Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 27

Glenwood Systems LLC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would like to request a temporary review of the Glenwood Systems LLC article (it was retitled to Glenwood Systems by another user before it was speedily deleted by an admin). I ask that the article be restored to my userspace so that I may access the text. Thank you.orangemike (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 and orangemike (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbattick (talk • contribs) [reply]

• NOTE The actual nom is Kbattick, I'm guessing he's having problems with signatures. Orangemike is the deleting admin. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of occupations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator said nothing more than "The result was delete." Not only did he not explain the reason, but he did not take into account that not only were there several keeps, but some people, including myself, had other alternative ideas for this article. These included splitting it into separate lists on occupations within a particular category, or merging some occupations from this list into other articles.

What should be done is as follows: The page should be restored for now, with the result being changed to merge or split, thereby making its information accessible to everyone. The template {{Afd-merge to}} or something similar should be placed on top. From there, individuals can work on moving the information to other pages or splitting into other more discriminate lists where appropriate. Hellno2 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD wasn't especially close or contentious, so the closing statement seems to have been appropriate--there's no requirement for an AFD closer to write a paragraph of explanation for a straightforward close such as this. If you want the closer to explain their rationale to you, the best thing to do would be to simply ask them, but again I'm not seeing any ambiguity in the debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- as Andrew Lenahan says, this was a case of clear consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have happily added some rationale if I had been asked, but this one felt pretty cut and dry, so I didn't feel the need to give an explanation when closing it. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator abandoning his appeal by failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Stifle, this is not a policy-based reason. We're judging the AfD and the article, not the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hellno2 has asked us to review the discussion, so it is reasonable to expect him to cooperate and pursue his nomination if he wishes us to consider his request. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an adversary proceeding or a dispute between individuals--it's an attempt to find the correct solution for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a proper close. As above, if you want reasoning for the close, just ask the closing admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The policy-based arguments were debated at length but without agreement. There was therefore no consensus. The closer seems to have treated the matter as a vote. Note that this deletion was such a travesty that I expect to be restarting something similar using public domain sources such as this. The main effect of deletion in such cases of great notability is to denigrate and deny the contributions of the project's early editors. This list was, iirc, sponsored by Wikipedia:WikiProject Index. It seems remarkable that this project did not seem to comment in the discussion, giving their views on how we should index our numerous articles about occupations. The voting was therefore dominated by knee-jerk editors like SnottyWong, Reyk and ThemFromSpace, who regularly vote to delete anything and everything. It seems a good example of how AFD has become quite broken because editors with a particular interest in the topic are noticeably absent. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful, Colonel. If you start with the ad hominem attacks, you invite comments about editors who exclusively vote to keep anything and everything. Reyk _YO! 05:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think everyone here is familiar with the inclusionist/deletionist paradigm so it hardly needs explanation. Do we not agree that AFD deserves better than block-voting of this sort? Myself, I usually try to make some effort to engage with the topic, citing policy and sources as seems appropriate. I usually do this in order to save some worthy topic, as in this case, because less worthy topics don't warrant such effort. But I am not shy about deleting articles when it seems appropriate as in this recent case. I don't have the impression that you ever work the other side of the street at AFD but please feel free to correct me. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you were to create a list based on the United States Bureau Of Labor Statistics, that would not be the list that was deleted. It would incorporate by reference the standards set forth by the U.S. agency, and I would be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) if that source contains entries such as party leader and Queen mother, as the standardless deleted list did. Also, regarding your observation that it was "remarkable" that Wikipedia:WikiProject Index "did not seem to comment in the discussion", I would take their silence as consent to the proposed deletion; what prevented you from alerting the project members to the discussion underway? bd2412 T 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was going to suggest that somewhere in the 2,431 revisions of the article there's bound to be one that doesn't include those two, that could simply be reverted to; based upon the hypothesis that the article organically grew from nothing, as articles do, and simply gained some daft additions along the way. Then I looked at the early revisions of the article and the 2001 edit that introduced all this to Wikipedia in the first place, to see whether it was a safe bet, and found that there wasn't such a revision. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only vote to delete pages that don't belong on here. One of my main focuses is trimming indiscriminate lists, so you will see me at debates such as this pretty often. ThemFromSpace 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, well within admin discretion. Consensus does not require unanimity. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure was backed up by both policy and consensus. ThemFromSpace 10:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was rather clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or recreate A truly unaccountable deletion. As far as I can tell, it was deleted contrary to policy on the basis that a small percentage of the entries were unjustifiable. The topic is notable, sources are available--they were listed in general and they can be added to each entry though it would take some work. Given the available sources, the list would not then be indiscriminate. The simplest thing to do might be to userify and improve and restore; a list without the spurious entries would not be subject to G4, as it would meet the AfD objections. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, DRV is not AfD round 2. We are not here to discuss whether or not you think people should have voted delete, but (given that they mostly did) whether the closing admin correctly gauged the consensus of the discussion- which he clearly did. Secondly, you have badly misread the discussion. The silliness of a few of the individual entries was just one of many different objections to this article, including that it's too broad and unmaintainable to be useful, that it's an indiscriminate collection of information and that it's poorly defined. Reyk _YO! 05:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree about that this is a notable topic that should somehow be improved. Even though the majority here say "endorse," just like AFD is not a majority vote, DRV is not either. We should start over from somewhere. And we should all have access to the final version of this page prior to its deletion.

  I am not interested in working on the recreation myself. The only way I knew about this AFD is that I added one occupation to the page one time. Therefore, I would not like to have it in my userspace, as I would probably do no further work on it. But I do support something like this being around. Perhaps there is a place it can be where everyone can have access to it equally and readily, whether that by mainspace or somewhere else.

  The closer here should not just make a straight close as "endorse" and that be final just because so many people said endorse. We should find some middle ground. That's what should have been done with the AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'd prefer this exist but discussion was in favor of deletion and I found the keep arguments only slightly stronger at best. NC might have been reasonable, but delete is certainly a reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

New sources have came up in Talk:GNAA, which may (finally) be within the threshold for inclusion under the general notability guideline. This should at least be given a new look considering the length of time since the afd was closed. riffic (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion given the history of this article, which is currently indefinitely protected from re-creation, let's see an impeccably-well-sourced userspace draft first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if an admin is willing to userfy, I could add these new sources to the last revision. riffic (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted back in 2006, and the issues with the article weren't anything that could be fixed by slapping an extra couple of sources at the bottom--if anything, our standards of notability and verifiability have tightened considerably since 2006, and you face a very uphill battle in trying to prove that this comes anywhere close to our guidelines for organisations now. If you must try, you'd be far better off starting fresh (and rememberng to attribute every single statement in the new article to a reliable source) than to dust off a 5-year-old reject, add a couple things, and call it a day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to at least see the deleted version so I can have something to work with; do you have comments regarding the sources presented? riffic (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay nvm I just found it on web.archive.org, and agree that it is wholly unusable in its last edited form. Watch this space, I'll work on a (very lightweight) draft soon. riffic (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the sources presented? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on talk:GNAA riffic (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first appears to be a passing mention. I can't see the second one, but based on the number of pages I'd say it's reasonable to assume it's another passing mention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state specifically which sources you are referring to? riffic (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were added by an IP today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see a userspace draft. I think the first source is more than "in passing", but not significant coverage. If you have 3-4 sources like that and 1 really good one I'd say WP:N would likely be met. But given the history and topic a userspace draft is certainly needed. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'd politely request this review stay open until a draft can be started and looked over in good faith. As well, please state the specific sources you are referring to, thanks. riffic (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A first attempt at compiling a draft is here, and to anyone who claims the sources used are only passing mentions or not significant coverage, let me remind you "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Good job trying to attribute everything, but this pretty much underscores why they don't pass out organisation guidelines: they haven't really done anything. Let's look at what the article actually says: (1) They're named after a movie (2) they posted an offensively-named article on Wikipedia and (3,4) two relatively unknown people may or may not be members. That didn't cut it in 2006 and it certainly doesn't now. There's next to nothing known about them because there's really nothing to know, as they haven't done anything in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per Starblind's excellent summary. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Because the AfD for GNAA is protected, would an admin add the following to the AfD page:

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2006 November 28}}</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 6}}</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2007 February 18}}</noinclude>

<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2010 July 27}}</noinclude> Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough, done, and thanks for making it so easy on me. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just need one pair of noinclude's instead of 4, you know...:) T. Canens (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep deleted darn good try, but I don't think this meets WP:N. Is there someplace it could be added? Is there a list of well-known trolls or something? Goatsex? Hobit (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: doesn't meet N yet, but is on its way to being, I think. What would clinch notability is if we could verify that the iPad leaker did it because he was a GNAA member (i.e., for the lulz). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page should have been deleted, however it is not deleted, plz check. maxval (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page was deleted by AFD (in 2007) but it was later recreated (in 2009). Recreating a page that is substantially identical to a page that was deleted by AFD leaves the new page liable for speedy deletion (G4). But we would need an administrator (who can see the deleted page) to confirm whether the current page is substantially the same as the deleted page. If it isn't substantially the same - and this is probably the safest course anyway given that the AfD was about 3 years ago - you can always request deletion again at WP:AFD.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not substantially the same so is not subject to redeletion. This request is also misplaced; DRV is for appeals against deletion or deletion discussions, not requests to delete an article. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]