Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 25: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:59, 30 November 2006 editXoloz (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (overturn and AfD)← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:07, 30 November 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:
	* The only source isn't no where near a valid source see ], nothing else on google, that type of article should have gotten many google hits for ''China's Bigfoot'' looks like a rather obvious hoax on that page see ], no point in relisting this in AFD only to be deleted again, '''Endorse my deletion'''. ] ] 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)		* The only source isn't no where near a valid source see ], nothing else on google, that type of article should have gotten many google hits for ''China's Bigfoot'' looks like a rather obvious hoax on that page see ], no point in relisting this in AFD only to be deleted again, '''Endorse my deletion'''. ] ] 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Undelete''' I can't believe I'm doing this, but... my own googling for the term itself turned up enough net-noise such that I am not certain that the term is a neologism (the creature may well be a hoax, like Bigfoot, but the term isn't isolated in use). I also am aware the article currently lack WP:RS, but it appears that it ''might'' be possible to find them. We might also wish to consider whether a redirect to ], ], or even ] is appropriate. :) ] 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)		*'''Undelete''' I can't believe I'm doing this, but... my own googling for the term itself turned up enough net-noise such that I am not certain that the term is a neologism (the creature may well be a hoax, like Bigfoot, but the term isn't isolated in use). I also am aware the article currently lack WP:RS, but it appears that it ''might'' be possible to find them. We might also wish to consider whether a redirect to ], ], or even ] is appropriate. :) ] 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)



	====]====
	:{{la\|ZENN}}{{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ZENN\| — (])\|}}

	Article deleted by ], reasoning: deleted "ZENN" (G11). Article was created by a third party and should not have been considered spam. The only 'spam' like attribute was the externa link to companies specifications. I, not the origional creator, placed a hangon and proceeded to add links providing notability. Article was quickly deleted without any debate. ] ] 09:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Note the talk page is still intact with notice fo my intentions. ] ] 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Comment''' When you say third party you mean third party to you and Naconkantari? If you mean someone other than the company/person involved I don't see how you can be so certain. The article itself was a very brief stub, if you have reasonable sources why don't you just recreate the article with those reasonable source, it would have probably have been quicker than listing it here. Speedy deletion does not mean that anything under that article will forever be considered spam, just address the issue and it shouldn't be a problem. (I can see why you might want the text restored if it were something more substantial). If you want the text let me know and I'll retrieve it for you into your userspace, you can work on adding some links etc. and then move it back --] 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
	* What Pgk said. This one sits on the border between valid stub and spam, so I'm sure that with a bit of work and some ] it can be made to comply with policy. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse'''. I placed the speedy deletion template on ]. At that point, the page had one external link, to the product's manufacturer's website, and some text that could very easily have been written by the public relations department of the company. Neutral point of view was nowhere in sight. Simple solution per Pgk; write a ''neutral'' article, repost, you're good to go, probably with zero emissions. ] 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:07, 30 November 2006

< November 24	November 26 >

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

25 November 2006

Gin-Sung

User:Jaranda deleted this page saying that it was unsourced and probaly a hoax. The article was sourced and was not a hoax. If he didn't think the sources were reliable enough many other articles on Misplaced Pages use it as a source. Also the reasons he said he deleted it for are not proper criteria to speedy delete an article. The article was also deleted instantly within hours of its creation not giving enough time to properly source it and edit it. The article was not a good canidate for speedy deletion and should of been a normal AfD.Zalgt 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the single source is --pgk 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Undelete and list of AfD. AFAIK, being poorly sourced is not a reason for speedy deletion -- in fact, the idea seems to be heavily opposed. See WP:CSDUA and its associated talk page. JulesH 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
undelete per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion It looks very much like a hoax, thus WP:V comes into play; looks to me like Jaranda made the right call. Eusebeus 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- We don't speedy delete hoaxes, and for good reason. I don't know if this is a hoax or not, more reason to have a full discussion on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Coment You didnt see the text of the page. Zalgt 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion, even if the reason given was not good. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)
The only source isn't no where near a valid source see WP:RS, nothing else on google, that type of article should have gotten many google hits for China's Bigfoot looks like a rather obvious hoax on that page see WP:V, no point in relisting this in AFD only to be deleted again, Endorse my deletion. Jaranda 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Undelete I can't believe I'm doing this, but... my own googling for the term itself turned up enough net-noise such that I am not certain that the term is a neologism (the creature may well be a hoax, like Bigfoot, but the term isn't isolated in use). I also am aware the article currently lack WP:RS, but it appears that it might be possible to find them. We might also wish to consider whether a redirect to Bigfoot, Cryptozoology, or even User:Xoloz is appropriate. :) Xoloz 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)