Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 4

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.135.249.68 (talk) at 21:31, 9 August 2006 (→Harrison Butler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

4 August 2006

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

I have been on vacation only to come back surprised that this page has been deleted. First of all it was only 13 delete votes against 11 keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons), which usually ends up in a no concensus result. Second of all it was nominated two months ago with 29 keep votes against 5 delete votes (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-time characters from The Simpsons). I do not find this deletion fair. --Maitch 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any specific reason to claim that Brenneman's closing summary was flawed? The closing admin considers the weight of argument more than the weight of numbers, and I have to say at this early stage that Brenneman's reasoning appears to accurately reflect the outcome of the discussion. If you have no better reason to overturn Aaron's closing than that the majority for deletion wasn't big enough, you're about to see a tidal wave of 'keep deleted, AfD is not a vote' comments. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among other problems, he failed to mention what policy he felt compelled the deletion of this article. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • People say that this is not a vote and therefore he is able to disregard some keep votes, but why doesn't he disregard any delete votes then. Here are three really bad votes without any particular reasoning:
Delete as per nom and others above. Simpsonscruft Bwithh 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete, excessive fancruft. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Strewth -- GWO
Furthermore, people on the delete side has failed to directly quote an official policy. Instead they are claiming subjective things like non notable, trivial and fancruft. The keep side has said that the list complies with the official policy in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) #2. I don't find the result of the AfD clear at all, and I would rather have this one list than a 100 stubs about minor characters. --Maitch 09:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion A valid deletion remember AfD is not a vote Whispering(talk/c) 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, closer doesn't provide any particularly convincing reasons for this deletion. Seems to be a clear no consensus split on the issue of whether the information is encyclopedic; should have been closed that way. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Good arguments on both sides but clearly no consensus emerged to delete the article. No policy issues mentioned by either the nominator or the closing administrator. However, the admin did choose to ignore the potent policy argument that the list conformed directly to point 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). While an admin has a modicum of discretion in closing these debates, that does not extend to the complete disregard of existing guidelines and one side of the debate equation. On a side note, I find the admin's closing comment on sock puppetry and nonsensicality entirely misplaced. --JJay 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try and be accurate, the word "sockpuppuet" is yours, not mine. I also presume that you actually looked at the contributions of the editors who actually took part in the debate for making this comment? And yes, "keep unencyclopaedic minutiae" is nonsensical. - brenneman {L} 14:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You specified it in your close and used the plural. So, in the interest of accuracy, where are all the "recomendations to keep from *cough* very new editors"? --JJay 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The closing admin gave a detailed explanation of how he arrived at his decision, and noted why a number of "keeps" were disregarded. If we were just going to count occurrences of the strings "keep" and "delete", we could write a perl script and not bother having admins evaluate the close. Seems like this was in process to me. Nandesuka 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Once again, We have the Deletion Police patroling Wikipedia finding any excuse possible to delete relevant information. The reason given by the Closing Admin is not valid, there was no clear concensus, and anyone with a brain can see that there was no clear concensus. The Simpsons is the longest running cartoon TV Series in History, and a list of one time characters is entirely appropriate for wikipedia. It never ceases to amaze me how much callous disregard both the Editors and Administrators have when it comes to the effort and work it takes to put together information such as this only to have the actions of a few people tear down all that hard work. boyohio02 01:57 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn: Neither deletionists nor closing admin really addressed the issue that this is a golden example of point 2 of WP:FICT, nor that there had recently been an AfD with a strong consensus to keep, and that nothing significant had changed since then. --David Mestel(Talk) 11:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The more informed policy discussion points to delete. This is outside the goal of building an encyclopedia, falling closer to trivia. It's past time we establish a pop-culture/TV wiki to beam all this stuff off too. --Improv 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - agree with the closer's summary. Wikipedia is not the entire Internet. If you want a list of everyone in the Simpsons, you may be surprised to know that you can Google it and find one of the trivia sites that are set up for this sort of thing. We're an encyclopaedia, not free webhosting. Arguments for deletion had the weight of WP:NOT, which is policy, whereas WP:FICT is a guideline, WP:POKEMON (as in "Half of Wikipedia is unencyclopaedic minutiae", to quote one keep proponent) is an anti-policy and WP:ILIKEIT isn't anything. And there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, so the fact that it was previously nominated isn't relevant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the fact that WP:NOT was not mentioned by the closing admin or in the debate, how do you specifically see this list as violating WP:NOT? The free webhosting section of WP:Not relates to personal web pages or file storage. That was clearly not the case with this article. --JJay 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if you want to wikilawyer, WP:FICT is a guideline for the application of WP:NOTE, which in turn stems from WP:NOT. Therefore, WP:FICT effectively carries the authority of policy. --David Mestel(Talk) 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how it works, unfortunately. Just because WP:FICT is based on a guideling which is based on a policy does nto give it the weight of a policy; the criteria listed in WP:FICT are far more specific than anything listed at WP:NOT and so can't be said to carry the same authority by extension. --Daduzi talk 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that information is available elsewhere on the Internet has no bearing on whether or not Wikipedia should carry it. Also, there may not be binding decisions, but there is precedent, and constantly renominating an article until the desired result is achieved, is, sadly, all too common an event. Turnstep 06:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He rejected Orangehead's "bad precedent" argument to keep (a decision with which I agree), but he accepted "bad precedent" arguments to delete from Carlossuarez46 and 23skidoo.
  • He discounted Kicking222's "speedy keep" vote by half because it was based upon a desire to uphold community consensus (instead of a personal opinion). Meanwhile, Scorpiondollprincess's "weak delete" vote (which was based upon the false belief that we should delete articles on subjects that aren't of interest to most people) was not discounted.
  • He legitimately discounted Magic Pickle's response as a "pure vote" (which it was), but he failed to discount a pure vote from GWO. (Aaron has acknowledged this error.)
  • He discounted Kappa's "keep" vote by half, due to inexplicable difficulty understanding it. (It's clear to me that Kappa wanted to keep the article because it provided readers a means of separating the one-off characters from the recurring ones.)
  • He discounted JustPhil's "keep" vote (based upon the belief that the list contained "notable characters") by half because it failed to address Switch's argument that these characters are mentioned in the articles for the episodes in which they appear. If anything, he should have discounted Switch's rationale (which ignored the fact that uninformed readers have no other means of knowing which of the hundreds of articles contain this information).
  • He failed to discount MLA's "delete" vote, which was based upon the belief that we should delete articles in need of improvement (instead of fixing them). —David Levy 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'll have to try and remember not to leave my arguments implicit. The point was about the scope of the article and the excessively lengthy and unencyclopedic listyness of it. MLA 10:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You're putting the "keep" opinions against the "delete" ones, as though they'd cancel one another like opposing ballots. But AfD opinions are not votes, and good reasonings should trump bad ones. I'll try to keep this short, so I'll only mention the first example. You matched Orangehead's badly-reasoned opinion ("Half of Wikipedia is unencyclopaedic minutiae. If that were a reason to delete that would set a very bad precedent.") against Skidoo23's well-reasoned one. ("Sets a precedent that might result in similar articles being credited for Star Trek, Gunsmoke, Doctor Who or even My Mother the Car. You can't just pick-and-choose what shows deserve a little "extra".) Even though you admitted the lack of merit in the former, you still discussed both as though they should be treated equally. That is not how AfD works. --Lazybum 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Aaron (the closing admin) is the one who assigned point values to the votes for the purpose of creating a numerical tally. I'm merely illustrating the fact that he made no attempt to apply the same level of scrutiny to the "delete" votes as he did to the "keep" votes. I'm not going by pure numbers; in my assessment, he discounted some legitimate "keep" arguments and failed to discount some weak "delete" arguments.
Keep in mind that I would have voted to delete the article (and I will if it's relisted). I don't, however, believe that such a consensus was established. —David Levy 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the AfD discussion, and I could not find any numerical tally in Brenneman's closing remark. Are we looking at the same thing? By the way, of all the "keep" votes you mentioned, only Kicking222's comment had any merit, even though I disagree with it. The ones by Kappa and JustPhil are not good, although not spectacularly bad as the one by Orangehead. --Lazybum 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk page for Aaron's explanation of how he assigned values of "1 vote" and "½ vote" to the comments. I disagree with Kappa and JustPhil, but I believe that their reasoning was valid. —David Levy 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the talk page, and I don't find the reorganizing of the votes/opinions to be a vote tally. There is no vote count, Brenneman writes "don't take the 'halves' too literally," and his use of "half" for the opinions sounds more akin to "half-baked" or "half-formed". The reorganized list looks more like a device to weigh the arguments from the two camps. Looking at the list, I'm once again struck by how weak the "keep" arguments are. The only one that has merit is Kicking222's "short time before renomination". Most importantly, none of the arguments goes into details about why the a list one-time characters would be of interest to those who are not fans of the show. --Lazybum 19:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's my opinion that Aaron did not apply the same level of scrutiny to the "delete" votes as he did to the "keep" votes. And again, while I disagree with the rationales expressed by these respondents, I don't share your assessment that they were "weak." I do, however, believe that some of the "delete" arguments (including that of Scorpiondollprincess, which you're repeated here) were. We shouldn't base our inclusion standards upon the percentage of the population with interest in a topic. Otherwise, we'd routinely delete informative articles on all sorts of obscure subjects of interest to fewer people than "The Simpsons" is. (That isn't the "bad precedent" argument. It's the "good precedent" argument.)
To be clear, I do feel that there are legitimate reasons to delete the article (such as my belief that its scope is too specific and arbitrary to be encyclopedic). I don't however, believe that the "only Simpsons fans would care" argument (which applies to most of our television series articles, aside from the main ones) is valid. —David Levy 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The article is about an important topic and fairly well written. The AfD doesn't look like it has enough delete votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as per JIP. Merging the content to a broader list might be a sensible option, but deleting this information is patently silly. —freak(talk) 13:39, Aug. 7, 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, closing admin made a good judgment call based on the weight of the arguments, not on the number of names. Ral315 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there really is not a good reason yet offered for this deletion, and more to the point, procedure was not properly carried out in this case. Should have closed as no consensus. Inexplicable. --71.36.251.182 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I find arguments on both sides to be fairly specious. This should be relisted with a clear instruction to argue from policy (especially numerous items in WP:NOT that can be applied here), and not from personal tastes. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - unsourced and breaching WP:OR. If we have an OR policy, how can it be kept? BlueValour 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, it's the close itself that is endorsed or overturned... :) Closing admin can make arguments in the close about what the consensus is. This one did, and I find them compelling. The keeps did not address the many policies we have that clearly rule out articles about such trivial minutae being suitable for a general interest encyclopedia, so their comments clearly should (and were) discounted. Aaron does not shy away from hard closes. This was a hard close, and one that came to the right result. We should encourage admins to make hard choices instead of taking them through the wringer for them... I see no value in a relist. Endorse close (and keep deleted) ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the delete votes cited any policies. The keep side however cited WP:FICT #2. --Maitch 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They didn't need to cite policies per se. Aaron knew the policies and articulated them. If an article is clearly deletable under various policies, it would be excessively wonkish for it to live just because the commenters failed to mention them. WP:FICT #2 doesn't apply here I don't think, as mentioned in just one episode is way beyond minor... ++Lar: t/c 07:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So the delete side doesn't have to cite anything, but the keep side has to respond a bunch of unmentioned policies - well that seems unfair. If you don't find WP:FICT #2 relevant then that is your opinion, but nobody in the AfD even tried to make that point. --Maitch 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - per JzG, Lazybum. Wickethewok 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Fountain

Article asserted notability, but was inappropriately deleted by Royboycrashfan (talk · contribs). There was prior discussion on these type of articles and Keep was the consensus. Also, the article was featured on "Your Turn" in Tampa. Deserves restoration and a review of this admin's actions should take place. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak undelete I'm undecided about the whole "local-newspeople" debate, but I don't think they're really speedy candidates. It at least deserves its day on Afd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: It is a question of interpretation, really. Is claiming to be about a weekend arts fill-in an assertion of notability or mere visibility? I might not speedy delete an article like that, but I can see the decision to be within the realm of reason. The fact that the nominator here wants to assure us that this has been settled as a universal keep really, really hurts the argument. Geogre 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, after reading the article I know less than I did before. Three deep links into MyFox Tampa Bay were the sources, and they don't look compelling to me. No prejudice against a redirect and collect all at a single article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seems to just barely assert notability. Could be taken either way, but I respect the admin's call in this case. Highly unlikely to have survived AFD. Turnstep 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Butler

I'd like this article to be restored to Wikipedia. It was speedy deleted despite not meeting the criteria for speedy deletion, and the reason given was 'not notable' even though the article mentioned his having work published. Dr. Butler was the subject of a BBC TV documentary, has an extant Association and is still widely known. I have never contributed to wikipedia before, and only did so to correct what I saw as an omission (I was reading the article on Naval Architecture at the time). I feel that the behaviour of the administrator who deleted the article was extremely poor. He left no message to tell me what had happened - this is ill mannered at best and cowardly at worst, and no way to treat a clueless newbie. Having visited his talk page as per the instructions above I note that there are numerous complaints from other editors whose work he has deleted - deleting other people's work in this glib fashion strikes me as bullying, and the high-handed tone he uses only confirms it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rentwa (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse delete but Allow creation of new article. The article was deleted by Xoloz, and at the time of deletion was a two-sentence sub-sub-stub with no assertation of notability whatsoever. I think most admins would have speedy-deleted it on sight as it was, and so I don't think there's any reason to accuse Xoloz of anything underhanded here: he was simply doing his job. That said, the subject does appear notable enough for an article (note this bio which says he had two books published). I see no reason why an article on him cannot simply be re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete so that there won't be a misunderstanding about the new article being an improper recreation. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own deletion. The article was spare, and a clear A7. I'm sorry the contributor was offended, but I do not routinely notify authors of deleted stubs, nor shall I do so as long as a huge backlog remains at CSD. I'm not sure I deserve to be called "cowardly" for doing my job, but I'll let that pass. Xoloz 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, with the caveat that the deleted text might be copied to Rentwa's user space in order that he/she might craft an appropriate article apropos of a subject who is probably notable (per Starblind). Xoloz, IMHO and BTW, though, is probably the last person to whose conduct high-handed could be ascribed, and I think the net effect on the project of his deleting articles tagged for speedy without, in the case of those articles that are essentially devoid of information, informing creators is positive—even as the occasional contributor may be nonplussed or even irked, the celerous (not a word) disposition of {{db}}s, which preserves the encyclopedia consistent with our quality standards, discouraging, notably, individuals from creating advertising qua article solely in order that the content should be mirrored, is of profound import; in any event, the new user, whom we welcome, might be interested to read WP:AGF, a good understanding of which every editor does well to have. Joe 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD per WP:BITE. Not a criticism of Xoloz's decision, but even if there was no assertion of notability it seems there is enough material to give it five days at AfD, and Rentwa will get a chance to provide evidence that the subject was actually notable. On the other hand, comments like "ill-mannered" and "cowardly" are uncalled for. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and Userfy. I don't know how long this stub had existed, but it sounds like the user wants to continue working on the article, and now knows more about our procedures. Letting them have access to the stub that was already written could very well make this a non-speediable article, and that would be a net gain for the project. No condemnation of Xoloz, however, who was just trying to keep up with the flow of new articles. -- nae'blis 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but allow recreation. If the user wants to expand the article, he is free to recreate it and ask for a history undeletion; he should also be allowed to quickly userfy the article for expansion there. However, the article as it stood was a clear-cut speedy, so I can't put any blame on Xoloz. Titoxd(?!?) 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


= ProgArchives

Noce job on deleting the PA article. Of course Goatse needs it own articl and one the web's best prog rock resources doesn;t deserve one. WTG bitches!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_4&oldid=68694480"