Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 25

< August 24	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 26 >

25 August 2008

Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete: Have you seen WT:CASH yet? This template is built for purpose. We don't want to have "See Hollywood Freeway" because it confuses peole when one highway collides with two number. The problem of duplicating the exit list is outdting when people will update one list but not the others, that's why we thouhgt about building a template.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Templates are not used for content, in part because it makes it harder to edit. --NE2 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a location to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a location to try and get a more sympathetic hearing. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Destination Void (band) – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

meeting the demands for band sand groups at point 6 of the wiki guidelines 81.217.56.140 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion - the article was mostly discussion of the various members of this band, which is apparently a spinoff of the death metal band Miasma (band). Most of the content was a detailed timeline of what the various members did through their careers, with a single line at the end saying that these members left Miasma to form this band. There's a note under the discography section that their demo is being recorded now. Under WP:MUSIC, there is one guideline suggesting that bands formed by members of other notable bands may be notable as well, but, and I quote: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." In this case, considering the band is just now getting started, hasn't even got a demo together, and so on, that a mention in the Miasma (band) article and a redirect would be a better approach for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that User:Destination void, who created the article, appears to be one of the band members, so there's a WP:COI issue here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, we seem to have a walled garden here, with Miasma (band) and a series of redirects for all the members of both. The deleted article is hopelessly poorly written, exhibits clear signs of WP:COI and lacks any obvious assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the argument provided here (WP:MUSIC point 6) was provided at the AfD discussion and proved unpersuasive - probably because there's no particular sign that Miasma is a notable band either. Indeed it seems likely that if that article was nominated for deletion it would be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to have been re-created. I will nominate for CSD as this appears to be heading in one direction. --Ged UK (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit of the recreated version was enlightening and PA-ish, too. My first challenged deletion *and* my first claim of misuse of the admin tools, all in one bundle! Woot! Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 26 August 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) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom e-mailed me, and I explained basically what I said above in a response, suggesting that if it wasn't good enough to come here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Endorse deletion as no evidence has been provided of an anomaly in the deletion process here. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John F. Dunn – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Dunn seeks review of Deb who deleted his name page Afterfostercare (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. entire contents at deletion were "You can read more about John Dunn at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Afterfostercare". CSDed as A3 - No content, it also effectively fails R2, as it is effectively a redirect from article space to user space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion under cases A3, A7 and/or R2. This was not content appropriate for Wikipedia. I would also very strongly urge the contributor to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. It is a very bad idea to attempt to write about yourself on Wikipedia. If you really do meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, you are much better off being patient and waiting for someone else to write the article. Rossami (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion in mainspace, perhaps userfying would be an idea. I use {{nn-userfy}} for this. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 25 August 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) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a simple request. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would never do this, but judge on the merits. We should not enact procedural barriers to those seeking to review administrative actions, nor delete or endorse the deletion of anything by default for failing to follow exact protocol. DGG (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS BY THE PERSON UNDER REVIEW - JOHN DUNN (AFTERFOSTERCARE) I am not an experienced editor here and I am the subject of this review. I am also not trying to be dramatic. I merely asked the deleter (Deb?) if I could discuss the issue and have as of yet not had a response. The deletion was almost instantanious to when I created the page therefore even if I was about to create much more content, it was deleted so quickly that I would not have had time to edit more content into it.

- Either way, I am not here to argue, I simply wanted to have a discussion as to why it was deleted so quickly and if the editor had any suggestions as to how I could have my name added since people do search for me on the Wiki and I want it associated with our organization, The Foster Care Council of Canada. I am also not aware of anyone who knows of our work, who also is ok Wikipedia, therefore have not had anyone write anything up. I do know that a great number of people use Wikipedia as a fairly respected source and therefore wanted our organization listed even if my name were to be redirected to it somehow.

- I even added my name (John F. Dunn) to the ambiguous names page I think it was called under John Dunn's but that too I think was deleted, I can't recall right now.

- Could someone please advise me and be patient since I have simply not been online as freuently as the editors might be, therefore it 'APPEARS' as if I have not replied ... instead I just came here today after only two days.

- Please advise how I can redirect my name to my organization without appearing to be "abusing" any protocols or rules here as this is not my intent.

- - I have finally figured out how to link the name John F. Dunn to my organization page. To see what I mean, and what I meant to do the whole time, do a normal search for "John Dunn" and see "John F. Dunn" to see how it now links to my organization. That is the intent from the beginning I was just not good at editing Wiki. Thanks for the decent suggestion DGG

Afterfostercare (talk) 03:37, 31 August 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 Petri net tools – Userfied as requested – Stifle (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

temporary revision

User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted this page a while ago. I agree with its deletion, but I want the latest content on my talk page so I can re-insert it into the Petri net article. Gustafson referred me to this place - I hope I'm doing everything right. Rp (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rp/List of Petri net tools but bear in mind that Wikipedia is neither a link repository nor a directory of non-notable tools. A straight drop-in to the other article would be inappropriate. Actually I don't see what you're likely to find useful in that page, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three Dots Tattoo – For now, just making a redirect with no undeletion. History available by request if anyone wants to work on it. – Chick Bowen 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obviously no consensus to delete. Closer has not left an explanation for disregarding this. meco (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, closer includes strength of argument relative to core policies. The deleters pointed out lack of verifiability from reliable sources and the prospect of the article being the result of original research. The keeps stengthened the delete arguments by backing up that the only sourcing was their own personal experience which would not be a reliable source and original research. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and recreate as a redirect to Criminal_tattoo#North_American - there appear to be plenty of online sources for the 3 dot tattoo and 'mi vida loco' ([1]) but it probably doesn't require its own article. Black Kite 11:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't write a rationale because I thought the debate was uncontroversial. Apologies for any confusion. This article was deleted because of verifiability issue - no reliable sources for editors to base on and write an article. The first keep voter, a self-claimed addiction psychologist, acknowledged that s/he has not "seen any research to verify whether the specific claims made in the article are valid". The second keep vote asserted that three dot tattoos is popular in Belgium but gave no reference to back up the claim, so that argument was weak. (The credibility of this voter is also hard to judge, as they were an anon.) That said, if good references are found here I would not object to overturning and restoring the article. Otherwise, endorse close. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest handing it as Black Kite suggests, or having a further discussion that might get some more attention. DGG (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This could be a potentially decent article with some work. If someone is willing to go dig sources up, let's put it into their userspace as a draft. Of course, a redirect is fine too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could go with a userfy. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:John Salza – I'm assuming this has been dealt with satisfactorily. If not, let me know. It's best that the history not be undeleted per BLP. – Chick Bowen 00:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could I have a history only undelete of the talk page so that I could look at the controversy before the deletion? JASpencer (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy was over sourcing (all refs were self-sourced to sites owned by the subject), with consequent notability issues. It's a bit problematic per WP:BLP, do you want me to mail it to you? Guy (Help!) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mailing would be great. What would be the BLP issues? JASpencer (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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