[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 January 27
2007 January 29 >

28 January 2007

[edit]
Bill Madden – New article moved into mainspace as requested – trialsanderrors 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Madden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

see comments below please ww 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia. On January 9, my very first and relatively new article, Bill Madden, was nominated for deletion for failing WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I noted in my Keep vote that I would modify the article so that it would prima facie and on its face assert the relevant points in WP:MUSIC specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists, and fully substantiate as defined in WP:V. Between January 11 and January 15, I re-wrote my article to address these points. Unfortunately, on January 16, my article was deleted.

I acknowledge that my article as originally posted was poorly written and in "bad shape". However, I believe that it warranted at least a {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} tag initially rather than a nomination for delete.

As a newbie, I clearly understood the invitation from Wikipedia to be bold and also understood that, although my writing may not be up to par with experienced Wikipedians, that the community would assume good faith in my writing (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

I'm writing to ask that you please reconsider the deletion and consider my undeletion request for the following reasons:

  • My initial writing style failed to meet experienced Wikipedian standards and was misunderstood and for that I apologize; however, it has since been modified to meet the noted standards and expectations. I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which states that "behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules."
  • Although the consensus as to the number of delete per nom votes won, I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus vs. supermajority wherein it states "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." Additionally, it also states that "When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. ... If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds."
  • Finally, I again respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Reasonable consensus-building which states that "stubborn insistence on a position," with refusal to consider my additions, revisions, and viewpoints in good faith, "is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice."

For all of the above noted reasons, I kindly request that you consider my undeletion request and reinstate the most recent version of the Bill Madden article which can be found at the moment at User:Windwall/Bill_Madden. Please note that this version is different than the one that was discussed earlier (before deletion) as this version contains all of the recommended changes.

Thank you, Windwall 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Potter Puppet Pals – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Potter Puppet Pals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Both Potter Puppet Pals and its creator, Lemon Demon, have been covered by the Boston Globe, establishing notoriety. The least that should happen is a merge of Potter Puppet Pals into Neil Cicierega. JNighthawk 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Knowledge of that article was present in the debate, so you have no new evidence, and no reason why closure was bad. You can put more information into the creator's article whenever you please. -Amark moo! 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid AFD, with awareness of the article from near the beginning. The AFD reveals that that article is already in use in Mr. Cicierega's article, just make more use of it there, without putting undue weight on anything. GRBerry 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The Globe article is an excellent source for the Neil Cicierega article, but it only mentions PPP in passing, and thus can't be used to source information about it. I think a redirect to Neil Cicierega is reasonable though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Long Island Electric Railway – Article created, talk page restored – trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Long Island Electric Railway (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Long Island Electric Railway|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This had a template like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, telling admins "please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article", and it had similar information that I compiled. NE2 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the notes. is this what you were looking for?
  • They had to purchase the Jamaica and Far Rockaway Turnpike to run to Far Rockaway. (details of this and other obstacles in 7/10/1896 page 8)
  • July 24, 1896: opened Crescent Street (surface) to Jamaica (7/23/1896 page 4)
  • April 25, 1897: incline to BMT Fulton Street Line at Crescent Street (transfer) completed; open to Jamaica (4/26/1897 page 1)
  • May 2, 1897: Jamaica (at 168th Street) to Queens Village opened; not yet connected over BHRR (5/4/1897 page 1)
  • night of May 15, 1897: temporary switch installed at 160th Street and Jamaica Avenue (Brooklyn Heights Railroad Jamaica Line); through route open from city line to Queens Village and open south from Jamaica to "Dooley's, near Three Mile Creek and Jamaica Bay and to Springfield [Gardens]" (5/17/1897 page 4)
  • June 6, 1897: opened to Far Rockaway (6/7/1897 page 4)
  • November 1897: switching from 105th Avenue and 148th Street to South Road and Waltham Street (I don't fully understand this) (11/19/1897 page 5)
  • December 1897: allowed to use Brooklyn Heights Railroad on Jamaica Avenue between 160th Street and 168th Street (12/11/1897 page 4; also 4/11/1897 page 31 for agreement with the BHRR)
  • July 1899: plans to consolidate LIE with proposed Cross Country Railroad (Flushing to Jamaica) and New York and North Shore Railroad (under construction Flushing to Jamaica) (7/25/1899 page 6)
  • early November 1899: New York and North Shore Railroad open, Flushing to Highland Avenue and 164th Street, Jamaica (10/26/1899 page 7)
You might want to start the new article in userspace to keep it from being redeleted. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking for, but it should be on the talk page to be of use to other editors who may wish to write the article. The template on top was processed just like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, including the line "Admins: Please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article." --NE2 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G8 is unambiguous about this. Also, your purpose is better served if you start in userspace and advertise your project at the proper Wikiproject. ~ trialsanderrors 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Template:TWP have that text (added by Slambo, an admin), if it's not going to be heeded by other admins? --NE2 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What text? ~ trialsanderrors 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text that appeared on this talk page, and that appears on other talk pages like Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company. There is a parserfunction in the template that checks whether the article exists, and if it doesn't it displays "Admins: Please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article." --NE2 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I get it. That clearly has to go, it's against policy → WP:CSD#G8. I'll let Slambo know. I also looked around and didn't see it on any other project templates. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we apply ignore all rules here? The notes clearly help the encyclopedia. --NE2 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not helping the encyclopedia. Userspace or WikiProjectspace is the right place to prepare articles. ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is making notes on the talk page for others to start from not helping the encyclopedia? You assume that I will be the one to write the article. --NE2 14:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because speedy deleting is a pretty shitty job as it is, and you're not helping the admins by posting stuff where it doesn't belong then come here to try and get it back. Post it on project space, see if you get collaborators, when you're done move it in article space. It's extremely simple and common sense. ~ trialsanderrors 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for missing the request on the template. Usually when I'm deleting orphan talk pages, there are about 20 of them in a row. I do think it would be better to work on a draft article in userspace than on an orphan talk page, as Trialsanderrors suggested above. NawlinWiki 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hasbara Fellowships – Copyvio version replaced with new article – trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hasbara Fellowships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Out-of-process deletion John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted without an AfD or proper use of a copyvio template by "20:48, 9 January 2007 RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hasbara Fellowships" (fails WP:N, WP:COPY)". This left several articles with redlinks. The article had been previously edited by multiple editors over a period of time, and had settled on a brief article with a cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction. A copy of the article can be seen here on answers.com, since the Wikipedia copy is now inaccessible until restored. --John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction" was virtually the article in its entirety; hence the copyright violation, satisfying WP:CSD criterion G12. In addition, the article did not assert its subject's notability and/or provide independent verification thereof, satisfying criterion A7. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meantime, the red links are my fault, and I'm following through now. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion. It's absurd to say "It wasn't tagged as a copyvio, so it can't be deleted as one!" Copyright violation is not just against policy, it is against the law. We can't restore a copyvio. -Amark moo! 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - it's claimed to be a copyvio by one editor. That's debatable. The article had a six line quote, properly cited. It's too bad that an out-of-process deletion hides the history. We got into this situation through edits which deleted material other than direct quotes. This is very unusual; the usual copyvio situation involves a new article, but that wasn't the case here. If we can get the history back, it should be straightforward to fix the article. It may just need a reversion to an earlier version. Also, please don't remove the redlinks to the article while this is pending. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored relevant red links to keep the record straight. --John Nagle 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red links were supposed to have been removed upon deletion anyway, and the edit summary "rvv" (here's one of six) is usually an abbreviation of "revert vandalism", which is clearly inaccurate (if not provocative). Meantime, and I reiterate, almost the entire article was the verbatim quote from the website, which is indisputably a copyright violation, end of story. Instead of wasting so much effort in requesting reinstatement of data that cannot be, why aren't you starting a properly sourced (per WP:V), non-violative (per WP:COPY) article that asserts notability? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: G12 requires "There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving." This doesn't seem to be the case, even if the quote is removed. Could this be clarified, please? Additionally, I assume G12 articles may be safely recreated provided they have no infringing material? —Ashley Y 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the quote out, the article is an 11-word intro (including the name), two "See also"s and an external link. As to your second point, this is why John Nagle and its other editors need to stop "wasting so much effort in requesting reinstatement of data that cannot be [and start] a properly sourced (per WP:V), non-violative (per WP:COPY) article that asserts notability". It was deleted, not salted. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did the move. That seems to settle this issue to the satisfaction of all parties, so we can probably close out this deletion review as moot. Thanks, everyone. --John Nagle 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The copyvio content was in all prior versions, so they have to stay deleted. The only other factoids in the history were later removed as original research. There is nothing that can be restored. There is more in the userspace version that was in the stub, just use it. (For clarity, a G12 deletion has no precedent value for later article creations. In fact, speedy deletions in general aren't precedent setting if a new version that solves the problem is created. Only deletion discussions (AFDs) are precedent setting, and then only for articles that are substantially similar or inferior - ie, if deleted as non-notable, bringing part of the text back as a stub is inferior.) GRBerry 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave it for other editors to decide whether they want to send this to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Princess Charming – Deleted version replaced by sourced article – trialsanderrors 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Princess Charming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

A newspaper article indicated that the pilot episode of the show will be aired this Monday.[1] and another user created a much better article on its talk page. -Danngarcia 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mywebber.com – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mywebber.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

the web site has been release and is a real company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywebber (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Score (magazine) – Pre-December 23, 2006 revisions restored and relisted at AfD. – Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Score (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Deleted and protected from recreation, apparently without going through the AFD process. This is a major magazine with wide distribution in the United States, and while the article that was deleted consisted of only one line of text, it is expandable. As an admin, I have restored the page, however it appears other steps need to be take to remove the protection, which is why I'm going through this step. 23skidoo 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete older revisions and list at AFD. The older revisions qualified as valid stubs, and although no sources were cited, it did indicate some notability, so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (which is it what it was deleted under), WP:CSD#A1, or even WP:CSD#G11. Send it through AFD so voters there may discuss it's notability. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and AFD, I suppose. I don't think it'll pass an AfD, but I wouldn't say it has [WP:SNOW|zero] chance, and calling it a speedy is a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and AFD, my feelings are pretty much exactly what Andrew Lenahan just said. Don't restore it to the last version though, that is a pathetic substub. Instead the somewhat earlier version linked to in this deletion review that at least has a little bit more info. Mathmo Talk 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_28&oldid=1138430064"