Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk | contribs) →[[Simon Pulsifer]]: deletion overturned, article restored |
71.36.251.182 (talk) |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
* '''Endorse speedy-deletions''' for lack of context. Speedy-deletion does not create a prejudice against the creation of a real article someday. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
* '''Endorse speedy-deletions''' for lack of context. Speedy-deletion does not create a prejudice against the creation of a real article someday. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
* '''Endorse deletions''', a random sample shows that they were indeed effectively empty. Feel free to create meaningful stubs, or even actual articles. Quality is more important than quantity these days, especially for politicians. Come to think of it, that applies to the real world as well... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
* '''Endorse deletions''', a random sample shows that they were indeed effectively empty. Feel free to create meaningful stubs, or even actual articles. Quality is more important than quantity these days, especially for politicians. Come to think of it, that applies to the real world as well... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
* '''Overturn and send to AFD''' these do not appear to be speediable, and ought to be restored and sent to the proper forum. Deletions of this nature do not serve the project. --[[User:71.36.251.182|71.36.251.182]] 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:59, 4 October 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
30 September 2006
TaskJuggler
I believe the deletion of the TaskJuggler article was a mistake. It is a widely used software. On UNIX/Linux it is _the_ MS Project equivalent. The project description language that was developed for the program is a major innovation to break out of the limitations that commonly used GANTT chart editors impose on their users. It is shipped with almost all major Linux distributions and has a Freshmeat popularity ranking of around 830. It has been covered multiple times by the international Linux press. Articles in English can be found at [1] and [2]. So, I kindly ask you to restore the article again. There is an equivalent articles in the German Wikipedia as well.
Both the links given above are 404s. Endorse deletion unless something substantial is presented to justify overturning the AfD.--Sam Blanning(talk) 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)- Comment: No idea why they're coming up as 404s for you, Sam. I can get them both to load fine in Mozilla. -- nae'blis 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, they work fine on my own computer with Firefox (I was using a library computer with IE before). The articles certainly look like third-party coverage, the only trouble is that they're how-to guides - they don't say anything about, say, how widespread the software is, which is what is of most encyclopaedic interest. However, I'm going to say undelete and relist as the AfD's delete consensus was on the basis of the article lacking sources, and we now have what as far as I'm aware are reliable sources. We need to be more sure that the articles are or aren't enough than I can be. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Albert Piddington (Australian politician)
There was a mass deletion of stub articles for Australian politicians, apparently because they were cookie-cutter stubs, which is not grounds for deletion. I believe that each of the politicians is or was an elected member of a state or national legislature, and hence would normally be considered notable, even if they are no longer in office. I am asking that the following articles be restored, together with any others that were deleted at the same time. Information on them ought to be available from the legislative body to which they belong or used to belong and from the Australian news media.
- Adrian Cruickshank
- Adrian Piccoli
- Albert Piddington (Australian politician)
- Alison Megarrity
- Allan Andrews
- Allan Shearan
- Andrew Constance
- Andrew Fraser (New South Wales politician)
- Andrew Humpherson
- Anthony Packard
- Brad Hazzard
- Brian Langton
- Bruce Gaudry
- Bruce Jeffery
- Chris Hartcher
- David Barr
- David Berry
- David Campbell (Australian politician)
- Dawn Fardell
- Don Page (politician)
- Ernest Park
- Frank Chaffey
- Frederick Caterson
- Garry West (politician)
- George Thompson (Australian politician)
- Gerard Martin
- Gladys Berejiklian
- Graham West
- Grant McBride
- Guy Matheson
- Harry Moore
- Harry Woods (Australian politician)
- Ian McManus
- Ian Slack-Smith
- Jeff Hunter (politician)
- Jillian Skinner
- John Aquilina
- Ken Booth
- Kerry Hickey
- Kevin Moss
- Kevin Rozzoli
--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose undeletion. All of these people are undoubtedly notable, but all of these pages were worse than nothing. Someone mass created hundreds of nanostubs, which consisted of exactly the same page with only the names changed, which told people absolutely nothing they didn't already know. In many cases, it wasn't even clear which person was being referred to without further research. I retained numerous pages where someone had later added information as basic as what party they were from, or what years they were in office, or even what electorate they represented - information that actually helped us work out who the person was (any two of these three would suffice). Without this, however, they were worse than nothing, and I thus speedied them as "no context". I have no doubt that they'll return someday (chances are that I'll ultimately write them), but please don't reinstate this crap. Rebecca 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted I agree with Rebecca, these article had basically no content, and provided no real context to actually be useful for later expansion. Since most of these people are presumably living (but who can tell since the articles contain no dates or other points of reference), these also create issues with BLP that are not acceptable given the hit and run nature of the stubs.--Peta 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted -- agree. no content, other than the subjects name, and their role in parliament. Simply a reprhasing of the title with a one-liner tidbit. - Longhair\talk 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I agree with Rebecca, Peta and Longhair. These aren't articles or valid stubs. Stub guidelines recommend a minimum of 3-10 sentences for stubs, but these are just single sentences that, except for the name and house, are identical to each other. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing articles on these politicians, but we don't need 40-whatever near-identical single sentences to do that. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. TruthbringerToronto:...they were cookie-cutter stubs, which is not grounds for deletion. Wrong. From the {{db-empty}} template: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Someone can write actual stubs which include actual information, but these ain't them. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete, do not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1) --Calton | Talk 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, they did not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's odd: the sentence I posted was in English. Is there some difficulty here? --Calton | Talk 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I guess so, you seem to be having trouble with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's odd: the sentence I posted was in English. Is there some difficulty here? --Calton | Talk 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- The key word there is context. The sentence "x is an Australian politician elected as a member of y" does provide sufficient context. The flip side is that these appear to be mass-created substubs, which I don't really like either, so I have no opinion on the deletion. JYolkowski // talk 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, they did not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted but Allow re-creation by TruthbringerToronto or anyone who wants to write real articles about them. Sometimes, in deletion debates about marginal topics, somebody says "Yeah, well what if somebody used cut-and-paste to create dozens of stubs about every [whatever the topic is]? While usually nobody expects that to really happen, it seems this is an authentic case. Stubs of one sentenece or less are generally speediable under A1 anyway, and cut-and-paste shenanigans should not be encouraged. If they are notable and verifiable, create real articles about them using verifiable sources. Dozens of articles that just say x is a y make us all look bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, politicians are non-notable and have little content. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted -- the articles tell you nothing more than what you must have already known when you looked them up in the first place. However, allow recreation if anyone wishes to add detail. They meet the guideline for notability as members of state or federal legislatures. Jeendan 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Deletion. Although these articles may have been very boring stubs. They were very important articles on very important NOTABLE people. These articles lay the foundation for what Wikipedia will one day be. Todd661 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- What, utterly useless? Because that's what these articles were. They weren't "boring" - to be bored, you must engage in a tedious activity for long enough to become frustrated. These articles would take less than a second to read. You don't feel bored, you feel annoyed that you clicked on a link, thinking you'd find some more information about the subject, and instead find that someone has wasted your time and bandwidth for the sake of filling space. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted for mostly the same reasons as Rebecca. "{{subst:PAGENAME}} is an Australian Politician" does not an article make. — Werdna talk criticism 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Restore all. A stub is better than nothing. It provides a framework onto which other editors can add additional information. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- These aren't even stubs. And the "additional information" that would be added would be, well, EVERYTHING. I don't think the "Stone Soup" model of encyclopedia writing really works. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, the vast majority of Wikipedia users are not editors. The vast majority of people who come across sub-sub-stubs have no inclination to add additional information whatsoever; they won't think "Hooray, if I want to expand on this article then I don't have to write this one sentence", they will think "Why the hell did someone create this? If they'd just left the link red I wouldn't have just wasted my time following it and I would still know as much as I do now." --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. These articles were an eyesore and explained nothing. I would prefer that we start from scratch and actually write a decent article on some of these. --Roisterer 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Just so we all know what we're referring to, here's an example of one of the longer stubs that got deleted:
- '''Chris Hartcher''' is an [[Australia]]n politician, elected as a member of the [[New South Wales Legislative Assembly]] representing the [[Electoral district of Gosford|electorate of Gosford]]. {{Australia-politician-stub}} [[Category:New South Wales State politicians|Hartcher, Chris]][[Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians|Hartcher, Chris]][[Category:New South Wales Central Coast]]
- (continued) Shorter versions have only one category, and no "representing the. . ." clause. I'm not voting here because I don't think it matters much either way. But I think we can all agree that the best solution is to recreate these stubs with enough information that they're unquestionably valuable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If they could all look like that first one, they'd probably withstand not just CSD but AFD. This DRV is probably headed for an inconclusive end, but I'd endorse restoring the longer stubs and educating the original creator as to ways to make a better stub than c-n-p. -- nae'blis 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- And if you do this, I will re-delete all of these. 10-3 is a perfectly good consensus to keep deleted. Adding categories to a nanostub doth not make content (though feel free to write them in actual stub form). Rebecca 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just because we're endorsing a mistake now doesn't mean it's a bright idea to endorse it again later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- And if you do this, I will re-delete all of these. 10-3 is a perfectly good consensus to keep deleted. Adding categories to a nanostub doth not make content (though feel free to write them in actual stub form). Rebecca 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If they could all look like that first one, they'd probably withstand not just CSD but AFD. This DRV is probably headed for an inconclusive end, but I'd endorse restoring the longer stubs and educating the original creator as to ways to make a better stub than c-n-p. -- nae'blis 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse speedy-deletions for lack of context. Speedy-deletion does not create a prejudice against the creation of a real article someday. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletions, a random sample shows that they were indeed effectively empty. Feel free to create meaningful stubs, or even actual articles. Quality is more important than quantity these days, especially for politicians. Come to think of it, that applies to the real world as well... Guy 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and send to AFD these do not appear to be speediable, and ought to be restored and sent to the proper forum. Deletions of this nature do not serve the project. --71.36.251.182 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)