Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Line 6:
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 14:
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/Qian Zhijun|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Qian Zhijun}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun|AfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
*'''Closing admin's notes:''' DRV is here to review the process of deletion, not the article in question. This article was sent to afd the second time by DRV - as such that Afd should have been allowed to remain open for significantly more time than 45 minutes. One out of process deletion (as determined by DRV) is not fixed by doing it again - and I think thought people should have learnt something from the Daniel Brandt wheel war. IAR is a great rule, it allows you you bypass bureaucracy in the light of pure common sense. But closing a contentious debate you are involved in is NOT in the spirit of IAR - or for that matter the deletion policy. Lastly, there are no BLP issues, per several of the people who participated in this discussion - we are just reporting what someone else has said (referenced to its source) not insulting the man ourselves. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 02:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 39:
*** We're not attached to the article. On the contrary, we rather want to get rid of it, as it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As the closer of the second AfD has pointed out, there was even more time for discussion than normal. No arguments have been presented which found the support of a majority of editors. If an article is twice deleted after discussion, you should just live with it. This is not about "The xth DRV didn't correspond with the yth AfD", this is just about the plain question "Is this article of any value to an encyclopedia" and the answer is "No, it should be speedy-deleted per CSD:G10" --[[User:Mbimmler|Mbimmler]] 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
****Oh BS. Several featured articles could be deleted as worthless to an encyclopedia if you're going to take that standard. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
* '''Speedy close'''. Honestly, he's "famous" for being fat. Does anybody ''not'' see why we should stop this pointless bickering about process?--'''[[User talk:Shanel|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#CD2626;">§hanel</fontspan>]]''' 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': This whole situation is probably all my fault. I made strong arguments for deletion in the original AfD, based on the effect this article might have on the living person who is its subject. This is an area of BLP policy to which I am concerned that insufficient attention is frequently given and is an extremely serious concern to me (see generally, [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad]]). The original closing admin, Daniel.Bryant, indicated that these arguments were pretty much the basis for his original close as delete. Then someone who'd been tied up in RL until after the AfD closed came by Daniel's talkpage with some colorable (though not I think ultimately persuasive) counter-arguments, and I suggested that it would make sense to discuss them in the context of AfD rather than DRV. From that point on, hilarity ensued. Frankly, if I'd known that all this procedural morass and bickering was going to ensue, I would have just said to the commenter "tough stuff, you missed the deadline, you lost your chance, go away." I suppose I will have to bear that in mind for next time. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Just delete the damn thing''': what a waste of time and energy by all parties. How about improving the real content of this encyclopedia instead. [[User:Danny|Danny]] 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 58:
***I am new to this debate (having not participated in either of the AFDs), but I would like to echo jeff's comments above and state that many of the arguments to maintain the deletion make me very nervous, as they cite things like "boredom" and "silliness" rather than actual policy. Given the fact that there are stories on this subject from reputable news sources, we need better reasons than those to omit this subject from inclusion. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] ([[User talk:DropDeadGorgias|talk]]) 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''STRONGEST possible overturn'''. Have we learned NOTHING from having 13 deletion debates on Daniel Brandt? [[Wikipedia:Process is important|Process is important, people.]] The point of having debates on things like this is to find consensus, to understand how the community interprets its own policies, and to bring the issue to closure. This is not, as bainer put it in his closure, a request for "process for process' sake". Those arguing on the losing side of a debate deserve a certain degree of respect: they deserve that their argument is considered by the community, they deserve the chance to be heard, and they deserve a fair, impartial closure so that they can understand in the end that they lost, not because of some arbitrary decision, but because the community did not agree with them - once that point is arrived at, we have closure and we can move on. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''; you can't close a contentious AFD in one hour, and there actually are legitimate, mainstream news sources for this person. Sure, the phenomenon is cruel, but so was some of the exploitation surrounding [[Joseph Merrick]]. We document what is notable, we don't decide what should or shouldn't be. We're not making fun of the kid; we're reporting what was said in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] about how other people did. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<fontb colorstyle="color:#11A1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;"><b><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt></b></font>]] 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**The problem is the bad tendency of editors to factor every subject as a biography of some person. Like the incident with Michael Sneed, an article about ''this'' subject shouldn't be pretending to be a biography of a person. The idea that this is a biography of Qian Zhijun's life and works is laughable. As the article itself said, this person's experience is ''one example'' of what the ''actual'' subjects are, which, upon reading the sources cited beyond their attention-grabbing introductions, appear to be [[obesity in China]] and [[e'gao]]. ''At the very best'', therefore, it should be presented as but one example of the latter subject. (Singling out this one person as a poster boy for obesity in China is definitely wrong, note.)<p>One irony leaps right at us here: [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] asks what we do with things that are important. Answering that point with "we" meaning "all editors" rather than meaning just administrators, it appears, from looking at the redlinks at [[obesity in China]] and [[e'gao]], that we what we do is not actually write articles on them at all, spending all our energies instead on declaring people to be "internet memes" and writing articles that pretend to be their biographies. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
***Rather ironically, after this DRV was speedy closed earlier, I started writing an article on [[E'gao]]. It's currently stored on my PC at work, but I can maybe VPN in over the weekend and get something up. It'll be little more than a stub about a neologism, though, since I can only find two distinct reliable sources so far. ''--[[User:DeLarge|DeLarge]] 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)''
Line 69:
**That's all right. Any editor who wants to write an article about [[e'gao]], rather than about one specific example of it, hasn't lost much in not having this content to use as a basis. [http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/03/11/11chinasarcasm.html Here's a source]. [http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=55539 Here's another]. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221077,00.html Here's a third]. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', '''speedy close''' as process-wonkery at its worst. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**So expecting a closure to reflect weight-of-argument and consensus is process-wonkery? {{<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|Badlydrawnjeff}}]] ([[User talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnjeff|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Endorse deletion''', '''speedy close''', BLP supercedes DRV. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**where was the BLP issue settled? Unaddressed objections have been raised to the simple claim. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 78:
****I don't think that anyone is arguing that this article should exist to "make fun of him", but rather that he is notable by virtue of being the primary subject of articles in major, verifiable news sources. BLP states that articles on living persons should be held to the highest levels of scrutiny when it comes to verifiability, NPOV, and all other content-governing wikipedia policies. I don't think anyone is arguing against it, but rather that the mere existence of an article on him does not violate BLP. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] ([[User talk:DropDeadGorgias|talk]]) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
****And who has claimed to have read every edit in the history and determined that every edit is a violation. Remember, [[WP:BLP]] only authorizes deletion when there is no acceptable edit to revert to. "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, '''''where there is no NPOV version to revert to''''', should delete the article without discussion." (Emphasis added.) There are plenty of sourced, non-controversial edits in the history, so [[WP:BLP]] does '''not''' authorize a deletion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' is my ''opinion'' on this matter. Process is important, yes, but blindly abiding by process with no thought to the state of the encyclopedia is the core of [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]. Seeing this dragged back and forth and back again is inane. [[User:Arkyan|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#0000FF;">Ark</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#6060BF;">yan</fontspan></b>]] • [[User_talk:Arkyan|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - I don't endorse the process, but good grief, at some point, we need to decide that we want to be an encyclopedia and quit having stuff like this. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
**What's not encyclopedic about an article on an internationally documented media phenomenon? [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 100:
:PS I'd like an '''overturn''' if no-one's interested in my compromise... ''--[[User:DeLarge|DeLarge]] 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)''
:*See, this is exactly what I had in mind. If everyone could calm down and let the process run, there'd be time to calmly rewrite the article in a way that would address any concerns and still document a notable phenomenon. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If DeLarge's version is created and kept at [[Little Fatty]], I have no objection to keeping the [[Qian Zhijun]] article deleted. I still think leaving out the name is foolish, and that it's unencyclopedic to worry about hurting people's feelings, but apparently too many people think otherwise. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<fontb colorstyle="color:#11A1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;"><b><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt></b></font>]] 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - per Jkelly and because this is the utter definition of rerunning a debate until someone gets a result they like. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 00:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 107:
|}
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 115:
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|"Z"}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/"Z"|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:"Z"}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Z"|AfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
not notable [[User:Gerhard1|Gerhard1]] 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 132:
|}
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 141:
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{lt|drmmt}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/Template:drmmt|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Template:drmmt}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_14#Template:Drmmt3|TfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
This was speedy deleted by [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] because it "misrepresents policy" (see [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_14#Template:Drmmt3|here]]). However, this was referring to {{[[Template:drmmt3|drmmt3]]}}, and not {{[[Template:drmmt|drmmt]]}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.124.89.82&oldid=68542394 bv] for [[Parma, Ohio|this unending edit war]]*cough*) - and as if [[WP:TEMPLAR]] didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{[[Template:trivia|trivia]]}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{[[Template:NPOV|NPOV]]}} without even explaining why. --[[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - don't agree with nom, if a newbie removes a template without an edit summary, you can use a template explaining edit summaries. If editors start to revert war over a template they can be cautioned for going upto 3RR. This warning isn't required. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' as deleter, because templates should not misrepresent policy. Because this template is designed similar to other warning templates, it implies that removing maintenance templates is grounds for blocking. Aside from that, novice users will not understand such a warning and advanced users will likely not appreciate being warned by template, so in either case writing a message manually would be better. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#0000DD;">><fontspan colorstyle="color:#0066FF;">R<fontspan colorstyle="color:#0099FF;">a<fontspan colorstyle="color:#00CCFF;">d<fontspan colorstyle="color:#00EEFF;">i</fontspan>a</fontspan>n</fontspan>t</fontspan><</fontspan></b>]] 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:*The fact that you think it ''implies'' blocking semes a bit silly - drmmt3 might have done so, but drmmt? And, for that matter, if the design ''implies'' something that others don't, then it can be changed, which I would be glad to do should this template be undeleted, and someone should point out the design problems. And the argument that novice users won't understand it - clearly not grounds for speedy. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''List at TfD''' This is not the place to set WP policy on the use of templates. Nor is this set by individuals acting via speedy. There is a procedure for this, and it should be followed. Speedy is for unquestionably valid deletions. Radiant has found a definite problem, but the problem can probably be solved by editing the template. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 161:
|}
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 171:
:{{lt|Tpv}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/Template:Tpv|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Template:Tpv}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Tpv|AfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
I'm not sure why this page was deleted by [[User:Resurgent insurgent|Resurgent insurgent]] in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace&oldid=102048230]. And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept.
Line 189:
|}
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 197:
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Qian Zhijun}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/Qian Zhijun|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Qian Zhijun}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun|AfD]]|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)|2nd AfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by [[User:Daniel.Bryant]], and then [[User:Drini]] (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by [[User:Thebainer]] as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 204:
|}
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 212:
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Template:Fur}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/Template:Fur|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Template:Fur}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Fur|TfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by [[User:JzG]] on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD ''if'' at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is ''not'' what was deleted. [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 232:
|}
{| class="navbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
Line 241:
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{lc|Settlements in Kurdistan}} <ttkbd>(</ttkbd>[[Special:Undelete/Category:Settlements in Kurdistan|restore]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Category:Settlements in Kurdistan}} cache]</span><ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9#Category:Settlements in Kurdistan|CfD]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 26|DRV]]<ttkbd>|</ttkbd>[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15#Category:Settlements by region|Joint CfD]]<ttkbd>)</ttkbd>
Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. [[WP:V]] demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". --<small> [[User:Cool Cat|Cat]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|chi?]]</sup> 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)