Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 14

< October 13	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 15 >

14 October 2008[edit]

Bosco Constantine – Deletion endorsed – Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is a Real person and a real musician who performs in a virtual world. That does not make him unreal. And of importance this is so his fans may know more about him. Please reconsider the administrator's action in Deleting the page. Thank You. EgonZimminy (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Sidenote: something I'd like to point out that I've said before. During time of deletion I was working on the article as it wasn't just something i put on there and said "there I'm done" with a few lines. -- EgonZimminy (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's a misunderstanding here. The article wasn't deleted because it was about a fictional character, it was deleted as failing to at all assert why its subject is important. Looking at the last version standing, this pretty well was the case, so I'm afraid I'll have to endorse the deletion. If you'd like to create this page, please do so in your userspace and have a few other editors take a look at it before putting it back into the mainspace. You'll also want to check out the notability guidelines for musicians. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was discussed with this admin - see here (a few entries above your own message!) and EgonZimminy was clearly told to come here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I indeed missed it. Endorse deletion as lacking any evidence whatsoever of notability. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion. Even if we go back to the more complete 2008 Sept version, there is no assertion of notability - I assume that a "Second Life Live artist" is as notable as a YouTube contributor - and no evidence of notability was offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I possibly be given a chance to rebuild the article from the ground up giving enough reason for notability to be allowed on Wikipedia. You may think that they are as notable as someone who contributes to YouTube but he is a great artist who just prefers to tour in a virtual world then in the real world, as he has family that he has to take care of and he enjoys being able to perform songs about the virtual world. Plus in the virtual world he is able to donate more of his monetary gain to Charity's such as donating all his tips to children in Africa. I really think if I was given a week to rewrite the article from the ground up I could find enough information to sway your decisions on deleting the Article. Or at least listen to one of his songs to see how talented he really is. Start up an account on the game and go to one of his shows. It's free to join and it's free to go to any of his shows. He brings in a large crowd to any "virtual" place he performs at. I've shown his schedule on Wikipedia before. Thanks. EgonZimminy (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for EgonZimminy --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of traps in the Saw film series – Hopefully Otto4711 won't mind, but I will relist this for a further AFD. – Stifle (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The AFD didn't really have a clear consensus, IMO. There were roughly 12 in support and 12 in favor of deletion. 8 of the 12 deletionist votes were pretty much just saying "cruft" (and yes, I'm aware that it's not an "official" rule). One person's rationale for deletion was (and I'm not making this up) "I think it may be spoiler material, and who likes spoilers anyway?!" One person's opinion was influenced by their apparent dislike for the film. ("We don't need poor articles on poor films")

Which is not to say that the "Keep" arguments were top-notch, but their general consensus was, "The article does need a lot of work, but it could be salvaged." User:Ecoleetage, for example, said he would have been willing to work to get the article back in shape had it been kept. (The article had gotten a bit sloppy and overwieldy, no one was doubting that.) Or, it could have been shortened and maybe merged. I was purposely staying away from the article at the time because I was wary of getting 'spoiled' but I too was willing to find sources, reception, etc and other non-plot information once I had seen the next film.

Anyway, the article was deleted by Stifle, who said it was "per the general weight of the comments". I asked Stifle what he/she meant by this and why they felt that the "general weight" indicated deletion, but I didn't even get a clear answer. Just basically "I'm happy with my closure and you're welcome to use DRV if you wish", which was repeated when I asked a second time. When I asked again, the topic was archived before I received any definite answer. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close with the possibility of fixing it up in userspace if anyone wants to. This looks like an article that's had its cance and then some, but just never materialized as something to put in an encyclopedia. It's been around for years, had plenty off edits (2000+!) and lots of editor scrutiny, so nobody can say it's pined away from lack of time or attention. A trim and well-sourced draft in user space looks like the only hope at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Restore. Stifle stated the deletion was based “Per the general weight of comments,” which is curious since the consensus was nearly even split (13 in Keep and 12 in Delete) and those in favour of deletion offered nothing beyond the weak-tea “fancruft” argument. There was a lopsided surplus of “but you’re wrong!” comments directed at the article’s supporters by the individual who started the AfD – and it became so excessive that I repeatedly asked him to stop badgering everyone that disagreed with his nomination (it was nothing personal, since he was also once my “adopter” here on Wikipedia). As Cyberghostface stated, I am more than willing to help edit the article into proper shape – an offer that I made in the AfD and which was completely ignored at the time. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you're not suggesting that we determine things around here with a head count. Pagra shtak 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think he was.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I'm confused as to what "the consensus was nearly even split (13 in Keep and 12 in Delete)" is supposed to mean. Pagra shtak 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was not suggesting we do things by head count...and don't call me Shirley! :) All Airplane! references aside, I only cited those figures to show the basic problem with Stifle's statement on the "general weight of the comments" -- it clearly did not go in favour of deletion, as he insisted. I don't know what he was weighing, but it wasn't the consensus in this AfD discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore as even the closing Admin noted that there was no consensus to delete. With respects to User:Stifle, consensus must be respected or there will be chaos. Please let the article be improved as was the closing admin's sugestion and User:Ecoleetage's offer. Improving the article improves Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong AFD, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (2nd nomination). Pagra shtak 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see delete comments in the AFD asserting that the article is not notable, and I do not see a valid refutation. What is the response from those who wish to overturn? Pagra shtak 18:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - yes, the numbers were split fairly evenly between keep and delete but AFD is not a vote. Many of the keep arguments were along the lines of "It's interesting" and "it's useful" and the ever-popular "if you keep it we'll make it better we promise." Nothing that addressed the WP:OR and WP:PLOT concerns raised by the nomination. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to shape it into an acceptable article all they need do is ask any admin. Otto4711 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion. AFD isn't a vote and when it is close, the closing admin has to ive weight to the arguments bearing in mind whether they are arguments based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline or just a user's opinion. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have a copy of the article on my sandbox. When and if it's shaped up considerably better than the current version was, am I going to having to worry about someone throwing the db-repost tag or something similar on it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't, provided it is done correctly (that is a big "if"). I've actually restored about a dozen formerly deleted articles and brought many of them to DYK. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should bring it here for review to allow the community the opportunity to endorse restoration. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question No one is saying AfD is a vote - we all know how the process works, so let's nip that in the proverbial bud. However, I would ask if Stifle could please explain his decision -- his closing comment in the AfD was vague and he declined to discuss the matter with CyberGhostFace on his Talk Page. Perhaps if we could get an idea of how he came to his decision, we might be able to avoid repeating potential similar mistakes in the future. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for closing by someone else, ~~and send to the Arb Com~~ For an active participant in discussions a certain type of articles with known strong opinions to decide good-faith disputed afds -- especially afds with some degree of balance in the opinions in that field is favor of his own point of view is about as wrong as an admin can do, and is exactly equivalent to protecting articles in favor of one's own POV, for which people have consistently been desysopped. In my view of the matter, it is cause for desysop. If I were to close an afd like this as keep, I would either apologize and reopen it, or resign the mop-- and if I did not do either, I should be made to do so. As a frequent opponent of the closer on these issues, I am not going to personally commence action though. DGG (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) (adjusted my comment) DGG (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I obviously think that's a bit extreme, but if folks think it justifies an RFC, then go for it. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Qantas Flight 72 – Moving user draft into mainspace. – lifebaka++ 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Primary reason: Shortly after the deletion of the page, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau made a formal announcement regarding progress of their investigation, timed to conincide with Airbus releasing an Operators Information Telex advising of revised procedures and checklists. The key development is the identification of a unique aircraft systems fault as the likely origin of the accident events and the subsequent new procedures suggested by the manufacturer for minimising risk if such events were to reoccur. Secondary reason: I believe an incorrect assessment was made of the AfD outcome. The deleting admin has identified on their talk page that they arbitrarily discounted the opinions of unregistered users and didn't adequately take into account the impact of the emerging information superceding some key AfD arguments. My request to have the page undeleted as is was declined - instead it was placed in my userspace at User:Rob.au/Qantas Flight 72 where I have updated it. Rob.au (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to recreation if there is a consensus that it meets notability, etc (the stuff that made the people at AFD vote to delete it). MBisanz ^talk 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shortly after the deletion this emerged, clearly demonstrating the industry wide impact of the event that was still in question at the time of the deletion.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but permit recreation if new sources and information are out that can show notability. To the nominator: it is standard practice that new and unregistered users have their opinions discounted or given less weight at AFDs, nothing arbitrary at all about it. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The fact that there is major new information is the primary reason I listed this article for deletion review. I have added it to the article as now appears in my userspace at the request of the closer. The critical (and extensive) new pieces of information are most authoratively discussed by the primary investigation authority. The new information clearly demonstrates notability. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation as the closer seem to agree. DGG (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation since it's clear on what the problem that caused the incident and Airbus has sent out an advisory to other airlines about the same type of Aircraft which makes the incident even more notable then it was during the deletion process. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation. It has now been determined that "no similar incident had occurred on an Airbus" and "the company issued an international alert about the incident to all operators of Airbus aircraft, including recommendations to mitigate risks should the situation on QF72 recur". [1] A very notable incident. WWGB (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation meaning feel free to move User:Rob.au/Qantas Flight 72 to Qantas Flight 72. With reliable sources jabbering away in print about the topic, the reasons for deletion listed at AfD1 seem to have been overcome. -- Suntag ☼ 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is my preference also, but I assume it will be better for the original talk page to be restored in place of the talk page that exists now in my userspace. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation noting that the original page if un-deleted may need some editing to update it with the new notable information. This article, which previously should have survived an AfD (just!) is now much more important and should be included. PS I deleted the page I was re-creating after I found out about this review. Buckethed (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation as per Suntag --Matilda ^talk 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation with factual subject matter from reliable ATSB, as opposed to speculative press reports. The previous article got it wrong as it was created before any facts became available from the ATSB and therefore incorrectly described this as a turbulence incident, and was rightly deleted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation as it meets two points in the airline incident/accident notability criteria, it involves an unusual circumstance and it looks like it will be contributing to industry procedures changes. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation Although I was the nominator for this article's deletion at AfD, I would fully support this article returning to the mainspace. At the time of nomination, the incident was simply being reported as turbulence - which is in no way notable and should certainly not be on an encyclopaedia. People seem to rush into creating articles on any Qantas incident that has occurred. But now that time as passed, and as I stated in my original AfD nomination, I would fully support the recreation of this article if some information came out that makes the incident sufficiently notable. The information regarding the aircraft's computer systems causing the incident means it should definitely be re-created. Mvjs Talking 05:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit re-creation: The new information changes everything. It is now one of the most notable incidents in the history of fly-by-wire flight, and may result in changes being made to all Airbus aircraft.--Lester 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.