Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 27 August 2007

27 August 2007

Tourettes Guy

Tourettes Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD for this article was over a year ago and since that time Tourettes Guy has died in an automobile accident, a petition (which can not be linked here because of spam blocks) with over 11,000 signitures agree that Tourettes Guy is notable to be on Misplaced Pages. I have been an editor on Misplaced Pages for over a year now and I would compare TG with other internet personalities such as Numa Numa, Maddox, Ask a Ninja, Leeroy Jenkins. The tourettesguy.com web site consistently gets over 300,000 unique visitors a month and although this is not a significat amount of hits that is not what is being claimed as his notability, his notablity comes from the thousands of viral video downloads on various different websites. If all that isn't TG was quoted on Conan O'Brien, and was featured in a commercial on MTV. Furthermore I would like to add that according to Alexa.com here the tourrets guy's web page is listed in the top 100,000 web pages on the interent. With all things considered there are plenty of references for TG and he is obviously an internet phenomena. Please take the time to review this issue and not take it lightly, a petition with over 11 thousand signitures is more than enough to at the very least unprotect the article for recreation. --Joebengo 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given the age of the deletion debate, there certainly may be new sources by which to write an article. What I would suggest, however, is rather than point to Alexa statistics (which aren't really usable as an indicator of notability) or claims of internet petitions (which aren't usable to establish notability, either) is that you create a referenced version in your userspace for review, and if it is up to snuff, it can be moved into namespace. You haven't really provided any good reasons for overturning the deletion, however, so at this point my recommendation is to endorse deletion and leave protected for the time being. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion until reliable sources, not Alexa rankings, are presented to fulfill notability standards. Rockstar (/_C) 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salted unless sources are provided. I don't really see very many good reasons for overturning in the nomination since it appears to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG

Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, two objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was--I believe it's more than safe to say--no consensus to delete. In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani Badagnani 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (as deletor). DCGeist brought this to my attention on my talk page before listing this here, and here's a mildly reworded version of what I said there: The image was nominated for deletion for failing NFCC #8. There were "keep" comments that referenced various aspects of the images, but no comments that gave any clear reasoning of why anything shown in the image was (a) important in the article, and (b) depicting information that could not be portrayed by words alone. Several comments defended the use of screenshots in general, and I think a video screenshot could pass NFCC #8 in this article, but the screenshot chosen does not. (Nothing in this screenshot was mentioned in the article.) Of the comments made that adequately considered NFCC #8, none argued in favor of keeping the image. – Quadell 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bjlata1.jpg

Image:Bjlata1.jpg (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

This is a similar case to that above, but even more significant. I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, many objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was clearly no consensus to delete. In addition, deleting admin had participated in the discussion and entered a vote; deletion thus contravened the basic deletion guideline: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

In deleting, only a personal opinion about the content of the debate was offered as rationale--"Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone." Deleting on that basis obviously values an administrator's personal opinion about a subjective matter over the clear language of the instruction (and, obviously, over the opinion of most of those involved in the debate). In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines and actually voted him/herself in the debate, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (as deletor) - This wasn't an easy decision, but here is my reasoning. Of the people who stated that the image should be deleted, all gave the same reason: the image doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8 (i.e. it doesn't give important encyclopedic information beyond what can be portrayed through text alone). Five people stated this, including four who are have dealt extensively with our non-free content policy for at least the last six months. The fifth was a new-ish user who has !voted "keep" on nearly every other image deletion debate he participated in, but stated "I am in favour of interpreting WP:NFCC#8 generously, but I can't stretch it enough to cover this example." Of those who argued that the image should not be deleted, different reasons were proffered. Charcorath said that the way he looked then is different from the way he looks now, and that this is notable. (In response, it was noted that there was no sourced commentary on this difference in appearance in the article.) Cricket, the uploader, explicitly disagreed with the previous "keep" reason, but advocated keeping the image because it showed the subject at a notable concert. Two other users seemed to agree with Cricket in this. (Several users countered that nothing in the image indicates what particular concert was shown.) One user seemed to advocate keeping the image merely because it was used in a featured article, which I deemed irrelevant. Among those advocating "keep", all were relative newcomers to our policy, and had not dealt extensively with these issues for more than a week or two at most. This doesn't invalidate their opinions at all, but I think it's reasonable to put more weight on comments from those who have shown a long-standing interest in, and understanding of, our policy. In the end, it was a borderline case, but I believe I made the right call. It wasn't my "personal opinion" that the image doesn't show encyclopedic information beyond what can be conveyed by text; it was that no "keep" advocate offered any explanation of what encyclopedic information this picture shows that couldn't be conveyed by words alone. – Quadell 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Having actively participated in the discussion and, indeed, cast a vote to delete, why did you not recuse yourself from closing the discussion and deleting the page, as guidelines clearly suggest?—DCGeist 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because there's a backlog, and there are very few admins willing to do the thankless task of processing ifd deletions. Having a closer who didn't vote is ideal, certainly, but it's just a suggestion, not a requirement. If I'd nominated it, or if I felt I couldn't analyze the discussion dispassionately, I wouldn't have closed it. – Quadell 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't get carried away and try to close this DR yourself (and please don't canvass any of your friends, either, which I've seen before on more than one occasion). We must adhere to our own rules. Your total lack of contrition in your response above for this very bad deviation from our own rules is disturbing at best. Thanks. Badagnani 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RSC Equipment Rental

RSC Equipment Rental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to correct it Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic deleted the article suggesting it was "blatant advertising". This was not my intent. I've not been able to reach Cryptic, and I'd at least like the chance to update the content to steer it away from an "advertising" feel. Thanks, Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation and possibly provide the previous article to the requester above as the starting point for a rewrite. RSC is a large player in the equipment rental industry, with more than 500 outlets in North America; it's listed on the NYSE (had an IPO earlier this year) and had revenues of upwards of $1.6 billion last year. I'm fairly sure it's notable enough for an article. I can't see the previous version, but it sounds like this may have been deleted quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)