Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:39, 7 September 2006

< September 5	September 7 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

7 September 2006

List of predictions made by Sylvia Browne

AfD discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of predictions made by Sylvia Browne.

As far as I can tell, the deletion was performed because most of her predictions were wrong. However, this was the entire point of the article - to allow people to see the predictions made by this self-proclaimed psychic and decide for themselves. The majority of voters seemed to think that the fact that she was always wrong was sufficient to warrant deletion, but I think these votes were made without fully appreciating the situation.

This article was linked from Sylvia Browne. Qarnos 11:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I nominated this for AfD and it wasn't because they were wrong but because the list of unencyclopedic. To top that off, several of the sections were copied directly from her website and the others were taken from elsewhere too (except they were blogs, so I was less reluctant to call those copyright violations). Maybe 2-3 comments can be counted as deciding based on the predictions if you read them that way. But I see several unencyclopedic comments in there versus one anonymous keep comment. Metros232 12:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 September 2006

Joey Greco

Overturn/relist; Joey Greco is the host of an internationally famous reality TV show. There's no reason why he should not have a wiki article. Deleting this article seems very hard to justify, and I can find very little info on why it was done. If there is an issue with the content of the last article, then the content should be addressed, but the article should not have been deleted. The subject of this article is not even borderline, and clearly has enough fame to have a wiki article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has twice been speedy-deleted as an attack page/vandalism, once as a copyright violation and twice for failing to assert notability (speedy-deletion criterion A7). Looking at the most complete version of the article, it still seemed to be more of a parody/attack than a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article. Other versions might charitably be called resumes but did not pass muster as even reasonable attempts at encyclopedia articles. Before asking the community to reconsider the decision to preempt the vandalism, I recommend that you take some time to create a draft in your userspace (for example, at user:Calgacus/Joey Greco). I am going to endorse the speedy-deletions and temporarily endorse the continued protection of the page pending the creation of a serious draft. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the concern, I'll try, depending on the sources I can get, to create an article of stub quality later on today. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: user:Calgacus/Joey Greco. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Almost as good as the "slime mold" version... ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions

Tony Sidaway speedy-deleted this parody essay I wrote with the deletion summary "Somewhat trollish". It's no big deal but I wouldn't mind having it back. Haukur 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to see it currently, I'm relying on the Google cache, but this was tagged as a parody page and seems to have been created in good faith (much like WP:SNOW). Undelete and take to MFD if Tony really wants to see it gone. -- nae'blis 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this. If anything, Tony was being quite rude. Haukur wrote this; I edited it a bit and expressed love for it: we are not trolls, and his creation is not trollish. Tony was very, very badly mistaken. If he wishes to prove otherwise, he should go to MfD. Xoloz 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Xoloz. I'm still a bit unhappy that this comes across as trollish to Tony. Maybe he can help us improve it. For one thing it might be unnecessarily long to get the idea across. Haukur 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still strikes me as an exercise tailor-made to feed trolls. How is the encyclopedia improved by this rather ugly bit of bad faith? --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me?!?!? This is a good faith effort to encourage thorough discussion, and thorough discussion improves the encyclopedia. This essay is beautiful bit of good faith, and if you fail to see that, the deficiency is yours. I do remind you that admin Haukur is entitled to the assumption of good faith in his compositions. As Haukur suggest, you're welcome to help tailor the humor, but to call it bad faith so quickly is uncalled for. Xoloz 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a joke, kinda like WP:CABAL and WP:ROUGE. If this joke essay is trollbait, those are moreso. BigDT 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguably so, I don't object to that line of argument at all. We're talking about this particular unacceptable bit of trolling, however. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restore. It's irony, Tony. The person is making the point that one shouldn't steamroll minority opinions. Sheesh. Herostratus 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restore. Looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? ;) - Mailer Diablo 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restore deleting admin was out of line. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restore per above. 1ne 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restore per the particularly fine illustration and the obviously ironic tone. Guy 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 *'''Endorse restore''' per above. [[User:1ne|1ne]] 06:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse restore''' per the particularly fine illustration and the obviously ironic tone.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-====Sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin====
-*[[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin]]
-*[[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin]]
-Both of these categories were deleted by [[User:Doc glasgow]] despite the overwhelming consensus at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 26#Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin|Categories for discussion]] to keep the categories. - [[User:EurekaLott|EurekaLott]] 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-*Hm, an 'out of process deletion'. So, if process is the ''most'' important thing then '''speedy undelete and relist''' (slapping the bad admin with a trout). However, alternativelty barnstar the admin and '''keep deleted''' per [[WP:DENY]], [[WP:IAR]], [[WP:RBI]], [[WP:Commonbloodysense]] etc. You decide. --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]] 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-*:Instead of beating the "old process/anti-process" turf, how about we ask whether anyone has any real uses for this list?  It seems clear WP:DENY is close to policy now, BUT it isn't intended to apply where the lists are actively needed.  The valid reason for discussing these deletions individually is to determine whether anybody is using them. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 16:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-**:If any trusted user can give me an actual instance where this particular item is of concrete use in countering vandalism, I will personally undelete it.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]] 17:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-***:Well, of course.  The general issue, though, is finding a way to let admins who might need these pages know before we delete them, because deleting-then-restoring useful pages is pretty inefficient.  Actually, I like your idea of a "speedy pending notice" mentioned at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow#Sockpuppets_of_Outoftuneviolin_on_deletion_review your talk discussion with me] on this topic.) [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-***You sound like somebody who has never tried tracking the edits of a disruptive user editing with six accounts. In any case, this isn't the place to discuss the utility of the category. The point isn't about utility or process or essays. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and you blatantly disregarded clear consensus to thrust your opinion upon everybody involved. - [[User:EurekaLott|EurekaLott]] 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-****Well, actually I have done things like that. And perhaps rather than shout about 'unilateral', and call me ignorant, you could explain how this category has actually been of help. As I say, I don't want to delete anything that helps revert vandalism - if it does help, I'll undelete it at once, --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]] 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse'''.  [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition|Deny recognition]]. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 08:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deport_All_20_Million_Mexicans%21_Keep_America_White%21_88%21&diff=73957876&oldid=73956835 like these] is a recent reminder to me on why [[Wikipedia:deny recognition|deny recognition]] is a great idea (and yes, no response and not knowing who he was in my decline reason was the best way of doing it). --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore pending a decision on all of them''' - Why delete these two?  Unless I'm missing something, everything in [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets]] should be either kept or deleted.  Personally, I agree with [[WP:DENY]] and see no good use to have separate categories.  But unless they are all going to be deleted, what's the point in deleting one of them? And yes, Doc, process is important.  If it is so important that these particular categories be deleted, then you should be able to convince multiple people at CFD of it. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' pending a definitive definition as to what must be done in such cases as this.  We shouldn't just erase two when there are so many more.  We need to know one way or the other whether this is such a thing that we're going to keep or delete.  Until that time, it should stay. [[User:Mike 7|Michael]] 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''' per Doc glasgow. -- [[User:Frosty0814snowman|<font color="lightskyblue">'''Frosty'''the'''Snowman'''</font>]] [[User talk:Frosty0814snowman|<sup>'sup?</sup>]] 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' per BigDT and Mike 7. [[User:1ne|1ne]] 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore'''.  1. [[WP:DENY]] isn't policy, it's a proposed policy, and a horrible idea at that.  Denying the existence of vandals is impossible because Jimbo designed the system that way, with huge, huge amounts of server space devoted to preserving the history of every single page and [[m:right to vanish]] being a dead letter.  2. [[WP:IAR]] is fine and dandy for regular users, but it's ''not'' OK for admins.  Then, it's no longer being bold, it's using admin power to prevent others from being bold.  3. I am also a firm believer in the concept of [[m:Wikistress]].  When I get to the point where I start saying, "man, someone needs to give [[User:Mareino|M]][[User_talk:Mareino|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User:Mareino|r]][[Special:Contributions/Mareino|<font color="orange">ē</font>]][[User:Mareino|ino]] a f***in' barnstar!" I sign off for a couple days, because I'm clearly getting an overinflated sense of my own importance.  I'm not in a position to question why some users are considered sock puppets and others aren't ... but neither is Doc. --[[User:Mareino|M]][[User_talk:Mareino|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User:Mareino|r]][[Special:Contributions/Mareino|<font color="orange">ē</font>]][[User:Mareino|ino]] 07:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Restore''' per BigDT, Mareino (pt. 1). - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 08:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Just for the record. When I speedy deleted these, I had no knowledge of the on-going CfD debate. The category bore no CfD template. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Category%3ASuspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Outoftuneviolin&timestamp=20060829225013] --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]] 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. First of all, the point Doc makes is important. Reviewing the deleted content, he had no way of knowing there was a CfD in progress. Not all admins are omniscient; you have to contribute extra during the fundraiser. These categories are of dubious value. They add a layer of bureaucratic framework that occupies all manner of organizers but doesn't do all that much for us. There are two types of sockmasters: editors gaining leverage in content disputes, and vandals. The latter definitely don't need to be categorized. A vandal is a vandal. In the former case it's useful when sorting out talk pages and preparing for dispute resolution. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*:Good point! Can we get a consensus to skip this bit of red tape for vandals but keep it for votestackers etc.? [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 11:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*::I suppose we could enshrine it in [[WP:SOCK]]. More of a guideline than anything, and there will always be boundary cases. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*:::I can live with that. If there are boundary issues we can just take each on its merits. --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]] 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*::::I have proposed this at [[WT:SOCK#Suggestion]]. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*Doc has said elsewhere he would support retention of tools used by vandal fighters if sufficient reason for retaining them existed. Suficient reason, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&diff=74304015&oldid=74265887 by his own metric], has been given. '''Overturn''' this deletion, and resume debate on the CfD discussion. In fact, I invite Doc, since he's admitted he <s>screwed up</s> made an honest mistake, to just IAR and do the right thing without waiting for this DrV to finish. I support [[WP:DENY]], I am one of those who thinks it is policy already. But this is not glory, it is a useful category. All those baying Deny Deny haven't actually looked at [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Outoftuneviolin]] or addressed the strong arguments from committed vandal fighters as to why to keep. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 11:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-:Done. But if someone had simply given a concrete reason why these should be an exception to WP:DENY, I'd have done it long before, and without a DRV. As to the CFD - I missed it. Sorry. Categories aren't usualy things with interesting edit histories.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]] 11:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-::The one point I still want to make is this: it's worth checking revision histories of things, even usually uninteresting things, before you speedy. It usually doesn't take very long and it does sometimes find interesting things like tag removals that would otherwise be missed. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*Comment: I've removed the speedy tags from the categories but not restored the CfD tags, as the CfD is closed. Someone (Doc, I think) needs to reopen the CfD which was closed by mistake, and then close this. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*:I hope that if you ever make a mistake you'll be treated with greater kindness than you've shown here today. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*::You know what, you're right. On review, my comments are way over the top here and I apologise. No excuse for it really, either. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*:::I've removed most of my comments, those that really want to see how much of a prat I was being can look in the edit history, but they engendered unnecessary ill will for which I am sorry. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' per above.  Obviously the wrong choice. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)