| Revision as of 19:56, 19 October 2006 editStarblind (talk | contribs)Administrators17,281 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:52, 21 October 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (relist at AfD)Next edit → | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
| *'''Comment''' ''"Why exactly is a review of verifiable, published sources..."'' Reviews are original research. I can't speak to the issues raised here so I would propose temporary restoration/userfying while this is under discussion so not to keep the discussion admin-only. ~ ] 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' ''"Why exactly is a review of verifiable, published sources..."'' Reviews are original research. I can't speak to the issues raised here so I would propose temporary restoration/userfying while this is under discussion so not to keep the discussion admin-only. ~ ] 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', the article was an essay, not an encyclopedia article, the AfD was unanimous, nothing has changed. ]|] 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Endorse deletion''', the article was an essay, not an encyclopedia article, the AfD was unanimous, nothing has changed. ]|] 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| :See ] | |||
| I am requesting the review of the decision to keep the article based on '''no consensus'''. Four editors with valid reasonings concluded that the article should be deleted. The original creator of the article put in two seperate keep comments and then obfuscated the discussion by quoting and commenting on proposed policies rather than the merits of the article as the policy is currently maintained. I believe this may have led to the administrator mistakenly feeling that there was no consensus when it was only one voice arguing against many. Thanks. ] 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist for AfD''' The points that you make are sound. Reading through the AfD discussion originally, I distinctly remember a feeling of equivocation when it came to the decision to delete. It was because of the element of doubt, combined with the keep arguments, that I came to '''no consensus''' decision. My feeling was backed-up by ], which states; ''"When in doubt, don't delete.''". My secondary feeling was that if this article was kept then it could be resubmitted for AfD at any point, which may be the case in this instance. My decision was based upon equivocation erring on the side of caution. If 'no consensus' is overturned then I will vote '''delete'''. ] 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist for AfD''' per motion of the closing admin. Great approach. ] 22:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist''' at least one of the delete reasons is violation of C&E, which is a recommended proceedure, not a justification to delete. ] 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist'''. As the nominator points out, there is a 4-1 majority for deletion, and there are no outstanding arguments/evidence against it, which initially made me lean to support overturning and deleting. But this is an election candidate, and election candidates in media-rich countries are one of the trickiest issues when it comes to notability; most of their claim to actual notable achievements hinges on a might-be, but many still receive significant external coverage, which is enough for some people. Given that, it's reasonable for us to ask AfD for a stronger result. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * There is '''no point in relisting''' before the imminent election. After it, she will ekther be an elected representative, and can be notability-tested on that basis, or she won't, and she can fall back into the well of former candidates, who will need to establish notibility on something other than candidature. If this is deleted now, it will simply be resubmitted as the bio of a candidate. -- ] 10:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*The only way that argument makes sense is if you believe that being on a city council (which is what the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is) makes her automatically entitled to an article. --] | ] 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn and delete'''. It's spam. We have ''far'' too many candidate statements masquerading as articles right now. <b>]</b> 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn and delete''' I can only agree with Guy that it reads more like an advertisment for that candidate than a normal article. The smoke and mirror bit with writing '''keep''' a second time has most likely been the only thing that saved the article from deletion. ]]/] 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn and delete''' A clear delete, and even if elected SF board of supervisors isn't a position that bestows notability. ~ ] 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * (Disclosure: voted "delete" in the original AFD.) '''Overturn and delete'''. This is an obvious campaign page for a non-notable candidate for a not-inherently notable post. Arguments for keeping struck me as flimsys, and the defense against calling it a campaign ad were particularly so. POinting out that it was filled with endorsements, the creator replied | |||
| :*''Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements typically appear in nonpartisan voter guides, and they can further or hinder a candidate's success. An endorsement from an organization with which a voter disagrees, for example, is a reason for that voter ''not'' to vote for a candidate.'' | |||
| *Anyone with the slightest knowledge of politics and the purpose of endorsements generally would realize how flimsy that sounds. --] | ] 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and delete''' per above. This should never have been closed as no consensus. ] 09:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:52, 21 October 2006
| < October 15 | October 17 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)
16 October 2006
template talk:Uncyclopedia
This has been deleted 3 times by overzealous admins in order to silence uncyclopedians. The GFDL says you can't delete pages like this, this should be a record of anti-uncyclopedian bias and censorship in Misplaced Pages. I'm not asking for template:uncyclopedia to be undeleted, only for the record where it is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Beard (talk • contribs) 21:24, October 16, 2006 (UTC)
- What did you want to discuss? What is the important message that is being silenced? What is it that uncyclopedians need to say on Misplaced Pages, particularly through the existence of this template? Themindset 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. There is no reason to have a Talk page for a deleted article, especially when all the Talk is about is whining about how we should have big colorful banners for Uncyclopedia because it's just soooo wonderful. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. No compelling reason presented to overturn deletion, to put it mildly. --Sam Blanning 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion per all of the above. All the records are still there, they're just not visible for non-admins. Aecis 08:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse. All the records are still there, and they're visible for non-admins, too; they're just not on the talk page. They can be found by inspecting the template's whatlinkshere. The most recent seems to be on October 14, and the most substantial in July 2005. The closest the talk page comes to a deletion discussion is a couple inquiries along the lines of, "Wow, this has been deleted a gazillion times before. Is this new reincarnation the same thing again?" "Yup. *zot*" This is a far cry from the "deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere" that G8 refers to, which is the obsolete practice of moving the vfd subpage of a kept article onto the article's talk page. —Cryptic 09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, of no evident value in the process of building an encyclopaedia. Guy 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, as there is no real rationale to undelete the talk page of a deleted page. The only reason it should be undeleted is if a deletion debate/discussion were given there, but as this is not the case... Titoxd 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion per everyone else. I didn't even have to look at the page. JIP | Talk 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse. Any deletion discussion will have been logged at TfD; this is what a G8 undeletion looks like (a VfD debate that came down with the page that was deleted), and the talk page was (based on the comments above) nothing like that. --ais523 10:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Openbravo
The Openbravo entry has been deleted. I have made an effort to explain why it should be keep it and I only got a personal message saying "this article had been deleted by proper process, it should not be recreated. Herostratus 12:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)".
I'm not aware of the content that was published under the Openbravo article in the first place (I did not write it) but I do not see why my article is wrong since it describes an open source project like many others.
Thanks in advance. Jordi,
- The reasons the nominator gave on that talk page are:
- This page describes a free software/open source project like many other pages at Misplaced Pages - Inclusion is not an indicator of notability.
- OpenBravo, like Compiere and Adempiere is a free ERP. All of these projects release software regullary, have their communities behind them and are used by many users and are commercially backed. I do not see why Compiere or Adempiere can be in Misplaced Pages and Openbravo not. - See above, but if the software has enough users to have received third-party coverage from reliable sources, or otherwise meets WP:SOFTWARE, then we may be able to consider that.
- This page already exists in the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias were it has been never considered for deletion. See WP:INN again, multiplied by a factor of five, as the various Wikipedias operate more or less independently of each other.
- So, keep deleted unless compelling evidence to overturn the AfD is presented. --Sam Blanning 13:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Openbravo has been listed in the top 15 projects at SourceForge for the last weeks - Jordi Mas
- That's an indicator of development activity. It really doesn't do anything for notability. If that were downloads, maybe. Can you find anything that meets the guidelines that Sam Blanning pointed to? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The original deletion discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Openbravo. While short, it seems decisive. Since then, it has been deleted twice as a recreation with substantially identical text. The solution is to write a new article, showing why Openbravo meets Misplaced Pages:Software or WP:CORP; both, if possible. If neither is possible, we don't want this article. Septentrionalis 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted until notability is ascerted here, or in a newly created article. If recreation with the same text continues to occur, I would then suggest salting the earth. Themindset 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion until we have evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Myg0t
I noticed the talk page was protected after it had been cleared a few times, so I figured that I would list it here, since talk pages aren't supposed to be protected, I believe. The talk pages are supposed to be used to discuss recreation and to gather evidence to use in arguments for an article's recreation. As far as I can tell there's no reason to protect a talk page except to keep an article permanently deleted despite any new evidence that might come up. It seems like this could be a distinct possiblity, since this article is about an active group.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. --LifeEnemy 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, the talk page was being solely used for pointless trolling, mainly from the subject - most of the weight behind attempts to recreate this are, despite protests, predominantly vanity. We've gone through this enough times that further discussion of recreation is pointless without compelling new evidence. That leads us to the "gathering evidence" claim, and I would suggest that Myg0t will never do anything notable, ever. If they ever do it will have to be so clear-cut that it can just be brought straight here to WP:DRV - any evidence not compelling enough that it needs to be stored and gathered with others before being DRV-ready is probably going to be yet more passing mentions and unreliable pseudosources. --Sam Blanning 10:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted It's common practice to delete talk pages of deleted articles, and this one was mostly used for lame trolling anyway. We're not here to give people a place to troll or even just to chat, there's thousands of message boards out there if that's what you want to do. As far as the "gather evidence to use in arguments for an article's recreation" bit, well, Mygot has failed DRV more times than any article I can think of, to the point that any future efforts would probably be speedy-closed unless extremely substantial new information is included, like several cover stories in mainstream magazines. As Sam points out, that's unlikely to the point of near impossibility. Bottom line: the issue has been discussed, again and again, and each time there has been unanimous (or near-unanimous) consensus not to have an article on Mygot. Further discussion would be pointless and simply a waste of everyone's time. There has to be some point where we all admit it just isn't happening, and move on to other things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted per above. Naconkantari 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete I just thought I'd point out that a lot of votes from other DRVs (from what I've seen) were bad votes that ignored evidence (i.e. last DRV was deleted, so delete). I tried looking at the evidence objectively, and they certainly seemed notable enough compared to some of the other miniscule articles out there.
And they certainly seem to be more notable than individual pokemon. The fact that the wikipedia community lets bias stand in the way of objectivity makes me lose some of the faith I have in wikipedia; although I still use it. It just makes me a little sad, is all. --LifeEnemy 08:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)- Just checking - are you talking about the talk page, which is what's under review? Because you seem to be talking about the article.
Anyway, WP:POKEMON.And given our demographic, our bias tends to be towards anything geek-related - myg0t was deleted not because of our bias, but despite it. --Sam Blanning 08:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just checking - are you talking about the talk page, which is what's under review? Because you seem to be talking about the article.
- Sorry, posted the Pokemon rebuttal before getting an edit conflict as Life removed it. Anyway, I'd be interested in whether the strikethrough means that Life now thinks that myg0t is less notable than Weepingbell, or whether he just noticed the flaw in the argument :-) --Sam Blanning 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- As Sam notes, if anything out bias would be toward such an article, as we tend to be young and technologically-savvy, and knowledgeable about online games and such. But even we have our limits. Let's put it this way: No other major encyclopedia would give even the slightest consideration to having an article on Mygot. Don't believe me? Try the following: Encyclopaedia Britannica can be contacted here and MS Encarta can be contacted here. Give it a try and see how far you get. We gave the article due consideration and even voted on it several times! I'm not sure what else we could have done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Starblind, you know that's a terrible argument. Misplaced Pages has many many articles (individual Naruto episodes?) that print encyclopedias would not. One of wikipedia's big claims is that it has so much more than other encyclopedias, too. I don't mean to incite anger, I don't even care very much about this issue, I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate (though I'm not sure why). I posted this because I though talk pages were not supposed to be protected. And, Sam, I still find them notable, given that I heard of them very quickly, despite only playing CS two or three times in my life (interestingly, I never heard of the GNAA until looking at some myg0t debates on here. And people say they're more notable). --LifeEnemy 02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the point. Yes, WP has plenty of articles not found in other encycloepdias, and that's often a good thing. But if you're accusing WP of bias by not including a Mygot article, then back up your point with some examples of "unbiased" encyclopedias that do have a Mygot article. If Mygot had articles in every eneyclopedia except WP, then your accusation of bias would make a lot more sense. However, like I said, WP at least considered the issue and put it to a vote/discussion. That's a lot better than you'd get from Britannica, I bet. But don't take my word for it, go ahead and try it for yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this would be closed by now. Oh well. --LifeEnemy 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Starblind, you know that's a terrible argument. Misplaced Pages has many many articles (individual Naruto episodes?) that print encyclopedias would not. One of wikipedia's big claims is that it has so much more than other encyclopedias, too. I don't mean to incite anger, I don't even care very much about this issue, I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate (though I'm not sure why). I posted this because I though talk pages were not supposed to be protected. And, Sam, I still find them notable, given that I heard of them very quickly, despite only playing CS two or three times in my life (interestingly, I never heard of the GNAA until looking at some myg0t debates on here. And people say they're more notable). --LifeEnemy 02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- As Sam notes, if anything out bias would be toward such an article, as we tend to be young and technologically-savvy, and knowledgeable about online games and such. But even we have our limits. Let's put it this way: No other major encyclopedia would give even the slightest consideration to having an article on Mygot. Don't believe me? Try the following: Encyclopaedia Britannica can be contacted here and MS Encarta can be contacted here. Give it a try and see how far you get. We gave the article due consideration and even voted on it several times! I'm not sure what else we could have done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, pointless troll magnet. Guy 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Relist Relationship rules
A previous version of this article was deleted on the grounds that it constituted original research. Consequently, care has been taken to ensure this new version of the article conforms to each of the three "content-guiding" criteria of Misplaced Pages articles:
 | This page in a nutshell: Information on Misplaced Pages must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. |
The Relationship rules article meets the criterion of verifiability.
- All major ideas in the article are cited.
- Every rule listed in the article comes directly from a cited source.
- The large majority of citations in the article are either articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals or chapters in books written and edited by Ph.D.'s with expertise in the field. Misplaced Pages explicitly recognizes these as verifiable sources.
- All but four of the remaining citations come from books published with editorial oversight. Misplaced Pages usually recognizes these as verifiable sources.
- The four citations that refer to Web pages are simply examples readers could use to see the topic of Ground Rules can be found on the Internet. Web pages are not verifiable sources. However, these four citations are not used to verify any specific relationship rules or any major ideas about relationship rules.
| This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. |
The Relationship rules article meets the criterion of no original research.
- All major ideas in the article are cited, demonstrating they have been published.
- Every rule listed in the article comes directly from a cited source, demonstrating they have been published.
- All of the main ideas, and all of the specific rules listed, reflect the ideas and rules as presented by their original authors. That is, none of the major ideas and listed rules in this article represent a new analysis or synthesis of the cited articles and chapters. This article simply reviews the content of the cited articles and chapters.
| This page in a nutshell: All Misplaced Pages articles and other user-facing content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. |
The Relationship rules article is written in a neutral point of view.
- There is very little theoretical conflict in verifiable sources about relationship rules. Readers are free to disagree with the published literature. However, mere opinion is not verifiable and constitutes original research. Editors must supply citations to published and verifiable sources to demonstrate that major conflicts exist in the theory of relationship rules.
- Different publications can differ in the specific relationship rules offered. When this happens, multiple sources are cited. Examples include multiple sources for rules of marriage and multiple sources for rules of fair fighting. It is also noted that still other rules may b offered by other authors.
Finally, the topic covered in this article is mentioned in four other Misplaced Pages articles. The Polyamory, Swinging, Open marriage, and Jealousy coping articles refer to ground rules, which are discussed in this article. These mentions show the topic is of encyclopedic interest. Second, the Relationship rules articles is approximately 31 kilobytes in length, the maximum desired length for Misplaced Pages articles. This is clearly a full scale article and not merely a stub or a definition.Kelly 03:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. The article is impressively written and sourced, but it was when it was AfDed. Consensus then was that it was a well-written and sourced guide to relationships, and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and the article has not substantially changed since then. Little of the above wasn't considered by the AfD and consequently there is no reason for us to overturn it. The article may arguably meet all three policies, but meeting them doesn't make it an encyclopaedia article; it failed and still fails what Misplaced Pages is not. --Sam Blanning 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- It may be appropriate on one of Misplaced Pages's sister projects, such as Wikibooks. If Kc62301 agrees to allow the deletion stand, I'll be happy to temporarily undelete it for an import there. --Improv 14:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to continue contesting the deletion, through mediation if necessary, because the article in fact deals with a valid relationship phenomenon. Relationships are characterized by many phenomena (e.g., attachment, communication, sexual intimacy, roles, relational schema). One of those pheonema is rules that guide conduct in a relationship. Why exactly is a review of verifiable, published sources on a specific relationship phenomenon inappropriate for Misplaced Pages? Kelly 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here are the topics listed for what Misplaced Pages is not:
- 1.1 Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia
- 1.2 Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary
- 1.3 Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought
- 1.4 Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox
- 1.5 Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
- 1.6 Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
- 1.7 Misplaced Pages is not a directory
- 1.8 Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information
- 1.9 Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball
- 1.10 Misplaced Pages is not censored
Which of these, exactly, does the Relationship rules article fail on? The article is more than a dictionary definition (1.2), the article is well-cited and keeps to the ideas as originall presented in the original works (1.3), the article does not serve as a soapbox for a cause (1.4), the article is not a mirror to other sites (1.5), the article is not a blog or a social site (1.6), the article does not serve as a directory (1.7), the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as all cited sources deal with the topic of rules in relationships and even use the term 'rules' in the original sources (1.8), and the article does not try to predict the future (1.9). So why exactly does the Relationship rules article fail these guidelines? Kelly 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The main issue here isn't that I believe the article fails WP:NOT by amounting to a how-to guide to relationships rather than an encyclopaedia article (though I do); the main issue is that the article had an AfD, the consensus was that it failed WP:NOT, and the article has not substantially changed enough to merit overturning that consensus. This is a review of whether to overturn the AfD, not AfD Round 2. --Sam Blanning 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, as above, nothing appears to have changed since the AfD which would change the fact that this violates WP:NOT. There must be a sister-project somewhere that this will fit? Guy 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Why exactly is a review of verifiable, published sources..." Reviews are original research. I can't speak to the issues raised here so I would propose temporary restoration/userfying while this is under discussion so not to keep the discussion admin-only. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, the article was an essay, not an encyclopedia article, the AfD was unanimous, nothing has changed. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)