Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29: 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 21:10, 29 November 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →[]: keep for now← Previous edit Revision as of 21:14, 29 November 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →[]: fix link, endorseNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
--> -->
====]==== ====]====
:{{la|Lists of Half-Life mods}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods| — (])|}} :{{la|List of Half-Life mods}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life mods| — (])|}}


When debate was closed, the closer determined that the reigning majority of Keep votes were sockpuppetry, and determined to close the debate with a "Delete" stamp. Direct violation of ] and standard deletion policy. Note: 13 keeps, 9 deletes... Fair is fair. ] 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) When debate was closed, the closer determined that the reigning majority of Keep votes were sockpuppetry, and determined to close the debate with a "Delete" stamp. Direct violation of ] and standard deletion policy. Note: 13 keeps, 9 deletes... Fair is fair. ] 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' on a quick review of the quality of arguments. Half-Life is notable, modding is notable, individual Half-Life mods are not, and this article appeared to be drawn largely from original research despite appearances otherwise. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 21:14, 29 November 2006

< November 28 November 30 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)


29 November 2006

Lists of Half-Life mods

List of Half-Life mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

When debate was closed, the closer determined that the reigning majority of Keep votes were sockpuppetry, and determined to close the debate with a "Delete" stamp. Direct violation of WP:AGF and standard deletion policy. Note: 13 keeps, 9 deletes... Fair is fair. WaltCip 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse close on a quick review of the quality of arguments. Half-Life is notable, modding is notable, individual Half-Life mods are not, and this article appeared to be drawn largely from original research despite appearances otherwise. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations

List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Keeping track of the complexities of the Jack Abramoff scandal is horribly complicated, and this page provided a straightforward summary of all the various organizations involved in some way. I'm happy to provide more sourcing but disagree with the deletion. --The Cunctator 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I find it completely inappropriate for the person listing an article for DRV to be the one who undeletes it. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's WP:AGF a bit here, shall we? The Cunctator is not at all the kind of person given to wheel warring, and has listed the undeletion here for review as well as tagging it with {{delrev}}. There was not much participation in the AfD, and the reason advanced for undeletion would have been a reasonably persuasive Keep argument. So I say let The Cunctator have a go at fixing the fundamental problem and I'm sure it can be revisited in a while. Damn, I think just endorsed the retention of a list. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dekoy

Dekoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

Overturn 69.61.253.106 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This article was deleted as unnotable, however several of the rules from the Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) page WP:BAND would seem to apply here as defining the band as notable.

Specifically "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

The following reviews would qualify - there are others as well. Side-line Music Magazine, a print and web magazine Regen Magazine

2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. As referenced in the wikipedia entry, Dekoy debuted with their first album placing on the Deutsche_Alternative_Charts.

Additionally, it can be noted that Dekoy is very well known in the Cincinnati Area Futurepop/Goth/Industrial scene - such as it is. Rule 7 may have bearing as well.

Skulltag

Skulltag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

This article was deleted out of process, with a final tally of 4 votes to keep and 5 to delete. There was no consensus to delete. Owen 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Skulltag is a significant Doom source port, one of the two primary client-server ports currently available for online play and one of the most creative as far as features go. If any of the ports deserves a page, this one certainly does.--QuasarTE 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion AfD is not a headcount. No sources provided by keep !voters to assert notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Kimchi.sg 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:SOFTWARE is neither policy nor an official guideline, and thus is not an adequate excuse for bypassing official policy, which requires a rough consensus for deletion. Were the software guidelines approved by the community, I would feel otherwise on this matter. Owen 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The keep !voters didn't even bother to assert notability (which is a guideline, of which WP:SOFTWARE is but a specialised form). Where is even one independent source confirming that this is the "biggest mod" for Doom? If there are any, they are nowhere to be found; thus I'm forced to conclude this is just promotion by the mod's makers. (As a side note, every time an AfD descends into a meatpuppet fest replete with ad hominem attacks, it is a bad omen.) Kimchi.sg 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll certainly agree the circumstances of the AfD were a mess. It doesn't say in the article that it is the "biggest mod" for Doom. It's not so much a mod at all, as a major multiplayer source port. The nature of the project itself makes it difficult to give reliable information. It just isn't available. I can point out that Skulltag's forums have over 2000 registered members , but exact download statistics remain elusive. As do comparative statistics between Skulltag and ZDaemon, which are the primary ports used for modern Doom deathmatch. Owen 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion per Awyong. Naconkantari 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've restored the page history to let people decide for themselves. Kimchi.sg 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, WP:NOTE and WP:V ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it"). Daniel.Bryant 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as the original nominator. In retrospect, I shouldn't have used WP:SOFTWARE as the main reason for deletion; however, I still stand by the non-notability of the software and the article's failure of WP:V and WP:RS. The article did not assert notability, and as Awyong/Kimchi pointed out, the keep voters couldn't produce reliable sources that verified the claims to notability as a "significant" Doom source port. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete:Skulltag shouldn't have been deleted. Just because there were no sources that verified it as 'significant' doesn't mean it should've been deleted. Did any look at 'significant' and feel hurt in any way? NO. As you may know, Skulltag has a rivalry with the source port 'Zdaemon' and any member of their community should not be allowed to delete this article, as it would be very biased. (Megaaussie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.150.210 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse deletion, WP:V still not satisfied. There's a very good reason WP:V is in place, and it's to protect you guys. Zdaemon probably isn't going to survive an AfD in its current form and WP:INN in any case. ColourBurst 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I, or another editor whom I've discussed this plan with, am likely to recreate this page as a redirect to Doom source port, and create a small blurb about the specific port in a section of that article, which would direct readers to the relevant Doom Wiki article if they wish to read further. Bloodshedder 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion: Its not suppose to be about how many say delete and how many say no its about the point of their arguements. It was properly deleted.--Simonkoldyk 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not strictly about the point of their arguments; administrators are not judges called upon to cast a verdict. AfD is meant as a forum for discussion, in which deletions can be made when there seems to be general agreement for it. That general agreement did not exist in this case. Owen 08:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, admins are supposed to use their judgment when closing an AfD; it's one of their duties as an admin. They're supposed to weigh arguments according to how they follow policies and guidelines. Otherwise, it would just be a simple headcount and the process would be easy to sabotage. ColourBurst 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - Earlier it was said "Just because there were no sources that verified it as 'significant' doesn't mean it should've been deleted." Actually, WP:V says exactly that - if there is no source to verify the information in an article, then by all rights it should not be in the article. If there are no sources for anything at all, then the article should not be. According to my personal criteria, the strong delete argument and its support scores 2½ points, the lack of any grounding in reality in the keep arguments means it scores 0, and the behaviour of the annoying anon editor in the debate means it qualifies for the -1 for campaigning too. Of course, strictly speaking there is no need to score, as the lack of sourcing means a delete by default. In the absence of any such information being presented in the AfD, the "delete" close was correct. Chris cheese whine 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Endorse deletion The Afd was putrid with pathetic socks/meats, and pitiful threats like "If the Skulltag entry gets deleted, I'll resurrect it. Every. Single. Time. So don't even try it." Don't do a lot to suggest good faith on the part of those attempting to keep it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Just because some idiots supported an article doesn't mean the article is without merit. I cannot believe the utter immaturity in this argument. If these kind of criteria are what is used to decide what articles can or cannot be on Misplaced Pages, it is truly in trouble. BTW I would like to see an exact explanation of what information on the article is not verifiable. I can easily verify that Skulltag exists and what it does. There are roughly 25000 hits for "Skulltag DOOM" on Google alone. You guys aren't even trying. You're just pushing a personal agenda which, if it were applied to Misplaced Pages at large and not only to software articles, would see the vast majority of its information deleted. This site had a chance to be something more than a standard print encyclopedia by allowing information others deemed unimportant. It has the capacity to tolerate this due to its theoretically unlimited size. But policies like this have destroyed that potential.--QuasarTE 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh , there's no possible way I'm letting that statement stand. First, dismissing someone else's arguments as 'immature' when you don't like them is , in and of itself, immature. The criteria used is notability and verifiability. Every day there are deletion discussions on those topics for many articles and most of the time the articles are kept. This is a port of a project you are directly involved in (bias), of which not one verifiable independant source has been yet produced, and the deletion review is not another AfD but a review of the AfD to see if it was done properly. Ranting screed about "personal agenda" doesn't change that. The AfD was clearly closed correctly, half of the debate was from someone threatening to disrupt Misplaced Pages just to make a point, and there wasn't a single source in the discussion that merits review. If you don't like the policy and you don't want to contribute verifiable information in a manner that consensus has determined is best, then leave and stop making grand accusations about the "destruction of potential." --Elaragirl 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not that I do not like it. Using the fact that some unknown anonymous idiots showed up and defended the article in an inappropriate manner before any of us valid, known members of the Doom Community had a chance to even find out about its AfD as a valid reason for its deletion is immature. By this standard, I could, right now, go and post annoying statements on any page that is AfD and this would result in its deletion. Can you not see the danger inherent in this? You'll enable anonymous users to cause the deletion of articles by "supporting" them in inappropriate manners. I am NOT involved in the development of Skulltag. I would love to know where you obtained such information. I am a developer of the Eternity Engine source port, which has absolutely nothing in common with Skulltag aside from the core base of the Doom engine itself. I do happen to know Carnevil, its principle author, and we have collaborated on some problems in the past. I already contributed several links above to confirmation of Skulltag's possibly notability which have been completely ignored. And I can't believe you're going to tell me that if I don't like it, I can leave. That's certainly not a cooperative, community spirit.--QuasarTE 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"Valid, known, members"? Why do I constantly see the argument that an AfD is improper unless people who have a COI, or at LEAST members of the overseeing Wikiproject, come flooding in? Verifiability is simply not dependent upon who you are. -Amarkov edits 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't try to argue that. I'm not saying members of our community should have sole authority on such articles, but it would certainly be nice if we could at least be involved in the process. Who else is going to be more knowledgable on the subject? Anyway, I'm ducking out of this before it turns any nastier. I would really like a chance to at least rehabilitate information in the article in a different form, but it appears even that would be asking too much. We in the community are making plans on how to save the information in these articles before it is mass-deleted, and my energies would be much better spent to that end.--QuasarTE 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Knowledgeable or otherwise, the rules apply to you as they do to everyone else. Content must meet the überpolicy WP:V, no matter who contributes it. No sources, no article. It's that simple. Chris cheese whine 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There are sources of information on Doom source ports. If we had known the article was at risk of deletion, we could have added appropriate citations. But this would have made no difference in light of WP:SOFTWARE anyway.--QuasarTE 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion Argument for keeping this article is weak almost to the point of non-existant . Yanksox 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion - total farce of an argument for keep votes, plus WP:POINT violation threats, plus total lack of sourcing, verifibility, notability, and debate properly closed. --Elaragirl 14:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. There are no reliable sources. It does not matter if it's notable, without reliable sources. And 1 keep argument based on "WP:SCHOOL isn't a guideline!" (ignoring how that wasn't the sole argument), 1 based on "But one person saying something IS a reliabel source!", 1 at least providing sources, but still ones that gave trivial coverage, and 2 WP:ILIKEIT votes... There were no keep arguments, really. -Amarkov edits 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I should point out that I'm the author of the Chocolate Doom source port, and have been active in the Doom community for many years now. Despite all this, I don't think Doom source ports are something notable enough for wikipedia. The article on Chocolate Doom was deleted as well, and I'm fine with this! For Doom fans, we have The Doom Wiki. Fragglet 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. `'mikkanarxi 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

emmanuel

Emmanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an important Catholic word and term that has been deleted and protected (apparently for a speedy NN something) without any clear reason for those of us stumbling on it now. For example: I came upon it as I was working on Emmanuel College, Boston, which uses the Hebrew spelling of Emmanuel in it's logo. I wanted to add a link to more about the term and found a deleted/protected page. As another editor noted: The Catholic Encyclopedia has it, isn't it a little strange we don't? Bobak 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Before it was replaced with a blatantly non-notable biography the page redirected to Immanuel, so I've replaced that redirect, leaving the protection on. Although I endorse the deletion of the biography (not necessary anyway, as it's not being challenged here) I agree that it should have been redirected to a useful page rather than replaced with the unhelpful {{deletedpage}}. --Sam Blanning 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)