Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 12: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:31, 12 May 2007

< May 11	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 13 >

12 May 2007

Men in skirts

1. The reason given for speedy deletion - "recreation of deleted material" is not true. The deleting admin had assumed this, and has been proved wrong. As the author of this article, I was unaware of the previous, related article entitled Male Unbifurcated Garment, which was deleted about this time last year. My article has a different focus, being about the subculture rather than the garment, describing the issues involved and offering valuable resources and information about it.

2. The deleting admin, User:JzG, appears to be advancing a personal prejudice, as evidenced in the recent discussion on his talk page (archived here - PLEASE READ), and by his proclivity for deleting all related discussions, eg. on Talk:Men in skirts recently (which contained a valuable debate), again giving spurious reasons and offering no debate or warning prior to deletion; and by his inability to defend his position, offering up excuse after excuse and being defeated rationally on all of them.

3. The deleting admin's strong influence in deleting the related article last year adds more weight to the above. I and others have recently posited strong arguments for the undeletion of that article, which have also been ignored.

Bards 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stongly and absolutely endorse my deletion, obviously. This conept is already covered in skirt and dress#Male wear, also at kilt. The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums. We have deleted this or similar at Male Unbifurcated Garment and Men's fashion freedom, we've had endless problems with WP:UNDUE at skirt and dress and high-heeled shoe among others, and there has never been a credible argument that we need more than the section in skirt and dress. I'm also sick of being told that the removal of this content is due to my personal bias. A lot of people have looked at a lot of debates, and the result has been pretty consistent. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion - the article was utter bullshit. Even the title is complete unencyclopedic bullshit. -- Nick^t 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion pretty much per Guy. WP:UNDUE applies here, as does WP:IWEARTHEM. – Steel 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn/list at afd as the deleted article did not meet CSD G4. It's about the same topic but this speedily deleted article had much more content and many sources than the AFD'd ones, and the sources seemed credible at a glance. Not saying I'd vote to keep in an AFD, but this wasn't a clean speedy deletion, sorry. If the community deletes this version at AFD, yes I'd agree there's pretty clear consensus against giving an article to this topic. --W.marsh 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, then place on AfD The purpose of a deletion review is to determine, not if an article meets the criteria for deletion, but whether the process by which an article was deleted was in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. it is a review of the process that was used. User JzG misinterpreted criterion for deletion G4. This applies only if the article content is substantially identical to an article previously deleted. Bards states that he created 'Mens in skirts' from scratch, unaware of the earlier articles. There is no reason to doubt this, so it is reasonable to assume good faith and accept it. It is thus highly unlikely that 'Men in skirts' was substantially identical to any of the earlier deleted articles. I also think that the discussions JzG had with Bards indicate that JzG is not impartial, and in this frame of mind may not have made a proper judgement when he deleted 'Men in skirts'. It is also notable that JzG, in his comment here, fundamentally misunderstands the scope of English Wikipedia with the statement: "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums". English Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia about the world, but written in the English language. It is thus appropriate for English Wikipedia to properly reflect the wearing of unbifurcated garments by men throughout the world, not just the West. I don't know if the article meets the criteria for deletion, but I think that the wider community should decide this. Alan Pascoe 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique A. Pollack

I recreated the article because I had found other articles to show his "notability" Such as the Cuban government mentioning him in a formal protest to the United Nations.. I believe that the new article that I created is sufficiently credited and refrenced to be included in Wilkipedia. I woul like to request to have it reinstalled and see if there are any more problems with it from others. Callelinea 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. There were two new sources: one didn't even talk about the guy (just mentioned him as a witness to something), and the other was something from the Cuban government that didn't really talk about him either. I think it should be undeleted for the purpose of review, though. -Amarkov moo! 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restore~~. In many articles there is a lack of sources. I have added new sources and and am looking for more sources. Mr. Pollack has been a host of a popular South Florida radio show and has appeared in numerious TV shows discussing the Cuban government. Just because there are no specific published works on him does not mean he should be deleated. Plus it is not often that a government mention an individual to the United Nations by name. The problem with his original article is that it was written by the subject himself and was filled with POV.. The new article as I have presented it, takes away POV and states just facts.Callelinea 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate "restore" struck out. The nomination itself is considered an argument to restore. --Core desat 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' pretty much per Guy. [[WP:UNDUE]] applies here, as does [[WP:ILIKEIT|WP:IWEARTHEM]]. &ndash; [[User:Steel359|Steel]] 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''overturn/list at afd''' as the deleted article did not meet CSD G4. It's about the same topic but this speedily deleted article had much more content and many sources than the AFD'd ones, and the sources seemed credible at a glance. Not saying I'd vote to keep in an AFD, but this wasn't a clean speedy deletion, sorry. If the community deletes ''this'' version at AFD, yes I'd agree there's pretty clear consensus against giving an article to this topic. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
-'''Restore, then place on AfD''' The purpose of a deletion review is to determine, not if an article meets the criteria for deletion, but whether the process by which an article was deleted was in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. it is a review of the process that was used. User JzG misinterpreted [[WP:CSD#G4|criterion for deletion G4]]. This applies only if the article content is ''substantially identical'' to an article previously deleted. Bards states that he created 'Mens in skirts' from scratch, unaware of the earlier articles. There is no reason to doubt this, so it is reasonable to assume good faith and accept it. It is thus highly unlikely that 'Men in skirts' was substantially identical to any of the earlier deleted articles. I also think that the discussions JzG had with Bards indicate that JzG is not impartial, and in this frame of mind may not have made a proper judgement when he deleted 'Men in skirts'. It is also notable that JzG, in his comment here, fundamently misunderstands the scope of English Wikipedia with the statment: "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums". English Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia about the world, but written in the English language. It is thus appropriate for English Wikipedia to properly reflect the wearing of unbifurcated garments by men throughout the world, not just the West. I don't know if the article meets the criteria for deletion, but I think that the wider community should decide this. [[User:Alan Pascoe|Alan Pascoe]] 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Restore, then place on AfD''' The purpose of a deletion review is to determine, not if an article meets the criteria for deletion, but whether the process by which an article was deleted was in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. it is a review of the process that was used. User JzG misinterpreted [[WP:CSD#G4|criterion for deletion G4]]. This applies only if the article content is ''substantially identical'' to an article previously deleted. Bards states that he created 'Mens in skirts' from scratch, unaware of the earlier articles. There is no reason to doubt this, so it is reasonable to assume good faith and accept it. It is thus highly unlikely that 'Men in skirts' was substantially identical to any of the earlier deleted articles. I also think that the discussions JzG had with Bards indicate that JzG is not impartial, and in this frame of mind may not have made a proper judgement when he deleted 'Men in skirts'. It is also notable that JzG, in his comment here, fundamentally misunderstands the scope of English Wikipedia with the statement: "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums". English Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia about the world, but written in the English language. It is thus appropriate for English Wikipedia to properly reflect the wearing of unbifurcated garments by men throughout the world, not just the West. I don't know if the article meets the criteria for deletion, but I think that the wider community should decide this. [[User:Alan Pascoe|Alan Pascoe]] 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[Enrique A. Pollack]]====