Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 12 >

11 May 2008[edit]

  • Darth Vader's helmet – Endorse status quo of merge-redirect. Actual content of many delete votes indicates a consensus for merger, regardless of what bolded statements say (which indicated no consensus). That said, there is a clear editorial consensus here (and there) that an article on Darth Vader's helmet does not belong on its own. If significant new information with reliable and independent sources should come to light, future discussions to split the article should take place on the Darth Vader talk page. No prejudice against relisting at RfD, as a minority felt this was an unlikely search term. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darth Vader's helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Once you get past the initial repetetive "per nom" and "nnotable" non-arguments, the article was improved during the discussion to contain information that the consensus was really to merge and redirect without deletion. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of GFDL problems, I'm OK with restoring history and leaving a redirect Endorse deletion of the redirect barring GFDL problems. Seriously, non-notable item outside of Starwars universe, and nobody is going to use that as a search term. It would just be brought to WP:CFD categories for discussion and summarily deleted as an unlikely search term. No comment on GFDL authorship attribution problems on deleting the article with its history after merging the info it contained. Couldn't histories just be merged? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at Darth_Vader I can see some sourced mentions of his helmet, but it doesn't look like a major contribution to the article that needs attribution. Remember that the GFDL only requires attribution to the five major authors of the current version of an article.[citation needed] We are just preserving attribution to every single guy that edits the article because you never know who will wind up being a major contributor. In this case, I think that they merged so much little info that preserving history is probably unnecessary. The closing admin should look at the deleted article and determine if major contributions were merged or not, and some admin could comment on it too. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of the redirect — Le Grand Roi apparently didn't read those parts of the DRV instructions where it says "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." and also "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)." GFDL problems are non-existent and, more importantly, are employed solely as a tactical argument in the DRV-nom's strategy to transform Wikipedia from an encyclopedic project into a trivia dump. dorftrottel (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD was closed fine as far as I can tell. Le Grand Roi, if you'd like to perform a merge yourself I'm sure the content can be userfied for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure represented a very clear consensus on this. The content can be preserved by copying it somewhere else. There is a limit to the amount of appropriate detail in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist It isn't at all clear to me that the many delete votes saw the improvements to the article which were mainly made after they voted. Thus it should be relisted with the new material being explicitly taken into account. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - consensus appears to be clear, if the helmet is important to the character information can be included in the main Darth Vader article which isn't that long. If the information is not suitable for inclusion in the main article then a separate article would seem to go into an inappropriate level of detail. Guest9999 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any issue with restoring this as a redirect, so I'm going to go ahead and do so. DRV can decide whether to keep it as a redirect or restore the article entirely. --- RockMFR 02:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFDL issues. Overturn and redirect to Darth Vader. The ignorance of the inappropriateness of "merge and delete" persists. Work done on one page that now persists on another means that the history of both needs recording to comply with the GFDL. Content forks should *always* be merged and redirected by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, recreate as redirect to Darth Vader. As this has been done closure of this DRV may be called for. WP:MAD is something all administrators should be aware of and satisfying the GFDL takes precedence over a consensus at AFD, which could well be "wrong". The intended outcome was achieved; deletion was simply the inappropriate way to achieve it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the page has already been recreated and redirected, there is no longer a GFDL problem. Endorse the current state of affairs and Dorftrottel's comments. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current state of affairs seems fine to me. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and merge into the article, as has been done. The AFD was closed incorrectly as the discussion clearly mandated a merge, rather than deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am also okay with the restoration of the article, merge, and redirect that has apparently taken place, which is where the AfD's discussion was headed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can an admin look to see if any content was actually merged? If it was, then Overturn and Redirect really was necessary per GFDL. Otherwise, if no content was actually merged, then Endorse and Delete it again. -- Kesh (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content was indeed merged to this section. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was looking more for a diff that shows a merge was performed, not a claim that it was performed. -- Kesh (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look at the history. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did and didn't find anything. That's why I asked. If there's no evidence of a merge, then Endorse and Delete is my call. -- 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)~
            • It’s enough that authors were familiar with the other article when contributing similar content to the first, because we want to err on the side of being overly cautious with compliance of the GFDL. “the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the long-term success of the site” If we don’t respect the GFDL, how can we complain when downstream users of Wikipedia do not? Leaving redirects with histories intact is cheap, and doesn’t potentially destroy authorship information. “there are too many authors of individual little bits of information” is a slippery defence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the article had no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the helmet per se; in fact, the sources cited were not independent of the fictional character Darth Vader. What sources there were mentioned the helmet only in passing, or mentioned the helmet in order to provide context for more notable topics. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oddly enough, the article actually does have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the helmet per se; in fact, the sources cited were idependent of the fictional character Darth vader. The sources mentioned there mentioned the helmet in a prominent manner in order to provide context for this notable topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (checks all five sources again just in case) Uh, no, the first source is a guide to buying military memorabilia, so I don't think it deals exclusively with the helmet. Other two sources are references to the helmet on the context of japanese culture influence on Star Wars[1], and on the context of dealing with the figure of Darth Vader himself[2]. The last two sources are links to merchadising [3][4] in order to source that existed merchadising (of course, everything on Star Wars has merchadising of it own, so that's not notable either) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Time and fate deities in popular culture – Deletion endorsed. After reviewing the changes made to the article in the interval of the AfD, they do not appear to rise to a level where !votes early in the discussion should be discounted (and the closes seems to have accounted for these changes in the closure). The comments still address concerns that were certainly present in the article. I would not be averse however to userfying the article for further improvement. Assessments of particular topics as being "inherently unencyclopedic" are unhelpful and untrue. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Time and fate deities in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clear lack of actual consensus to delete; much stronger arguments to keep. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, closure addressed the relevant points raised and considered the relevant policies. Arguments founded on policy always trump arm-waving and bluster. The right process. The right result. What's not to like here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closure was proper and took into account all relevant arguments. Nothing improper here. KleenupKrew (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the closer gave all viewpoints the correct weight. --Hut 8.5 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The closure made a correct interpretation of rough consensus, taking into account relative weight of policies invoked and comparing strenght of arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually expected a no consensus outcome, especially with the improvements to the article and the relevant WikiProject becoming involved. Having no consensus allows consensus to develop in the future. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Stifle's argument in the AfD: "Delete all articles on "in popular culture" as inherently unencylopedic." The closure correctly weighted all arguments according to their validity and relevance. dorftrottel (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I personally am neutral on the close itself, but I believe it was within Sandsteins discretion to close it as delete. I would like to point out, however, that WP:TRIVIA has nothing to do with content itself, just how it is presented. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for being aware of what kind of guideline WP:TRIVIA is. It seems to be a common misconception. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In this case, everyone did agree that at best the material needed to be reworked extensively in some manner, and this can probably be done without undeleting the present article. DGG (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While thanking Sandstein for the thorough explanation, I believe that no consensus, keep for now, would have been a better close, especially given that the subject was a moving target and the latter !votes trended more to keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sandstein correctly gave greater weight to those citing key policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DIRECTORY. Spellcast (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per all above, and I don't need a comment on why my endorse "vote" is wrong, thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Smokeyjoe. Many of the delete votes occurred before improvements to the article. Since this was at best a no-consensus leading to admin discretion close without that fact that pushes it into the area where it should be closed as no consensus proper. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing improper in close, and the "improvements to the article" during the AfD discussion failed to address the arguments for deletion and so are irrelevant. Deor (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Claiming that all "in popular cultural" articles are somehow automatically unencyclopedic is problematic as Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC variations of "I don't like it". The fact is that the material is verfiable, covered in a variety of sources (thus, not original research), and presented in prose (thus, not a directory). Even if someone found this material to be trivia, well, trivia is encyclopedic. In the end, what it boils down is there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this article when we have projects dedicated to revising and improving these articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that deletion is proper on the grounds of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but because WP:TRIVIA says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations," I recommend that we remand it to the deleting administrator for reconsideration of whether deletion is proper based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and consensus, if any) or not. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. Given that some are saying that improvements to the article during the AfD are irrelevent because they were not good enough, can we have the article temporarily undeleted so that those improvements can be reviewed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn article quality is not a reason to delete which the closer seemed to be intimating with their final comment. If it had have been closed as 'no consensus', adequate time would have been possible for improvement rather than the 5-7 days of scurrying around. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nilsson awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
6th Annual Nilsson Awards for Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • New information about the awards have been added to a blogger website that seems quite notable. [5]. I would like this for review. I also spoke to the webmaster of the blog and he said that he has been granted permission from C.D. Nilsson to record the past awards, and the future ones. I think this is an article tht should be included for information for people who want to learn about the selection and about who was nominated ad won in past years. Hooty88888 (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
  • I messed up the signature thing for the reasoning for both reviews. sorry in advance, but it was me who add them... Hooty88888 (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7: Notability Hooty88888 (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. This is not new information, this is a blog with likely WP:COI creation and no falsifiability. When an article is deleted for lack of sourcing, it takes more than a free anonymous blog to walk back the cat. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I didn't see the old article, but this new source adds absolutely no assertion of notability, so the deletion decision stands --Enric Naval (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure of the AfD was fine, and the source above isn't reliable. It isn't "third party" or "secondary", as required by our notability guidelines. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I add that there are also newspapers that talk about the nominees and winners of the awards, though I don't know how you would know if these were "notable" papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.168.125 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those papers ought to be covering the awards themselves, and not just the nominees --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Even that blog posting doesn't explain anything. It looks like some guy's personal opinion. I can start an email list and create a list of awards, that doesn't make my awards any more notable than this guy's. Corvus cornixtalk 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse there still isn't enough to write an acceptable article. (What's with me today--I seem to have just endorsed three delete closes in a row.?) DGG (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I KNOW one article in a local paper discusses the awards and the history of them. I can also find another about C.D. Nilsson. He is an award-winning author so I know that he would be in there. I caan find others too with the winners and nominees and everything like that. Hooty88888 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your certainty suggests that bringing these reliable sources to our attention should be an easy matter. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could very well find these newspapers, but I would not know how to present them in a way to prove their total notability. I'd also like to comment on how the blog presented is NOT the only source and I only showed that to show the fan following of the awards. As for the near-unanimous outcome, I believe under the undeletion policy if new sources are presented the article can be put up for review. Hooty88888 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is that review, but you have not presented any sources. When you do, we can discuss notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no way to present this at this point. How can I show these newspapers as a source? Hooty88888 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, start by telling us what they are. Greater Shantytown Shopping Weekly? Filme Internationale? Le Cinema du Monde? If it's a source that is verifiable using Google News Archive or Nexis that's best of all. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can get one article from the "Thomaston Express" and one from "Grizzly News" both local newspapers. There may be a small snippet of information in the "Republican-American (Waterbury)", but that is a long shot. I will also work harder to find more, but that is all I have until then! Hooty88888 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The deletion closure was correct and the only additional material presented to justify changing that decision is a blog, which is not a reliable source, and indeed appears to be a primary source. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Near-unanimous outcome based on applicable policy. Sandstein (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I might feel differently if this blog were a well-known preexisting notable blog writing in the area that had an entry on the awards. But simply someone making a whole new blog about the awards really doesn't cut it. We need reliable sources that are independent and this one isn't. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the blog notable? If yes, then please explain; otherwise, endorse deletion. You can always re-add it, with appropriate independent sources that establish importance and notability. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blog has permission directly from C.D. Nilsson to post the winners of the awards and direct history and information about the awards and C.D. Nilsson. Apparently, however, this blog is not notable. And neither is C.D. Nilsson, who is an award winning screenwriter and well-known author, at least according to the people who closed the articles. I guess I can find the newspapers and reopen this when I can prove their notability. Hooty88888 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would like to note that this blog only puts up what C.D. Nilsson tells them. They have direct interviews with him and are starting to advertise. I talked to the owner of the blog and he said he is adding much more about the awards and should be adding the interviews with C.D. Nilsson within the next couple of days. just noting. Hooty88888 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to make it clear to you, but you're saying that the blog is a primary source with significant involvement by the subject. That makes it unusable as evidence of notability. This is going in the exact opposite direction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the prohibition against re-submission of deleted content applies only if the re-submission doesn't address the reason for deletion, even if the consensus here is to endorse deletion you can still re-submit the article with the newspaper article as a source. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He only asked what the blog was. I know that the blog, as a source, is a long shot, but it tells a lot about the awards. As for the newspapers I will dig them out and add them later! 69.118.168.125 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qualia (hotel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

G11: Blatant Advertising Potus1 (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very confused here. There doesn't appear to have been a deletion of that page, and your rationale would support speedy deletion. Could you please explain? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As I explained to you at the NCHP, the article is written like a brochure. You're welcome to clean it up, but as it was when you posted it, it's not acceptable for Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no content in the deleted history that wasn't cobbled together from various pages on www.qualia.com.au. —Cryptic 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_11&oldid=1138433563"