Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 3
2007 May 5 >

4 May 2007[edit]

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

Ill-Reasoned Deletion, if you check the AfD it is mentioned that it is already featured in the Super Smash Bros. Melee article, and quite frankly, this is not a reason for deletion. As for content and spelling, they should have told me about it before registering the AfD itself. Also, if Smashboards is deleted because of these reasons, shouldn't others in the Category:Internet Forums, too? Deletion Quality 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the AfD, it is said it is Uncyclopedic and "fancruft" (whatever that means) and I am questioning in which the definition of these terms come to fall on my article. And I believe the article could have been rewritten into policies (not sure which ones I didn't abide by) before any action of this could have been taken.
  • "

    I am a huge Super Smash Brothers Melee fan and an even bigger Smash 64 fan. I am also an inclusionist, however this is page poorly written (most of which is copied from the SSBM article). Also other fighting game forums which are equally big such as Shroyuken have been deleted. I personally feel these articles should be kept. However until the precedent is set they should either be deleted or rewritten. Plus Smashboards has been mentioned plenty in the SSBM article. Valoem talk 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)"

-Quote from User Valoem, AfD.

  • Personally, in question here is exactly where it has been copying the SSBM article. Deletion Quality 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - no arguments given to keep; consensus was delete. - Chardish 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Valid AfD, no reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Again, DRV is for questionable AfDs or when new information is available. Neither are present here. Rockstar (T/C) 23:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree per opinion presented by Rockstar915. Sr13 (T|C) 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rockstar. NBeale 11:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policies that you didn't abide by, for future reference, are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. You performed original research when you performed an experiment using a Google search and gave your firsthand analysis of the results, and your content giving the history of the subject is unverifiable (not only because you didn't cite sources, but because there appear to be no sources anywhere documenting any such history of the subject). Uncle G 12:21, 5 May 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.
Rest Among Ruins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was trying to create a page and they deleted it twice because of lack of content and a third time because I tried to recreate too many times. I promise to do it right if you just let me create the page Awater3 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Instead of creating pages with little context and adding on to it later, I would say first read WP:N, and then try creating something in the sandbox before moving it to Wikipedia's mainspace. If the article still gets deleted after all that, then I would say come back here. Hope that helps! :) Rockstar (T/C) 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid speedy A7. "Rest Among Ruins is a currently unsigned Metal/Alternative band from Baltimore, MD." External links to Myspace and a couple of trivial local/college paper mentions. That pretty much sums it up. No assertion of notability. (Note: actual casing of deleted article is Rest Among Ruins.) --Kinu t/c 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it's a valid A7, but since when are local newspapers not reliable sources? Rockstar (T/C) 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not implying that they aren't... but there are plenty of online articles about "your local band" on a daily basis. Having been written about in a couple of articles doesn't seem to satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" nature of WP:RS. I can't speak for the individual notability of [1] and [2], though... these don't seem like local papers, per se, but the same milieu of "local interest only" seems to apply, and not enough to break the "no assertion of notability" threshold. --Kinu t/c 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, good call. Neither of those two are reliable sources. Rockstar (T/C) 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, generic garage band. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was apparently undeleted and sent to AFD by Nishkid? This is kinda confusing. --W.marsh 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I've left a note at the AfD that appropriate housekeeping needs to be done here... perhaps Nishkid'll take care of it. --Kinu t/c 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Unsigned bands don't get articles, and I see nothing in particular here that looks like this is some sort of special case. Nominator might wish to wait until the subject passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Considering the article has been undeleted and is at AfD right now, we can probably close this DRV. Rockstar (T/C) 23:13, 4 May 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.
CONLANG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Insufficient discussion on AfD - No commentary from pro-keep side (probably from not being aware of the AfD); thus AfD's voting was not a consensus sampling
  • "Mailing lists are not notable" - not true as a general statement.
  • Notability should be evaluated in the context of a particular culture or subject; CONLANG is very notable within conlanging, as it is the most active forum for communication about it, publication, etc.
  • In OP of the AfD, "Most of the Google hits are about constructed languages (which "conlang" is a common abbrev for) or are links to personal websites." - well duh, they're about constructed languages; that's what CONLANG is about. Brushing off sites that discuss conlangs when *evaluating* a conlang related resource is rather short-sighted.

Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your issues: 1) Doesn't matter. What you saw was consensus sampling. 2) It is a true statement. 3) No, it should be evaluated in the context of Wikipedia's standards. 4) Personal websites are not reliable sources. Rockstar (T/C) 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Howso, if there was no discussion of both sides, and both sides exist? I feel this in itself is sufficient to relist for AfD; DR shouldn't be towards evaluating the AfD but evaluating whether either a) it missed relevant information that is now available, or b) there is controversy about the issue that was not addressed in the AfD. There is, therefore, I request it be relisted for a proper AfD.
2) Please point me to WP policy that states that no mailing list is to ever be considered notable.
3) WP's standards yes, but that does not mean that WP is only about popular subjects. WP has many articles on obscure things as well WRT the general world. As such notability has to be contextual.
4) That is not always true; there are exceptions. Expressions of opinion that do not go through editorial review are not reliable sources; publications that stand for themselves are not relevant to that test. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) AfDs are community discussions to reach consensus. See WP:OWN. 2) Here. 3) WP notability standards are not subjective. 4) Still not reliable. Rockstar (T/C) 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Indeed. And the AfD in question did not have sufficient discussion. There is controversy; it was not discussed in the AfD; this is not an AfD and it should be an open and shut relist for AfD. 2) That is about what sources are "generally regarded as unreliable". Note that that has neither the words "always" nor "notable". Very different from what I asked; you haven't supported your claim that mailing lists are always un-notable. 3,4) "Generally" differs from "always".
Again, this is not an AfD. The fact that there is a controversy about the deletion, and that it was not aired during the AfD, means that it should be relisted so that proper discussion can take place. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of deletion review is to either discuss a contentious closing of an AfD (which this wasn't) or to overturn a decision based on new information (which, in this case, there is none). Rockstar (T/C) 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD was closed correctly and no new information has been presented to fulfill notability. I don't see the problem -- DRV is not meant to be another AfD... Rockstar (T/C) 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid close, valid debate, and looks correct from the content as well. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid close. --pgk 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD properly weighed and closed. While the deletion rationales may seen generalized, they are far from WP:WAX arguments; they support the nomination vis-a-vis WP:ATT. As for "No commentary from pro-keep side (probably from not being aware of the AfD)": the last version of the article in the history appears to be its tagging with the AfD tag for the first time; this is more than sufficient to raise awareness. --Kinu t/c 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Valid AfD, valid close. And it's true, mailing lists, much like message boards and usenet groups, generally are not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally. There are exceptions. This is one. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. Rockstar (T/C) 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rockstar says mailing lists are not notable? What's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguist_List? As for proving it, sooooo easy: the term "conlang" did not exist before the Conlang-List. The Conlang-List is the origin of the term "conlang", itself a shortening of "constructed language", which the list also coined (which you didn't know, because, currently, it's not in Wikipedia). Oh, and here's a published article about conlanging and (specifically) the Conlang-list: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.php, "Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG: Inventing Languages on the Internet", by Sarah L. Higley in the Journal of Media and Culture. May 5, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.89.63 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-05 08:51:09
    • "which you didn't know, because, currently, it's not in Wikipedia" — If the only way to know something is from a Wikipedia article, then that content is unverifiable, and does not belong here. Wikipedia content must be verifiable. Uncle G 12:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait a minute, IP address. So you're saying Conlang is a neologism? Rockstar (T/C) 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to your definition of neologism, I'd say that "conlang" is not a neologism (it's been around since 1991, cf. http://www.geocities.com/raiu_harrison/conlang/, and unless there's a specific way to determine at which point in time a neologism becomes a word, I'd say this isn't a neologism. That is, I'd say the burden of proof is on your to prove that it's a neologism), firstly, and secondly, you already have a page devoted to the term "constructed language", so I fail to see how your objection is relevant. As for what conlangs were called before the conlang list, they were called many things--often just languages, or "a language I made", etc. Around the time of the Conlang mailing list's establishment, there were some others who tried to coin words that would be used for created languages, in general. Artificial language was co-opted by the machine-learning folks, so it wouldn't work (p.s.: the fact that that link goes to the entry for "constructed language" does not fill me with confidence. "Artificial language" is a term used in linguistics, and it has nothing to do with "conlanging" (for example, to test how pro-drop, word order, and case marking affect language learning, Ezra van Everbroeck at UCSD used a program that generated artificial languages of various word orders and with various case marking strategies (I can't find a link to his dissertation, but this is a presentation he gave on the project http://crl.ucsd.edu/workshops/20070206/pdf/van-everbroeck.pdf. That's what an artificial language is). Jeffrey Henning attempted to coin "model language", but it never caught on, and neither did "planned language" (though it seems to have worked its way into the Wikipedia article. Who writes this stuff? Oh, that's right...). As a result, what we've got is "conlang" (http://www.langmaker.com/db/Conlang), a truncation of "constructed language", whose earliest citation is 1928, it looks like (http://www.langmaker.com/db/Constructed_language), though I'm not sure how many people used it. It certainly didn't become a term (as opposed an ordinary "adjective+noun" combination, like "eaten sandwich", or "smoldering computer") until the Conlang list. (Note: I figured since people can go by things like "Rockstar", that signing these articles wasn't important or taken seriously. I'll remain "unsigned".) May 5, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.89.63 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-05 08:51:09
          • Still not showing that it's a reliable source or why this article should remain in Wikipedia. Finally, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors, as it quickly takes away any credibility from a point you're trying to make. Rockstar (T/C) 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to making personal attacks, it should be an outside observer, and not the one involved in the dispute, to point out a personal attack. Also, I already felt I was being insulted for not knowing how to properly sign a comment (and I still can't figure it out). It was as if it was being suggested that one's information isn't valid if it hasn't been signed off in the proper way, which is absurd. Additionally absurd is the notion that any kind of attack takes away credibility from a point. If I say, "The sun will rise tomorrow, you jerk!" does that mean it won't? One shouldn't say it, but if one is interested in fact, as opposed to opinion, then sentiment of any kind should be ignored. As such, here is another reference: http://www.rochester.edu/college/eng/faculty/conlang.html. This is to a University of Rochester website describing an interview by Sarah Higley that appeared on NPR in August of 2001, in which she discusses, among other things, the history of the CONLANG list and her relationship to it. In fact, this page links to the Wikipedia CONLANG page that no longer exists! How unfortunate for those viewers that want to know what the heck the page is talking about. At any rate, it appears this discussion is rather useless. We can trot out sources, but this doesn't appear to be so much a discussion between two groups attempting to come to a decision as it is between a parent and a naughty child (we being the naughty children who wish to have our article undeleted). No matter, I suppose. The article will be back one day. Here's the signature I can't figure out (which is probably wrong, anyway, because I think my IP address gets changed automatically every so often). May 5, 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.89.63 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-05 08:51:09
  • If the list coined the word "constructed language" then what was it called before they existed? Also, I'd like to see a source proving that. If you can do that, it deserves at least wider mention in the Conlang article. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure was valid. The article cited no sources. The nomination challenged the article on the grounds that a reasonable search for sources turned up nothing, and not only was that never refuted by citing sources, there wasn't a single editor opining that the article should be kept. Contrary to what is claimed above, there was plenty of notice on the article itself, throughout the entire discussion, for anyone who wanted to make an argument for keeping the article. And contrary to what is claimed above, the nominator's discounting sources that discussed a completely different topic, constructed languages, rather than the actual subject of the article at hand was quite proper. It is Saizai who is actually in error here, not the nominator in the AFD discussion.

    Finally, we have one source cited, the article by Higley. Ironically, it supports almost none of the content of the deleted article as it was actually written. So the article would have required a rewrite from scratch anyway, in order to be verifiable. The deleted content won't be of any use in writing a proper article, because it is unsupported and even outright contradicted by what the source actually says. So leave it deleted, but without prejudice against a proper, sourced and verifiable, article being written from scratch, if a second independent source can be found.

    Saizai, learn from this. You made no efforts whatsoever to cite sources above, despite repeated requests, and editors quite rightly disagreed with you, pointing out that your arguments were bad ones. In stark contrast, 72.130.89.63 (talk · contribs) cited a source and made a good argument. Our arguments here at Wikipedia are sources, sources, sources. If you continue to not cite sources, you will continue to fail to persuade other editors. Uncle G 12:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. Although I am aware of the fact that the closure in itself was valid (after all, those in favour of preserving the article could have raised their voice but failed to do so, although that was probably simply for the fact that they hadn't noticed), I will use the opportunity here, because I disagree with the argument that mailing lists are non-notable by definition. In general, I would agree with that, but this is a clear example of an exception. The CONLANG list is much more than a mailing list only. It is a community, and a fairly large one to that. It is the place, where a huge part of the world's conlangers can be found, or at least could be found. That in itself would making a mention of it in Wikipedia more than worth the effort. Even if the CONLANG list would not warrant an article on its own, it would definitely deserve mentioning elsewhere. Therefore, I'd much rather like to see it merged and redirected instead of deleted. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If reliable sources can be found, a new version based on them could be created, but I tend to doubt that's possible. An external link at constructed languages is probably (more than) enough. Eluchil404 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There are certainly some notable mailing lists, but they are not notable in general, and there are zero reasons provided why this particular one is notable. Or, for that matter, why it's so notable that we should just assume the presence of reliable sources despite a lack of examples. -Amarkov moo! 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. a publication —ThomasSchmidt 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So there's one source... and? Where are the multiple, non-trivial ones for which WP:RS asks? The one link provided in this DRV doesn't really demonstrate that this list is a notable article topic, or more importantly, that the AfD was closed on lack of information, I would say. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 6 May 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.
Template:!comment (edit | [[Talk:Template:!comment|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and others (restore|cache|TfD)

Reopen discussion. Improper application of speedy delete criteria CSD G4, as the templates that were proposed for deletion here were functionally similar to the earlier deleted templates, though by no means identical. Furthermore, WP:CSD states that if there is doubt over CSD if speedy delete applies, standard XfD discussion should take place. Closing administrator's comments here seem to suggest that he/she disregarded the good-faith arguments of the "keep" and "reluctant delete" votes in speedily closing discussion. As the old TfDs were two years old, it seems like the proper course of action would be to simply continue discussion and let consensus take its course. Chardish 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse burning these with fire. Clearly against the 'not a vote' policy and unnecessary server strain images. Gah, what a waste of space.--Docg 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about the merit of the images but rather if speedy delete was applied properly or not. - Chardish 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus is clear: the purpose and image content is what is inappropriate, minor details do not change that. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't derive consensus from less than 24 hours of discussion. That's my point. - Chardish 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in this case, because it is altogether clear that the use of any such templates would continue to be disliked, and for good reasons. The reasonable way to proceed if someone would seriously think them a good idea would be the village pump, because their use is more a matter of policy. DGG 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the outcome of the discussion will be Delete, for the record. I'm more concerned with the consensus building process than the actual result of the deletion. XfD discussions, particularly lively ones, bring to light the different philosophies and values people have about Wikipedia, and it's important to hear them all out if there are multiple points of view to be heard. - Chardish 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably overcompensating—I was the nominator in the November 2005 debate Uncle G linked in the current TFD, and I thoroughly loathe these templates in particular and the others in Category:Image insertion templates in general—but enough time has passed that there's probably value in reopening a full debate. At the very least, we'll be able to identify a bunch of users who don't believe in consensus decision making and should be studiously ignored forthwith. —Cryptic 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these templates are tacky, personally, and an XFD where everyone uses these templates would be one I'd be less likely to participate in. But that said, I am kind of wondering how these things can be discussed if any XFD discussion of them can technically be closed as a G4 and endorsed at DRV. Surely there must be some way to re-check consensus here? A strict reading of policy would seem to prevent simple templates from ever being re-created once an initial TFD is over. --W.marsh 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If someone can demonstrate a consensus anywhere for these templates, then I'd say let it run, but I have seen no such consensus. And prefacing things with a little exclamation point does not, by itself, change anything. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no opportunity to build consensus - that's my point. - Chardish 07:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been gone through many times. You would have to have a consensus to recreate it, and TfD doesn't work that way. -Amarkov moo! 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These templates have no constructive purpose. I propose going one step further and banning bold "votes" in all discussions. John Reaves (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck with that. I don't even bother to revert anymore when folks "helpfully" bold random words in my comments. —Cryptic 12:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion recreation hasn't addressed the issues discussed many times before, redeletion was appropriate. --pgk 09:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, all weasel words aside, these templates move XfD even more from arguments to votes. Maybe even a server stress problem, but I'm not an expert on this. --Pjacobi 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Coldspot (Wi-Fi) – AfD closure overturned; deleted outright. (The fact that the closing admin hereinbelow reverses his own decision, and that the article's author admits meatpuppetry weigh heavily in this closure.) – Xoloz 14:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Coldspot (Wi-Fi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete The article was recently kept as 'no consensus'. However, evidence of sock puppetry or perhaps meat-pupetry has since come to light. Also, claims of notability and common usage were made by the majority of "keep" supporters, but these were uncited, even after requests to do so. Andy Mabbett 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just renominate with evidence of puppetry. No need to drag this through DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only skimmed the afd and haven't looked at the article (so whoever closes this, please don't count my nose), but clear evidence of sockpuppetry is one of the best reasons there is to drag an existing article through drv instead of just taking it back afd. It's unfair to the participants in the first afd to be forced to re-argue if they were in fact successful the first time, and counterproductive in the extreme to reward a puppeteer this way. —Cryptic 13:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Socks or no socks, the discussion made clear that there are zero reliable sources that verify any of the content of the article or support the use of the term to refer to the concept of a "region where wireless internet access is not available." All of the sources provided by the keep voter/s were shown to be unsatisfactory. In addition, at least two of the delete voters indicated they did their own meticulous research and came up with nothing. The article should clearly be deleted per WP:RS/WP:N, and this was the consensus among users whose comments actually made sense. Pan Dan 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate - I'd certainly vote "delete" in an AfD on this, the article is unsourced and pretty well content-free. And the keep arguments in the AfD are feeble. But I don't think we should overturn unless the process was clearly wrong. However I wouldn't object strongly to an overturn and delete if that became the consenus here. NBeale 11:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I was the closing admin, and had I been aware of the sockpuppetry I would have closed it as Delete, rather than No Consensus. Walton Need some help? 11:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. This article is about a neologism. A neologism that has no sources and has not been verified. All of the "keep" votes are either "it's useful," "seems notable," "needs more references," or requests for Google searches (which proved, in the end, nothing). All of the sources given during the debate were totally unreliable (Urban Dictionary and a Mailing List). Forget sockpuppets -- none of the keep votes had any merit and should have been evaluated as such. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's much more of a cluocracy. And in this case the better reasoning came from the delete side. Rockstar (T/C) 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the author. There were no socks - only my girlfriend posting from the same IP, with the same opinion (no canvassing). I do not believe that there is a rule that two related wikipedians are not allowed the same interests are there? This is simply a further arm in Pigsonthewing's increasingly vindictive campain against me. Adambro (talk · contribs) has tried to mediate in this before, but apparently to no avail. petty disputes should not be dragged through DRV. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Dibs – Speedy deletion overturned unanimously; no need to list at AfD. – Xoloz 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dibs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted under WP:CSD A7, which is for articles on "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites", and I don't see how this topic fits any of those criteria. The article has existed for over 2 years and was edited in good faith by over 20 registered editors. Even if the administrator felt this was a non-notable topic, he should have nominated the article for AFD, given the long history of the article. I don't believe that CSD should be a way for Admins to unilaterally bypass AFD, and I strongly feel that he has overstepped his authority in making this judgement call. I propose that this article be restored and listed on AFD marked for cleanup (as suggested by zisGuy below). DDG 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um. I'd say undelete at this point, hint to 1ne that bold revert discuss applies to admin actions as well (so simply re-deleting a questionable speedy restored with credible reasoning by another admin is not usually a great idea), and flag it for cleanup and referencing, which it definitely needs. If the problems are not fixed in a month then AfD it. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. No way that this is a speedy, A7 or otherwise. If anything, this might need cleanup and referencing, but if any deletion action was to happen, it needs to be through appropriate channels (i.e., AfD). --Kinu t/c 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above commentary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/undelete Per Guy (thank you!). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. for the record, I am not DDG. DGG 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per above. For the record, I too am not DDG. :) Rockstar (T/C) 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, nobody's perfect ;) However, I've now sacrificed my minimalist sig in favor of clarity. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete Doesn't really fit speedy criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete Considering the article had a (small but significant) history of good-faith edits, it should not have been deleted as a speedy CSD G4 - and should be relisted at AfD. I'll try and discuss it with the deleting admin on his talk page, per WP:BOLD. --SunStar Net talk 08:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a terrible article. It could have been made into a merely poor article by removing about two thirds of the content. We may be better off transwikefying and merging what remains into wikt:dibs. But it is in no manner a defensible speedy, either the first or especially the second time. —Cryptic 12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete per the above comments. Sooner rather than later, please. RFerreira 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, this isn't a person, group, or website. A7 doesn't apply. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:36, 8 May 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.
Dražeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hmm. I'm not overly keen to get this deleted, but I'm more interested in this from the "legal" viewpoint, as a supposed precedent opening a Pandora's box of surname articles, as well as IMO more head-counting closure than weighing on policy-based reasons (one keeper on the AfD is the article author, another said an unqualified "keep, interesting", and third suggested "well, expand all other"). I still maintain that the page heavily violates WP:NOT, and sets up a bad precedent. But I'd like to hear some more opinions in this respected forum. Duja► 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is poor argument because there are many surnames articles on Wikipedia already and this is certainly not the one that would "open Pandora's box" - such box is opened long tome ago if you consider that a Pandora's box. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect all human knowledge, then why this article cannot be part of that knowledge? What is a main reason for censorship here? Vampire in the city 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own closure. While I will agree that the article is in bad shape - lack of sources, for example - it was my view that the consensus of the discussion was to keep this one around. Yes, the nominator provided an argument founded in policy, but provided little compelling argument that the article is a "directory" - while clearly it is not a directory or genealogical list. In any case, it is my belief that adherence to consensus is more important than a slavish obedience to policy. If enough people think a rule doesn't apply, it likely doesn't. While the arguments to keep were weak individually, as a whole I feel it demonstrated there was no consensus to delete this article whatsoever. Arkyan • (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, article is in "bad shape" as you say because I translated only part of the long article about this on Serbian Wikipedia, but I plan to translate entire article from Serbian Wikipedia, so when I do that it will be better (as for sources, the article have large "Refences" section where all sources are mentioned). At the moment, I have no time to translate it and to be sincere, the behaviour of user Duja who desperatelly want to delete this article really killing my will for work, so if he delete my article I will leave Wikipedia for ever. Vampire in the city 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is certainly not my intent to throw mud at you for the closure, but I respectfully disagree on several points: first, the statement that "consensus may trump policy"—perhaps so, but I haven't seen a WP:CONSENSUS on that AfD, just several arguments like "I like it" and "it ain't a directory". Second, WP:NOT, quoted by myself, states that Wikipedia is not a directory, and I was misinterpreted by one AfD poster that I referred to the article as a directory — it isn't (but it isn't too much more than it). I don't have particular reasons to doubt that the article is verifiable at some of indiscriminately listed references (Srpski prezimenik, (Serbian surname dictionary), "Rečnik prezimena Šajkaške" (Dictionary of surnames in Šajkaška) etc.) but, again, do we want an article on every surname on Earth? I didn't specifically cite WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, but I thought it was fairly obvious. Where's the assertion of significance? Duja► 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the article, I already said that I will expand it and it will not look even close to directory (it will look as the original article on Serbian Wikipedia), but I will not try to expand it until you do not stop this "crusade" against my article. As for the question "do we want an article on every surname on Earth" - why not? If you ever watched Star Trek, you would know that their (futuristic) version of the Internet contain information not only about every surname, but about every person that lived in the any part of the history of the whole universe - that is a goal to which "our" Internet should aim (Or perhaps you would suggest that we should go back to cave and seat around fire?). Vampire in the city 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the consensus was clearly that articles of surnames are appropriate in many cases, as also shown by the many articles on common surnames. The consensus was not at attempt to reverse WP policy, just a confirmation of the prevailing interpretation that the policy against genealogy (or against directories) did not prohibit this type of article. Most discussions at AfD are about interpretation of policy as it affects individual articles, or types of article. As an aside, if the references section is typical of the remainder of the article on the Serbian WP, it would be much better to rewrite it than to translate it entirely. DGG 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Endorse In my view this should have been deleted in the AfD but it wasn't and there is nothing wrong with the process. But we should be clear that we are not setting a precident that every single surname on the planet deserves an article. There are no Notable people with this surname - maybe there should be a policy or guideline about this. NBeale 11:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are few notable people with this surname and since I plan to expand article, it will also speak about surnames Dražetin, Dražetić and Dražetič that derived from Dražeta, hence, there will be little more notable people with all those surnames (for example, there was a prince with surname Dražetić who ruled over part of Dalmatia in the 15th century). Therefore, I will also expand a list of notable people with these surnames - just give me a chance for it (I ask nothing more). Vampire in the city 17:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I expanded now this article as well as list of notable people with this surname: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dra%C5%BEeta#Notable_people_with_this_name_and_surname.2Fsurnames In fact, article now speak about both, surname Dražeta and personal name Dražeta and it is now clear that there are notable people with this name/surname (since this was among arguments for its deletion). Vampire in the city 14:27, 7 May 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.
Gl_trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

English_Translation_of_french_wiki

They are a French based company and this article was a translation for the French wikipedia site, which had been around for a few years. So I don't see why the english one is deleted and the french one not? This was not advertising, merely stating what they do, they are one of the biggest IT suppliers in the banking world see the fintech 100 :http://www.financial-insights.com/FI/services/fintech100.jsp. This editor is over zelous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.32.14 (talk • contribs) 11:55, May 4, 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion without prejudice of a new article which cites sources, asserts the significance per WP:CORP and is presented in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. This article was neither of those, and a clear CSD G11. We're not in charge for the French wikipedia, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has never been a compelling argument, one especially for another language Wiki. Duja► 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I don't know if the French Wiki has a CSD G11. Translated or not, this article clearly is within the countenance of English Wikipedia's CSD for commercial spam. Xoloz 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Clearly within WP:CSD#G11's span purview. As always, an unbiased sourced article remains a theoretical possibility. GRBerry 15:05, 9 May 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.

Dear Administration,

Please be informed that I am the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned spiritual personality with hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and across the world. We have several online website to serve this purpose and I am officially authorized from His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

I take full responsibility of the content placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohar_Shahi by me. Therefore, may I request you to kindly restore my article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi?

Look forward to your positive response.


I am surprised on such rude and biased behavior of English Wikipedia. Why such rude behavior with me? I uploaded an article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, a world renowned spiritual personality and I took the full responsibility of the contents in spite of that my article was deleted even I gave an explanation being a responsible person of representative of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but no response at all!

What is this?

You claim to be world’s largest FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANY ONE CAN EDIT but on contrary to this slogan, your policies are totally adverse to your slogan?

I am an authorized representative of His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and want to write an article, so that WIKIPEDIA should have at least a profile of world renowned spiritual personality who enlightened hundred thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims without any discrimination of cast, creed or sect.

I would highly appreciate, if you could kindly allow me to upload an article.

Look forward to an urgent response.

Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • (posted on talk page by Iamsaa (talk · contribs), moved here) >Radiant< 09:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was deleted because it was tagged as a copyright violation. In other words, you literally copied material from another place without sending the Wikimedia Foundation information to prove you have permission to do so. Even if you did, the material you posted the neutral point of view guidelines. Entries on Wikipedia shouldn't be aimed at praising on promoting a person, but simply giving the facts in a neutral manner. Also, if you just point to his own website, we don't really have proof Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is a world-renowned spiritualist. Have people who are not related to his religion written about him? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This is copyvio, and possibly WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 12:51, 4 May 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.
CureMD Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was a work in progress with "underconstruction" tags on it. The author was working on the article to make it Encyclopediatic and add a detailed information about why the company is notable. Page was deleted with-out anything in talk section, or on Users talk page(User_talk:Alifff) Requesting Undelete so author may finish, then the article may be judged. Bballoakie 07:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spammy article from a single purpose account, review requested by same editor, also promoted the same company elsewhere, see [3] (admins only, sorry). Guy (Help!) 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with extreme prejudice. The only possible way this advertisement could have been more blatant would be if it were uploaded as a pdf. —Cryptic 10:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see at least 8 external links in the article and no evidence it was ever written about by anyone else besides the company. Also, while the hangon tag claims it is not advertising, the subsequent claims it makes about copyright ownership suggests otherwise. (See WP:SPAM) - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Reading the last version of the article, I can safely say that CSD G11 was designed for content like this. Clearly met speedy deletion criteria. If an appropriate article can be written about this, then by all means, go ahead (after this review closes with consensus to do so), but versions such as this one do not belong here. As an aside, this appears to be a WP:SPA; after starting this review, this user appears to have recreated the article in an even spammier form at CureMD. It's worse, I feel... mostly a copy of press releases, executive bios, etc., and I've deleted it as a G11 candidate (as tagged by User:RHaworth) as well. I've also informed the author that repeated main namespace recreation of the article (in a similar form) while its status is being discussed here is considered disruptive. --Kinu t/c 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:COI is blatant per this. I suggest that an article, if any is to be written, should be by a third-party source. Despite a good-faith attempt, I was unable to find multiple, non-trivial WP:RS indicating that this company meets WP:CORP. Perhaps it might not be the right time to recreate the article after all? --Kinu t/c 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Kinu. Rockstar (T/C) 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse non-affiliated user made article on CureMD. Bballoakie 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I have talked to Alifff, and am requesting that he provide me with some information from inside his company, so that I may use that and outside sources,(if I can find any, if not there will be no article) to create a correctly sourced article, that is not spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bballoakie (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Unless an article written by someone who is not affiliated with the company (i.e. no conflict of interest), then it should be kept deleted. However, reliable, third-party sources would be needed to ensure it has an assertion of notability. --SunStar Net talk 08:07, 5 May 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.
Raznochinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not exactly sure how this was deleted or how to get it back, but aside from this word playing heavily in my Russian literature class, a quick search of Google will show several citations of the word in article summaries. I think deletion was really rash, as there may have been a separate spelling to which the moderator was more familiar. How do I get the page back? Aubin 02:24, 4 May 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_May_4&oldid=1182540073"