Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 28: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:35, 1 October 2006 editTheoldanarchist (talk | contribs)8,298 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 17:54, 2 October 2006 edit undoCan't sleep, clown will eat me (talk | contribs)101,994 edits →[]: review closed, deletion endorsedNext edit →
Line 65: Line 65:
*'''Overturn.''' Googling on <tt></tt> returns only 9 hits. The term is not notable; the article should be deleted. - ] 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Overturn.''' Googling on <tt></tt> returns only 9 hits. The term is not notable; the article should be deleted. - ] 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and relist for AfD per Brian, Guy, Peitri, et al. ---] 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Overturn''' and relist for AfD per Brian, Guy, Peitri, et al. ---] 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

====]====

I am nominating this for deletion review, based on the fact that although the closer, ] clearly stated it was a complicated AfD, and justified his reasoning, he closed the AfD not upon a numerical basis, as I have seen done in the past, but after disregarding most of the comments which I considered valid, and reasonable, and then weighted it in favour of a delete. The article has previously survived 3 AfD noms, and the 4th in my opinion pushed that a bit too far. This was a page about someone considered notable, and should not have been removed after disregarding half the statements made. I am asking for an '''Overturn''' or '''Relist''' to get this matter sorted out. If the comments had not been disgregarded so swiftly, the result of the AfD would again have been '''No Consensus'''. ] 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': the debate is here, for reference: ]. My reasons and method were fairly comprehensively set out in my notes at the top of the debate, and for now I won't add anything more. --]&nbsp;(]) 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''', valid AFD. ] 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - the AfD was conducted properly, and Bainer obviously gave it a lot of thought before making the decision. I opined a 'weak keep' myself, but really, this fellow was on the borderline to start with. (And besides, though not relevant to the discussion, the article was far more trouble than it was really worth, with legal threats, hosiery departments showing up, WP:OFFICE lockdowns... all for a minor politician.) ] <small>]</small> 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - I trust the admin's decision -- ] 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''' as nominator, I think we did the Right Thing here, and I congratulate bainer on a well-reasoned and exceptionally fair-minded close. The whole business has been unedifying from the start and in my view we are better off without this one. <b>]</b> 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Congratulate closer for evaluating arguments and disregarding the nose count. That is exactly what we expect of AFD discussions. See ] for the general guideline for all of Misplaced Pages. The first bullet point at ] says clearly "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." ] says "Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Misplaced Pages policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached." This is one of the clearest closing rationales I've seen, in a case that definitely needed it. (It took me an hour to figure out what opinion to offer in the AFD.) Give the closer a dead fish for closing an AfD they had participated in. However, ] only says "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it." That restriction is for nominators, and allows even them exceptions. This was not a major process violation. We always have the option of saying that the closer misread the consensus, but our bias here should be to endorse their reading unless it is clear that they misread the discussion. Having read through the entire discussion, it is not clear that they misread consensus. Therefore, I endorse the deletion. ] 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' reasons for deletion were well-expressed in the closing. ] 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. I personally disagree with the result of the AfD. But I think the closer did exactly the right thing, and the close fairly represents the discussion. Would that all difficult closes were so nicely done. ] 16:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. ] means the number of previous nominations is not an issue, and "no consensus" is always an admin's last resort - while in bread-and-butter AfDs with 2 keeps, 2 deletes and little discussion it's often the only sensible option, in cases like this it would be a total cop-out. Having established that the admin shouldn't have equivocated, I think the above sums it up well as to which direction he should have gone. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:54, 2 October 2006

< September 27 September 29 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

28 September 2006

Erik Möller

This article has been deleted due to non-notability, and deleted again due to CSD G4. However, it was recreated again after he got a position on the Board, and it's common conjecture that being on the Trustee of a notable corporation means you can get an article. However, Michael E. Davis, where Board member Michael Davis's article would go, redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation article. However, Möller is also a published author, and arguably "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (see WP:BIO). I am not sure how this should be treated (so count me as a neutral), so let's decide once and for all (for now) how to treat this article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlsbad grimple

I would like to see the "no consensus" closure of this AFD reconsidered on the weight of the arguments. There was precious little debate in the discussion, most of which centered around the term's appearance on The Daily Show and Urban Dictionary, neither of which are particularly reliable sources. The major Keep proponent, Billy Blythe, may not be taking AFD entirely seriously (although he does have some reasonable arguments in other deletion discussions). I believe Mailer Diablo erred in closing this as no consensus, as the article lacks any reliable sources, and has two Ghits excluding WP, UD and TDS, showing it as the poster child for neologisms. Rather than being "widespread enough to end up on the Daily Show", as BDJ argues, it appears that it was added to UD the day of the Daily Show episode, and spread from there. -- nae'blis 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, I'm being entirely serious, even if my language is blunt. I'm being completely sincere. Please assume good faith. Billy Blythe 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as a valid AfD and without much new to say. If it was added to UD after the Daily Show, it seems to me that it had notability before it made the net rounds, since the show referenced it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Jeff, if you can show me evidence this existed somewhere prior to the Daily Show writers coining it in May, I will gladly reconsider this deletion review. -- nae'blis 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a chance I misunderstood the debate, seeing this question. Are you claiming the word was invented by the Daily Show? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen this episode, but what it appears to be is a neologism made up by the writers and thrown into the segment by Samantha Lee's character. It was then picked up by UD and some of the bloggers; my quick Google search didn't show anything to contradict that, but I'm using Ockham's razor, not any sort of rigorous analysis. I'm relying on your vigorous dedication to process to see if you (or anyone) can come up with evidence to the contrary, without making this a second 'content" AFD. If the suppositions made in the AFD were wrong, then it probably ought to be overturned. -- nae'blis 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm going to drop a note on Poet's page about this, as s/he claimed to have known the word in the UK. I'll be honest - my position came from the belief that the term existed before the Daily Show, not because of it, and was further emboldened by Poetlister's claim. If it turns out otherwise, I'll gladly reverse myself on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it time to start tagging articles with {{onlyoneseeminglyreliablesource}}? Or should wiktionary's attestation (usage in three independent instances spanning at least a year) be used as a minimum on Misplaced Pages for apparent neologisms? --Interiot 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, clearly this has only one root source, the article should simply be redirected to The Daily Show and leave it at that. Guy 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, valid AfD. Also, this term is in current use, and will eventually be used even more. Themindset 18:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, this makes me shudder but I'd rather people know what's being talked about than censor. Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. LossIsNotMore 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Wait a second, both of the sources go back to the Daily Show. This isn't a term they invented is it? Overturn LossIsNotMore 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Uuuuh.... The other Urban Dictionary entries don't reference the Daily Show, but I'm not sure the're old enough to show that the term was independent of it.... Abstain LossIsNotMore 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and redirect to the Daily Show. Google for this term omitting WP and The Daily Show comes up with a grand total of four - count'em four - Google hits. It's a made-up word, and WP:NOT for neologisms. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure The closing admin made an entirely reasonable decision on the basis of the debate.--Runcorn 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure The people have spoken. Misplaced Pages is mostly run by hoi polloi, whether they be bright or dull, reasonable or unreasonable. That's a built-in characteristic of a wiki. The closure was resonable and right. Billy Blythe 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. The closing decision was reasonable, but having seen the original show I thought it was a joke at the time. That all the UD entries were added within a week after the Daily Show further supports that this was coined by them. It's worth another pass at AfD. William Pietri 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist--Peta 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You're having a laugh, aren't you? I mean, really, are you just taking the piss out of wikipedia? You really think community consensus favours made-up unsourced sex moves on wikipedia Bwithh 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not laughing. I've seen several made-up poorly sourced sex moves, and I'm just following what I see. Billy Blythe 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That we have some low-quality articles isn't proof that we need more. See WP:INN for more on this. I also don't think it's proof that the community is happy about those articles. Consider Jimmy Wales's recent call for favoring quality over quantity, and the community reaction to it. E.g., WP:DC. William Pietri 02:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for referring me to those articles. I have some ideas for some good articles I'm currently thinking about. I'm not really interested in turning WP into a sewer. Billy Blythe 02:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)