Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 September 19
2016 September 21 >

20 September 2016[edit]

  • Tomas_Gorny – Procedural close. This is already under discussion under 17 September 2016 – -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tomas_Gorny (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was nominated for AfD on 29 December 2015. It was deleted on 5 January 2016. Between 6 January 2016 and 1 February 2016, someone re-created the deleted page. On 2 February 2016, the page was speedily deleted per G4 and salted. Since 2 February 2016 and now, new news articles have came out about the subject (ie [1], [2], [3], and [4]). These new news stories cover the subject in-depth and are about items not covered before. The deleted page does not cover what these new news stories cover. Because of that, the new draft is not similar to the deleted version. A new page about the subject was created on AfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tomas_Gorny). It was deemed that the subject is now notable. Also, User:Rklawton, the person who nominated the page for AfD, also now agrees that the subject is notable (see [5]). Please un-salt the page. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Kurt Kohl – Speedy endorse. Nomination gives no reason to overturn which complies with WP:DRVPURPOSE, and looking at the AfD, it's inconcievable this could have been closed any other way. – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kurt Kohl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Kurt Kohl consensus was not done, page deleted. Page was well referenced, edited by a few members. Telecine Guy 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs)

  • This guy obviously does not know and nor care about wikipedia policies and guidelines. Several persons explained him how to sign their posts, for no avail. Endorse AfD closure, carried out according to the rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC
  • The AFD had four delete votes as well as the nominator with the only keep vote being qualified as weak keep so the consensus was clearly delete. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: There was no other way to close that discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, move for speedy close: There is nothing even remotely improper in the close of this AfD. Appears the proposer has competence issues, possibly language based. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2016 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Recipients of Order of Smile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is a perfectly fine Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals subcategory, present on a number of other wikis ([6]). Pl wiki category lists 227 entries. It was deleted from en wiki due to, first, an argument that there are not enough subjects on en wiki for it to justify existence (WP:SMALLCAT), which is a), not a valid rationale (given that pl wiki clearly suggests there are numerous, just need to be translated, as they inevitably will be one day), and b), Order_of_the_Smile#Winners already lists more than enough for it on en wiki not to be an issue. Second rationale was an argument that the category fails Wikipedia:Defining, with some people specifically arguing on the example that it was not "defining" Nelson Mandela. Well, is he better defined by Category:Bands of the Order of the Aztec Eagle or Category:Freemen of the City of London? I doubt it (and I doubt anyone can be defined by them). Having reread WP:DEFINING, I can see how most award categories fail to meet it, but in my experience of 10+ years here, and having written 1000+ articles, many of them bios including GAs and FAs (and participating in related discussions), I have never ever before seen anyone complaining about "too many" award categories or seen one of them deleted. Major awards, orders and such as usually seen as notable, and they have their lists of recipients and categories for them. Creating categories for major orders or awards is the established practice, and DEFINING needs to be rewritten to reflect established practice. Now, I would agree that minor orders and awards may fail notability criteria (and many certainly do fail), and in turn also that they may not deserve their own category, but despite the somewhat condescending tone of the last deletion discussion where a number of people dissed the award as "an NGO award for making children smile", it is undeniably notable (the en wiki article is poorly referenced, but pl wiki has a long further reading section, and there seem to be at least two books about the award (ex. [7]), in addition to plethora mainstream press references, because in Poland at least receiving this award is no small deal (ex. [8], [9], [10], [11] - those are stories from a large Polish newspaper, an even a larger, national paper, a major magazine (Polish Newsweek-like publication), and Polish Radio, respsectively); it is also endorsed and reported on by pl government, ex. [12]), and in Poland it attracts much more coverage then most high-culture or military or civilian awards (it is also famous enough to be covered not only on pl and en wikis, but on a dozen more). It is not minor, it is notable, and it fits perfectly within the well-established tree of Category:Recipients of orders, decorations, and medals, with 200+ notable recipients. So, in essence: please restore, it is a category for a major award with numerous eligible bios. PS. Oh, and it certainly defines Mandela more then "Order of the Aztec Eagle" - he had nothing to do with Aztecs, but made many SA children smile more... just saying. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not a category person, but my understanding is that we only have categories for things that are defining. That is said to be things that would be likely to be mentioned in the lede. Randomly sampling those that have Wikipedia articles, only one had it in the lede and many others didn't mention it at all. I don't know that that's a reasonable bar, but it appears to be the one we've agreed on. So endorse for now, but I'm happy to keep an open mind that I may be misunderstanding guidelines here. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are saying applies to most awards and decorations. It is clear that the common practice does not follow the policy - categories are commonly created and populated for awards and medals that are not commonly mention in lead. It is not common for awards and medals to be mentioned in lead, because they are usually discussed in the article's body. Unless you think we should delete most medal and order categories, we need to update the guideline to reflect this practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it is time to do cleanup of the award categories. And BTW, speaking about "most", IMO most actually do not gave categories, especially the likes of the Order of Smile. Even not all state awards have recipient categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus supports deletion. SSTflyer 05:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Delete votes did not address guideline-based concerns of nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you endorsing the deletion or the opinion of the nominator here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just mentioning that the opinion of the nominator was guideline-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. A minor award of questionable notability itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/uphold closure per above. If other cats are not defining, they too should be nominated. Neutralitytalk 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Dozens of categories for minor awards such as this have been deleted (for failing Wikipedia:Defining). Oculi (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to "Listified"), with the listification edit noted in the close (note that the nominator did it with the nomination, but please record the edits, and now Order_of_the_Smile#Winners needs improvement). I read a consensus to delete but no criticism of listification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2016 (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/2016_September_20&oldid=1075705506"