Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 Deletion review archives: 2008 December December 9 >

8 December 2008[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Ewok_Slayer.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache

User:Bjweeks deleted my personal image without an IFD or even a speedy. My image has been proposed for deletion before and survived the debate: [1] Having a signature in an image is not a reason for speedy deletion.-- --(U | T | C) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user was asked by myself to remove the images from their signature and additionally warned by User:Deskana that if they did not comply it would be deleted. The user responded with "So go ahead and try mofo. Make my day!", which I was happy to do. If the user agrees to remove it from their signature I will undelete it. BJTalk 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the relavent Speedy Deletion Criterion Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion that informed you in deleting my image. (hint, it doesn't exist)
Also, you taking offense at something I said is also not a criterion for speedy deletion.-- --(U | T | C) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you have already been told Wikipedia:Signatures#Images dictates that images should not be used in signatures. A CSD criteria is hardly needed to enforce policy and guidelines, remember this is not a bureaucracy. BJTalk 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the "go ahead and try mofo" aimed as Deskana could well fall under CSD G7. Sarcasm and incivility might, at times, not be seen as such. Bjweeks may simply have been assuming good faith and thought you were asking for the image to be deleted. :) I'd suggest endorsing the deletion, for now at least? Kylu (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G7 says "requested in good faith", this was sarcasm. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenous. I expect more from you Kylu, you are an admin, act like one.-- --(U | T | C) 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Myspace, and you've not touched an article since 2005. Perhaps there are more important things to worry about, at the moment, than the image that you keep in your signature? Kylu (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse IAR deletion per Wikipedia:Signatures. Deletion appears to be the only tool available to stop the inclusion of the pic in the signature, so it's the right one. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and block Ewok Slayer for disruption. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Images are not meant to be in signatures. To be honest, Ewok Slayer was lucky that I even asked him and gave him time to remove it, rather than just deleting it straight away. --Deskana (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Policy is clear about not allowing pictures in signatures. Since the user was asked to remove the image and did not comply, deletion is a reasonable course of action to enforce policy. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Pictures should not be in signatures. Image would be orphaned if not used in signature.~ Jklin (T) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this picture was solely used to violate a guideline and it was necessary to delete it in order to stop the user violating the guideline. Clearly an appropriate deletion, especially as the only counter-arguments are process quibbling. Hut 8.5 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this user is now dodging this process and the protection on this page by uploading it to Commons. Hut 8.5 21:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - furthermore, I've blocked the user for disruption for 1 month. He had a previous 1 month block for making legal threats, he has not actually participated constructively in the project in 3 years, and his continued thumbing his nose at our policies simply isn't acceptable. As blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punishment, this one has been instituted to prevent any further disruption and policy flaunting. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • SPoT Coffee – From this discussion with low input it results that the new draft would not be a candidate for speedy deletion with its history to be restored and remaining doubts to be brought to AfD once moved to article space. – Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

SPoT Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Page was deleted on November 27, 2008 due to questioning of its notability. It is my feeling that the page in question was no less notable than that of any coffeehouse articles. Some examples:

I believe the article should be reinstated because this company is well known to both locals and visitors, has been prominently featured in several newspaper articles, and has won several awards as "best coffee" in regional coffee contests. Being a top regional attraction for locals and tourist coffee lovers alike, an article should exist to inform people who are interested in its history, services, and future plans. The company is also expanding locations to areas outside Western New York, including Rochester and Toronto and soon to more locations around Canada and the United States (it was mentioned in the article that 37 new SPoT Coffee locations in the United States and Canada are planned to be in production by 2012.)

I am working on an improved version of the original article in my sandbox:

While the original may not have stated the exact reason for the article's notability and may have exhibited some qualities of advertising, I believe this improved article clearly states the notability of this company and why it is worthy to have an article in Wikipedia. --Megan Owczarzak (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. I'm afraid I'm going to have to say we should overturn the deletion entirely. The article deleted was clearly not a valid A7, G11, or any other criterion. Or, you could just move your userspace version back into mainspace (crediting Josh Parris for some slight work), as that's a much faster solution. I would still like the history restored for GFDL purposes even in that case, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    that's advice on an instruction page, not policy. Thee are many reasons why people might not want to do that, and insisting people follow specific lines when challenging admins is a poor idea--let them use whatever channels they like. It's good that people challenge us. DGG (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of your opinion on that, and you're aware of mine. Can we take it going forward that whenever I request the reason why the deleting administrator was not consulted, that your reply is implied? I'll change the wording of my request going forward as well. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 21:12, 27 November 2008 User:Josh Parris speedy-delete-tagged page SPoT Coffee as {{db-inc}}. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've raised my concerns about the article at User talk:Dweeebis/Sandbox Josh Parris 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, be aware that the existence of another article is not evidence that yours is appropriate; that's the invalid argument we call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You need to concentrate on marshalling evidence that this article is suitable for retention. Frankly, we do not "exist to inform people who are interested in its history, services, and future plans"; that's called advertising, and you get that by paying somebody else, somebody who does sell advertising space, for it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move User:Dweeebis/Sandbox to article name space - I don't have access to the speedy deleted article, so no comment on the speedy deletion. The Sandbox article states "SPoT became a landmark business in Western New York due to it being one of the first independently owned coffeehouse companies to be based in Buffalo." which indicate why its subject is important/significant under A7. None of the other speedy delete criteria appear to apply to User:Dweeebis/Sandbox. History restored for GFDL purposes. -- Suntag ☼ 08:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first example doesn't really apply because it is a single coffee house that is widely known even outside the area. Some of the other articles used as examples are borderline themselves. As for "being one of the first independently owned coffeehouse companies to be based in Buffalo." That is weasel wording. Either it is the first (notable) or it is not (not notable). In order to determine which one is the case, it needs to be inline cited in the userspace draft. - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Simon Chorley Art & Antiques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The firm represents the only example you have of a provincial auctioneer. The firm is of long standing and a leader in its field. The content was intended to reflect the same format as the International Auctioneers, ie Christies and Sothebys already listed and approved. I would like it reinstated therefore, after I have corrected any errors pointed out to me. I would like to see a temporary version of the article, which reflected a tremendous amount of effort, inorder to carry out those corrections as and when I receive the same. Thank you. TAS06 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to courteously ask the administrator for a deletion review, but I am afraid I do not think there has been any review. Just a deletion. I would say the same as I have stated below on teh subject. If you can tell me how to address the administrator in question, in the right forum, I will do so.User:TAS06
  • You managed to find this page and list the review quite successfully; my question was why you did not first consult with Orangemike, who deleted the page. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator failing to answer a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The licence at Image:SALEROOMSCAA.JPG suggests that the image uploader, page creator, and sole contributor, may be "an operative of the company". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly needed a whole lot of cleanup, but with a lot of cleanup and a little elbow grease it should've been fine. Overturn and rework the article to remove the spam concerns. Or, alternatively and preferably, just recreate it so that it: is a bit shorter, as excessively long or detailed articles about companies or products are spam-ish; includes enough reliable and third party sources for us to know that the firm is notable in the Wikipedian sense and; properly verifies its content with reliable sources. Proper formatting and such would also be nice, but not required (if you don't know how, just stick a {{cleanup}} tag on it or ask an established user to help you out). Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will of course attempt to do the "cleaning up" to which you refer; I will also look at the term "clean up" properly with the hyper link you have so kindly provided. I will also make it more brief so it can not be considered spamish. It is in fact by no means thoroughly checked and the move from the TAS06 page (where I was working on it, hence the prefix to the title "work in progress" was being left) was premature. I will indeed ask an established user to help review the formatting and would appreciate its reinstatement (if you can) on the TAS06 page, so it can be worked on their. I will then present it to someone before it is moved to a Simon Chorley Art & Antiques page. I would however like for the sake of all the work creating the proper wiki and external links, to have the original to rework. Best regards, TAS06 TAS06++ —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • TAS06 your posts on various images such as Image:SALEROOMSCAA.JPG make it clear that you claim to be acting as an authorized agent of this firm. As such, frankly, your conflict of interest is extreme and rather worrisome. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The cache article shows one of advertisement, but not Blatant under G11. The page didn't exclusively promote Simon Chorley Art & Antiques and the need for rewriting does not seem to rise to the level of needing to be fundamentally rewritten. On the other hand, I'm not sure where the article obtained its information. The article stated "FOUNDED: 1862 Gloucester, England as Bruton Knowles Fine Art & Antiques 2006 Buy out of team and rebranding as Simon Chorley Art & Antiques." Being around since 1862 means that there should be plenty of book information on the topic. A Google book search for Bruton Knowles Fine Art shows that there are few his for this very old company and that its name likely was "Bruton, Knowles & Co.", not Bruton Knowles Fine Art as stated in the article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does bring up some hits. You might want to limit the content of the article to those hits. -- Suntag ☼ 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Qualification for tournament already started and tournament starts on July 2009 Chupu (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit recreation, now that there's more to write about. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_8&oldid=1138432219"