Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 9 November 2006

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

4 November 2006

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)

• Endorse deletion. Arguments for keeping consist of "Lots of Google hits, lots of images, lots of films", which are non-criteria according to WP:PORNBIO, WP:INN, and sundry handwaving. No actual verifiable arguments for notability. --Sam Blanning 15:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse myself Two things: AfD is not a headcount and this is not a second AfD. The argument for deletion uses well versed reason, while arguments for keeping the article stress existance and question why other articles aren't deleted. Yanksox 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Arguments against deletion were invalid in terms of guidelines and policies, and arguments for deletion were supported by guidelines and policies. --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Again: there is no consensuses for deletion. In fact most of the votes are "keep". This article also exist in es.wikipedia and pt.wikipedia . --Haham hanuka 15:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You're not listening to what I'm saying, are you? --Lord Deskana (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote, and WP:INN counts double for articles on other Wikipedias. --Sam Blanning 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, if you read the AfD, the other Wikis articles are from an earlier version of this article. So, it really isn't standing on its own merit over there. Yanksox 16:25, 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)

• In its second year of training courses, JP2MI has 7 active students. 'Nuf said. Endorse deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Zoe. I can only suppose that the nominator has misread WP:CSD. Kavadi carrier 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)