→[[Dennis Stamp]]: - deletion endorsed |
→[[Allison Robertson]] et. al.: - deletion overturned and recreated as redirects |
||
Line 409: | Line 409: | ||
====[[Allison Robertson]] et. al.==== |
====[[Allison Robertson]] et. al.==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | |
|||
* '''[[Allison Robertson]]''' – articles restored and redirected to [[The Donnas]]. Feel free to add content to the articles if notability can be asserted per the discussion below – [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]][[User talk:Gaillimh|<sup>Conas tá tú?</sup>]] 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC) <!--04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{la|Allison Robertson}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Allison Robertson|restore]]<tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Robertson|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|Allison Robertson}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Allison Robertson|restore]]<tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Robertson|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
:{{la|Maya Ford}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Maya Ford|restore]]<tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Ford|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|Maya Ford}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Maya Ford|restore]]<tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Ford|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
Line 430: | Line 438: | ||
*'''Endorse''' per Brookie and Seraphimblade. There is no need to restore a vacuous article to history behind the appropriate redirects. Band members shouldn't have independent articles until they can establish independent notability. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse''' per Brookie and Seraphimblade. There is no need to restore a vacuous article to history behind the appropriate redirects. Band members shouldn't have independent articles until they can establish independent notability. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse deletion''' `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse deletion''' `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[Dennis Stamp]]==== |
====[[Dennis Stamp]]==== |
Revision as of 04:51, 20 February 2007
15 February 2007
Norton_Buffalo
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
UNDELETE_II I had received a few e-mails, noting that Wikipedia had absolutely nothing regarding Norton Buffalo, I typed my name in and found it to be true. Today, I submitted a biography from my web page, that could allow people to access this information. It was thereafter marked for "Speedy Deletion". The information i included, while it indeed comes from my own site, and while it, as well is regarding my own career, was posted as a means to inform people about me, not inflate my own ego. As a Grammy nominated member of the entertainment industry who has been playing on and releasing records for over 35 years, it seemed a disservice to the community to have nothing at all within the Wikipedia database. I understand fully, your concerns over conflict of interest, vanity etc, and respect them. Thus it would be great if a one of the folks within the Wikipedia community could examine this information and make it accessible. For more information you can check my webpage at www.norton-buffalo.com. I think you will find that it is fair and balanced ... I have had a long and blessed carreer. Thanks for your consideration regarding this. NB Buffharp 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The noob
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Administrator, in closing, decided delete when there was no clear consensus for delete. Disregarding sockpuppets, there were 27 keeps and only 12 deletes with clear accepted claims towards notability and verifiability through sources independent of The noob by a number of experienced Wikipedians. To assert that a sufficient number of the keeps were offered in bad faith (see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators) in order for there to be a rough consensus to delete is unbelievable. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Wikipedia is also supposed to operate by consensus rather than fiat. This deletion therefore needs to be subject to further review on the basis of its irregularity with respect to Wikipedia's basic principles. Balancer 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.mmorpg.com/humor.cfm - This is where The Noob is published on MMORPG.com http://www.wow-europe.com - A news post was made on 16/2/06 about The noob. I dont think anyone is doubting the notability of World of Warcraft. Since it is clear the comic is notable, and this can be proven with the above links, this leaves only the cruft argument. An article can not be deleted on this basis alone. I will admit that the article could use cleaning up, and that would have been the appropriate tag, rather than an AfD. The article should be restored and protected, and I will get to work cleaning it up a bit. Luckyherb 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
'Additional:' Although this may not be the appropriate place for this personal opinion, this comic seems to have been targetted by the somewhat 'anti-webcomic' editor and vandal-in-chief NetOracle, who appears to simply label all webcomics as irrelevant and thus merit deletion. He never gives any significant reasoning for this line of thought and simply disregards any arguments to the contrary and thus it is of my own personal opinion that he should simply be banned from editing altogether. I could better understand his viewpoint and behaviour more if it was consistent across all of the articles he has nominated for deletion; it simply seems that as far as he is concerned no webcomic should be included in Wikipedia.Concerned Wikipedia User
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list
- Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX song list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
I believe the consensus was misread. Most people believed that merging the articles, either into their parents or into a single article, was the right way to go, but the closing admin decided it wasn't "practical" to do so and just went with "delete", because the list was indiscriminate. The delete votes were "listcruft" or "unencyclopedic" with no real strong reasoning, and none objected to a merge (some supported it). I believe the list is not indiscriminate (and cannot see where it qualifies as such), I believed the closing admin overlooked consensus improperly, and I believe there was doubt here, and when there is doubt, do not delete. I would like to see this and the other articles involved in this AfD overturned so that they can be merged. UsaSatsui 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, the admin acted on his own opinion, not the concensus. If he wanted to argue it was impractical he should've done so in the AfD. Sockatume 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. "Impractical" is not a valid reason to go against consensus. Consensus was clearly for Merge, not Delete. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Merging was more than practicle (sic) enough to do. (jarbarf) 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn; the closing admin actually did close it as a merge but deleted the edit where he did so. I don't believe the listing of difficulties should be kept, but a simple list of songs in a game based on music is not a problem. --NE2 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn As I learned in my delrev for United States Presidential trivia it is possible to protect the redirect to preserve edit summaries for gfdl licensing impracticalities, while still meeting community concensus for merging the article into others. The concensus was extremely clear for merge Jerry lavoie 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, weakly. A merge was impractical because the articles were gigantic already, and merging them was ludicrous. The closer didn't get that point across particularly well, but the correct decision was made (there was as strong an argument to delete as to merge). Proto ► 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it does turn out these articles are impossible to merge, then I would support a deletion without question. I just think the attempt should be made first. --UsaSatsui 09:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and undelete. Consensus was to merge, and I see no reason why that could not have been accomplished. RFerreira 08:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, valid closing argument. Kusma (討論) 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, valid and strong reasoning. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, `'mikka 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid reasoning. The impracticality of merging these articles anywhere is one of the reasons I nominated them on AFD to begin with. The result would be several incredibly long articles, or one article that would be one of the longest on this Wikipedia (the SuperNOVA list had previously been fourth on that list). --Coredesat 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it's valid reasoning, I'd like to know what the thought process was...he looked at it, said "Can't be done", and left it at that? I also can't see the logic behind "This is getting too big, let's axe it". Wikipedia is not paper.--UsaSatsui 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from closing admin: Many AfDs get a lot of merge opinions because people are reluctant to delete. In many cases, and many AfDs that I've closed, it doesn't appear as if people have actually considered what to merge and how the merge would be performed. In this case, the sheer size of some of the lists makes merging them into the articles impractical—the articles will be overwhelmed by the merged song list. Once an article is merged it is deleted (blanked actually because of GFDL), and only one person said the lists should be kept. That leaves delete as the viable consensus. —Doug Bell talk 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving an explanation. I disagree that people vote "merge" because they're too afraid to vote "delete". To me, it says "I want to keep, but not in this format". I also agree that while merge was the consensus, there was a disagreement on where to merge it too. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't reword my phrasing. I didn't say they were afraid. —Doug Bell talk 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Either way you phrase it, it works out to the same thing: you're considering "merge" to be "I want to delete, but I don't want to actually say delete". Unless you'd like to clarify your comment, because that's how I read it. --UsaSatsui 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't reword my phrasing. I didn't say they were afraid. —Doug Bell talk 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- The proposed merge was not into the articles, but into one list with all the duplicates unduplicated. --NE2 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment makes me wonder if you read the AfD. There are 5 suggestions to merge into the parent articles (what my comment above references); one comment favoring merging into the parent articles, but also supporting a merge into a single list of songs; 2 suggestions to merge into a single list of songs; and one suggestion to merge all of the articles and all of the song lists into a single article. Frankly, it doesn't matter which one of those you want to consider, merging is impractical. —Doug Bell talk 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving an explanation. I disagree that people vote "merge" because they're too afraid to vote "delete". To me, it says "I want to keep, but not in this format". I also agree that while merge was the consensus, there was a disagreement on where to merge it too. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from closing admin: Many AfDs get a lot of merge opinions because people are reluctant to delete. In many cases, and many AfDs that I've closed, it doesn't appear as if people have actually considered what to merge and how the merge would be performed. In this case, the sheer size of some of the lists makes merging them into the articles impractical—the articles will be overwhelmed by the merged song list. Once an article is merged it is deleted (blanked actually because of GFDL), and only one person said the lists should be kept. That leaves delete as the viable consensus. —Doug Bell talk 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it's valid reasoning, I'd like to know what the thought process was...he looked at it, said "Can't be done", and left it at that? I also can't see the logic behind "This is getting too big, let's axe it". Wikipedia is not paper.--UsaSatsui 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI have a suggestion: The main disagreement seems to be on the viability of merging, either into parent articles or into one article, and nobody really agrees that the articles should be kept as they were anyway. Let me try it: put the pages into my userspace and let me see if I can do anything with them. I do have a couple of ideas. --UsaSatsui 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a very workable suggestion. Balancer 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hillcrest Christian School
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This was a fully sourced article that met WP:V, there was a clear majority for keep and the article referenced notable sporting achievement. Yes, it still needs work, but that is the way with stubs. Simply, a wrong admin decision. Overturn and Keep. Bridgeplayer 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nadia Russ
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Starslip Crisis
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted after a number of sockpupet votes for deletion; sockpuppet votes for "keep" were discarded but sockpuppets for "delete" were arbitrarily kept; initial nomination for deletion was a publicity stunt and not legitimate. More information available here and here. --zandperl 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of people who became famous only in death
- List of people who became famous only in death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
The article needed cleanup/review, not deletion. The discussion was fairly split evenly (as noted on the deleter's page). I feel the problem is about scope & specificity not the title or concept behind the list. --Duemellon 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion Unless the entries all had references from an WP:RS confirming that they had become famous after death then its hard to see how this could have been anything other than Original Research. --Spartaz 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, fair interpretation of the debate. Arbitrary and subjective. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relist The Administrator, in closing, decided delete when there was no clear consensus for delete. When queried as to his decision making, the admin declined to comment, ie did not put forward the proposition that the merits of the delete arguments outweighed those of the keep arguments. The issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus perhaps gives insufficient guidance. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). 56% in favour of delete seems to fall outside the current understanding, the result should have been no consensus unless the closing admin articulated his reasons otherwise. If the closing admins had perceptions, perhaps he should have been contributing to the AfD and leaving it for another to close. The debate was opened 9 February, the standard to close is roughly 5 days (Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_lag_times), there would have been little harm in letting the discussion go just a little longer.--Golden Wattle talk 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus has very little to do with numbers. It has to do with the validity of argument. There could be 99 people making a nonsensical claim "X" while only one person makes an insightful, reasoned claim of "Y". The "Y" would carry the debate, even though it is only 1%. If both sides are well reasoned, rational views, and no solution can be found through discussion then the result is "no consensus", and the numbers do not matter. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please cite your guideline or policy supporting the view - it does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia:Consensus which is policy. Moreover my objection is that the deleting admin failed to advance any argument for ignoring the numbers, even when questioned. No consensus by the way (which is what I think it was) means don't delete.--Golden Wattle talk 09:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus has very little to do with numbers. It has to do with the validity of argument. There could be 99 people making a nonsensical claim "X" while only one person makes an insightful, reasoned claim of "Y". The "Y" would carry the debate, even though it is only 1%. If both sides are well reasoned, rational views, and no solution can be found through discussion then the result is "no consensus", and the numbers do not matter. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- endorse deletion reasonable and fair evaluation of the debate. Jerry lavoie 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Agree with closing admin. List is also, like Guy said, too arbitrary and subjective. Garion96 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse As is often said here at DRV, "AfD is not a vote". This means that administrators weigh arguments as policy when determining the outcome of a debate not just raw (or even adjusted) numbers. In this case the fact that there is no clear numerical consensus does not mean that a close based on the broad consensus enjoyed by policy and guidelines was mistaken. Eluchil404 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, AfD is not a head-count, well within closing discretion. Daniel.Bryant 06:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, but only if there is no prejudice to recreation in a better form. There has been some serious work put into this list, but it also seems that there was resistance to making the improvements necessary for it to become encyclopedic. Renamed, reorganized, with good criteria, sources and citations it could be made acceptable. If anyone wants to make an attempt at resurrecting this list, I'd be happy to provide them with the deleted list to cannibalize. Most good articles and lists start out as defective, flawed articles and lists. -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion with plenty of prejudice against recreation in any shape or form - a bundle of WP:ILIKEIT votes do not a consensus to keep make, or a even a no consensus. The worst thing was the way in which people seem to think "notable" is any less subjective than "famous": it isn't. For starters, what definition of "notable" do you use without falling into original research? Within administrative discretion. Quite apart from that, a list like this could become absolutely vast and unmanageable. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, `'mikka 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endore relist The actual title of the page belies it's intent & application in practice. The criteria for determining the degree & intensity of the fame has been created & was being debated well before the proposal for deletion came up. The criteria, indeed, is much more specific than the title states. Fame does NOT have to be as subjective nor original research. There doesn't have to even be a consensus regarding the fame of an individual to be included. The list is useful and can be done without opinion, if criteria is agreed upon & specific enough. I vote it is reinstated but after or only when interested parties make a concerted effort to develop criteria which reduces the chances for opinions & POV. --Duemellon 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. The arguments for deletion were much stronger and carried the day. I also doubt that any recreation can be capable of fixing the problems with the premise of this article. — coelacan talk — 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak endorse The discussion on the AFD could be taken as a rough consensus to delete, IMO; although more explanation would have been valuable and a "no consensus" result would have probably been most appropriate, the action was defensible. Re:Supermajority and Golden Wattle, there is a point to be made in terms of general AFD policy. Balancer 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion per my comments as nominator and per echoing what's been said above. Otto4711 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Undelete. Another of those arbitrary deletions of good and - yes, useful work. <KF> 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Allison Robertson et. al.
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dennis Stamp
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dennis was actually a fairly notable wrestler in Texas and Florida in the 70's. He held numerous (10) N.W.A. championships and was even featured in Sylvester Stallone's movie Paradise Alley in 1978. Because of his somewhat dubious appearance in Beyond the Mat in the late 90's he has gained a bad rap as fancruft, but I think he is really a valid notable part of wrestling history from the 70's in the South. Jamestrepanier 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |