Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 20: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:01, 20 February 2008 editColonel Warden (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,041 edits →Death Roe ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:19, 20 February 2008 edit undoRyan4314 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,234 edits er I think you're looking at the wrong AFDNext edit →
Line 35:		Line 35:
	*'''Endorce''' There were no delete comments outside of the original nomination, which itself didn't provide ''any'' arguments as to why the article should be deleted. All comments either advocated keeping the article or merging it somewhere else, which is a form of keep. The close was reasonable given those comments and the non-argument nomination. --''']''' (]) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)		*'''Endorce''' There were no delete comments outside of the original nomination, which itself didn't provide ''any'' arguments as to why the article should be deleted. All comments either advocated keeping the article or merging it somewhere else, which is a form of keep. The close was reasonable given those comments and the non-argument nomination. --''']''' (]) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse''', ludicrous to do anything else when there were no actual delete votes. ] (]) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)		*'''Endorse''', ludicrous to do anything else when there were no actual delete votes. ] (]) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''', sorry you guys are looking at the aren't you? Not the one . ] (]) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 14:19, 20 February 2008

< February 19	Deletion review archives: 2008 February	February 21 >

20 February 2008

Death Roe

Closed as no consensus, but practically none of the Keep votes addressed any policy-based reason why the article should be kept. Keep votes claimed a consensus that such articles should be kept (there obviously isn't, or else there wouldn't be current RFAR on the subject), "It's notable", and "per Arbcom". Despite being an obvious violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, the article cannot be deleted or merged whilst the Episodes and Characters injunction is in place, but should have been relisted. The AfD was also closed by an admin who is active in the Episodes and Characters RFAR and has argued for the retention of such articles, and should therefore have recused themselves. Black Kite 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, can't delete the article because it would violate an ArbCom injunction. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse as the AFD was relisted twice and so had 3 tries at establishing consensus. The close as No consensus seems quite accurate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jawahar Shah

If the logs are checked it can be seen that there was a clear majority for Keep. Plus Jawahar Shah's contribution in development of the Software is unquestionable. It is one of the leading softwares used by thousands of Homeopaths the world over LINUSS (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Terran Federation

Hello, this article is vulnerable to Original Research as it cannot be verified. There are no sources in the world to stop people from adding their own ideas/opinions to this article.

I believe it's "no consensus" result happened as some of the "keepers" were new users (invariably not knowing about WP:OR, sorry to presume) and that it was listed at the "list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions", inevitably drawing in the Sci-Fi crowd, who perhaps saw the AFD as an attack on the book. But it is for the sake of the book that this article must go, users should not be able to twist the author's message to suit their own Point of View.

Also, the closing admin said "Two "delete" opinions advocate merging, which does not only not require deletion, but actually precludes it due to licencing issues", well I'd be happy for a merge or redirect or anything to get the article away from what it is now. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorce There were no delete comments outside of the original nomination, which itself didn't provide any arguments as to why the article should be deleted. All comments either advocated keeping the article or merging it somewhere else, which is a form of keep. The close was reasonable given those comments and the non-argument nomination. --Farix (Talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse, ludicrous to do anything else when there were no actual delete votes. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, sorry you guys are looking at the recent_2nd_AFD aren't you? Not the one from_2_years_ago. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

Strangely, this is not policy enough to warrant {{disputedtag}}, but policy enough to be speedy keepable at MFD. Make up your mind. Will 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reclose as WP:SNOW. No one other than the nominator voted for delete, and the fact that most voted "speedy keep" suggests that they didn't think that the request even deserved consideration. I think it is safe to conclude that there was no chance of further discussion resulting in deletion. --Itub (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Relist - not a bad close of the MfD - there was a clear consensus to speedy keep, but I don't think enough people had chance to see it. I've got strong feeling about WP:WQA and had I been aware of it, I'd probably have gone towards deletion, and offered a rationale that others may have agreed with. It might be a good idea to let this one run for 5 days, even if there is an overwhelming consensus to keep because I've seen valied concerns with the page expressed on the talk page and this might be a good way to decide if we need it once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No point relisting to get the same result, that would be wonkery. Reclose as Keep per WP:SNOW. Speedy keep was improper. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perry_Belcher

Overturn: Change article name to Selmedica Article is sourced with the most notable references on the issue, BBB as such many others. This list will be ever growing. I feel that there is too much information to fit as a stub in Credit_card_fraud, and thus warrants its own article. As for deletion because of the BLP Violation: I agree. My view was contemplating whether to create the article as titled Selmedica (The company) or Perry Belcher. I choose the latter, as this person has a history of changing company names and opening up operation once again. Albeit, due to the strictness and fairness of BLP, perhaps we can resume the article under the name Selmedica. I envision changing the article name to Selmedica, and a little rewrite would come across very well. In addition, to the extensive editing process that can commence, will make this article very informative. Further, I believe the[REDACTED] founding principles fits most perfectly for an article like "Selmedica". Thatopshotta (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No DR needed Write the article under the name of his company and see what we think of it. I speedy deleted the article under his name as provided by BLP for having no reliable sources to justify accusations of fraud, which were the entire contents of the article. Even under the company name, such things take sourcing, and only non edit-controlled web sites were provided. Given the nature of the deleted article, I cannot repost it during the discussion, but i will email it privately if any non-admin wants to review it. There is a subsidiary issue of whether the fraud is in fact notable, but I did not investigate that part of it. DGG (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorse no matter what title it appears under; the only remotely acceptable source—the letter from the FDA—is primary, and the article didn't even pretend to be neutral. —Cryptic 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)