Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 23: 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 01:40, 24 July 2006 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits →[]: r← Previous edit Revision as of 02:27, 24 July 2006 edit undoGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 109: Line 109:
**'''Comment''': I doubt their were sockpuppets, just that their were many newbies from LiveJournal who are new to wikipedia. ] 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) **'''Comment''': I doubt their were sockpuppets, just that their were many newbies from LiveJournal who are new to wikipedia. ] 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Per ]: a) "Please do not remove ''any'' statements from any deletion discussion," itals from the page. Not only were statements removed from the deletion discussion, but they were removed by the nominating party. b) "In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request." Furthermore, along these lines, "Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations." The hiding and removing of discussion information from the main page violated this. c) At the AfD ], "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article," which was done or discussed within the debate. At no point does it say that such disclosures be discounted or dismissed or otherwise. It's also fair to note that no one involved with the Wikidrama at the article were asked, required, or apparently volunteered to give such information, either. These are three important parts of the AfD process that were circumvented or outright ignored. If these processes were followed, even I could have likely endorsed the closure, but this was obviously a failure on many levels, and should be treated as such. --] <small>]</small> 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''': Per ]: a) "Please do not remove ''any'' statements from any deletion discussion," itals from the page. Not only were statements removed from the deletion discussion, but they were removed by the nominating party. b) "In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request." Furthermore, along these lines, "Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations." The hiding and removing of discussion information from the main page violated this. c) At the AfD ], "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article," which was done or discussed within the debate. At no point does it say that such disclosures be discounted or dismissed or otherwise. It's also fair to note that no one involved with the Wikidrama at the article were asked, required, or apparently volunteered to give such information, either. These are three important parts of the AfD process that were circumvented or outright ignored. If these processes were followed, even I could have likely endorsed the closure, but this was obviously a failure on many levels, and should be treated as such. --] <small>]</small> 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*:Also, someone has again edited this post here by the originator to again alter their original statement. Does that "rule" apply to this page, and to the person who did it? ] 02:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' based on policy cited by paticipants and judgement of weight of discussion. ] 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse Closure''' based on policy cited by paticipants and judgement of weight of discussion. ] 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''', closed properly. AFD is not a vote, and this is a great example of why. -]<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Endorse Closure''', closed properly. AFD is not a vote, and this is a great example of why. -]<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:27, 24 July 2006

< July 22 July 24 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

23 July 2006

Susan Fogarty

I would like to have the page on Susan Fogarty, entirely written by myself and not copied, (AliC) reinstated. Susan appears on a national TV programme every week, she has a new book (published by Penguin Books, use the 'search' on the New Zealand Penguin website to find out more about her book.) currently on sale across New Zealand, has a popular column in one of the leading women's magazines, New Idea and also does regular radio shows. She also links to the page entitled Court Jesters, about an improv group from Christchurch, NZ. For reasons I can't understand someone called Tijuana Brass continuously deletes the article on Susan Fogarty every time I place it on Misplaced Pages. As Susan has a good profile in New Zealand and her column alone has been going for over three years, I believe she is a person of interest. New Zealand is a relatively small country and the article may not have a lot of appeal outside that, but it certainly does inside New Zealand. Comments on the deletion page like ‘too minor author’ or ‘only available on one site’ are completely uninformed. Susan Fogarty’s book is available in book stores across New Zealand and New Idea magazine has a weekly circulation of 60,000 to 70,000 copies. I am not sure how 70,000 copies weekly, makes someone a minor author. Her weekly appearance on the top rating morning TV show Good Morning also show that the people deleting the article have no relationship with the subject matter and it’s hard to believe people can, on such a flimsy and uninformed pretext, delete articles. If they don’t like them, they don’t have to read them. I would expect there are many articles on people/places and things, that have limited appeal outside their own demographic or interest group, surely this is not a reason to delete them? This is not a vexatious article and the continuous deleting by people who have no relationship with even our country, seem petty and not in the spirit of what Misplaced Pages is attempting to create on the web. I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to reply to me directly, my email is below.

AliC

Alisoncooke26@hotmail.com

Tourette's Guy

Removed due to duplication - please see currently ongoing review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 20

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Out of process, against consensus deletion and salt the earth of an article and its talk page on the fallacious grounds that the topic is not notable despite being referenced in several major publications and being a very popular wiki, as if notability were actually a policy, and on grounds of verifiability. There's no reason to think this page couldn't have been trimmed dramatically and still been appropriate on Misplaced Pages. Stanfordandson 08:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


  • I would second Redwolf24's proposal. I would also recommend that if ArbCom were to decide the keep/deletion of it, they should also consider some similar websites at the same time -- I believe all of Misplaced Pages:Parodies should be considered for deletion at once. That does not mean that they must be kept or deleted as a group -- but what it means is that if some are kept and others deleted, then they need to be considered as a group to determine relative notability, and also to determine where the cutoff should lie. --SJK 10:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Much of it may have to be anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not an ArbCom matter. They don't do content decisions. If the article's subject were to suddenly become a significant website there would be no problem starting a new article. Until that happens, the community consensus reflected on the AfD is valid. NoSeptember 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • True, ArbCom may have to become involved in a case about bad editor behavior and some evidence may be about the ED article and related debates, but their sanctions, if any, will be against editors. They won't make rulings on the content of the article or if it should exist. We could throw a dozen controversial DRVs a week to ArbCom if they were foolish enough to get involved in such things. NoSeptember 14:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted' Closing admin gave it much thought and put it bluntly and came up with a good choice. Also this is not a vote we don't vote on Misplaced Pages. This is a disscussion on whether ED should be recreated or not Aeon 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This was actually closed twice, by two different admins. It was first closed by admin User:Mailer Diablo at 17:34, 22 July 2006 (), who moments later reverted his closing on the grounds that it was too early. Approximately one day, and about 20 revisions later (sounds like a lot, but its not in proportion to how heated and many-revisioned this debate has been), it was finally closed by User:Nandesuka. What concerns me is that one admin closed it as no consensus, then the second closed it as delete. Was the 20 revisions between the first admin and the second sufficiently persuasive to turn a no consensus into a delete? Or would Mailer Diablo closed it as no consensus a second time, and Nandesuka closed it as delete the first? This leaves the impression (right or wrong) that the conclusion was delete because of the admin who happened to close it, and that if another admin had have closed it, it would have been no consensus. That impression does not give one great faith in the AFD process. --SJK 09:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Usually people complain that admins all think the same, and call us a cabal or a hivemind, and then they complain when we show that we don't? Ha. Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote and Nandesuka's excellent reasoning leaves little more to be said. 'No consensus' would have been within the admins' discretion, but 'delete' was the better choice. --Sam Blanning 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Well reasoned close by Nandesuka. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, kudos to Nandesuka for taking this one on. Astroturfing aside, this subject is essentially ignored outside of its own community. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, from having looked at the history of edits on this article Nandesuka could have additionally cited "vanity" as this article was a good example of vanitycruft having been edited on by a majority of Encyclopaedia Dramatica editors. That said his reasoning regarding unverifiability and original research best corresponded to Misplaced Pages policies and was very sound particularly in view of the spamming and conflicts of interest surrounding the AfD itself. (→Netscott) 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Close discussion: We are absolutely not for re-running a contentious AfD at the very same time that it runs. This AfD resulted in many postings on the administrator's noticeboard for abuse, and the dang thing is still open. Wait at least a week before trying to unleash the hosiery hell here, too, please. Geogre 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Geogre, User:Nandesuka closed the AfD, that's why this DRV is open. (→Netscott) 12:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw that, later. I still feel like this whole thing is just part of an argument. I'd so much prefer it if there were a cooling off period before people start complaining. That AfD was a mess, and an extremely noxious one, and now DRV is being proposed as the next battleground. I suppose I endorse deletion and ask, sincerely, that people come back to DRV after a couple of weeks. Geogre 15:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I still think much of this could have been avoided if Netscott didn't insist on refactoring for no good reason. The multiple instances of bad faith and refactoring alone should sway people, and I'm shocked no one's bothered by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I refactored and moved commentary to the talk page in efforts to keep the AfD to a reasonable size and assist subsequent editors from having to wade through reams and reams of text to add their views. In cases where I attempted (ultimately fruitless efforts) to remove commentary the text I attempted to remove was either completely irrelevant or redundant (from the talk page). Because I had no success in moving commentary that ordinarily should have been included in the talk page of the AfD I did the next best thing and put it in a collapsible section (as User:GTBacchus subsequently did with source discussion). These efforts were anything but "bad faith". Still, as you're an Encyclopædia Dramatica adminstrator the appearance of a conflict of interest on your part is very evident. (→Netscott) 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • And yet when people protested, you continued to do so either way. It's also a shame that you bring your bad faith here concerning those of us who also edit/have edited at ED - that has nothing to do with whether we feel it's worthy for inclusion here, and I challenge you to review my other 5000 edits here and see if you think I'm working out of some nefarious position. Your refactoring changed the debate tremendously, and you should have reversed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, I can say that I learned a very valuable lesson on this AfD and that is when faced with a similar AfD in the future I will specifically request that parties (ie: User:MONGO and any other Wikipedian attacked by Encyclopædia Dramatica as well as ED editors) recuse themselves from such a discussion. (→Netscott) 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Out of curiosity, you have said this at least three times now. Why not directly ask MONGO (ED article on him), Jeff, Hipocrite (ED article on him), and Tony Sidaway (if he pops up, was involved in this, and I saw he has an ED article too when just checking), to all recuse themselves from this debate right now? rootology 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Funny, if you had actually asked both sides last time, maybe one less complaint could be lodged about the process. Whoops. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • For whatever it may be worth, I was troubled, somewhat, but I saw more an inelegant effort than an attempt to hijack anything, but I also felt that both houses deserved a plague. It would be good if people would recuse themselves from voting, if they're involved parties. It would be nice if people offered a view but did not offer that view as a vote, and then not get into argument and rebuttal and... Oh, I suppose we're sort of doing that here, aren't we? Some time away from the passions would do everyone good. Geogre 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While I do appreciate the well-detailed rationale, the points by the "keep" voters were not totally described properly, and that kind of bothers me. It ignores the media attention it has recieve, however scant it may be, it ignores the fact that WP:V is not, in fact, violated by this article, and the points that do could very well be dealt with as they had been prior to the flap, it completely ignores horrid, horrid actions by User:Netscott to hide and move discussions and rationales by established editors, including his nifty little blacklist. And need we go into the horrible bad faith actions and rationales from start to finish by people who should most certainly know better? It was obvious from the start, thanks to completely crazy stuff going on, that a fair hearing was impossible, and to delete based on that is incredibly disappointing. Relist and monitor closely and give it a fair hearing if we're going to actually delete this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I voted to delete two AFDs ago because of lack of sources and that it had been a long time since the AFD before that one. I voted to keep on this AFD being disputed because the AFD had been too soon because the AFD was done not about the site's notability, but about people's personal feelings toward the site and most importantly it was too soon since the last AFD, and it was odd to me that they did not understand "revenge is a dish best served cold". If the AFDer had waited for a few months, my vote would have been different. I also agree that there was tampering with the AFD. People found sources during the AFD and this changed the AFD and everyone was too busy to revote. The article was protected so nobody could add the sources or rewrite the article (which I think it needs) and so people looked at the article and not the sources. I further think the admins should block the people who edit warred for maybe an hour at a time rather than protecting the article. And on the AFD itself, sources were constantly hidden on the talk page. I have seen things deleted as a result of AFDs and then later put back up because of added notability. If the site gets in the paper again, then it will likely need reviewing. The AFD before this end looked like it would end in delete, but the administrator who closed it, said it ended in no consensus. Hardvice 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, but don't salt the earth. I completely agree with whoever closed it, but ED has notability and mimimal verafibility within the LiveJournal community. Add a blurb about it to the LJ article. Crazyswordsman 13:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It ignores the media attention it has recieve, however scant it may be... Whoops, shot yourself in the foot there. it ignores the fact that WP:V is not, in fact, violated by this article Strange new meaning of "fact" there: "fact" is not a synonym for "assertion". Keep deleted, keep protected. --Calton | Talk 13:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not at all shocked you think i've shot myself in the foot based on the facts of the situation. Media attention is media attention, someday you'll understand that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, a good closure. Let's redirect some of all this energy to working on productive things now. NoSeptember 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, keep protected. Totally valid close, with a good explanation by Nandesuka. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Good work by the closing administrator. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (and keep protected as it wasn't verifiable this week and it won't be verifiable next week) as AfD and closure followed process. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, keep protected As far as I can tell from the article at the time of its deletion, virtually nothing could be verified by relable sources (books, mainstream media) other than possibly that it exists. WP:V is not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The rough "count" was "no consensus". What bothers me is what the closing admin set as the criteria that the article was (and must be) based on unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. Let's examine that.
  1. Nothing in the article was unverifiable. The editors at the article had repeatedly gone over each and every single sentence for verification. Because this website is unliked, people would insert {{fact}} tags on sentences that had already been fact checked. The talk page had three archives of this being done repeatedly.
  2. Nothing in the article was original research. It may have been based on source based research, but as the NOR policy dictates, source based research is a requirement of writing a good encyclopedia. There were no novel interpretive statements in the article! Even I (who people are saying wrote it out of vanity) removed unsourced or interpretive claims. Any quotation or motive (such as why the site was created in the first place) was directly attributed, and sourced, to the person who made the quote.
  3. Nothing in the article was unsourced. As said before, every single sentence had a source, as a review of the talk pages and archives would indicate. WP:RS is very clear - an article about a subject can use the subject as a source about itself. (View the Uncyclopedia article, the first 20 sources are itself.)
So, the close was done not on examination of the claims in the delete votes, but simply on the claims themselves, many of which were made by people with an axe to grind. What kind of anti-policy double standards are we going to propagate here? SchmuckyTheCat 15:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SchmuckyTheCat, you are an editor at Encyclopædia Dramatica (and likely an adminstrator there). After the original article was deleted you recreated it. When it was subsequently speedy deleted under an alternate spelling you re-created it again under another spelling (ostensibly to get around the recreation clause of speedy deletion policy) and then recreated the alternate spellings as redirects. In light of those facts the word vanity is extremely applicable as is the word vanitycruft. (→Netscott) 15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OH NOES! I have an account on a website you don't like. Attack the message, not the messenger.
I certainly did recreate it, it was first created in the first week of EDs existance and had zero notability (though I noted it soon would in that AfD). Six months later the site was one hundred times larger. When circumstances change there is no issue with re-writing a previously deleted article. I used none of the first article as basis for the second - it was not a recreation of deleted material. And, that which is why the re-written article survived that AfD as a keep. SchmuckyTheCat 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. A borderline notable article which invites edit wars, persons of a more trollish nature (due to the nature of ED), and AfD nominations every so often? It seems to be more disruptive to the community than it is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I voted delete on the second nomination: "Misplaced Pages is not a web directory and Misplaced Pages articles are not advertisements. . . . The website itself centers on non-notability, so any description thereof would be non-notable. The history of the website isn't notable, the content isn't, and thus an article wouldn't be (and isn't). The site is notable, IMO, but not more than dicdef." And if somebody wants to know what this "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" thing is, they can Google it and find it theirself. --Keitei (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - regardless of what happened/happens to the article, the talk page should not have been deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's normal practice to delete talk pages (and redirects, etc.) of articles that will be deleted. What's the point in keeping a talk page while deleting its article? --Conti|✉ 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • When the site gets itself in more newspapers and satisfies everyone of its notability, if those talk pages are lost, then people every single edit war the article ever had will start all over again. You know how much arguments furry fandom (for others, see articles in lame edit wars) has had. Do you want that to be started all over again? Hardvice 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and end the drama already. It was a bold call to close the AFD and a correct one. Antandrus (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong overturn no valid reasons for deletion were cited and no consensus for deletion attained.  Grue  15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion the closer made a valid decision and a very hard one as well. Whispering 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse: This was a hard one and the closer did a good job. Too often people look at long Afds and just slap on a "no consensus" instead of doing the work they're supposed to do. I'm quite glad to see this one wasn't done that way. Friday (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just noting that the person who originally traced back to as the root of this whole fiasco actually edited this deletion log review to change it's content, but the person who filed it reverted it back. Is it proper for these to be edited by people other than the filer? rootology 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, keep protected per Starblind. Kudos to closing admin per Friday. KillerChihuahua 17:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Good call by Nandesuka. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, just because the AFD doesn't go your way doesn't mean you're automatically entitled to a second run at DRV. --Cyde↔Weys 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Another reason to restore talk pages, even as archives: People will eventually be using the article's talk page again to discuss and debate if new sources they find or that get printed are notable. It would be a HUGE help to have the talk page back because there was discussion on it before. Second, once the talk page is used and will get messy when restoring the old versions; it might look ugly, or everything will be lost. Hardvice 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion in current form due to a rather convincing closing rationale. If relisted on AfD, it must be done under strict sockpuppet/tomfoolery protection, keeping all extraneous confusing-as-heck-to-read stuff out of sight, and with the condition that all editors participating in the AfD will gather around every five comments to sing the Happy Kittens Under Sun and Rainbow Song, and something out of Yellow Submarine. In short, Let's Not Fight And Do This In Calm and Orderly Fashion. ☮ ✌ ♥ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per deletion policy: a) "Please do not remove any statements from any deletion discussion," itals from the page. Not only were statements removed from the deletion discussion, but they were removed by the nominating party. b) "In general, when someone has listed an article for deletion, anyone else may comment on the request." Furthermore, along these lines, "Anyone except blocked users is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations." The hiding and removing of discussion information from the main page violated this. c) At the AfD main page, "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article," which was done or discussed within the debate. At no point does it say that such disclosures be discounted or dismissed or otherwise. It's also fair to note that no one involved with the Wikidrama at the article were asked, required, or apparently volunteered to give such information, either. These are three important parts of the AfD process that were circumvented or outright ignored. If these processes were followed, even I could have likely endorsed the closure, but this was obviously a failure on many levels, and should be treated as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also, someone has again edited this post here by the originator to again alter their original statement. Does that "rule" apply to this page, and to the person who did it? rootology 02:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure based on policy cited by paticipants and judgement of weight of discussion. Eluchil404 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure, closed properly. AFD is not a vote, and this is a great example of why. -Hit bull, win steak 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure. per Hit bull, win steak. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, endorse deletion and keep protected. Drama/shit-stirring website designed to offend anyone they like without regard of consequences, they don't cite their sources (some guy's blog isn't a source - a blog is not a source and I'll tell you why: Anyone can say anything they like about anyone they wish, make up stuff, embellish facts and anyone will believe it - which is true in my personal experience with blogging), the article is constantly edited by ED admins which is a conflict of interest and doesn't reflect neutral bias (oh and they attack others who they don't like who create accounts on their site). Quoting Cyde, "Just because the AfD doesn't go your way doesn't mean you're entitled to a second run at DRV". Oh that's not a reason? "Per MONGO, Cyde and others", then. — Nathan / 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rabbit Joint

This article has been deleted 3 times. As it's own article, this band fails WP:MUSIC, however, one song they created became an internet phenomenom of sorts. Therefore, this page should be undeleted and made into a redirect to an article about the song. Before that needs to take place, the The Legend of Zelda (song) should be created, possibly as a simple move of the 2nd version of The Rabbit Joint to be deleted, but since it was deleted ( >:P ), I can't copy anything. Can the January 2006 revision of this (The Rabbit Joint) article be restored? Xaxafrad 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 23: Difference between revisions Add topic