources so were unconvincing, but they do meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC for bands as they have printed interviews, adverts, tour dates, single reviews etc. in many UK magazines as linked above.

Nli10 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's needed is for them to have been the primary subject of some non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Bands less than a year old typically have not been covered in this way. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the classic problems. I didn't challenge the result although they're obviously notable because I couldn't find the sources then. The sources have been found now, though, so overturn now that the sources exist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per presence of new sources. JoshuaZ 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as above. Catchpole 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the new sources. Trebor 19:41, 12 March 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.
Elmwood_Place_Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This is a farm & house that is listed on the national registry of historic places, and is a Ohio Centennial Farm. - The person that deleted it obviously did it in haste.

  • Undelete, notability clearly asserted here, although I can't find a cached version to see if it qualified for what it was deleted for (db-nocontext is consistently tagged wrong). --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse deletion being listed on a national registry of historic places and being an Ohio Centennial farm doesn't really say much. Many things are on the national registry. What we need is an indication that there are reliable sources that discuss the farm. JoshuaZ 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Given the presence of reliable sources, now going with overturnJoshuaZ 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...like the registry itself? Only speaking as someone who's served on a small-town historical society, typically places of historic interest have at least smallish historic writeups. I can't imagine a state-wide one not having it available to someone who's able to get their hands on it. Keep in mind that it doesn't appear that this was deleted as an A7, although it's unclear to me what it was deleted for - regardless, lack of sources is not a valid reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if someone can provide sources I'm all in favor of recreating, but I don't generally like undeleting something if we don't have any useful sources. JoshuaZ 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion. This article was little more than a text dump, with zero context or assertion of notability. Considering the way it was written (writing style; big initial edit; all significant edits by User:Jackcmh9, a single-purpose account, etc), I also strongly suspect a copyright violation. It would need a complete rewrite in any case. --Fang Aili talk 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment History restored for review. GRBerry 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Upon further read, I understand why someone might believe it may be a copyright violation, but there's certainly no clear evidence of it being as such. Context is clear, notability is asserted, but the writing style was fairly atrocious. I'm definitely standing by my overturn now - deletion was a good faith, but poor, decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So where exactly is the context? the assertion of notability? It starts with "Elmwood Place is located just outside the small town of Irwin in Union County, Ohio". You don't even know it's a "small home" until the end of the second paragraph, and there's still no assertion that this building is in any way notable. I'm sorry.. I'm trying not to be argumentative, but I just don't see anything redeemable in this article. It even ends with "The future is bright for Elmwood place...", again strongly indicating a copyvio from a pamphlet or something. I will write a temp doc so that we can have something on this place, because if it's in the National Register of Historic Places I certainly agree that it's notable. But let's not restore this text dump/advertisement/copyvio. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've already lined up the context in your comments, it's just tough to derive due to the poor writing. The Ohio register is noted in the external links, so there's the notability. Since we don't know it's a copyvio, we can't simply assume it is, and the proper thing to do would have been to simply stub it and work from there. There's plenty of worthwhile information to use in the history, it's just poorly written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have created Elmwood Place Farm/temp, with which to start again. By the way, it is not necessary to prove a copyvio before deleting it. I also believe that if we restore the original text, this would be another case of the {{cleanup}} tag sitting around for months and months with no action taken. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, what you did at the temp place is exactly what I would have ended up doing upon the overturning, so thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, doesn't fit any speedy criteria. Trebor 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this farm open to the public for tours and such, or is it just an old residence? Is it featured in brochures and such about the area? Has it been the subject of any significant media coverage? It seems like a reasonable enough article subject if it's a local landmark/tourist attraction, or is it just somebody's old house? If the latter, I'm inclined to say Endorse deletion. There are 85,014 places on the National Register of Historic Places (per their website) and the vast majority of them aren't suitable for articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd agree with that final statement at all, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Being listed on the national registry of historic places makes it survive speedy deletion. There seems to be sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about this topic. The Wikipedia:Attribution information probably is in the Union County, Ohio libraries, which is why I do not think it should be sent to AfD right away. Lets give the article contributors some time to come up with sources. Reduce to stub if there are copyright problems. -- Jreferee 00:52, 16 March 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.
Matball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Was speedy deleted, while the game is played in many schoolhouses across the nation. Should've been put up at AFD at the very least, not just speedied. FireSpike 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just instructions for the game and reads like some schoolchildren made the game up themselves. There are no sources, and the article has never been categorized. List of sports is the only article that links to this one. While I accidentally marked the deletion as A7, I deleted it due to lack of claim to notability. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, invalid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, indeed, made-up games aren't A7, though I doubt it would survive an AFD. Better to list it anyway, just in case. --Coredesat 04:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, this is definitely not an A7. Onoes I am a process wonk. -Amarkov moo! 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No sources, 500 GHits, only played in one school as far as I can make out, WP:NEO, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep, Google search reveals this is a real sport played in schools; we should have an article about it. No need to list. Newyorkbrad 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provided there are credible secondary sources, of course. Seems this is not the Eton wall game, which is played only at one school but is in many history books and gets 277,000 GHits. Matball gets about 230 unique of 500 odd, at least some of which are mis-spellings of meatball. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all know that I'm more of an inclusionist than you, but I believe this is the first time I've ever outdone badlydrawnjeff. My attitude on this one is that some kid or parent will hear "tomorrow we are going to play matball" and he should be able to find an article, and there are a few sources to choose from, and it's certainly not doing any harm. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but are they actually good sources establishing that this is a separate game, rather than just a different name for a game that already exists? Mind you I was on the sailing squad at school, so what would I know? :o) Guy (Help!) 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list It is not an A7, but I have doubts about it surviving an AFD.-- Dakota 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep real activity for physical education. Maybe merge into other articles about playground games though as it is a simple game as part of the normal elementary/primary school curricula. Like Tetherball and kickball in scope, complexity and participants. --Tbeatty 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, I don't think that one quite fits into A7, but it should definitely be considered on AFD, especially if no sources are provided (which still, thus far, has not happened). Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Invalid A7, but being real isn't enough to be an automatic keep, as it must be attributable. Needs an AfD for a proper decision. Trebor 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list This is a classical example of the problems with Speedy. I assume it was just a mistake & the nom for speedy thought it uncontroversial. Knowing little about it, I might easily have made the same error.DGG 22:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kickball, problem solved. >Radiant< 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand the problem, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you seek to gain by making statements like you did? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list as recommended above. Unlikely to survive an AfD but doesn't really qualify under speedy deletion criteria. It does seem a little counterproductive to undelete and list an article on AfD that is a clear-cut candidate for deletion, but that is merely my interpretation and hey, I could be wrong. Arkyan 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Doesn't really qualify under speedy deletion criteria. Here's some research (which isn't much to go on): (i) Baldrige, Susan. (May 25, 2001) Lancaster New Era Game over Worried about kids' safety and self-esteem, schools shunning dodge ball and other playground favorites. Page 1. (writing, " "The kickball we play is not exactly kickball," explained Jerry McDonald, phys ed instructor at Warwick's John Bonfield Elementary. "It's matball. They run around four mats to score. It's for safety. If they slide into a base, someone could fall down. The ball we use is made out of blue rubber, and they are only allowed to throw at the legs." "We play kickball by softball rules, where you can't throw at a person," Ruth explained.") (ii) The Post-Standard (September 21, 2006) Pupils in grades 7 to 9 invited to play matball. Section: Local; Page B1. -- Jreferee 00:35, 16 March 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.
Cellador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The are clearly a notable band especialy within their particular genre of power metal. The are on a major label, Metal Blade. The article was speedy deleted. It should have at the very least been tagged and discussed first. They also have quite a lengthy write up on them at All Music Guide which is a lot more than many other notable bands have and it shows that they went on a national tour. They were even interviewed by MTV news, a lot to say for a band of this style.[11] --E tac 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' Since 22:26, 15 February 2006 this has been speedy deleted 7 times.-- Dakota 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Valid speedy deletion of the article by JzG. However given the MTV profile provided by E tac, let an AfD discussion decide whether there are enough sources to support an article. Pan Dan 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list JzG's speedy deletion was valid. At this point I think it should go to AFD.-- Dakota 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. Worth giving a proper look. Trebor 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Proper A7, but plenty here to show notability now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at Articles for Deletion (AfD). Valid speedy deletion and there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic (all I found were notices of the bands appearances). However, after seven speedies, I think it's preferable to send it to AfD rather continue on the same path. At AfD, someone please note that Celador is not Cellador, which might be come up in a Google search. Also, please do not bite the newcomers and please try to spell everything out with dynamic links so that the newcomers can understand what is going on. Thanks. -- Jreferee 00:18, 16 March 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_March_11&oldid=1144732388"