Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 28
December 28
[edit]Delete
- I'd guess the reason for deletion would be "non-notable computer game". I vote keep because computer games from established publishers are interesting and verifiable, and articles on them stand alone. Also this article explains the game well enough, although more detail would be great. Kappa 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Had a multi-platform release, and spawned a sequel and reissue, it's not Sonic the Hedgehog but I don't really see how its violated any of the deletion policies. Rje 01:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It was successful enough to arguably be noteworthy, and it's not violating any policies. Shimeru 02:36, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable enough that the title occasionally pops up from time to time. :: DarkLordSeth 03:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mike Feldman was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
vanity or policruft DCEdwards1966 00:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and I doubt that the Deputy Mayor of Toronto is creating vanity articles about himself. - SimonP 01:18, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. If he was an ordinary councillor I would have voted delete (there's around 30000 of them in Britain alone), but as he's deputy mayor of a major city I guess he must be somewhat notable. Rje 01:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The positions are quite different in Canada and the UK. Each Toronto city councillor represents some 57,000 people, and we have articles on many of them. - SimonP 02:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- The size of the article would be the problem, not the position par se. Some councillors are noteworthy, some are not, a sub-stub just saying "Person X is a city councillor in Toronto, they have 4 grandchildren" would look like vanity to me, or at least a page for a non-notable person. A deputy-mayor for a major city is notable, in my view. Rje 02:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The positions are quite different in Canada and the UK. Each Toronto city councillor represents some 57,000 people, and we have articles on many of them. - SimonP 02:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, there seems to be potential for expansion. Shimeru 02:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep All city councillors of major cities deserve pages. Earl Andrew 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 03:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Spinboy 03:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't see how being the debuty mayor of any city is inherently notable. Has the man done anything of note besides holding this position? DCEdwards1966 03:39, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a verifyable public figure. Bryan 06:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Neutralitytalk 06:59, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Since vfd posting, YUL89YYZ added two paragraphs and I just added three, hopefully putting Feldman in much better context and showing even greater notability than in the original two sentence stub. Samaritan 07:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. YUL89YYZ is a respectable user and won't add stupid articles. utcursch 10:48, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Ignoring my Toronto residency during the week, Feldman's article has expanded greatly. Ironically, he doesn't have as much of a public recognition as former deputy mayor Case Ootes, one of my personal favourite councillors ever. -- user:zanimum
- I don't think there's much chance of this one being deleted, but put me down for keep all the same. CJCurrie 01:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Public figure, inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic. GRider\talk 17:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. Dan100 11:04, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non notable. Megan1967 03:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep, by a vote of 12 to 7. User:Vacuum
According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment written guidelines, uncertified RFC's are to be deleted after 48 hours. This RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/jguk) was deleted, but User:Amgine re-created it by copying it to their user space. This seems to have been done in defiance of the basic protections and provisions of the RFC process – that frivolous RFCs are removed from Wikipedia. If we allow users may make copies of failed RFCs and keep them open in their user: space, we significantly weaken that basic protection. -- Netoholic @ 01:37, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Votes
[edit]- No vote. I disagree with the RFC policy of deleting uncertified RFCs. anthony 警告 00:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete -- Netoholic @ 01:37, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep, the RfC has been deleted, this is merely a copy. The content of the RfC is GFDL and there's no problem with Amgine keeping a copy. Ditto for Vacuum's RfC on you you've been trying to get speedy deleted. --fvw* 02:09, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Object to listing: VfD has no authority over anything other than the main name space; I agree with the thought, however - it is decidedly Bad Form to keep around such instruments, presumably to be waved about as some form of proof of mis-doing. James F. (talk) 02:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Currently, we have no other forum to deal with this. Truthfully, it, and any like it, should be deleted out-of-hand per RFC process, but others have objected to that idea, so we are left with this deletion discussion. Previous VFDs have handled user subpages, so this is not new. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep. I should note that the reason Netoholic is listing this is to use this as a proxy to get User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC deleted. I presume that this VfD will mark the end of the revert wars. Vacuum c 03:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep This is a personal copy of information which might be a time-saver at a later date. There is no policy stating a user may not copy a page to their personal space as a reference. This VfD is frivolous. - Amgine 03:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is no reason you cannot make a copy and keep it off-line (on your hard drive, etc.) for future reference. Keeping it live and open is not acceptable, and seems to be in defiance of RFC procedure and also is being done to promote incivility against the RFC subject. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Recreation of deleted content in apparent bad faith. Subverts the RFC process. —Korath会話 03:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I tend to concur. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Please don't abuse the term speedy delete. As we know, that type of deletion can only be done under very strict conditions which do not apply in this case, and I wouldn't want new users — or admins — to think otherwise. Deco 17:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It appears to me that this is not abuse of the term: #5 in Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion provides for the speedy deletion of "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." — Dan | Talk 21:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That depends on interpretation. I interpret "Wikipedia deletion policy" to be policy discussed on Wikipedia: Deletion policy, and I interpret "reposted" to mean recreated at exactly the same title, rather than reposted somewhere. Otherwise, we could go speedy-delete BJAODN, or a vanity-article-turned-user-page, or other generally acceptable things. Deco 03:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It appears to me that this is not abuse of the term: #5 in Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion provides for the speedy deletion of "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." — Dan | Talk 21:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It could be useful to re-refer to RFCs upon need. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 03:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I believe RfC information is fair game in a user's talk page. zen master 04:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. I don't feel this issue has a clear answer, based on Wikipedia policy, but I admit ignorance about the details of RfCs that may be germane. (See Comments below.) — Jeff Q 07:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obvious and transparent abuse of VfD to further personal goal of nominator. Neutralitytalk 07:04, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate use of user space. There is precedence for VfD handling inappropriate user pages, and deleting the same after reaching VfD consensus. This is a case of an inappropriate user subpage. Many users track another's alleged misdeeds on a subpage they have created for that purpose. I, myself, have such a page that I don't advertise. This is NOT the same. This is a record of an official complaint that was never certified, and was therefore deleted. The reason that policy calls for deletion of uncertified RfCs is twofold -- to reduce frivolous RfCs and to wipe the slate clean in the case of uncertified complaints. Allowing retention of a copy, as is the case here, defeats both of those goals. This was an official complaint made in an official forum. It was never certified and thus should not remain in any format, in any space. This is a case of a user attempting to use their user space to circumvent established Wikipedia policy. Users should be permitted to do just about anything with their user space except circumvent Wikipedia policy. Clear delete. SWAdair | Talk 09:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If the issue here is that the RfC was not certified, then perhaps it should be resubmitted. I don't see any description at Wikipedia:Requests for comment of what constitutes "certification", but if it's just verifying that two users attempted to resolve the issue, I could have done this, fulfilling the requirement, as I put considerable effort into this conflict — except that I didn't even hear about the RfC until after it had closed. (I saw no explanation on W:RfC, either, of how RfCs are supposed to be advertised — rather essential for something with only a 48-hour window.) I can also assure you that this was not a frivolous request. — Jeff Q 10:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- To certify an RfC, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve the same dispute with the subject of the RfC and have failed to resolve it. Each person who has been involved must certify by signing in the area "Users certifying the basis for this dispute." As a good rule of thumb, an RfC should not be submitted unless two people have spoken and agreed beforehand to certify it. That one step of preparation would prevent an uncertified RfC. This one, however, was never certified. Whether or not another RfC is initiated is irrelevant to whether or not keeping a copy of an uncertified RfC is circumventing established policy. I was not trying to imply that this RfC was frivolous, merely pointing out a very good reason why the policy is written as it is. SWAdair | Talk 11:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Could we get this rule of thumb on the RfC page, so people who aren't already familiar with the process can hope to learn it by some means other than bad experience? — Jeff Q 21:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I must apologize. Upon re-reading the RfC instructions for user complaints, I see that I could not have qualified as a certifier, as I had only talked to jguk through article talk pages when the RfC was created. I apologize for any confusion I may have added to this discussion. — Jeff Q 07:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Could we get this rule of thumb on the RfC page, so people who aren't already familiar with the process can hope to learn it by some means other than bad experience? — Jeff Q 21:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- To certify an RfC, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve the same dispute with the subject of the RfC and have failed to resolve it. Each person who has been involved must certify by signing in the area "Users certifying the basis for this dispute." As a good rule of thumb, an RfC should not be submitted unless two people have spoken and agreed beforehand to certify it. That one step of preparation would prevent an uncertified RfC. This one, however, was never certified. Whether or not another RfC is initiated is irrelevant to whether or not keeping a copy of an uncertified RfC is circumventing established policy. I was not trying to imply that this RfC was frivolous, merely pointing out a very good reason why the policy is written as it is. SWAdair | Talk 11:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If the issue here is that the RfC was not certified, then perhaps it should be resubmitted. I don't see any description at Wikipedia:Requests for comment of what constitutes "certification", but if it's just verifying that two users attempted to resolve the issue, I could have done this, fulfilling the requirement, as I put considerable effort into this conflict — except that I didn't even hear about the RfC until after it had closed. (I saw no explanation on W:RfC, either, of how RfCs are supposed to be advertised — rather essential for something with only a 48-hour window.) I can also assure you that this was not a frivolous request. — Jeff Q 10:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Jeff, I think we're interpreting RFC policy differently. I don't see any requirement to use personal talk pages (in contrast to article talk pages), only to have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Maurreen 05:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sheesh, I've made yet another mistake! When I posted my first comment under this vote, the policy under "General user conduct" read "please wait until at least two people have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute". So I correct my correction. Sometimes I'm a bit too anxious to assume blame for confusion, and when I re-read the policy, I must missed the second clause. I notice that it now reads "at least two people must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute", but article talk pages still seem acceptable. By these criteria, I could have certified the RfC, had I only known about it. — Jeff Q 00:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. silsor 16:17, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, never certified, so it might be misleading on a public user page. Wyss 20:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. As SWAdair says there are precedents for VfD being used to discuss personal sub-pages, this seems to me to be the right place for this discussion. It seems important to me that this is deleted. It is a copy of a page that was deleted because of a sensible policy aimed at removing accusations that have been shown to be unsupported by the community. To allow this page to remain is undermining that policy by giving a back-door route for making permanent a complaint that should (when not supported) be only temporary. If you want a copy for your own records, then make one off-line -- sannse (talk) 21:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, the policy is currently under discussion, and the accusation are not necessarily unsupported by the community; rather, no one at the time was able to honestly certify that they had also attempted to resolve the issues with jguk, and that those efforts had been unsuccessful. (There is a current entry at RfC about the issues, for example.) - Amgine 05:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't buy the permanence argument. Everything ever said on Wikipedia is recorded for all time in some history page, some database, even after deletion. The purpose of deletion is not to destroy content deemed unworthy, but to hide it from the masses who we serve, for their benefit. If you're claiming it's easier for readers to find on an active page, that is true — but they won't type the page name in the box and it won't come up on the default search, and most importantly, a page outside the encyclopedia proper cannot reflect poorly on the encyclopedia itself. Deco 08:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to circumventing the deletion policy for uncertified RFC's, this also violates the policy concerning personal attacks on other Wikipedia members. RFC's are one of the few exceptions to that rule; but a copy of an RFC is no longer a valid RFC and therefore is ineligible for an exception. --BM 02:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The RfC didn't make personal attacks on jguk; it only criticized jguk's edit's to the style guide. Besides, WP:RPA is not official policy. Vacuum c 03:27, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The specific case—removing failed RfCs—is official policy even if the general case is not. —Korath (Talk) 04:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- However, deleted in that case means that subpage is removed. If some user posts BJAODN/vanity content, I'm usually free to copy it to my userspace. RfC is no different. Vacuum c 05:00, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Material that has been preserved in BJAODN has been kept in a space that anyone may view. The original has been deleted, but no one has objected to it being copied to another space. BJAODN is an exception to normal procedure and should not be used as an example of the rule. SWAdair | Talk 03:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- However, deleted in that case means that subpage is removed. If some user posts BJAODN/vanity content, I'm usually free to copy it to my userspace. RfC is no different. Vacuum c 05:00, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The specific case—removing failed RfCs—is official policy even if the general case is not. —Korath (Talk) 04:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The RfC didn't make personal attacks on jguk; it only criticized jguk's edit's to the style guide. Besides, WP:RPA is not official policy. Vacuum c 03:27, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The user reasonably explained that he/she might need it in the future. The suggestion for him to keep on his personal disk is moot, since the data is related to this community. "Personal attacks" argument is inapplicable here as well, since no one was called an "idiot" or "scumbag" or "fascist" or even "ignorant editor". Mikkalai 22:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. While a user is certainly not allowed to have anything at all on their user page, I think removing this would be censure. The user is keeping a Wikipedia-related document for their personal records and not attempting to draw attention to it. Others have brought up the example of BJAODN. Let's focus on articles readers might actually see. Deco 04:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a personal page, and moreover material reasonably related to Wikipedia. Noel (talk) 14:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 20:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is indeed a loophole in the policy and almost certainly not what was intended by those who wrote the policy. But it is a loophole that can be easily plugged by an extension of the policy if there is consensus to do so. Yet that would still not wipe the slate clean. The memory will remain, however fogged, and at some time it may be felt necessary to attempt to correct memory on such a matter, to indicate by showing the actual text of a uncertified RfC that it was indeed a frivolous request ... or that it was a serious request, which perhaps garnered supporters, but not anyone who could certify at that time. Also, deleting this particular RfC copy would not be a precedent for copies of other RfC's, any more than deleting one article on a relatively unnotable school means that every article of that kind must be deleted. VfD does not run by precedent, except insomuch as an individual voter on a particular article may be wayed by his or her undestanding of previous votes on a similar article. Jallan 21:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, abuse of RfC and VfD. ‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 00:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
.gif){kind=small}
Comments
[edit]I found it worthwhile reviewing Wikipedia:User page to examine just what is and isn't appropriate for a user subpage. I found what I consider the following relevant elements:
- ALLOW: "to do" information, reminders, works in progress, archives of user talk
- The subpage can be argued to be fulfulling one or more of these, though it's debatable.
- AVOID: (basically, anything not related to Wikipedia)
- Clearly this is not a problem, as the subpage is quite Wikipedia-related.
- The Wikipedia community is fairly tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic," may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories.
- Experience-wise, Amgine is 8+ Wikipedia months old, with nearly 800 major edits, most of which are in Talk pages and Wiki meta-namespaces. Netoholic, who filed this VfD, has many thousands of major edits under his/her belt after only 6 months. His/her edits also appear to be mostly in Talk pages and Wiki meta-namespaces, plus Templates. Both sound rather committed, although more to meta-issues than to main-namespace articles. (I could be reading the histories incorrectly, though.) For what it's worth, the RfC author, Maurreen, and its subject, jguk, are both relative newbies (3+ months) and have both put substantial effort into their causes.
- Quite a large proportion of Netoholic's edits are reverts. Vacuum c
- That's nothing to be scoffed at, quite a few RC patrollers have reverts making up a large slice of their edits. It may not be the most glamorous or intellectual of tasks, but we perform a useful and necessary function on Wikipedia. --fvw* 16:42, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Yes, normally, but many of Netoholic's reverts are made just because he disagrees with the content of the page, without discussing it on the talk page.
- That's nothing to be scoffed at, quite a few RC patrollers have reverts making up a large slice of their edits. It may not be the most glamorous or intellectual of tasks, but we perform a useful and necessary function on Wikipedia. --fvw* 16:42, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Quite a large proportion of Netoholic's edits are reverts. Vacuum c
- Experience-wise, Amgine is 8+ Wikipedia months old, with nearly 800 major edits, most of which are in Talk pages and Wiki meta-namespaces. Netoholic, who filed this VfD, has many thousands of major edits under his/her belt after only 6 months. His/her edits also appear to be mostly in Talk pages and Wiki meta-namespaces, plus Templates. Both sound rather committed, although more to meta-issues than to main-namespace articles. (I could be reading the histories incorrectly, though.) For what it's worth, the RfC author, Maurreen, and its subject, jguk, are both relative newbies (3+ months) and have both put substantial effort into their causes.
- As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community...
- Squarely down the middle! Freedom for user, but community right to delete.
- Community policies, including Wikipedia: No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
- The subpage is a copy of a well-documented complaint of a user apparently violating Wikipedia practices, but it can also be seen as a personal attack.
- In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed...
- If the RfC was removed due to Wikipedia policy, a user subpage copy can be seen as interfering with the goals (as would be true of any copy of policy- or consensus-deleted material).
- If the community lets you know that they'd rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a year or so, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it...
- (See above discussion of users' experience.)
- ... Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.
- An offline or extra-Wikipedia copy would serve work-in-progress or archive purposes without creating controversy. Having it available on Wikipedia suggests a desire to make it available for community discussion.
- In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted... please respect our judgement about what is and is not appropriate.
- Is this an "excessive" case? Perhaps not, as long as it's not used to subvert Wikipedia processes.
Ultimately, I fear we have an ideological war going on here about Wikipedia style practices that jguk wants to change and Maurreen wants to keep roughly the same, and in which many others are lining up to aid in the battle. (Disclosure: I have participated extensively in this battle, usually on Maurreen's side, although I've found jguk occasionally brings up good points. My own bias is against frequent changes to Wiki style practices, using personal opinions rather than professional citations to justify them.) I don't know what Amgine's purpose is for retaining a copy of this RfC. However, I am sure that, regardless of the decision made here, the many participants of the ongoing controversies mentioned in the RfC will continue to play Whac-A-Mole with each other in every forum open to them. I don't think it will stop until some Wikipedia elders weigh in on the multiplicity of topics that are under discussion and that have been subject to frequent revision. — Jeff Q 07:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I submitted the RFC, so I might be biased. I can see how this is a gray area. But:
- Although it can be argued that the page is inconsistent with the spirit of deleting expired RFCs, the page does not actually violate the policy.
- At Wikipedia Talk:Requests for comment, most people are supporting changing the current policy, so that expired RFCs would be kept.
- I don't see how the page is a personal attack. I disagree that it is interfering with anything.
- Apparently Netoholic didn't bring up his concern to Amgine until the VFD was submitted. I think the reverse order would have been better.
- It's possible to compromise on this by removing any links to the page. Then Amgine will have the information handy, but it won't be obvious to anyone.
- I will invite jguk to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this VFD is not in his interests.
- Although he has objected to the page, I believe he didn't pursue his disagreement very far.
- From some comments he has made, my understanding is that he would prefer to at least let the RFC die – that is, not to bring any more attention to it. This VFD has the opposite effect.
- I don't wish to discuss my disagreement with jguk here, but I do agree with Jeff Q, that more community input could be helpful. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 12:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This VFD is counterproductive
[edit]At User talk:Vacuum, Netoholic said that to delete User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC, he would have to advertise it. Netoholic said he is backed into a corner.
He has chosen not to put that page on VFD. He is apparently getting out of the corner by listing User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC instead.
Netoholic said at the top of this page that allowing Amgine to keep User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC weakens protections of the RFC process.
But how is this VFD, and the fact that it has been publicized on at least two other pages, protecting anyone? None of this was needed to settle his disagreement.
If anyone doesn't want such information kept, the issue could have been handled in the abstract on a relevant policy page, instead of bringing more attention to the RFC.
If the purpose of this VFD is to protect the other party in my RFC, this VFD page should be suspended or blanked, and further publicity of it should be deleted from other community pages. (Because it was my RFC, I shouldn't do either of those myself.)
And then anyone can either put User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC up for VFD or start a discussion of the issue in abstract terms at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.
- Maurreen 07:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. This has been hashed and re-hashed on the RfC talk page and I think it's appropriate to bring it to a vote now. It was still selfish and unfair of him to put jguk in this position, but putting my RfC up for deletion is his most likely next move. 17:04, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC), updated 16:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Or, if he's really sneaky, once the precedent has been established he will incite some other editor to put it up through e-mail or use a sock puppet. I think the questionable motivation shouldn't play into the bigger policy issue that is effectively being discussed here though. Deco 03:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bomberman II
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
Article written by a POV pusher, from what I can tell from the contribs. Notability is iffy at best. Comments? I'm leaning toward some sort of redirect. Neutralitytalk 06:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Horrible article, but I do think there is some notability. I've NPOV-cleaned the article which doesn't leave much, but I suggest we leave that as a stub. Making it a redirect to The Skeptical Environmentalist would be acceptable though. --fvw* 08:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Never mind. I added a bit and I think this can stay. Seems to me like all this global warming articles are infested with an ultra-cynical POV. Neutralitytalk 08:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks OK now. I don't see why the comment about The Skeptical Environmentalist was removed; I suspect that it is the only thing this body has been in the news for. Isomorphic 08:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep The Lomborg ref should have been NPOV'd (it's a matter of fact that they ruled on his book) not erased. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but some statement at what its purpose is supposed to be might be helpful.Icundell 12:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's impossible to redirect it to The Skeptical Environmentalist because DCSD is not only about this event. On the other hand, this event is important for DCSD so it must be included. I also think that this event has shown that DCSD is analogous to the Inquisition - because its goal has been proved to be to prosecute the scientists who publish politically inconvenient results - and if the article were objective, this would be mentioned. But I realize that there are too many people who prefer to obscure and deny this analogy. The people with the average ignorance who consider anyone who goes beyond their average ignorance a "POV pusher". --Lumidek 17:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment None of that is hard to deal with. Section 1: Whahat is its constitutional and legal role and status? Section 2: What do its supporters say; Section 3: What do critics say? Section 4: Outline the TSE incident. All of this can be done from NPOV while giving every side a fair hearing. Average ignorance is not a factor. Icundell 20:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree. That's what I intended to be there. --Lumidek 20:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment None of that is hard to deal with. Section 1: Whahat is its constitutional and legal role and status? Section 2: What do its supporters say; Section 3: What do critics say? Section 4: Outline the TSE incident. All of this can be done from NPOV while giving every side a fair hearing. Average ignorance is not a factor. Icundell 20:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Wyss 20:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Megan1967 22:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It has the potential to be encyclopedic. The SE incident is the basis for the committee's current notability and should be retained. I would like to know of the background of the committees, what their intended purpose is, and more about why there was a disagreement regarding whether the SE decision was within their remit. --BM
- POVvy-ness is absolutely under no circumstance cause for deletion. Keep article as it presently stands. GRider\talk 17:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ghodbunder Road
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jingle Bells, Batman Smells
Voice mail was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
To me, this is a definition. Move to wiktionary. Smoddy | Talk 16:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I disagree, and I urge people to look at the article--it's not even a stub, by my reckoning. There's much more to say about voicemail. Article could be expanded, but is certainly a keep. Meelar (talk) 16:48, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)Keep redir. Meelar (talk) 19:35, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)- Strong keep. Invalid VfD — no notice has been put up on the page. The article is at voicemail, voice mail is a redirect. Clear non-example of a dictdef. JRM 17:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep, this is an article, certainly not a dicdef, and is encyclopedic. I can't see why this was list for deletion. Rje 17:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- To all of you, sorry. I definitely placed the {{subst:vfd}} heading and followed the procedure. Clearly other events have occured. I can't say I'm entirely sure what happened. Strong keep Smoddy | Talk 17:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have no clue either. My best guess would be that Voice mail got (speedily) deleted and then replaced with a redirect to Voicemail, but it's not in the deletion log.In any case, let's close this vote. JRM 18:19, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)- No, it's more subtle. You're not talking about Voice mail, you're talking about Voice Mail! That has the proper notice on it, and that was a dictdef. However, you should have checked whether it couldn't have been made a redirect. I've gone ahead and made it one. JRM 18:24, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- To all of you, sorry. I definitely placed the {{subst:vfd}} heading and followed the procedure. Clearly other events have occured. I can't say I'm entirely sure what happened. Strong keep Smoddy | Talk 17:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this could become a very helpful article. Wyss 19:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Summarized: Smoddy put up Voice Mail for deletion, but accidentally listed it as Voice mail, which was an existing redirect. The first version of Voice Mail was a dictdef or a substub (take your pick), which I have turned into a redirect to voicemail. No further voting should be done. If anyone thinks Voice Mail should not exist, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. If anyone thinks voicemail should not exist, make a new VfD nomination. JRM 20:29, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep. Megan1967 22:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong keep, obviously. -Ld | talk 00:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- 'Keep. Reasonable redirect page for Voicemail. So is Voice Mail. (Would be nice if the software handled these capitalization differences automatically.) Anyway, if it isn't a reasonable redirect, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion is the right place to get rid of it, as JRM says. --BM 14:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- An obvious and strong keep. GRider\talk 18:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Article about a piece of technology that has become a substantial part of everyday life. Could use a bit more historical context, tho. 23skidoo 00:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously more than a dictdef, and an entirely valid topic. neckro 09:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Nelson Ricardo 02:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. Dan100 11:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Prous Science was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
This page seems to solely be an attempt to direct traffic to a website. No apparent potential to be a helpful or encyclopedic entry. Smoddy | Talk 17:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I was just cleaning it up as you were VfDing. They do appear to be marginally notable. Tentative Keep. --fvw* 17:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
- Keep it. Wyss 19:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Megan1967 22:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep; Newfoundglory 19:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Khulm was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
It seems to me that this is on Kabul, so not needed--Thewayforward 23:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge what's possible into Kabul, there is some good stuff. However, Do Not redirect, Khulm is an old name for the northern Afghan town of Tashkurgan. As far as I know Kabul has never been known as Khulm. Rje 00:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like Merge and then redirect Khulm to Tashkurgan if someone can put something there.Kappa 00:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Comment: I've put something there, but it sounds like a different town of the same name. Andrewa 04:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm looks like the Afgan one has been renamed back to Khulm:
"Khulm , formerly Tashkurgan or Tash-Kurgan, town, N Afghanistan... Khulm is commonly identified with the ancient town of Aornos...was destroyed in mid-16th cent.; the ruins are to the north of present-day Khulm". bartleby Kappa
- Keep. Stubified, and the material about Kabul moved to talk:Kabul. Andrewa 06:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep with Andrew's edits. —RaD Man (talk) 07:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- keep]]]. JuntungWu 15:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Megan1967 01:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- keep and you're really supposed to read more than the first line of the debate. Kappa 01:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.