Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 2 March 2008

2 March 2008

John McCain lobbyist controversy

John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article prior to blanking and redirection

This article was recently retained as a result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus, and a judgment by the closing administrator, that the article concerned a notable topic, and did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Some editors are now insisting on blanking and redirecting the article anyway . Has consensus really changed in this much in last three days? John254 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This entry seems to have nothing to do with deletion. Redirection and merging are editing decisions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close redirects are an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk page. Go there. If that fails try dispute resolution. There is no deletion here to be reviewed.--Doc 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirection may be editorial in form, but it amounts to a deletion in character. Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, an action which effectively results in deletion may be reviewed here. John254 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article was nominated for BLP concerns. Most of the keeps failed to factor that in. The truthfulness and verfiabliness has further questioned by this news article. In short, i would overturn AFD and delete, and make sure future incarnations of discussion about the story focus on NYT's journalistic ethics rather than McCain himself. Will 14:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The controversy has been reported extensively in a large number of reliable sources -- please see . Per WP:NPOV, we should not assert that, because one source questions the accuracy of reporting by other reliable sources, that the allegations are unfounded, and that the article therefore merits deletion. Our purpose is to characterize controversies such as this, not to take sides. The article is well sourced, concerns notable events, and does not constitute a WP:BLP violation. John254 14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is forum shopping, take it to the talk page. We don't review redirects or merges here. If we open those floodgates.....--Doc 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we might actually have to discuss blanking and redirection at AFD, instead of implementing it unilaterally? Why, the massive edit wars over redirection that are the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 might actually have been prevented. How horrible!. John254 14:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if we're actually concerned about "forum shopping", the consensus to retain the article expressed in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy would have been respected, rather than blanking and redirecting it anyway (editors participating in the AFD discussion would have supported merging, not outright retention, had there been a consensus to do so.) John254 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment standard stuff, no deletion buttons have been pressed and redirecting is an editiorial decision, nothing to review. Similarly AFD debate outcomes aren't binding decisions on the community (Though in the immediate space of time following the debate it is indicative of the commuity feeling, a merge/redirect/whatever decision can still be reached). --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment Standard stuff, all right, and wrong. Redirects that amount to the deletion of a substantial article are in effect deletions, and its time we recognized this. this particular one is an obvious attempt to reverse the decision just 3 days ago that the article was not BLP--the views of a few people at an article against general consensus expressed elsewhere in a proper forum that it does not challenge BLP should be respected. This is wikilawering at the most extreme--experienced people using a gap in the procedures to violate clear consensus. DGG (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  Not sure what you think needs recognising, materially what is the difference between discussing the merge/redirect/whatever on the articles talk page and declaring it a deletion and discussing it here? WP:DRV has no special authority, a decision here is no better or worse than a decision elsewhere. (If we truly believe the original deletion debate represents the communities desire to maintain an article (rather than the substantive information), and people don't respect that, why would they respect the outcome here any better?) If the community believes the article should stand, then it'll be a slam dunk wherever it gets discussed. What deletion process would we be reviewing here? The editorial decision to redirect is simple, did someone edit it to a redirect? Yes, process is fine, since that is the defined process. Such things are part of the bold revert discuss cycle, it should simply be reverted by the interested editors and discussion ensues. Are we then reviewing the WP:BRD as a "process"? Isn't the failure of editors on one side or another to do that a behavioural issue best suited to normal dispute resolution?. Wikilawyering I can see what you are getting at, not quite the term, but yes using "the rules" in a precise form to force a view point, again though that's a behavioural issue and should be subject to WP:DR. If the community perceive it to be quite such a problem, they are quite capable of generating new policy for redirections to explicitly cater for such situations. I agree that this sort of thing is frustrating to the editors, but it would also be frustrating if deletion review went for some sort of land grab over editing decisions/discussions, when there are already numerous forums to address those particular issues. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The virtue of considering the matter here is that, if a decision to un-redirect the article is reached, it will be implemented administratively. If, next week, editors assert that consensus has changed and that the article needs to be blanked and redirected again, they may not simply remove the article unilaterally, but would instead need to bring the matter to AFD. Such a process is necessary to avoid a protracted edit war over the redirection of this article. There is no "land grab over editing decisions/discussions" here, since blanking and redirection in this context is tantamount to deletion, and in no way comparable to any ordinary dispute over article content. John254 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, a decision here has no special authority. Here is no different to anywhere else and doesn't make and enforce binding decisions. This page makes decisions the sameway as everywhere else, by consensus, the same consensus can be reached anywhere else and has the same force. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep and unredirect. The condition is based upon the fate of the Vicki Iseman article. If Iseman is deleted at DRV, then this article should be retained as it existed before redirection. If the Iseman article is retained, than this article should be redirected to it; there is no need to have two articles that substantially relate to a single event. Horologium (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep/unredirect per DGG and Horologium. I don't know if it was intended to be so but this certainly looks like an attempt to get around the AfD. The consensus to keep was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:User jer (and associated categories)

Category:User jer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

Reviewer's rationale was based on primarily incorrect information. Jèrriais is NOT a dialect of French, but a dialect of the Norman language dating back hundreds of years (with a rich written tradition). After Midnight's claim that it has "no official status anywhere" is also incorrect; Jèrriais is recognized officially as a regional language by the British-Irish Council. A GCSE is also expected to launch soon in Jersey to supplement the current Jèrriais teaching program there. None of us who were listed in the category were contacted for comment, either; this would have helped clear up much of the confusion, I expect. The Jade Knight (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a distinct written form of Jèrriais? If so, can it be understood by those knowledgeable in Norman? My intention in asking this question is whether knowledge of Jèrriais could assist translation efforts directed toward the improvement of articles (e.g. translating a source). Black Falcon 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:After Midnight appears to be the closing admin rather than the nominator, so it isn't After Midnight's claim... --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Truth (Cherish album)

The Truth (Cherish album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Sophmore album by Cherish. Album was thought to have have failed WP:MUSIC because it was unreleased and not notable, but the release date was imminent. The lead single, "Killa", has so far peaked at #66 on the Billboard Hot 100, and the album is set for release on April 29 . I don't think there was enough consensus to delete, because only one person participated in the debate. Admc2006 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion partly on principle (because few things piss me off more than fans of minor bands creating A7 articles and then asking for review every time another copy is sold, as it were) but mostly because there is no suggestion above that independent reliable sources exist, regardless of one track making it to a low place on the Billboard charts. Try a userspace writeup and see how it goes. Sourcing is key. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment two people participated in the debate and both found sources lacking, seems fairly clear. Notability is not inherited even if the single has arguably become notable (I wouldn't believe it has), doesn't make the album which it may feature on also automatically notable. As the album is unreleased seems a bit of crystal ball gazing going on. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal_Artists

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

(CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance.) 96.224.30.35 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/Universal_Artists

• Endorse deletion, per WP:CSD criteria A7 and G11. Yet another article on a Brand New Company by a single-purpose account. No sources, no claim of notability, likely conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article didn't say a thing about why this business was notable; it just listed the four main people and some of their previous activities. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

MileyWorld

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

Website is notable. See, for example, this article (text is from eOnline, but it was in several newspapers, apparently), directly stating this is a notable website. There's San Francisco Gate, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Kansas City Star (these are all wholly different articles; there are repeats in other notable newspapers like the Washington Post0. This is multiple non-trivial mentions, and does not qualify for speedy deletion. PS. If undeletion is chosen, then please fix Image:Mileyworld.jpg so it's not deleted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Unfortunately, the news articles you provided did not qualify the website under WP:WEB. eOnline is just one source, not multiple sources. The others all fall under "Trivial Coverage." The San Francisco Gate offers only a brief description (3); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer merely mentions the name (1); and the Kansas City Star contains MileyWorld in a Letter to the Editor, which is unreliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)
• Endorse deletion. The Miley Cyrus official fan club web site should be discussed in the Miley Cyrus article rather than in a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No independent sources establishing notability, article seems to have been promotional not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the page could also have been deleted as a G11. There was no indication of importance in the article. The content is unsourced and, judging by the reference provided by the nominator, quite possibly inaccurate. BlueValour (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

CareFlash (closed)