Firestarter Racing Mini Monster (Truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
Administrator Stated This Page Was Deleted Because It Was About A Person Not Noteworthy. If Administrator Had Read The Page They Would Realize It Is About A Newly Developed Monster Truck, And There Are Countless Pages On Specific Monster Trucks On Wikipedia. Kildare2 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted the article. The templated reason was not very accurate, but it still fits speedy criteria as the truck entirely not notable as it is "yet to debut publically" [sic.] If it does debut and becomes notable (ie a subject of reliable third-party coverage), then you can come back and write an article about. Renata (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn CSD criteria very specifically does not allow for speedy deletion of products. Deletion should be attempted via PROD or AfD. Expanding the narrow criteria of CSD is a violation of the intentions of the community when they approved CSD. No matter how deletion-worthy an article is, if it does not neatly fit within a specific CSD criteria, then it can not be speedied. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. If you bring this to AfD (as prod will obviously be contested), the result will be "speedy". So I really see no purpose of red tape bureaucracy. Renata (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn a truck is not a person no matter how you look at it, and doesn't fit A7. That said, Renata is correct, and the article certainly won't last a full 5 days on AfD, especially since it's "Yet to debut publically" as the article says. Suggest either Kildare2 withdraw this review and repost the article after the trck's debut and with some reliable sources, or Renata undeletes and AfDs it, after which it can safely be deleted after a few votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and take it to AfD, where it most likely will snowball massively. While this is of course just bureaucracy, if this had just been taken to AfD/PROD in the first place we wouldn't have to be here. Just a note, Renata, but whenever misused CSD end up here they're usually overturned. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) See below.[reply]
- Comment - My Comments As Creator Of The Page, And In Response To Renata3:***
Renata3: Apparently I need to post to my own talk page in an effort to dispute your decision to speedily delete my page titled 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)' and I must say, I have read the comments of other administrators pertaining to the manner you handled this matter, and I find it troubling. As an administrator I assume that you are expected to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, and yet you don't seem to follow them yourself. In fact, you denied me my due process and became judge, jury and executioner all in one...apparently your efforts to change your self proclaimed 'deletionist' ways aren't going so well. As well, I expect you did all this pertaining to a topic which I'm quite sure you know nothing about, which brings me to my next point. As far of the relevance of my truck is concerned, let me bring to your attention some information which you may be able to use to make a more informed decision. Aside from being an absolutely unique and original hand built one of a kind vehicle, it was created with the assistance of a gentleman named Steve Combs. Steve is not only a monster truck veteran, but one of the inventors of the nitrogen charged shock, and his product is used on practically every professional monster truck racing team, including such greats as Grave Digger. According to 'Monster Trucks' by Scott Johnston:"Today, the Combs racing shock is one of the most common components found on a Monster Truck, perhaps second only to the terra tire." (Pg. 226) Do you really believe he'd be wasting his time on something as 'irrelevant' as the Firestarter truck? To even entertain the thought that after the hours, experience and cost involved, that this vehicle is not noteworthy only exposes your ignorance to the topic. The fact is, you're looking at an authentic one of a kind vehicle - the first of it's kind before it makes it's debut - and you don't know enough on the topic to recognize it's importance in the industry. If anything, I am only guilty of being proactive in posting this article before attending my first major event, and understand that contractually I am not able to disclose any information at this time. It was my hope that when the event is announced, that those interested could find out more about the truck before attending...isn't that why an encyclopedia is used, to do research? I would like the courtesy of being involved in the disputation process, as I was denied access to appropriate procedure the first time this page was posted. A good first start would be if I could be provided with a copy of the page you deleted so that it can be reposted with my concerns. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare2 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy deletion did not fit the letter of CSD, yes, and was therefore an inappropriate deletion. However, the article does not merit inclusion, and would be deleted at AfD. Undeleting an article on principle, fully knowing it would be deleted at AfD, and sending it to AfD for process sake is needless bureaucracy, and a waste of editors' time. So keep deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not overturn: While the criteria of A7 in this spirit was not proper, I see no administrator abuse. It was an error, to which we all make at one point or another. The article, though, is crap and doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because it is not notable. Sending it to AfD would result in its snowball'ed closure and would be a waste of everyone's time. I'd agree on reopening the article just to speedy delete it with a proper rationale, though. Furthermore, Deletion Review is not a place for rants against an administrator. seicer | talk | contribs 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and recreated it to redelete it under G11, as it was nothing more than spamming of his YouTube videos and web-site. That should satisfy the above comments. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, works for me. As long as we don't make this into another push to expand A7... Switching to neutral. lifebaka++ 03:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I endorse the G11 deletion. I can't see the deleted revisions but I trust seicer's judgment re: CSD's. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Really, Don't Worry About it Guys!!! After the lovely comments make by Seicer, and the inappropriate actions taken by Renata3, I'm going to go ahead and ask that any information I've uploaded to Wikipedia be respectfully deleted from your Database. It's been made very apparent that this is not the place for me. Thanks for your time. -- Kildare2 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn - A7 doesn't fit. As for G11, there is nothing from the deleted article listed in this discussion establish that G11 applies. Simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for G11 and there is no showing of the article being blatant advertising. -- Suntag ☼ 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This isn't a product and it wasn't made by a company--it's somebody's hobby. There's no conceivable assertion of notability, and there's no way it would pass AfD. If you want to troutslap over the mistaken CSD citation, fine, but it would be silly to undelete it. Chick Bowen 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as G11. Language used by nomnator above, for example "...contractually I am not able to disclose any information at this time..." make it impossible to view this as anything other than a promotional attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The speedy procedures and limitations are not there by accident. Proposals to extend A7 to other classes of articles have been soundly and repeatedly rejected by the community. Do we mean that administrators are supposed to follow policy, or do we not? Can I find whatever articles I think will not get through afd and nominate them for speedy even if they specifically are listed as not being deletable for that reason, and expect my colleagues to support me? We will then have 1500 admins deleting on 1500 different interpretations and what stays in Wikipedia will depend on which of us gets there first--WP the encyclopedia whose coverage is random? Sure, it doesn't work right some of the time--is the solution to improve consistency, or abandon all attempts at it? On a practical basis, the time and trouble in deleting this article via afd would have been much less then speedying it and then having it discussed here. If arbitrary process is challenged, the simple thing to do is to let it go to a community decision--saves trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy endorse as G7. The author has requested removal above and there is no benefit to keeping it against their wishes whatever the validity of either speedy deletion rationale. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This is not the place to propose new criteria. It clearly did not fit the one it was deleted under, and promotional intent or conflict of interest does not prove a page is actually irremediably promotional. Even if it is, deletion is not very sensible if the topic is encyclopedic, which is a matter for AfD. Non-adherence to our own rules is a perfectly sensible reason for an exasperated new contributor to wish to withdraw his contributions, and should not be used as an excuse to continue to not adhere to these rules.John Z (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn A clear abuse of process. Jtrainor (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThank you John Z, 'exasperated' is a perfect description on how I felt after posting my first article, as is 'genuinely shocked' after the comments and accusations made by Seicer. My intentions were to post an article concerning a newly completed monster truck, relevant due to the fact that is posesses a never before seen design and concept. To directly address some of the accusations made concerning the page...this is not simply a hobby. Stamp collecting is a hobby. This is a 'concept' truck for lack of a better word, designed with the input of experts in the industry and costing tens of thousands of dollars. The purpose of placing it on Wikipedia was to inform those interested in the monster truck industry, not simply as a promotional tool or a method to link to a simple YouTube video as Seicer suggests. I would like some advice on how to proceed here, I'm getting some good input from some very helpful administrators, and it seems I've been wronged to some extent in this case.
Kildare2 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as improper A7 in the first place, then take it to AFD and, when the lack of reliable sources becomes apparent, let nature take its course. Bureaucracy++! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, fie on process. The fact that it's not notable and has no independent sources is what matters, the fact that a truck is not strictly speaking a company or product seems to be a sideshow. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy endorse as G7, since the author has requested the page be deleted (see above). Stifle (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this would make sense to do after the article is restored. this first speedy must first be overturned explicitly as an error, in order to reject the views of such admins as the one who closed it and the supporters of it above who ignore the clear, explicit, repeated requirements of wikipedia policy. if they had said at their RfAs that A7 meant whatever an admin chose to have it mean they would not have been selected. How else can we express the need to follow policy? I apologize to the author of the article for the amount of fuss, but general issues are involved, not just this article. DGG (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to state my strong disagreement with DGG here. To insist that a right result be overturned because it was based on a wrong reason (though this should be duly noted) is pure bureaucracy. DRV is a forum for improving the encyclopedia by fixing the errors of the deletion process, not for teaching admins a lesson. WP:TROUT is thataway. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|