Revision as of 21:20, 4 October 2006 editTrialsanderrors (talk | contribs)Administrators17,565 edits →[]: Speedy deleteion overturned, back at AfD← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:21, 4 October 2006 edit undoTrialsanderrors (talk | contribs)Administrators17,565 edits Add headerNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px"> | |||
{| width = "100%" | |||
|- | |||
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray"><</font> ] | |||
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">></font> | |||
|} | |||
</div> | |||
:''Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see ]'' | |||
</noinclude> | |||
===4 October 2006=== | ===4 October 2006=== | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Line 5: | Line 14: | ||
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | ||
--> | --> | ||
==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
:''This was posted as a request in the Content Review section above. Given the comments in the request, I believe that this was a mistake and that the requestor intended to request a full deletion review. Nomination moved.'' | :''This was posted as a request in the Content Review section above. Given the comments in the request, I believe that this was a mistake and that the requestor intended to request a full deletion review. Nomination moved.'' |
Revision as of 21:21, 4 October 2006
< October 3 | October 5 > |
---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)
4 October 2006
Peter Blunden
- This was posted as a request in the Content Review section above. Given the comments in the request, I believe that this was a mistake and that the requestor intended to request a full deletion review. Nomination moved.
As the editor-in-chief of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, and a determined user of the power this position gives him (as the reference in the article indicated), Blunden should have an entry. I concede that the article I started is lacking basic biographical details (which hopefully someone has - I wasn't able to find them); however, I dispute editor Guy's cavalier deletion of the entry as POV. The reference quoted was perfectly discussable on Misplaced Pages as a recent controversy involving Blunden. It was on the national broadcaster, for goodness sake. Garth M 12:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- This page was speedy-deleted as a attack page. Reviewing the content, I think this could also have been speedy-deleted as a biography with no assertion of notability. Being an editor-in-chief is not an automatic assertion that the person meets our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Endorse speedy-deletion pending actual evidence of the appropriateness of this person's biography for the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted it, and I explained to Garth M why I deleted it. It was tagged as {{db-attack}}, and I agreed with that judgment. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Articles on living idividuals which include only a single recent event, in terms critical of the subject, are subject to either deletion or stubbing. I don't care which we go for here, but I think we all know the Foundation's position on tagging such articles and then leaving them for a while while we think about it; the word "no" sums it up nicely. Guy 16:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion No objection about rewriting a non-attack page article. Content is clearly an attack page as currently written. JoshuaZ 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels
This page has already been nominated below. Comments moved to consolidate the discussion.
P-P-P-Powerbook
- Serial nominations:
- Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook - May 21, 2004 (Delete)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook - 31 October 2005 (No consensus)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) - 1 May 2006 (Keep)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) - 22 August 2006 (Keep)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination) - CLOSED AS DELETE
I deleted this upon review of a non-admin close. I don't think that the details of that are germain, so I'll stick to the relevent facts. This review was requested on my talk, and I'll attempt to not "stack the deck" in creating this nomination based upon my opinion.
This was a question reliable source not existing, which I felt was quite straightforward. A large number of people felt that the article should be kept, and also stated that they felt that this did have reliable sources. Several arguments to keep were based upon the previous AfDs. The arguments to the contrary were detailed and closely grounded in policy. As this was a sourcing question, "counting noses" to determine consesnsus was not appropiate.
In retrospect, my closing comments were somewhat more brief than usual which is unfortunate.
brenneman 07:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. AfD is not a vote, and I don't believe the keep voters could provide good answers to the questions of notability and verifiability. David | Talk 08:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Restore (FWIW, I was the one who requested review) On sources, I believe for a subject of this kind, the sources in the article are reasonable (i.e. more blogs/less reliable website when article is about less serious thing). On notability, this has seen enough coverage to have a decent about of linkage to via google. novacatz 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, and disendorse Parseltongue's earlier closing - non-admins should not close controversial cases like this, and certainly should not make recommendations that contravene WP:Consensus can change while they are doing so. Standard webcruft AfD, lots of handwaving keep 'votes', barely any assertion and certainly no proof that this has any notability outside its own minority. The threaded discussion following Anomo's post more than adequately addresses the flimsy claims that this has been covered by mainstream sources. When people say "everyone BUT the media has heard of it", what they mean is "the entire geek subculture has heard of it". Our policies and raison d'etre mean we are not part of the same sphere as Something Awful, Fark.com, Encyclopaedia Dramatica etc, no matter how many of our editors happen to belong to both. --Sam Blanning 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, therefore discount Parseltongue's keep, per Sam. Typical votestacking cruft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) .
- Endorse deletion. I do remember this happening, but it's hardly encyclopedic. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, one of my favourite Internet stories for sure but in the end WP:V and WP:RS trump WP:ILIKEIT; the AfD debate result was clearly delete, per Brenneman's re-closure. I'm sure that Wikinfo or Encyclopaedia Dramatica would like it, though. Guy 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion A nice tale, but Guy is right. CharonX/talk 11:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Parseltongue doubly shouldn't have closed it (non-admins shouldn't close controversial AFDs, and nobody should be closing AFDs they themselves have participated in), and the handwaving doesn't overcome the lack of sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Sam's summary says it all. Nandesuka 12:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy overturn deletion - AFD was closed correctly on a 21/15 split for deletion. SIngle admins cannot unilaterally overturn AfDs, and as has been stressed so very repeatedly on this page, this is a procedural page, there is no issue here. Aaron's deletion amounts to an out of process speedy. Phil Sandifer 13:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. While I would normally agree, this was a heavily debated deletion discussion that was closed by a non-admin. While I would also normally agree that there's nothing special about admins, in certain specialized situations like this one it is best to have an admin close the discussion because admins have been subject to at least a modicum of community review, and they have been required to demonstrate a measure of familiarity with the community's practices and norms. Particularly given that Parsssseltongue was involved in the discussion (, ) it was inappropriate for him to close. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Additional comment - It is also, in the case of a fourth AfD, sensible to defer to the three prior consensuses to keep. To overturn a close and essentially speedy an article and then discuss its fate on a separate page smells of exactly the court of infinite appeal I've heard so frequently railed against in justifying this page. The only difference is that this time we appeal endlessly until we successfully delete the article. Phil Sandifer 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, two keep consensuses, a no consensus and a delete consensus. Articles which fail to provide solid sourcing and encyclopedic rationale even after lengthy periods should always be subject to WP:CCC. Such articles are given far far more time for favourable sourcing and satisfactory framing to emerge in comparison with the research taking place during a afd timeframe - the advantage here is already in the keep side of the court (in addition to the bias in favour of keeping articles seen throughout WP policies and guidelines), but if it is not used, than the article should remain vulnerable. Bwithh 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, actually given that he has participated in the AfD, Parsssseltongue shouldn't have closed it. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy overturn deletion. The AfD was a clear no consensus. The closing was out of process. Regardless of what I think of the article, it should not have been deleted like that. — Dark Shikari /contribs 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not in this page's purview - AFD is not a court of infinite appeal until dead. Aaron's deletion was clearly against the consensus, and DRV doesn't get to say it wasn't and have it stick - David Gerard 13:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, Parsselltongue erred in closing a controversial close that he participated in, and Aaron (or anyone) was well within their purview to review the close. It's also important to note that ALL of the last four AFDs seem to have missed the initial VFD in 2004 which resulted in a delete, based on the subject matter, not content. So the court of infinite appeals seems to have been started by someone other than the deleters... -- nae'blis 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can someone please revert the article's restoration, which appears to have been based on the misaprehension that I'd overturned an admin. - brenneman 13:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest not doing so, pending the outcome of this discussion. It looks too much like a wheel war over deleting the page to me. David | Talk 13:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Shave a monkey and call him Dad, so we preserve the cock-up in amber to avoid the appearance of a wheel war? What if Snowspinner re-deletes it? Since reviewing non-admin closes is really bread-and-butter stuff. - brenneman 13:52, 4 October 2006
- I've replaced it with {{TempUndelete}} and fully protected the page, leaving the edit history available for all to view, as was done with Simon Pulsifer. --Sam Blanning 14:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would suggest not doing so, pending the outcome of this discussion. It looks too much like a wheel war over deleting the page to me. David | Talk 13:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as per Sam Blanning and Guy Bwithh 14:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- What a mess. Overturn Parsselltongue's initial closure, endorse Aaron's correcting closure and overturn Phil's out-of-process undeletion. Review and correction of non-admin closures of deletion debates is not only allowed but required by the deletion process. Such review has never required a DRV discussion. Aaron's decision may be properly challenged here but I that I concur with the comments above that arguments and references to policy must be weighted more heavily than mere vote-counting. Rossami (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- As a compromise, might I suggest that we merge this to e.g. Something Awful pranks? >Radiant< 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- No endorsement of deletion, but let deletion stand. There's two issues here: 1) Does the article suck to the extent that it deserves deletion, and 2) Should Aaron Brenneman have reopened a closed debate (albeit one closed by a nonadmin) for the express purpose of giving himself a reason to delete the article? Regarding (1), I think we can all agree that this article has issues, and always has, which is why it's been going through the AfD wringer on a regular basis for a solid year now. So speaking purely on the matter of whether the article deserves to exist, I think Aaron Brenneman made a legitimate administrative judgment call as to whether anything in the AfD discussion overrode such policies as WP:V, WP:RS, etc. In short, this was a semi-tough one, Aaron B. made a reasoned call, and I don't see how we could fault him on that whether he'd eventually decided keep or delete. As for issue (2): I fully believe that P-P-P-Powerbook would be happily existing today as an open, readable article if a discusion of Parsssseltongue's AfDing habits hadn't ended up on AN/I yesterday , and I'm not totally happy with the way that discussion went. Also, generally speaking, I'm no fan of an admin going in to an already-closed discussion, jamming in his argument for deletion and then nuking the article. However, Aaron B. did notice that Parsssseltongue was himself a participant in this particular AfD, and thus should not have closed it at all, regardless of whether Parsssseltongue was himself an admin or not (and he is not). All in all, I think Parsssseltongue's error here is a bigger problem that Aaron B.'s somewhat out-of-process deletion procedure, so I cannot see Aaron B.'s action as worthy of overturning. (Besides, he could have followed process to the letter by moving the AfD listing around in the delete logs, reopening it, announcing its reopening, and then closing it all over again 30 seconds later using the exact same rationale, so we're getting into an area of serious nitpicking of technicalities here.) At worst, if a large number of editors think Aaron B.'s actions need to be overturned on principle, we could always overturn his deletion, restore the article, and then just allow anyone to prod it or speedy tag it and "see what happens," if you know what I mean. --Aaron (not Brenneman) 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- A small correction - WP:RS is not policy. It's a guideline, and one that is manifestly unsuited to the majority of articles on Misplaced Pages. Phil Sandifer 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- "one that is manifestly unsuited to the majority of articles on Misplaced Pages". Could you expand on that point? Bwithh 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Phil's right, of course, that WP:RS is guideline, not policy, though are there lots of times I wish it was. (Blogs as sources should = shot on sight. Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.) --Aaron (not Brenneman) 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- People have said most of what I was thinking - I'd just like to add one thing. In deletion debates on popular culture memes folks often say something like: "Delete, this is of transient interest. If someone is still interested in this in a year then an article can be written at that point." In this case it's already been a year and some people are still interested. Haukur 19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion I requested on AN that an admin take a look at this, as I felt it was not appropriate for PT to close it (given that he had participated in the discussion, and that it was a controversial close for a non-admin to make) and subsequent conversation with PT established that he did not intend to retract his close. I personally think Aaron B. made the right decision, but the request was for any admin to take a look at it, regardless of what decision they made. Ziggurat 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Mustard Seed Global Fellowship
This is an article provided to inform those who have informed about this organization. The content is not extensive currently, but it should remain as a stub. There is no reason to delete it at this time.
- I stand behind my deletion. The stub did not assert the notability of this organisation, making it a valid deletion candidate according to CSD A7. Maybe there's no notability to assert here, because the organisation hasn't commenced operations: The first Mustard Seed church will be started in Japan in 2008. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am the president of the organization. The organization is fully operational. The comment about the first church being started in the future is separate from the notibility of the organization. With respect, Awyong does not seem to be in a position to determine whether information about this organization deserves to be included in Misplaced Pages. If this information is censored, then people will be limited from learning about it.
User:Mackerman 21:45, 3 October 2006 (PST)
- Endorse deletion; notability has not been established, particularly given that the organization was just recently created. Ral315 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Sam Blanning 10:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid speedy A7. No assertion of notability was made, and no credible assertion appears to be made here. Corporate autobiography is explicitly discouraged and this has been strengthened by recent comments from the Foundation (both Brad and Jimbo). Guy 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Al Gore III
- See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (4th nomination)
- See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (5th nomination)
A recent check of the closes by the below non-admin found this one. Closed per WP:SNOW as a keep. Ignoring the fact that there was only an AfD about four days prior to this one (which the closer !voted in, making it a conflict of interest), there is no SNOW to keep - over 50% of the !votes are for delete. Your thoughts are appreciated. Daniel.Bryant 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note: added the 5th nomination, which the non-admin also closed as a "bad faith nomination". Daniel.Bryant 02:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- The non-admin also issued a "Blatant vandal" serious warning to the nominator of the 5th afd, apparently for making this nomination. Seems a bit excessive. Bwithh 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Partial endorse of closure Okay to close the afd if a previous afd had only occurred a few days before. Closing non-admin should not assume bad faith and treat nominator as vandal without better grounds however. Bwithh 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closures, keep article live. I've had Al Gore III on my watchlist for a while now; IMHO there are a few editors out there that are absolutely hellbent on getting this article deleted by any means necessary, for purely political reasons. The fourth nomination was made only 72 hours after the third nomination was closed as a pretty unquestionable keep by Mailer Diablo, who of course is an administrator. Consensus can change, but it can't change that much in three days, especially when there wasn't a single edit made to Al Gore III from the moment Mailer Diablo closed it to the moment MechCommander attempted the 4th nom . Given that, I think Parsssseltongue's closure of the 4th nom was absolutely legitimate. I also do not believe it is against any policy or guideline for an editor or admin to close a later nomination just because they voted in the prior nomination; each AfD is considered its own enclosed discussion, as far as I can tell. Regarding the 5th nom, Parsssseltongue was right to close it: The nominee was unquestionably an SPA who couldn't even format the AfD correctly . I don't really have much of an opinion as to whether Parsssseltongue went too far by putting a {{blatantvandal}} tag on the user's talk page, but that's not an issue for WP:DRV. --Aaron 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- As a compromise, might I suggest that we merge this to the article on his father? >Radiant< 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)