Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 2

Category:Vancouver infrastructure – request withdrawn – GRBerry 04:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleting sysop decided to delete it categroy because he doesn't like it. There was no discussion; it was out of process. What he says goes because he's an admin. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion log, Bearcat deleted it, stating it was a "bad categorization scheme; replaced with more useful categories." Did you ask him about why it was deleted? It might be best to ask him the reasoning, rather than make accusations. I don't see an actual reason for undeletion here, so endorse unless further information comes forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:DP it should have been CfD'd. It be best to discuss with other parties first rather than speedying it. He can disagree, but deleting the cat with no consensus violates WP:DP. — Selmo ^(talk) 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a useful category; about 70 per cent of what it was trying to do duplicated the already-existing Category:Buildings and structures in Vancouver and Category:Transportation in Greater Vancouver, and the other 30 per cent got covered off when I corrected the obtusely-named and mystifyingly-organized "Political Vancouver" and "Vancouver Government" categories to the more standard Category:Municipal politics of Vancouver and Category:Greater Vancouver electoral districts. As constituted, the "infrastructure" grouping was a weird cross-category hybrid of things with no logical connection to each other apart from being in Vancouver, and they were all already filed in more appropriate Vancouver-related categories anyway. Furthermore, "infrastructure" is not a standard Wikipedia categorization anyway — the fact that no other city with a category on Wikipedia has found a hybrid "infrastructure" category to be a necessary or helpful category rung pretty clearly implies that it's a misguided idea.

And finally, administrators can delete categories on sight if they duplicate or overlap existing category groupings the way this one did; CFD is not a mandatory process in such cases. It's not about what I like or don't like. Bearcat 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the confusion. I'll withdraw the DRV. — Selmo ^(talk) 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Lakelands Park Middle School – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn - there was no consensus for deletion and, significantly, no delete 'votes' after the article was rewritten with sources. Further work is needed but the article is still a stub. A copy of the article can be seen here which has been further developed from the deleted version. TerriersFan 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its looks like the closing Admin did take the rewrite into account. Have you discussed it with them or alerted them to the fact that you have brought this up at DRV? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion, neither the original or the rewrite satisfied the concerns of the AFD nominator (lack of an assertion of notability). In fact, the rewrite did not lead to any new arguments for keeping (in fact, it led to a reaffirmation of an argument for deletion). --Core desat 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - sorry, but I really do not understand how Wikipedia benefits from the deletion of a perfectly well written, sourced article. It needs expansion but that will come with time. In any case, large schools are prominent in the community and an entry here is justified. Bridgeplayer 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. It is true that there were no new delete comments after it was rewritten, but there was only one comment at all after it was rewritten. And nobody actually changed their opinion. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closing admin's reasoning seems fine to me. No prejudice against creation of an article which includes multiple independent sources to show notability. Shimeru 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although I think it would have been wiser to relist the AfD given the rewrite. I think that deleting with no prejudice against proper re-creation makes sense. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Within reasonable admin discretion. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Albion (band) – Listed at AfD for full discussion – trialsanderrors 02:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

My original article was tagged for speedy deletion for non-notability a few minutes after it had been created, and before I had time to complete it or add verifiable references. I was in the process of giving my reasons for non-deletion on the talk page when the article and its talk page were both deleted completely. I contacted the admin responsible and was advised to re-create the article, which I did, adding additional information to demonstrate notability as per the guidelines and including valid references. I also added a detailed explanation on the article’s talk page.

The re-edited article was again tagged for speedy deletion, and it was again deleted, but this time the deletion was reverted almost immediately on reconsideration by the admin concerned. The fact that the speedy deletion was contested, and that a discussion had been initiated, was clearly evident.

An inaccurate statement was added to the discussion on the article’s talk page, falsely claiming that there were no valid references, and before I could refute this, the re-instated article was again deleted. I contacted the admin responsible, but when I asked for the deletion be delayed so that more time could be allowed for discussion, this was refused on the grounds that the article had already been deleted 4 times, which is obviously not true. I was informed that my only option was to bring the matter to review.

I believe that the re-edited article now clearly asserts notability as required by the guidelines, and therefore should not have been a candidate for speedy deletion. I would be grateful if it could be restored. Jud 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while assertion of notability is enough to prevent speedy, it is not enough for AfD purposes. But we'd be arguing about whether the references are valid and that should be left to AfD so list it. (Just a reminder, you mention that your references are a listing of where the band is performing. That's not a secondary source, which requires analysis of the facts - in this case, reviews. I don't know if "gig reports" actually included analysis - you didn't mention whether they did and I have no access to the deleted article.) ColourBurst 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references were to several daily newspaper articles in the UK press, not just listings Jud 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article points to 4 articles from 2 separate sources, neither are national publications. Of those 4 articles only one mentions the band by name an article from 27 Feb 2007 referring to it as Alistair's (the lead sing) new band, indeed it does appear to be new, the other earlier articles either mention the concept of a band in passing and concentrate on the lead singer or in one instance list the other members of the band (nameless) as a completely different set of people to that listed in the article. That is the article seems to be a testimony to the regional interest in Alistair Griffin who already has an article. --pgk 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think this was supposed the place to discuss content, however, if you read the main article you will see that the band was initially formed at the beginning of 2006, but they played their first three gigs anonymously as Alistair Griffin and band and under a joke pseudonym as they could not agree on a name; two of the original band members left shortly after the name was publicly announced, and were then replaced by the current lineup. the Evening Gazette (Teesside) is one of the larger regional newspapers, covering a wide area of the north of England. According to the guidelines this would make it an acceptable information source.

I do not really mind where the information goes, but I would like to include it somewhere. If Albion are not considered to be notable enough to merit a separate article would there be any objection to the Albion (band) article being included as a sub section of the existing Alistair Griffin article? Jud 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mention the content, since it is relevant as to if it was sourced to the required standard. No opinion as to if there is enough verifiable information to include anything "substantial" in his article. --00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably should be AfDd since it asserts notability, but there is a profound lack of non-trivial external coverage. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Haven Institute – copy userfied, request withdrawn – GRBerry 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

the page was marked for speedy deletion; I was in the process of adding my reasons for why it should be kept (and my willingness to edit the page) on the Talk page when it was suddenly deleted ... all this took only five minutes ... I would like the opportunity to talk about this ... the Haven Institute page is very similar to the Esalen Institute page, ... they are both nontraditional educational institutions ... I would like the chance to edit this page into a form that is acceptable to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that it be undeleted so I can get to work to do this. Thanks William Meyer 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) William Meyer 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved that I can now access this Talk:Haven Institute page. When the Haven Institute page was deleted by speedy deletion, the Talk page vanished for me, and I could not access it.

The Haven Institute is an alternative educational institution that has existed since 1983. It has a good reputation, and attracts students from around the world. It is roughly similar to Esalen Institute in that it is a nontraditional school that utilizes seminars and group process in its teaching environment. Since Esalen is listed in Wikipedia, I believe it is appropriate that the Haven Institute also be included.

The reason for the speedy deletion was stated (on the banner that I was able to quickly read before the deletion occured) to be "Blatant Advertising." My intent in writing this article was certainly not to "promote a company, product, group, service, or person" ... Indeed the Haven Institute is owned and operated by a nonprofit society, whose aims are educational in nature. So, this is not a profit group ... it is an organization dedicated to promoting nontraditional educational approaches in a responsible and respectful manner. I believe that their undertaking is worthy, and merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please consider my request, and give me the chance to craft the article within Wikipedia's guidelines. I want to "play ball" ... I just want the chance to finish the job that I started (I have hours into this process at this point). Thanks for considering. Sincerely William Meyer 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you have a go at recreating the article in your own user space according to wiki policies and once you are finished have another go at moving it into main space? Feel free to drop me a line (click on humbug) if you would like any help with the mechanics. I'm not an admin so I can't userfy the deleted article into your user space but a passing admin may well agree to do so if you ask here. Cheers --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this suggestion. I would like to do this. So, I am requesting that a "passing admin" usery the deleted article into my user space ... that way I can dig into the revision. I don't want this article to be dropped because of my ineptitude. I'll follow up with a note to Humbug. William Meyer 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deleting admin: Once again a contested speedy has been taken to deletion review without any kind of communication with the deleting admin beforehand. Please tell me where in the rules it says to do this, so I can change it (preferably on my talk, because I'm not watchlisting this). Without giving an opinion on whether this organisation should have an article, my G11 speedy was justified. Some phrases from the article for those who can't see it:

"The Haven Institute is an organization devoted to providing a responsible learning environment wherein people can discover ways to enhance the enjoyment and meaning of their lives."
"Embedded in a philosophy of responsive individuation, the workshops emphasize a freedom of choice, a search for human values that will foster both personal growth and a concern for others, and an examination of untapped inner human resources. The prevailing atmosphere is one of safety, care, and a respect for individual privacy."
"Through the activities of The Haven Institute, The Haven Foundation embodies a philosophy dedicated to the enrichment and effectiveness of people’s lives."
"A core principle is the belief that human beings can best realize their full potential by embracing the principles of self-responsibility and wholesome relationship with others and the world around them."
"The Haven promotes a society where human beings are fully present and alive, where all life is treated with open curiosity, a generous spirit, goodwill, compassion, dignity and respect."

– Steel 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful .... I see what you don't want ... I can adjust the text to remove this kind of language ... I was quoting from others' writings anyway. William Meyer 18:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in fairness to William Mayer, I'm sure that this isn't so much a DRV as a "where do I go from here?". At his request, I have created a sub page in his own area for him to work on a more appropriate version of this article. I guess that we are done here - perhaps someone who knows how to can now close this? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 January – deletion endorsed, history to be emailed if requested, redirects could be created if wanted – GRBerry 18:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I looked at today's AfD's and saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 April. I was curious as to the exactness of this title and was lead to Opportunity_rover_timeline which redlinks to month by month exploits of the Rover (and an apparently abandoned project to complete it to the present). Further curious, I found they were all deleted at this AfD. The closing admin deleted them because the consensus was merge and I quote "I'm refusing to merge 10 articles I'm not familiar with into a condensed version as the result of an AfD." I don't think anyone in that AfD even realized these were linked off a main article. Nardman1 05:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm asking that ALL of these articles be undeleted. I won't list them here because it'd be needlessly spammy. They're all linked from the AfD. Nardman1 05:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The vehicle "Opportunity" and the vehicle "Spirit" are all-terrain utility vehicles ("rovers") on Mars. "Timeline" refers to events these vehicles were involved in overtime as published by NASA. Between 2003 and today, there are hundreds of these events. The mass deleted articles were used to break down these numerous events into smaller groups. -- Jreferee 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undelete~~, redirect all to Opportunity rover timeline and protect if necessary. ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If all the information is in fact available on stable NASA websites I endorse, because the edit history becomes unnecessary to summarize the content. ~ trialsanderrors 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Query Now which is it? Undelete or endorse? As per User:Mangojuice/Slave I'm not going through every version of all 10 of these articles to see if every fact is on a NASA website in order to decide what your opinion is when this is closed. GRBerry 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Endorse and e-mail if someone asks for the source text. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there is a precedent for keeping a useless list of scientific data (if provable) which ironically I was responsible for, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/120901–121000 Nardman1 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, redirect all to Opportunity rover timeline and protect if necessary per trialsanderrors. Also, the histories of the redirected articles should be made available so that anyone desiring to merge the information into the Opportunity rover timeline article can do so. As for the long timeline list, the unambiguous statement of membership criteria (see WP:LIST) probably should be more restrictive than the event merely being released by NASA. If the event is released by NASA and a newspaper article (or some other WP:RS) focuses on that event, than it might be reasonable to include that event in the Opportunity rover timeline. Also, although the timeline is a good idea, it might be better to use the chronological event information to expand the article with paragraphs rather than listed events.-- Jreferee 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted. As User:Mangojuice argued in the AfD in August 2006, in his closing comment, "The info is on the web, anyone who wants to work on condensing it and writing original text may do so". That was HIS REASON for not actually doing the merge that was voted by the AfD. Another AfD commenter said that this was way too much information. If the nominator would like all these pages userfied so they can be mined for new material, that would be reasonable. But note that the article at the head of this DRV is Opportunity rover timeline for 2004 January. In other words, we should look forward to *month by month* detailed activity reports being added as encyclopedia articles? It would be better to write a general summary that just linked to NASA for the blow-by-blow. Plus the suggestion (in the AfD) that all this material is a copyright violation has not been addressed. (A cut-and-paste from a web site that was possibly not in the public domain). For an example of what the missing articles probably look like, view the surviving one at Opportunity_rover_timeline_for_2005_April. EdJohnston 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. There was a clear consensus to perform a selective merge. The reason that this is "more work than ANY admin should be asked to do" just doesn't hold weight. At the least, the admin could have performed a full-content merge into the Opportunity rover timeline (or to its talk page) and tagged the page with {{cleanup}}. If the closing admin was unwilling to do this work, s/he could have simply skipped this AfD discussion and left it to another admin. -- Black Falcon 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go read User:Mangojuice/Slave, which expands on my thoughts on the subject. If you notice, the AfD remained open for a total of 18 days, 7 days after the last comment was added. The reason, I'm quite sure, was that no one was willing to do the work but was hopeful that someone else would. I was merely realistic about it. Mangojuice^talk 14:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I've closed to the tune of twenty Afd's with clear "Merge" consensus as "Redirect" with a provision that editors can access the edit history and merge appropriate material themselves. I don't think a single one of those closes has been contested yet. ~ trialsanderrors 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. They're all cut and pasted from the nasa websites, eg. [1]. Linking to those is fine. If the copyright status is cleared, they're good for wikisource. But copying them here verbatim isn't useful. If the afd result is to merge, anyone can still look up the relevant entries at the nasa website, undeleting them here wouldn't help at that. - Bobet 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NASA == public domain, see [2]. MER-C 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Although Trialsanderrors' solution sounds nonintrusive, I worry about the copyright issue. As brought up in the AfD, at least some of the text was a cut and paste copyvio. I don't mind copyvios existing in the history, but when we're putting the history there in order to encourage people to merge, it makes me very uncomfortable. Since most of what was there was a bunch of table-formatting of cut & paste stuff, I see no reason to bother undeleting it. If the material is wanted, it's out there, this undeletion won't really help. Mangojuice^talk 14:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, let me point out that with 3 delete !votes, 2 for merging into two separate timelines, 1 for merging into a single timeline, 1 for "removing most of it and merging the rest into the main article" and 1 for "rewrite", there was not a consensus on what to do. Even putting all those together, it's 4 merge, 3 delete and 1 keep. Given the copyvio, I think I did what had to be done. Mangojuice^talk 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copyvio? Copying from nasa is not copyvio. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the AfD; copyvio was pointed out from this link: [3]. Is that, itself, a copy from Nasa? If so, I wouldn't worry about the copyvio issue. Modulo the point Ed makes -- not everything on a Nasa website is government work and under PD. Mango juice^talk 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on copyvio. The 'license' that NASA appears to be asserting in the link found by MER-C does not appear to be compatible with GFDL. For instance, there is an implied qualifier about commercial use:

1. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material if it is for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages.

Chances are they can't get away with this, since they are part of the US government and the government can't copyright things (See Wikipedia:Copyrights). However they could be putting up SOME stuff on their website that is *not* a work of the US government. And US law provides that the the government can hold copyrights originally assigned to others. So anyone adapting this material should probably look it over carefully. EdJohnston 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it'd take care. "It'd be too much work" is still not a reason for deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear: are you going to do the work, or are you just saying the work could be done? Because WP:CV is full of copyright-problematic articles that are deleted all the time because it would be too much work for us to fix them all up. Mango juice^talk 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one's identified an actual copyright violation here, though, it's just copyright paranoia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment above, there is an identified copyright violation at least in one section of one of the articles, from unexplainable.net. Granted, we don't know of a copyright violation for the rest but the articles were all assembled by the same editor. It may be a worry about copyright, but it's not paranoia when we know some of it was cut & pasted. Mango juice^talk 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article from unexplainable.net is also a word-for-word copy from NASA (the first clue is the "Opportunity Heading Twords 'Vostok' By NASA 3/16/05" at the start of the article). The same text is at [4]. And like I said earlier, copyvio or not, cutting and pasting things from another website isn't useful. This is not written as an encyclopedia article, and the content isn't going to change, which makes copying it useless here, but possibly useful for wikisource. - Bobet 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Railzone australia – Deletion endorsed – Core desat 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

CSD was added by a competitor organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Speech Bot (talk • contribs)

Endorse The article manages at the same time to not assert notability and be pure advertising. ~ trialsanderrors 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion. Who the person who added the tag was doesn't matter, as I explained here. It was an article that had no assertion of the forum's notability per WP:WEB. That's all there is to it. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No reason is given for undeletion (or at least not a good one). -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse textbook A7: no assertion of notability. Feel free to come back with multiple non-trivial sources primarily about this website. There are sufficient books and magazines by and for railfans that if it is genuinely notable this should be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Villiers_Club – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

It is no less notable than Bullingdon_Club or Piers_Gaveston_Society. Part of the history of Oxford. Adrianhealey1 04:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, unsourced and it would appear to be at least slightly less notable, given that "Villiers Club" + Oxford yields the coveted zero Google hits. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no valid reason given for undeletion. Xtifr _tälk 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

2 March 2007[edit]