Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 20: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:57, 25 July 2006 editAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →[]: kept deleted← Previous edit Revision as of 01:59, 25 July 2006 edit undoAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →[]: closed - sent to AfDNext edit →
Line 97: Line 97:


*'''Endorse deletion''': The problem is that Misplaced Pages won't help spread the word for any cause, whether virtuous or vicious, because that amounts to advertising. The thing has to pass the "notability" bar: it has to be referred to by sources outside of its own context (e.g. a web site would need to be referred to by print or television, a television program would need print or web or radio, a radio show would need print or TV or web, etc.) and be mentioned enough that an explanation is required for the average, educated reader. This fails that bar at present. ] 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse deletion''': The problem is that Misplaced Pages won't help spread the word for any cause, whether virtuous or vicious, because that amounts to advertising. The thing has to pass the "notability" bar: it has to be referred to by sources outside of its own context (e.g. a web site would need to be referred to by print or television, a television program would need print or web or radio, a radio show would need print or TV or web, etc.) and be mentioned enough that an explanation is required for the average, educated reader. This fails that bar at present. ] 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

====]====
'''Relist''' on AfD. This was deleted out of process. I agree with the deletion. I was about to put it up myself, but I don't see how this meets speedy criteria. It seems to have been deleted for lack of content, but it was a stub that had only been created a few minutes earlier and while it probably should be deleted on various other grounds (], for instance), that requires discussion. ] 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' The first version I saw was a one-liner that included the words ''"in development"''. IMO that may well have pushed it over into the speedy category. Recreated version doesn't have that term, and it appears there is a version available for download now. (It's still a homemade game nobody's ever heard of, but an AFD wouldn't hurt.) ] 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*It has been recreated and listed on AFD, I think this request is moot. ] (]) 08:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close''' per Stifle. And I'm off to vote Delete, since it is ] created by the game's author. ] 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:59, 25 July 2006

< July 19 July 21 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

20 July 2006

Question mark glitches in Pokémon

These articles probably should be deleted, but... How is voting delete and merge "illegal"? "I am discounting the delete and merge votes, which are illegal." --Kunzite 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse - strange closure message from our mad russian friend but clearly the general opinion was that it was cruft. Interested editors can expand the articles that this was thought to be merged to - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse myself. I don't think the closure is being challenged per se (correct me if I'm wrong). I think Kunzite is using the wrong forum to learn why merge and delete votes violate GFDL. As such, I suggest this DRV be speedily adjourned - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A delete and merge in not "illegal" it's just not simple. GFDL does not protect facts, so if someone goes and verifies things independantly, they are free to add material into an article that existed in a deleted article. An argument could be made that, for more complicated material, a list of the contributors copy/pasted onto the talk of the target would satisfy GFDL. - brenneman 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title

This was deleted a while ago as a flawed hackish way of changing the title. I created a redirect there yesterday to Template:Wrongtitle (I also created one from Template:Badtitle), as it can be hard to remember the right name for the template - and Template:Title is a reasonable name. Now it is protected blank, despite the lack of any comments on the appropriateness of a redirect. It seems obviously useful to me. --SPUI (T - C) 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Endorse -- Has been speedied twice as a G4 recreation of the same redirect that SPUI created. Has been repeatedly deleted since 2004, having various contents. And the one thing that "title" most certainly is not would be "wrongtitle" -- they imply exactly opposite things. --William Allen Simpson 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist List on RFD. The issue of whether it's a good redirect to {{wrongtitle}} was never addressed; it's not a G4, because the content is different (the name of a page is irrelevant to G4, unless a page was deleted solely for having the name in question). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (Small addendum: I came here because SPUI brought this discussion to the attention of the IRC channel.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You can't "relist" something that was never listed in the first place. Bringing this to RFD for procedural reasons is just silly; if someone really thinks it is a harmful redirect, then they may nominate it, but encouraging such foolishness is not a good thing at all.--SB | T 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Procedures exist for a reason. If there's some unusually good reason to circumvent them, or the outcome is obvious from the beginning, then you can ignore them, but in this case neither of those is applicable. Therefore, this should be discussed at the appropriate forum, where people are probably going to be more familiar with discussing the deletion of redirects. There's a reason we have deletion discussions segregated into different places, and there's a reason that the community as a whole decided that deletion without discussion should not apply solely because the page in question happens to share a name with a page that was once deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways

discussion here

The closer seems to have simply counted votes rather than looking at the arguments. Very few people wanted it kept as-is, while most supported Category:Freeways and motorways. --SPUI (T - C) 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did read the discussion. After doing so, I determined there was no consensus. In fact, only by counting votes can one determine that there was a consensus. --Kbdank71 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read m:voting is evil. --SPUI (T - C) 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So how many times will we re-re-relist this discussion then? Syrthiss 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There was consensus to do away with Category:Limited-access roads and consensus to rename to Category:Freeways and motorways. Trying to get that recognized is not "forum shopping". --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll pass. I've given my reasoning. If you really think I need to read about voting and why it's evil, you haven't understood what I wrote. --Kbdank71 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand fully what you wrote - you counted votes. Therefore you did not close the discussion properly. --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
He reasonably clearly stated that he read the views, and established that there was no consensus. You claim that "most supported", which is voting, which as you say...is evil. Syrthiss 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
He said that "only by counting votes can one determine that there was a consensus". This is not the way to determine consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Syrthiss. That is exactly what I meant. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. SPUI, yes, I said that. I was referring to you, and that if you determined there was a consensus in this case, YOU counted votes. As I said, I read the discussion. This is all I have to say on this issue. --Kbdank71 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have never counted the votes; I have looked at the comments and seen that there is a clear consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The related Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Pirate Party of the United States

AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party of the United States

Was initially deleted because the party didn't exist back then. It *does* exist now -- http://www.pirate-party.us/ -- and since it's been getting a fair amount of international attention, I'd wager it's notable enough for an article...? —Nightstallion (?) 13:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse and keep deleted. The website existed then. Anybody with a couple bucks can create a website. Doesn't constitute notability. Running candidates and getting press coverage would constitute notability. The Pirate Party of Sweden has attracted significant attention, but this article is not about the Swedish party. Can you provide any citations of significant attention to the American offshoot? Fan-1967 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not too strong in my belief that this article should be restored, I was mainly wondering whether it was notable enough now; significant attraction (in the form of press coverage) I've found would be: Wired, out-law, The Inquirer, DVD-Recordable.org, p2pnet.net, slashdot. —Nightstallion (?) 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For the most part, not exactly "non-trivial" reports (they amount to "the Pirate Party is trying to form an American spinoff"), and most of those really don't qualify as reliable sources (p2pnet is not exactly the New York Times). The out-law article is about the French spinoff, not US. Fan-1967 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wired--Slashdot--Inquirer should suffice, no? And see the last line in the outlaw article, it mentions the US one. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the last line in the outlaw article, I cannot see how anyone could describe that as "non-trivial." Can you find any source anywhere that says this party is actually doing anything? Gathering signatures, fielding candidates, gaining followers, organizing? Any activity other than creating a website? Anything besides trying to start up? (And no, I don't think much of either Inquirer or slashdot as sources.) Fan-1967 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that those were the same sources used to prop up the claim of notability the FIRST time this article was put up for deletion, I'm having a hard time understanding the claim that it's gotten MORE "international attention" -- if so, it ought to be easy to do more than recycle the same ones over and over each time some re-creates this article. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated, I was just wondering and didn't have any strong feelings about this either way. I didn't read the whole AFD discussion, but to me it appeared that it was considered non-notable because it didn't get any google hits and had not been mentioned anywhere; if the references I've found have already been discussed in the AFD, feel free to close this. —Nightstallion (?) 08:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - This has made the news, and it would be good to get a wider consensus on if it's presently notable as a minor party in the United States. --Improv 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - Misplaced Pages is a resource for those seeking information. Placement in[REDACTED] isn't an affirmation of importance, and we shouldn't let our own ego go to our head - information. Factual, unbiased. But information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrin (talk • contribs)
  • Keep deleted for now, expand Pirate party article to mention to extent appropriate. Little evidence that it is notable in its own right, potentially only as an offshoot of the Swedish one, so mention it there. Martinp 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I've seen nothing but handwaving to back up the claim that this is any more noteworthy today than it was a month ago. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, come back when they are on the cover of Time. And I mean Time - it's very tedious when things are brought back to DRV every time a new mention appears on someone's blog. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deletedwe're drowning in extra process here. Nothing reversible took place, and per JzG. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ampfea

This page was marked for speedy deletion, basically because the first version of the article was a bit vague, and because the community's web site is currently unavailable due to bandwidth and cost considerations.

After I polished the article (I didn't do the initial version) up a bit, it was deleted nevertheless. I have grave doubts whether anyone actually bothered to read the discussion on the talk page, and I would like to have this page undeleted, so we can actually have a chance to work on it. Creation and deletion happened in a 24-hour period, which is rather short. --SeverityOne 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse Deletion. SeverityOne, it doesn't look "vague"; it looks like vanispamcruftisment for a site which as you note can't even afford to be in business. Sorry. Herostratus 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per above. WP:WEB would apply were this re-created and brought to AfD; I submit that it would not stand a chance. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse my own deletion strongly As the deleting admin, allow me to make a point with the article's first sentence: "As a general concept, AMPFEA is a place. It is somewhere, anywhere, you can meet someone with a mutual interest, anyone, who is alive." I don't think I have ever seen a clearer case of an article lacking a clear context than that. The article was quite long, but no text I can imagine could redeem a supposed "encyclopedic" article that started with the above as its opening premise. Xoloz 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough about the first paragraph; perhaps I should have deleted it as I originally intended to, but I didn't want to delete too much work of the original submitter. But is there at least a way I can retrieve the edits I made yesterday, so I can bring the article up to standards?

And Herostratus, it's a free community site, so what 'business' are you talking about? It's just as commercial as Misplaced Pages is, meaning that sometimes there is a request for donations, but usually the bill is paid by one or two people. Who are having a spot of trouble doing that at the moment. --SeverityOne 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion: The problem is that Misplaced Pages won't help spread the word for any cause, whether virtuous or vicious, because that amounts to advertising. The thing has to pass the "notability" bar: it has to be referred to by sources outside of its own context (e.g. a web site would need to be referred to by print or television, a television program would need print or web or radio, a radio show would need print or TV or web, etc.) and be mentioned enough that an explanation is required for the average, educated reader. This fails that bar at present. Geogre 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 20: Difference between revisions Add topic