Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 21 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 23 >

22 May 2008[edit]

  • Sidebar search box images restored per uncontroversial request. —David Levy 20:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Should be simple: I would like to get the 6 images used at User:Quiddity/highlight search box undeleted. I ignored or got frustrated at the bot-messages last year, hence they were deleted. I would now like to rectify the licensing-tag problems, and have the images back, both as a historical record, and to refer to for a current situation (WP:VPR#Move the search box...). They all just needed {{wikipedia-screenshot}} to be added, and a sentence linking to the page they are being used at (to prevent retagging by bot), afaik. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete all except Image:Moved search box6423.png, which I have no idea what to do with. The deletions were all done by G7 and Quiddity was the original author/uploader. I can't think of a single reason to deny this reasonable request. I'm not sure about Image:Moved search box6423.png, but it should probably be undeleted too. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto what Quiddity stated. These would be nice to have back. They're proposed modifications to the interface (more useful than the typical screenshot). –MT 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Author requested deletion, and is now asking for undeletion. Totally reasonable request, specially since this time he already knows what tag to use to keep the bots from eating the images --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the images noted in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Maximum Bob (singer) – Deletion endorsed for lack of clear indication of new evidence. Userfying, which means temporarily restoring the deleted article for improvement (to a place other than article), is still an option if requested. – Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Maximum Bob (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted for not having enough information to be a stub. New information is available about the topic and if restored, I can improve on the stub greatly. I cannot remake this article, for I lack basic formattiong skills necessary to do so, so an undeletion is necessary. Initially, this article only contained that he was a singer and listed the bands he did this with. I have found through research more information about his identity, a more detailed history of his career, information about his style of performance, and his contributions to other peoples work. I also have a photos which can be used for the article. (updated 4:52, May 26 2008) Ritzbitz00 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you listed or cited the new information. GRBerry 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message to the user to come here and explain the new sources --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that userfication is always an option as well--in fact, that seems like it would be the preferable outcome in this case in order to prevent a WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion. --jonny-mt 14:54, 24 May 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.
Google TechTalks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The discussion was closed as keep, however, there was considerable controversy in the discussion as to whether this would have been an appropriate close. I believe at best it is no consensus and there was at least one other contributor to the discussion who wanted to see the debate continued for further review. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close The difference between no consensus defaulting to keep and keep is meaningless from a DRV perspective, both involve nobody pressing the delete button on the article. For the purpose of future AFDs, some people see a difference in how many months should elapse before another nomination, others don't, and we certainly don't have a beauracratic rule about it. Since it doesn't matter for any reasonable purpose, there is no point to this request. GRBerry 14:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a policy by precedent that when an article is kept as keep it is not looked favorably to renominate the article. When an article is kept as no consensus it isn't. I anticipate renominating the article in the future and would prefer to do it with the confidence that consensus (or lack thereof) was properly described by the closing administrator. Even better, why not relist the article for more comments? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Four !votes for keep, one for delete, seems to form the basis of a consensus to keep. A proper close by the admin involved. MrPrada (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see nothing to lead me to believe this was an inapropriate close. What policy was breached in this closing? I clearly see a number of people with valid reasons to keep. I only see one person suggesting delete and their case is no stronger than the keep cases that already outweigh it. So this is very clearly a keep. I also don't see where you tried to do the following: "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."-Djsasso (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Obviously I endorse my own close, but I just wanted to note a few things.
    • I could have been more verbose in my closing and noted that while the keep comments made persuasive arguments for the notability of the subject, the same could not be said for the delete comments--for example, User:Jok2000's oppose was based on an opposition to the talks themselves rather than the article, and so I discounted his opinion.
    • While I can't speak for other admins, I know that an article's previous AfD history only influences my decision in the most borderline of cases. My job is to determine the current rough consensus, and so it is up to the discussion leading to that consensus to determine whether any previous arguments should be overturned, supported, or outright ignored.
    • I only relist articles when I believe that insufficient discussion as to the merits of the article has taken place--that was not the case here.
    • Finally, I appreciate User:Djsasso's informing me of this DRV. While I can't guarantee that bringing it to me first would have been resulted in a satisfactory response, I (and all other admins) would still appreciate the opportunity in the future. --jonny-mt 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I see as a correct application of rough consensus. The keep arguments were strong: the talks are reported on notable media (Slashdot, InformationWeek) and have had notable speakers like the founder of Linux Linus Torvalds and the founder of Ubuntu Mark Shuttleworth. Also, other arguments like that fact that the notability was most probably going to grow, and other arguments, were grounds to close as keep, and other editors seemed to agree or at least they didn't dismount them. SA was strongly opposing the keep, but he needs to address all those arguments first. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 27 May 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.
Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I strongly dispute the outcome of the previous AFD discussion, in which of my motives were questioned instead of the issues at hand being addressed, and that Falun Gong SPAs were canvassed to keep the article. Since the outcome of the previous discussion, the article has been abandoned for 4 months without any editing, and my attempts to redirect the little content left and merge the article with Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China were met with Falun Gong SPAs previously involved in an arbitration case. PCPP (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article fails WP:Notability, WP:ORG, WP:NOT#NEWS. According to [1], the organization is a "little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C.", "The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word. Founded in April this year, it has yet to attract other human rights associations under its wing. On its website, the CIPFG lists no partners.", and "admitting that the CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa".

This article was created by Fnhddzs, a single purpose account, and later HappyInGeneral, another SPA and admitted Falun Gong practitioners previously involved in an arbitration case, to make a WP:POINT and a WP:WALL about their group's conflicts with the Chinese Communist Party, who previously created several other such articles deleted by admins ie Clearwisdom and Yale Falun Gong club. My conflict and supposed "pro-China edits" claimed in the AFD by Ave Caesar, also know by aliases such as Nonexistant User, Strothra, and Veritas, are really my attempts to dispute the POV and Soapbox content added by these SPAs, in which my edits were often systematically reverted by Falun Gong practitioners because it does not align with their POV, resulting in several edit wars and content disputes.

A Google search shows 25,700 results, news search now only lands only 19[[2]], quite low for a supposed organization, and mostly coming from either trivial mentions or the Epoch Times, which fails WP:SPS. For months the article has not been updated with anything with long term notability, and lack of articles focusing on the group itself rather than its cause.--PCPP (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as nothing to do here. The last AfD was in January. If you want the article deleted, put it up at AfD again. If you want to redirect/merge, then it's a content issue to be discussed on the article's talkpage or an WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Close I missed that this was a January AFD. Agreed, it has been too long for DRV to decide to relist when it can just be done, and that does appear to be a keep consensus if there is any consensus. Overturning would be ridiculous. GRBerry 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clearly to keep, administrator made the correct call. MrPrada (talk) 02:15, 23 May 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.

This nomination is procedurally bizarre, as I am the closing administrator in this debate, which can be found here. The debate has been closed as delete. However, due to the potentially vast scope of the deletion, and the certainty of this review being opened, I have gone ahead and filed it. My closing statement is available on the TfD page and should be considered to be my formal statement for this debate as well. I realize this is unorthodox, and I believe I have correctly applied policy in this case, but the work required in undeleting would be very great indeed if my close were overturned, so I simply have not taken that step as of yet. I am personally uninterested in the outcome, so do not expect much participation on my behalf, it would be wise to contact me on my talk page if any more direct participation is desired. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some recommended reading:

I hope these are helpful. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was an active participant in the discussion, so I will refrain from endorsing the decision here. However, I do want to repeat some comments that are buried in the extensive discussion on the TfD page and might be overlooked. I believe that the "right way" to replace these templates is threefold:
    1. Add links to pages such as 2007 NBA Finals from the infoboxes on player articles
    2. Ensure complete rosters are included on all pages in Category:National Basketball Association Finals (as they are for the 2007 page)
    3. Ensure all player articles currently transcluded from any of these templates have complete infoboxes
    After all of this work is complete, then the templates should be deleted. I suggest further discussion take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Defiantly not disagreeing as I think all of the above should be done. That being said the rosters were already added by someone to all the finals pages. That being said they need beautification but they are there now. -Djsasso (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly dispute the outcome of this afd because I do not agree with some of the assessments made by the closing admin. First, the statement "Many of the keep arguments center around the fact that the templates are nothurting anything, and that they are helpful" is incorrect as I gave many reasons as to why the arguments made by the deletion side are invalid. An exploding numbers of this type of navboxes isn't really a valid reason at all per WP:NOTPAPER, a policy. I agree that the deletion side has not provide sufficient policy evidences to support their position. The only guideline they could provided is WP:EMBED, which I think is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, the keep side has made some strong arguments. I think WP:IAR will back that up because deletion of these navboxes is clearly not going to improve Wikipedia, but to do quite the opposite. IAR also tells us to ignore bad policy that prevent improvement (in this case is WP:EMBED). IAR is also a policy whereas WP:EMBED is just a guideline. This should have been an easy keep. Definitely not no consensus. —Chris! ct 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not to get into the same arguements as the tfd itself. But deleting the templates significantly improves Wikipedia and keeping them significantly hurts the encyclopedia. I think based on the huge amount of precedent in past tfd's and projects scopes that an WP:IAR arguement is not all that valid as there is significant belief in the community that removing them helps the encyclopedia and keeping them does the opposite so I don't believe you can state that it "clearly" will not help the project. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply to the exploding number of infoboxes as its not size that is the issue, its the massive number of insignificant links that end up on an article masking the truely relevant information. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to reiterate my reasoning because I already done that over and over again. All I will say is that WP:IAR is an important policy here in Wikipedia. Your negative response toward WP:IAR makes me think that you simply dislike this policy. If so, bring that to the IAR discussion page.—Chris! ct 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No I believe IAR to be a great policy and think its important to have. I just believe you misunderstand what it is. IAR is for situations where it is obvious that ignoring a rule helps the wikipedia. What I am saying is that it is not obvious that that is the case as many people obviously feel the templates are hurting wikipedia. IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. This is definately not the case in this situation. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also many people who obviously feel that these templates are helping Wikipedia. You are right, IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. The current situation about these templates clearly fits that description and I have explained over and over again why that is so. I think the only reason this dispute continues is that the deletion side refuses to accept what is right and blindly follows WP:EMBED.—Chris! ct 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For Chrishomingtang and Djsasso, please note that deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision to delete. I don't think this continuing debate you are carrying on is appropriate for this forum. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this, but it is appropriate to point out that the closing admin didn't ignore their arguements is it not, which was my point? That is the point of DRV right? To determine if an admin did or didn't close a debate properly? Based on his comments he is saying the admin didn't close it correctly, I am allowed to put forward a case starting that he did close it properly. Ideally I would have prefered that no one involved in the afd would have comented one way or the other. But y'all have. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I think it's ok to leave one comment and move on. Back-and-forth debate isn't helping. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually hadn't intended to comment again till you commented. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to continue any argument, but I just want to note that I know deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision.—Chris! ct 20:37, 23 May 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_May_22&oldid=1148848911"