Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 September 11
2007 September 13 >

12 September 2007[edit]

  • Disappointment – deletion endorsed, while the topic probably is salvagable, the references shown seem to indicate that as a scientific topic this belongs in an economics series more than in a psychological/emotional series. A researched rewrite is likely possible. – GRBerry 02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Disappointment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#2) (AfD#1) (Search (
))

The nomination said "Dicdef, can't be anything more than OR". If I recall correctly the article was already more than a dictionary definition and was not OR. Another rationale was "Has only one site, and one example. Not likely to be much more" but google scholar is full of other potential sources. Kappa 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC) For example "Researchers typically assume that disappointment is proportional to the difference in utility between the expected and actual outcomes. It has also been found that increased effort to ensure a postive outcome results in increased disappointment if that outcome is not achieved." Is this dictionary material? It would be removed from wiktionary with hesitation. Kappa 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How true: it was not all a dictionary definition. Some of it was original research, and some of it was twaddle like One might be disappointed to drop a snow cone, as the person will no longer be able to enjoy it. - with a picture of a dropped snowcone to illustrate it. Endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting the quote above is OR, or twaddle? Kappa 23:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like it would be a reasonable subject for an entry if it discussed sociological research on disappointment; maybe poring through some textbooks would help resurrect it. Chubbles 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Wow. Patrick created the page as a redirect to Expected value four years ago on 29 June 2003, which itself was created on 8 August 2001. Anyway, the closer interpreted the debate correctly and it is hard to argue otherwise. However, there are a whole mess of these emotion articles, see Template:emotion-footer, so no objection to recreating the article with reliable sources if these emotion type articles are legit. If they are not legit, I forsee AfD noms. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's trivially easy to find one more reliable source. Kappa 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First 5 google scholar hits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Kappa 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    28,000,000 Ghits. The letter "a" has 9,480,000,000 Ghits, and we do have an article on A. Disappointment was linked to by 55 articles. Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus classified Disappointment as extension of thought to the future in the context of formation of ideas using words relating to the intellectual faculties. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having difficulty following your logic. How does having an article on "a" support not having an article on "disappointment"? Kappa 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Oh wait, you are saying it doesn't get enough raw google hits? Kappa 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm adding observations for the discussion (or later use). I still think the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes. Google definitely indicates we should have an article on "a".--Mattisse 00:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Endorse or whatever) - None of the above Google links are referring to Disappointment in the context of an affective state in Psychology. I don't care if the article exists or not, as long as it is not considered a psychological state of mind of interest to Psychology like Disappointment (affective state) or something equally ridiculous. Disappointment is not an area of major concern in psychology. I believe it is a normal experience of living. Should we have an article on scratching (psychological itch)? --Mattisse 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I am also 100% against the Template:emotion-footer and believe at the very least it should not be attached to Psychology in any way. --Mattisse 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you object to the use of the previous source Blessed are those who expect nothing: Lowering expectations as a way of avoiding disappointment or something like On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: The psychology of regret and disappointment ?Kappa 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think thats where the problem is. If it is not a psychological state of mind, then what is it and what could be included in such a topic. Britannica.com doesn't seem to have a "Disappointment" entry. If someone can find another encyclopedia that has a "Disappointment" entry and use that as a guideline for Wikipedia's "Disappointment" article, that may solve the issue. Bartelby.org may have an answer.-- Jreferee (Talk) 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think a statement like " It has also been found that increased effort to ensure a postive outcome results in increased disappointment if that outcome is not achieved." could be included? Kappa 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is rather self evident that if you expect nothing you will not be disappointed if you get nothing. How is that an important psychological issue? Or even note worthy in any way? We have had religions around for centuries saying the same thing. Couching it all in jargon does not make it more worthy. --Mattisse 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not actually what it says, I'm sorry if my jargon isn't clear enough. However if religions have been saying it for centuries, that kinda implies someone thinks it's worth talking about. Kappa 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. So I turned it around and said the opposite, just to make it a tad more interesting. I figured you would get it. I apologize to you that you did not. Do you understand now? And no, just because something is self evident and in addition has been repeated ad nausea, it does not justify repeating a cliche. As far as the word, we better just go through the dictionary and do every word that anyone might use. That would cover it. Then we could throw out dictionaries. And by the way, dictionaries usually do not provide the technical meaning of the word -- the problem with the word "affect" above, where the dictionary definition is the opposite of the accepted technical definition in psychology. --Mattisse 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "if you expect nothing you will not be disappointed if you get nothing" is not the opposite of "It has also been found that increased effort to ensure a positive outcome results in increased disappointment if that outcome is not achieved". Neither is it something I would expect to find in a dictionary. Kappa 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I asked RichardF, Mattisse‎, and those who read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology‎ to participate in this discussion as they may have a better insight on whether Disappointment could be an article or is it so widely used that it is best left to Dicdef. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close and the article was very little more than a dicdef (and the little more it was, was OR as Guy stated - do you have a published source for that claim?). --Coredesat 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Kappa 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but redirect somewhere appropriate, like expected value. >Radiant< 11:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The !votes from JzG and Cordesat should be counted as "overturn" because they agree it's not a just a definition and they would realize it's also not OR if they checked the reference given. The !votes from Jreferee and Radiant should be ignored as they don't given any reason. The !vote from Matisse should be ignored as s/he has demonstrated the inability to understand what it says, and rationales like "self-evident" are not part of deletion policy. Kappa 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seriously think that such comments will help your cause, I hope? >Radiant< 12:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since no-one is looking at sources or giving rationales, it appears my cause is lost anyway. Kappa 12:24, 17 September 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.
Bitterside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An other article has been made at User:JEPAAB/Bitterside. Would like this article to be move to Bitterside. JEPAAB 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unsalted it; it was protected against re-creation only because it had spawned several copyvios. —Cryptic 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're non-notable, but that's an AfD issue, not speedy delete issue. Unsalt is OK. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:22, 13 September 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.

Additional comment by closer: There are only two facts in this article not already in List of XM Satellite Radio channels. They could be merged there if desired, but it certainly isn't necessary. GRBerry 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome (XM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page all three times did have the stub tag placed on the page. The page has been under maintenance and expansion to bring in more content for the page. The page was deleted for the fact that the page is "content-free" and such the description Chrome for said page would be sufficient enough. However, this page do have value to those who are current subscribers, may become subscribers, or those who find interest in it. Therefore I propose this page to be undeleted. TravKoolBreeze 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a directory entry for a brand of a network on which we already have an article. A redirect to XM Satellite Radio would be fine, except that I don't see any evidence that Chrome (XM) is a likely search term, the station does not seem to refer to itself by that name, so actually all that's needed is an entry in the dab page at Chrome. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be a lot more sympathetic to this request if the deleted article - or, for that matter, any of the bazillion and a half other XM channel articles - had more than two sentences of relevant, non-ephemeral content. Even the potential for more would be a step up. —Cryptic 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn not blatant advertising and being a channel on XM Satellite Radio is a reasonable assertion of importance. Invalid speedy deletion. --W.marsh 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "Chrome is a channel on the XM Satellite Radio network", "It is available on ... XM and ... DirecTV." "The program director ... is." "Chrome was one of the original XM channels at launch." None of these convey an importance/significance. There really is no "hook", something that might get you beyond a "yea, so?" response. A7 speedy delete clearly applies. The information provided in the article is what you would find in an advertisement. The information was not arrange to be so "advertisy" (there was an infobox, section headings, etc.) so people could disagree that it is an G11 blatant advertisement. However, G11 blatant advertisement was within the deleting admins discretion, so I agree that G11 blatant advertisement applies as well. Comment Before this becomes another Pokémon situation or transmission tower situation, someone should go through template:XMChannels (music) and list a few for deletion separately. Hopefully, with a few XMChannels channels deleted, those interested in promoting XMChannels on Wikipedia will become more aware of what topics meet WP:N and start pruning the articles themselves. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, when you read within blatant advertisement, there has to be someway to say "Hey try this service and listen to this channel". Even if it was worded diffetrently, you right there is no hook. Therefore, how can it be stated as advertisement, blatant or not if your not pushed one way or another to the service. In this sense, any radio/tv article arguement would be a way to say, "Come listen to us". TravKoolBreeze 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A7 isn't about whether something meets WP:N, it's about whether it asserts any kind of importance. Being carried by a major radio service is a claim of notability. --W.marsh 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And being carried by a satellite-only radio service isn't. Plus, it's only one of the operating channels of XM, on which we already have an article, plus it's not actually known as Chrome (XM), it's known as Chrome, and the link from the dab page at Chrome now goes to XM Satellite Radio which is a much bigger and more informative article. I really can't see how the article as deleted actually serves the reader. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that's an argument for AFD. There's nothing in WP:CSD about it needing to be terrestrial radio, not satellite radio. Just about whether it makes a claim of importance. Being a meaningful part of something quite notable is a reasonable claim of importance. A7 was meant to allow for uncontroversial deletions based on a simple rule, not to let admins delete things they don't personally think meet WP:N (which wasn't more than an essay when A7 was created). I don't really see the need to get rid of this... if we can mention it on Chrome why can't we see where a standalone article goes? Other than some need to reduce the total number of articles... which we have no need to do. --W.marsh 00:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • W.marsh - A7 states looks to the article to state "why its subject is important or significant" or to "assert the importance of the subject." It's interesting how we both read these statements differently. I've seen people post "Notability is not inherited", but I don't know which policy/guideline that comes from. I can't say your take on it is wrong, but I'm sure the closer will figure it out. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notability is not inherited", similar to arguments like "notability is non-trivial coverage by multiple sources" is a refined argument meant for AFD. A7 is just about whether it makes a reasonable claim to notability. It doesn't have to be one we think would pass AFD for sure... that was never the intent of A7. All that's needed is a reasonable claim. Being a meaningful part of a clearly notable service, the claim that's made here, is a clear claim of importance. --W.marsh 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yes these XM channel pages need lots of work, and I think we need to step up to make them better. But by deleting this page, you're going down a slippery slope, most of the other channel pages are in the same state this was, are we going to delete all them? What about terrestrial radio? Are we going to delete all the "useless" articles in that realm? Why don't we just make them better, instead of deleting them. We have our work cut out for us, it's not like the history of these channels are posted on the website. But we need to make an effort to at least try. So put the page back, and we'll make a better effort to take these channel pages up to Wikipedia standards. Flap Jackson 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see, so Wikipedia is not a directory except of minor radio channels, in which case it is, even if we have an article on the parent channel. Silly of me. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said he thought he could get it up to Wikipedia standards, which would mean making it not a directory entry. --W.marsh 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse spammy article about a nn radio channel. Fails WP:N big time. Carlossuarez46 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable by being apart of the service offering a niche in programming. I don't see how it would be no name if there is rarely anyone doing a format as such.TravKoolBreeze 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Blak Jak – Unsalt to allow creation of new version using sources mentioned in discussion. – Eluchil404 04:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blak Jak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi, back again. Okay, so this Atlanta rapper released an album on Universal Records late last year, and since then, his article was deleted and re-created a crapload of times. It was protected once and then deprotected, then AfD'd despite some reasonable evidence from old pop-music stalwart User:Badlydrawnjeff. Why the fuss? Because Blak Jak was a big underground success (Allmusic calls his first single "a huge hit" on the independent rap circuit), and soon after became a major label artist whose singles were hitting radio (#2 most added at urban radio in Dec'06 [6]). But for some reason, every time someone made him an entry, it disappeared, or so it seems to the people outside these walls. Since the page was last protected (in fact, the week after it was protected), Blak Jak scraped the Billboard Bubbling Under charts (and actually, it wasn't the first time), which definitely qualifies him for WP:MUSIC under "national rotation" if not for charting a hit proper. Heck, even Los Angeles Dodger Tony Abreu uses a Blak Jak song as his entrance music. Can I have this unsalted so I can write the fellow a once-and-for-all decent entry? Chubbles 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsalt to allow creation of a properly sourced article. WaltonOne 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt The AFD close explicitly said "no prejudice against recreation if and when reliable referenced proof of notability (as per WP:MUSIC) can be established". The requesting user isn't one who created problem versions, and there is enough evidence to give it another shot. GRBerry 14:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation - If there is enough WP:RS material out there for this topic, Chubbles is one editor who can find it and knows how to use it in a Wikipedia article. Many of Wikipedia deleted articles are waiting for editors such as Chubbles to come along and recreate them. Blak Jak is one of them. Permit recreation. Comment - (1) This news article has everything you want for a Blak Jak biography: Dolan, Casey. (December 23, 2006) Los Angeles Times Surfacing. Turning the spotlight on musicians making a commercial breakthrough. Section: Calendar; page 8. Some usable Blak Jak material might be found in (2) Richards, Chris. (December 13, 2006) Washington Post The Singles File. (writing, "Blak Jak: "Bobbin My Head. Nobody would confuse Blak Jak with comedy dude Jack Black _ "Nacho Libre he ain't. But like T.I. and Young Jeezy before him, the Georgia newcomer sounds great when he's wrestling with a brawny, mid-tempo backing track." (3) St. Paul Pioneer Press (December 18, 2006) High fives: Deck - chatty agenda goes right here. Section: Main; Page 7A (announcing the Mid-December 2006 release of "Place Your Bets". See also [7]). (4) Boston Globe (January 9, 2007) Sound check - New album reviews. Section: Sidekick; Page 8. (5) The Sun Herald (January 19, 2007) Auditions: Live events/on stage - Mississippi Meltdown. Page M31. Not that this is relevant, but check out Mission Blak-JAK Washpipe Cartridge System.. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per this, this, etc. Was never really a consensus to keep or delete, but it certainly doesn't make sense to keep this salted. — xDanielx T/C 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Saracity123/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

recreation Saracity123 04:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted and continue working on userspace version, the userspace version is still quite promotional in tone. --Coredesat 07:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The sourcing is marginal and the tone and content too ad-like. Remove most of the feature info and concentrate on what can be sourced to third parties. Eluchil404 06:00, 16 September 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_September_12&oldid=1136100656"