Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deathphoenix (talk | contribs) at 12:25, 19 July 2006 (→[[King's Highway (Ontario)]] → [[List of Ontario provincial highways]]: Withdraw). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 18 July 20 >

19 July 2006

List of vegetarians

Joel Leyden

  • Joel Leyden was again deleted out of process by user danny. The Leyden article was in AfD twice and the vote each time was "keep." Leyden, who has served as an advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Defense Forces has over 15,000 articles about him on Google Web and Google News, has been interviewed and quoted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, AP, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, Christian Science Monitor among thousands of other international and domestic media outlets. In fact, Leyden is quoted again in today's Jerusalem Post. Propose immediate relist due to out of process deletion. User:Bonnieisrael Bonnieisrael 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Danny. Please see Danny's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination). In deference to Danny's position, I'm willing to take him at his word. Keep deleted. BigDT 06:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Out-of-process deletion. Spacepotato 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This is one of the occasions where AfD voters may not have all the information necessary for a good decision. Democracy works when the voters are educated and free, and in 99% of the cases they are both. In this case, Danny (and some other ancients) knows about the longish history here. This is a figure whose successes at spamming have led to his ability to generate Google hits, but he is attempting to advertise. No. Geogre 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, Proto's (and Danny's) justification in the AfD is more than good enough for me. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of strike-breakers

REVIEW of LIST OF FAMOUS STRIKEBREAKERS Forgive me my NOOBiness.... I feel I have a valid piont about Facts and Truth getting lost in political heatedness and trying to find a way to seperate them.......

I was browsing through the Wikipedia recently and came accross an amazing page. It was a list of professional atheletes/actors who had crossed union picket lines during player strikes. A couple of times, I attempted to cross reference the list to the pages of the individual players and add a comment on the player page that they did, in FACT, cross a picket line during a strike.

Not only were my edits purged by Kukini, but the page listing the picket line crossers was also removed. I have subsequently done a Google search in an attempt to find a list of names, to no avail. Wikipedia was the ONLY readily avialable source for this information. This is information that is very interesting/important to me, as it's all I've been talking about since I discovered it's existence.

The information was removed on the grounds that it was a Pillory. Seemingly the word "scab" sets hearts aflutter when used in reference to people who cross union picket lines.

This is a valid point for the possible removal of the word "scab", EDITing the information, or disclaiming the entries. This is most definately NOT a valid point for REMOVING the information from Wikipedia.

I submit, that while a comprehensive list of all people who have crossed the lines in any strike (Believe me, every one of them is on a list somewhere) is excessive, the Wikipublic is entitled to have this information in regards to famous personages.

I am campaigning for a return of the list of professional atheletes/actors/famous people who have crossed union picket lines. Further, I would like to see the information cross-referenced to the individual pages of the said persons.

This information on the lives of the famous personages in question that is not only undisputed, irrefutable, FACT; but easily as important as the number of passes they attempted in their career. To omit this information is nothing short of sugar-coating the lives of sports heroes because their actions might be percieved by some as unsavory. Keep in mind that when you search Kobe Bryant, there is a paragraph on the Allegations of Sexual Misconduct which includes a link to a seperate page detailing the Allegations. If we can read about the Allegations concerning Kobe, why are the FACTS about the lives of NFL/MLB/SAG members who chose to cross picket lines being deleted?

I understand that this is a sensitive topic to some, but surely the FACTS can be presented as such. A simple list titled "players who crossed the picket lines during the 1987 NFL(MLB/SAG) players stike" would be wonderful and serve the Wikipedia community high standard for TRUTH without being a pillory.

If you support the deletion of this list, I submit that you also support the deletion of the five page Wikipedia entry :List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people for the same reasons. 

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by XxxSKOOKUMxxx (talk • contribs) 05:17, July 19, 2006  (UTC)
After reviewing the article, I found that it wasn't NPOV, and only mentioned the word "scab" once. However, after reviewing the AfD discussion, most of those seeking deletion cited it being crufty, only a few claimed it was NPOV. And regardless, there was clear consensus in the AfD discussion to delete -- I agree with Sam Blanning below that pile-on claims are irrelevant. Policy was clearly followed, and my endorsement stands. -- NORTH talk 09:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - the AFD got to pile-on delete status before an opposing view was given. I suggest relisting it to make sure that the correct decision is made. Honestly, from looking at the google cache version [3], I don't see the great rush to delete. It's a list that makes sense with the Strike action article. It isn't listing random words or other useless garbage. It isn't suitable for just a category. I'd say relist to make sure that the right decision was made. BigDT 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - pile-on delete status by people trigger happy and more concerned with deleting the aticle than making it NPOV. --Daniel Olsen 06:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - valid AfD, validly closed, and the claims of a 'pile-on' don't have any basis in reality. If the AfD saw lots of delete arguments, and then a well-reasoned keep argument, which was followed by lots of keep arguments and no counter-arguments, that would be evidence of an initial pile-on and the closing admin would be entitled to close as keep or no consensus, given the change in direction. However, in this AfD there was a consistent consensus for deletion all the way through. Every single keep argument was followed by more editors arguing for deletion, indicating that none of the reasons given for keeping were persuasive. Nothing to review here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Sam Blanning's excellent rationale. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos

The article was originally a stub, and was deleted for lack of information. I recreated it with new information and a goal to expand the article, and it was listed for speedy deletion as a repost of an old article, which it wasn't. I tried to debate the deletion at WP:SD and on the article's talk page, and tried to argue that I had and would continue to add new information, but it was promptly deleted anyway. I would like a chance to explain that this article is not what was originally deleted: it has been and will continue to be expanded, and I would like to be able to argue my case without the discussion being deleted.

--Daniel Olsen 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How are you going to discuss any of this without infringing copyright? Their list is their intellectual property, and reiterating it is a copyvio. Not repeating it would require talking about the list rather than providing the list, and there are some serious limitations of the utility there. Has the list made such a stink that other publications are reacting to it, that artists are trying to beat each other to make it, that there is a demonstrable effect as a phenomenon that can be discussed? Geogre 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think poll results really qualify as intellectual property. If it was a list that was put together by the staff or by some famous guitarists i would understand, but I don't think the poll results from this magazine are any more copyrightable than the poll results from an election. The copyright issue, however, is not the reason I am listing this here. I feel that here is potential for the article to expand, and after taking a little bit of initiative to expand it (with more planned) I am a little angry to see it get deleted simply because it was once considered useless. --Daniel Olsen 06:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The polls were conducted and published by a private organisation that has not chosen to release copyright on their work. Therefore, it is a copyright violation to publish their work. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways

Redirect was speedily kept despite 5 users supporting deletion and the only user supporting keeping was the author of the redirect. Closing summary given was, "The nominated redirect was kept, clearly a misguided or bad faith nomination," a violation of assume good faith. -- NORTH talk 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At the time the rfd was closed, there was an active drv in progress[4]. Although it was originally regarding the speedy deltion of the redirect, I did add a comment about the rfd to the drv, so it was available to comment on. While personally I think the drv should have been closed and the rfd continued (and not the other way around), because rfd can discuss a wider scope of arguements than drv, the fact that the rfd was mentioned at drv already and received no major opposition, would seem to me that it's been mostly reviewed already. Regards, MartinRe 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was unaware of the prior DRV. I still think the closure of the RfD reeks of something, however. -- NORTH talk 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    1. WP:POINT creation by SPUI to support his category renaming request.
    2. speedy request by me (deleted).
    3. DRV request by SPUI (undeleted immediately).
    4. RfD request by me.
    5. RfD closed within 6 hours.
    6. DRV closed as "moribund" a few days later.
    • In short, never had a real review anywhere.
    • However, the CfD/CfR to rename the category to match the redirect failed.
    • Meanwhile, SPUI continues to edit war over the redirect, the validity of the page where it redirects, where/whether the redirect should be used, and the text nearby describing his one (1) use of the redirect on a disambiguation page.
    • Yep, the RfD stinks, the DRV stinks, and it must be nice to have friends in high places....
    --William Allen Simpson 02:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this DRV, this has already been DRVed not too long ago. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion was reviewed, the RfD--while briefly mentioned in that review--was IMHO not. -- NORTH talk 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... good point. I was working off memory when I !voted as above. I hereby withdraw my !vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obviously useful redirect. William Allen Simpson is now revert warring to say that the King's Highways are now controlled-access highways due to a misreading of the law that designates them. --SPUI (T - C) 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_19&oldid=64649962"