Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 21:29, 9 November 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 9 November 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (keep closure endorsed)Next edit →
Line 107: Line 107:
*''In its second year of training courses, JP2MI has 7 active students''. 'Nuf said. '''Endorse deletion'''. ]|] 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC) *''In its second year of training courses, JP2MI has 7 active students''. 'Nuf said. '''Endorse deletion'''. ]|] 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Zoe. I can only suppose that the nominator has misread ]. ] 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse deletion''' per Zoe. I can only suppose that the nominator has misread ]. ] 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==== ] ====

:See ]

Closed incorrectly as a "Keep". Bio of a musician with one (1) album in 1973 and for which the only source was a single local news article about him. Nothing except the vaguest attempt at handwaving for arguments and with no attempts whatsoever at providing actual reliable sources. --] | ] 01:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

*keep the article. I see no evidence of improper or incorrect close of previous AfD. ]] 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse close'''. Looks like a proper close based on the AfD. The complaint about reliable sources is unsubstantiated: nothing precludes using local news articles as references. I also see no reason for ] to insult other users by slamming their participation as "handwaving". Instead of waving his hands here, ] needs to review ] and ] and accept the outcome of a failed AfD nomination.--] 02:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*Obvious '''endorse close'''. Independent verification? Check. Some sembalnce of notability? Check. Falls within the parameters of WP:BIO's "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" out clause. --] <small>]</small> 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' The article doesn't make exaggerated claims and the claim to notability is supported by a reliable source, so our three core policies are met. ] and ] are very much in the eye of the beholder, and between ], ] as producer and ] as engineer those interpretations aren't frivolous. But now someone write an article on Gary Paxton. ~ ] 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' Not only do I think the close to have been altogether reasonable, but I can't imagine that one might have interpreted the discussion differently, such that endorsement would be appropriate not only for one who thinks the appropriate DRV standard to be ] but also one who thinks the a review properly to be ] (of the close, of course, not of the underlying substantive deletion debate). Pace Jjay, I don't think Calton's nomination to be particularly incivil, but I do appreciate a submission not unlike that made in the several AfDs and DRVs of ], viz., that ] is absolute, such that even as many editors may think a source to be reliable or content to be verifiable, the firm pronouncement of some subset of editors that a source is not reliable or that content is unverifiable must dispose the question; I think such proposition to have been (quite properly) rejected by the community. ] 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse "Keep" Closure''' Looking at the AfD, I don't see how it could possibly be closed any other way. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 22:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. I sympathise with the nominator's frustration, it's very hard to gauge notability of musicians not active in the last couple of decades, but it does look as if this one might actually be regarded as significant by his peers. <b>]</b> 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per Guy. ] 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Seems like this was brought here more because the nom disagrees with the result than because he disagrees with the process, and notability for musicians is subjective enough to rule this a keep if that's the direction the discussion was heading. -]<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 9 November 2006

< November 3 November 5 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

4 November 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Superseded by Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paraphysics. Technically, a contested prod. >Radiant< 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Paraphysics

Requesting the Paraphysics page to be undeleted. Paraphysics is a very respectable area of study (in my personal, and many others, opinion), and i dont see why it should remain deleted. Thank you. user:openforbusiness (edit: typo, and uncorrect expressions)

  • Endorse deletion, proposed for deletion by Jimbo as "abject nonsense on a stick", and it would be really hard to come up with a more apt description. It is and always has been complete bollocks. Guy 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The notion of paraphysics may be bollocks, but the question is whether it's notable bollocks. The word gets around 18,500 google hits, with 84 books about the subject sold on Amazon.com, including a study by the US Department of Defense. Aecis 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • and if there is any doubt of the relationship between paranormal, physics, and quantum mechanics (or the word paraphysics for that (mind over) matter), you should propably read this article from about.com, and visit Paraphysics Research Institute. I rest my case. Thank you again - openforbusiness.
        • This does not take away the fact that the article was speediable anyway, under A1 (lack of context) and A3 (lack of content). User:Openforbusiness should also be reminded that wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote or give credence to the notion of paraphysics. If there is to be an article, it should simply state what paraphysics is about, how it has developed and how supporters and critics have expressed themselves about it. It should not start from the assumption that paraphysics "is a very respectable are (sic) of study", or a disrespectable area for that matter. Aecis 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes i am aware of that, but that was only my personal opinion. Im only trying to state the importance of the subject (for a large number of people), and protecting it from beeing deleted. My intensions are purely scientifical, and i guarantee that this article will be to. Im sorry if anyone misunderstood, but my english tends to be very confusing from time to time as i rarely use the language, except in written form. And it should not remain unsaid, that i am no expert on this subject, i simply have a quite significant interest for it. Openforbusiness
            • And you did indeed state its importance: 18,000 ghits. Physics gets 118 million. So it's obviously not terribly important... Guy 20:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion prodded by Jimbo as nonsense. Says it all. Furthermore, I don't think DRV can overturn Jimbo's decisions anyway, regardless of whether a consensus can be built here. If you really want it restored my only suggestion would be to write a better version in your user space and take the matter up with Jimbo on his talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Restoring as per policy OK, let me explain this. If Jimbo wanted this dead by divine fiat, he could have nuked it. That would have been the end of it. But he didn't, he proded it. He chose to utilise the prod process. Prods get undeleted on request, that's clear policy. So I'm undeleting this an sending to AfD.--Doc 01:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Macau categories

To undelete Category: People from Macao, Category: Macau people by occupation and Category: Macau judges, and to delete Category: Macanese judges and Category: Macanese people by occupation. - Privacy 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? These moves were decided in Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_24#Macau_categories. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It was decided to be overturned. - Privacy 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide us with a link of the decision to overturn the CfD? Aecis 22:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be here. This was overturned on 27 October, and resubmitted to CfD. The new CfD closed yesterday (Nov. 3) with a decision to keep both sets of categories. This is still in the process of being enacted. The editor above is welcome to help editorially, but another DRV is unneeded. This is done, for the moment, from a process standpoint. Xoloz 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Macanese judges and Category:Macanese people by occupation did not exist. They were mistakenly renamed from Category:Macau judges and Category:Macau people by occupation. The wrongly named categories can simply be deleted, after the original ones are undeleted. Only Category:Macanese people and Category:People from Macao were mistakenly merged, and therefore both have to be kept to undo. - Privacy 23:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Azlea Antistia

Should be restored. It was deleted by User:Yanksox because "Argument for deletion is much stronger than opinions in favor of closure". However there is no consensuses for deletion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Azlea Antistia (2nd nomination). This is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. --Haham hanuka 13:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See also first nom: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Azlea Antistia.

It seems she pass WP:PORNBIO. She appeared in over 200 films . So all the argument in second nomination are not valid! --Haham hanuka 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Keep per above. --Haham hanuka 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • One opinion only, thank you. The nomination is your opinion, unless you choose to withdraw the nomination for review GRBerry 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion WP:PORNBIO was recognized and marked as an already consensus guideline during the AFD discussion. And it makes clear that # of films is not a criteria for inclusion. So it was certainly a guideline by the time the discussion was closed. The delete arguments were generally in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines, the keeps either ignored them or contradicted the guidelines (e.g., the # of film argument). We expect closers to use the discussion to see what the right answer is based upon policy and guideline. AFD is not a vote, so counting the numbers is totall irrelevant. Since those opining delete were doing so based on guidelines, and those opining keep were not, it is clear what the right answer is based on the guidelines. GRBerry 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. There may be good reasons at times to deviate from WP:PORNBIO, but there was no real reason cited for doing so in this case. --Nlu (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'd also like to say that I appreciate that Haham hanuka brought it for a DRV. While I disagree with him/her, following procedure is the right thing. Let's not appear too "pile on" in the tenor of our comments, OK? --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, noting the inconsistent evidence regarding numbers of films and whether she starred or was an also-ran, in the end she does not appear to have broken out of the walled garden of pornography, or to rise above the crowd within that walled garden. Guy 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. On a related topic, I have proposed a community ban on Haham hanuka at WP:ANI - crz crztalk 17:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endores deletion while I agree with Haham that the 2nd afd result doesn't feel right to me (looks to me like this article faced the "list it for afd until its deleted" trend). There is nothing particularly notable about this porn star, the article content as deleted was a pathetic stub with an infobox... we already have enough of those (see 90% of our pokemon articles). There wasnt a very strong reason to delete... but there certainly isnt a strong enough reason to overturn that deletion either. I say keep it deleted until she's done something to make her noteworthy, she's still a living person... it could happen still.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, there were no real arguments for keeping, from a policy/guideline or verifiability with a reliable source standpoint (one of the keep arguments doesn't deal with the article at all, and bashes the nominator instead). Also, I closed Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), which the DRV nominator listed shortly after this DRV opened, as a speedy keep. --Coredesat 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion No case has been made to keep the article and to defer from the official guidelines. gidonb 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

John Paul II Media Institute

See Chick Bowen Talk

Overturn the deletion of John Paul II Media Institute, relist entry

I understand the concern about neutrality in this case, however, plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages (if not most) have editors who do not have an optimal level of "editorial distance"- pages about WWII battles whose contributors include war veterans who fought in them, pages about lobby groups and corporations whose entries are largely edited by their employees or corporate brass, etc. To exclude an entry on the mere possibility of this basis may seem editorially permissible according to policy, however, it seems woefully out of step with the reality reflected in much of Misplaced Pages's content. If the article deleted had clearly been written from a perspective that demonstrated an inability to provide facts and solely opinion, this would be an acceptable decision. However, the second publishing of the page dealt strictly with the factual history of the Institute, following feedback left by Wiki administrator Chick Bowen on the first deletion.

The links to external sources within the article made it possible to verify the facts it contained. While I understand the burden of providing facts is on the writer and not the reader, it is fairly clear that the administrator didn't follow the links to the corroborating resources in the article. If writers provide sources for verification and they are not observed by readers who delete rather than check them through, how can that be a standard for deletion?

I'm also curious about the assertion that because something is new or in its formative stages and hasn't received "plenty of coverage" from reliable sources as a reason for exclusion from Misplaced Pages. Must something be "successful" or longstanding and verified by traditional journalistic or scholarly sources to be included in Misplaced Pages? There are a number of Wiki entries on websites or phenomena that have existed for a much shorter time than JP2MI and are corroborated solely by myspace pages and blogs that find their way onto this resource. JP2MI has been covered in a local Catholic newspaper, but I get the sense that given that source's close connection to JP2MI's parent organization, St. Thomas Aquinas and Canadian Martyr's parish, that using it as a source would be deemed un-neutral. Additionally, that resource is not accessible online for verification purposes. Every effort to provide external resources that can speak to the existence of JP2MI has been taken- disqualifying it from inclusion because mainstream sources haven't provided "plenty of coverage" likely means it will not be included on WIkipedia ever, as mainstream sources underrepresent religious activity on the whole.

One could argue that this stipulation discriminates against JP2MI because it requires verification by sources that, as a matter of course, either fail to represent religious outreach at all or frequently provide information which is skewed and inaccurate, taking editorial liberties with raison d'etre and transmitting biased information about outreach to the public.

It is essential that groups like JP2MI be allowed to have a voice and role in the documentation of their existence. However, deleting this article eliminates that voice and ensures that becoming known and accessible widely becomes a near impossibility.

  • 'Endorse deletion. "Must something be "successful" or longstanding and verified by traditional journalistic or scholarly sources to be included in Misplaced Pages?" Short answer: yes. Misplaced Pages is not for making groups widely known and accessible, we cover groups that are already widely known and are covered in reliable third party sources. This article contained no assertion of notability and was a valid A7 speedy - the name made me wonder at first but the connection with the late Pope seems to end at the name. --Sam Blanning 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The deletion log makes it clear that it was deleted under CSD A7. Sam has said the article in fact met CSD A7. Existence is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Encylopedic importance, or notability, is required. Why would an encyclopedia cover this organization? company? If an organization, the standard to meet is WP:ORG, if a company, the standard is WP:CORP, if something else, . Whichever is the right standard, notability should be established through citations from independent sources. GRBerry 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I said to Paul (if I may), I'm happy to have this deletion reviewed, and welcome others' assessments of my deletion of this article. However, I continue to think there was nothing in the article to suggest that the Institute meets our standards for inclusion of an organization. Sam has summed it up pretty well above. Chick Bowen 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Sorry, harsh reality is that we cannot cover this within policy because there are no significant secondary sources. Guy 23:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment CSD A7 authorizes that an article may summarily be deleted if the article meets one of the following criteria:
1. Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like "asgoi;aw!@$egioih0412%!2", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed.

Clearly, this criteria does not apply to the entry.

2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

Am I to understand that the administrators of Misplaced Pages either were unable to understand the content of the article or found it to be completely confusing and without meaning? It was written in plain English and provided links to no less than three bodies/persons who are able to corroborate the information provided.

If this article is to be deleted, I cannot see how this policy is the grounds for it. It was neither random nonsense comprised of mishmashed keystrokes, and it certainly cannot be characterized as making no sense whatsoever (at least not by any reasonable person).

Did anyone besides Chick Bowen even read the entry or bother to follow the links to the resources included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulwwozney (talk • contribs)

Since you nominated the article, you can't really vote again. Also, WP:CSD A7 refers to "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content," not patent nonsense--patent nonsense is CSD G1. Just to clarify. Chick Bowen 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 4: Difference between revisions Add topic