Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 11: 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 14:34, 16 October 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: (restore; relist)← Previous edit Revision as of 14:47, 16 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (speedy keep closure end.)Next edit →
Line 13: Line 13:




====]====
'''Nomination for relist at afd''' This article about a current event (not far from where I work incidentally) was nominated for deletion by a new account but was speedily kept in less than 20mins and marked as a bad faith nomination (I found that out when I was trying to nominate the article myself(I wanted to suggest a redirect at most to ], and transwikiing any material not already on Wikinews to the Wikinews article; it took about 2 seconds for someone to remove my initial afd tag...)). Afd here: ].


I think the nominator had a good point - too many people treat Misplaced Pages as if its Wikinews (Misplaced Pages is not a place to write up current events of little or no historical importance as per ]). This was a tragic accident and terrible for the casualties, but it has only tenuous links to 9/11). I understand the closing admin's perspective (and the concern about single purpose accounts - I too usually consider all SPAs suspicious) but I disagree that there this is necessarily a bad faith nom, and feel that this afd should be allowed to run, with the precedent of the afds for similar Tampa and Milan small aircraft crashes of 2002 (in both cases, small aircraft crashes into a building, people worry briefly that it was terrorism like 9/11, but it turns out it wasnt):

See ].

The afd for these articles ended in no consensus. While I predict that if relisted, most people will vote for keep ("because it's on the news" and "because it's to do with 9/11") due to recent occurrence of this event (see ]), I feel on principle that this should be relisted rather than just speedily closed as bad faith nom. ] 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Relist after departure from Main Page''' There is no rule preventing new users from nominating articles for deletion; the nominator's statement is perfectly coherent and legitimate. However, due to ] (i.e. the article is linked from the Main Page), we ought to wait until the article is de-linked from the Main Page before deciding whether the article should remain permanently. -- ''']''' 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
::*I refuse to cite ], so ok about the CSD guideline - though I'd like to point out that this is another symptom of the confusion between Wikinews and Misplaced Pages (shouldn't we be linking wikinews articles from the main page current events box? I do feel that wikinews editors are getting the short end of the stick here in terms of wiki user community exposure and the confusion between wikipedia and wikinews. ] 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
:::*The 'in the news' box is for articles which have been updated (or created) recently based on recent events. Of the six items currently in that box, three of the focus articles are 'normal articles' and their scope is larger than a single event - i.e. ], ] and ]. Arguably that's different from 'current events', and it's certainly different from what Wikinews does - and also arguably people do get confused about that. Still, I would say that if it's linked from the main page, it's of some merit, and shouldn't be AfDed while on the Main Page. I have no particular opinion at the moment whether it should be relisted at all. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
*Since this AfD was closed by a non-admin (namely, myself), my reading of policy is that ] is free to reopen it for further discussion if he wishes, without running it through DRV. I have no objection to that, and I thank ] for taking a moment to notify me of his intentions on my user talk page; there's too little of that sort of courtesy around here lately. Regarding the AfD itself, it was opened by an ] who apparently created his account solely to list this article, and it was a 100% "keep" or "speedy keep", so I invoked ] and closed it. But as long as a good faith editor like Bwithh wishes to reopen it, I'm fine with it. --] 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks Aaron for the gracious response. Given Tariqabjotu's point about the main page issue, and my reservations about ], I'll refrain from nominating the article for the moment. ] 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
*I think this should be 1. resolved on the article talk page (since an actual delete is unlikely and merge discussions don't need to be held on AfD), and 2. probably in two weeks when people start to forget about this accident. ~ ] 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:*I was just posting the same. It'd be better just to merge this in than out-and-out AfD it. I don't think it deserves an article either, but AfD on this sort of topic tends to polarize some people to the point where they don't even consider merge a viable option where they might have had it been proposed through the standard merge channels. ] 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:**A merge has been proposed and is currently being discussed on the talk page, where 12 of the 13 people who have commented are opposing the merge. ] 06:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Echoing the sentiment above, conflation of news stories with notability is so widespread that even if this were relisted it would never pass deletion. Wait a year and then merge it. ] 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 14:47, 16 October 2006

< October 10 October 12 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

11 October 2006

SMFR

This article was tagged as db-spam and then summarily deleted. I feel that the deletion is completely unjust. The article only describes SMFR as a Helsinki-based BDSM organisation and is not intended to specifically advertise it as any better than any other BDSM organisation.

I feel this organisation is notable as being the only public BDSM organisation in Helsinki, as I explained in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UngBDSM:

On the other hand, SMFR is by far the most famous BDSM organisation in the entire city of Helsinki. It is the only public one, and the only one known to mainstream media. SMFR, founded in 1996, is a legally registered organisation (RY, ryhmäyhdistys). It is one of the two Finnish BDSM organisations to have its own closed discussion forum on Tuntematon Maa.

(Note about UngBDSM, though: I only know about that organisation what was written in the article, and I'm arguing the case for SMFR, not for UngBDSM.)

Going by List of BDSM organizations, I feel that the following articles are similar enough to be judged by the same criteria: Turun Baletti, Datenschlag, SMil-Norge, The Spanner Trust, Violate, Black Rose (BDSM organization), Group With No Name, People of Leather Among You. Of these, I wrote Turun Baletti, but I have nothing whatsoever to do with the others. If the other articles are kept, so should SMFR be. If SMFR is deleted, so should most of the other articles. JIP | Talk 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: I'm the one that placed the {{db-spam}} tag on this article; I just thought I'd mention that since I've been active on DRV lately. As I recall, it was a single line article with a link to their web page, so I thought it qualified. For the purposes of this discussion, I abstain. ---Aaron 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion absent multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The most famous BDSM club in Helsinki is not much of a cliam to fame. Guy 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But the most famous BDSM club in Turku is? Turun Baletti has even less information yet no one has deleted it yet. And I think most of the other organisations I mentioned don't claim that much notability either. If I'm wrong, please explain. JIP | Talk 05:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Bruce Nellis

This article was deleted by an administrator who personally knows Mr. Andrew Bruce Nellis on IRC through Dalnet. I believe this is an unfair because of the personal connection between the two people. It was stated in the past that the users who wanted this article deleted were people who had a personal vendetta against Andrew Nellis. This article was previously deleted at Andrew Nellis. No one from Misplaced Pages believe me and other users when we stated this. All the previous nominations for delete were from people on one IRC channel #atheism who wanted the article deleted because of their personal and political ideological differences from Andrew Nellis. I hope someone looks into this matter immediately because it shows a severe flaw in Misplaced Pages if admins have the power to delete articles on people they know personally. This should NOT be happening.--69.196.150.118 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Deletion log shows deletion was a G4 referencing prior discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Nellis. GRBerry 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion unless someone has a real reason to overturn the AfD. You know, that is based on Misplaced Pages policy and demonstrable evidence of notability, and isn't a fairy story about how our administrators and numerous editors are all part of some sort of shady shenanigan on the Induhnets. --Sam Blanning 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No valid reason given to overturn the decision. Reading the prior discussion linked above, it appears that several delete voters cited policy including the core matter of WP:V, while the only non-"they don't like me" keep votes merely asserted notability without showing any evidence. Regardless of whether the article or the review request are "vanity", it appears that proper process was followed, and we have nothing new to consider except an empty whine. I'm prepared to consider that an IWW labor activist could be notable, but I have no reason to consider this one to be notable, regardless of which side of the atheism dispute he's on (I honestly don't know and don't consider it encyclopedic). Barno 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. If it makes anyone feel any better I'll go and re-delete it myself; since I've never heard of the guy that should demonstrate fair play. Guy 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure of the AFD discussion and endorse speedy-deletion of the re-created content. No reasons given to overturn the community's prior decision. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - Unprotect and relist. If he is truly an author, an artist, an activist, etc. Get's 2200 google hits which is borderline depending on what the claim of notability is. I dispute the references to "V" which are unsupported assertions themselves. Article deserves a chance to be expanded and sourced without knee-jerk reactionary input. Wjhonson 17:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Andrew Nellis was already discussed at DRV; see the review here. This was absolutely a repost of the deleted version, which was deleted over NPOV, OR, and vanity concerns. Mangojuice 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Roni Lynn Deutch

Please see the current version of the article. This article was deleted through an AfD that was spammed for delete votes on 10 September 2006. Also, see the pervious entry in deletion review.

One of the main arguments in the discussion that being notable for being seen in many commercials was not enough, that there needed to be verifiable sources. When it was deleted, the closing admin (Herostratus) emailed me and said I could "recreate the article at any time, as long as it is 'substantially different from the previous article' according to Misplaced Pages policy." In the month since it closed I have been doing more edits on wiki and have gotten a better feel for articles, and have rewritten the article and added verifiable sources. I feel strongly that this article should be included in wikipedia so I decided to bring it here for discussion.--mathewguiver 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted Looking at the most recent revision of the article, I still feel that this fails to meet the criteria of WP:BIO; in the last AFD, you claim that she meets this criteria:"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Your only sources are the Better Business Bureau, a press release about the advertisements, and Urban Dictionary, none of which establish notability by Misplaced Pages's standards. Please find better sources before attempting to re-create this article again. --DDG 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Boom goes the dynamite!

Here is the original AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Boom goes the dynamite! from May 10, 2005; result was Delete. Among the many reasons cited for the deletion was the low number of google hits at the time of the article's listing (about 500) and non-notability.

I would suggest that the deletion was a little premature, as the phrase gets over 40,000 hits now, and since the deletion of the article, the originator of the phrase appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman , CBS's The Early Show , and the phrase itself has become incorporated into many regular sportscasters routines. The phrase has also been referenced in many other mainstream media, as recently as a October 2006 episode of Veronica Mars.

I think that this was a fairly widespread internet meme (similar to the Star Wars Kid), certainly more significant than many other items with articles on List of Internet phenomena, that had lasting impressions on other genres, and should be re-evaluated for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. --DDG 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, I see you are right. In which case of course one must endorse deletion as a non-notable saying of an apparently non-notable person. Guy 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

eAthena

eAthena is a program used by Ragnarok Online servers. It is the most popular of its kind and its popularity exceeds that of Freya's, which apparently deserves its own article. One of the main reasons for the original deletion was because it lacked information and was used as an advertisement by gaming communities. I propose that the protected redirect be removed since eAthena meets the guidelines listed in WP:SOFTWARE (it has thousands of users) and a new article written in its place (I can help write one). Joshuaali 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)