Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 27: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bdj (talk | contribs)
19,739 edits
→‎Axe Murder Boyz: not survive an AfD?
→‎[[Trustafarian]]: closing (del. endorsed)
Line 17: Line 17:





====[[Trustafarian]]====
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustafarian]]
Okay, this one was deleted by a relatively quiet AfD 7 months ago. The arguments used for deletion were problematic and not challenged sufficiently (IMO). First, there was the argument that it's a pejorative term. That's true, but that's simply not grounds for deletion, we still routinely include articles on pejorative terms, we just try to make them neutral (e.g. [[McMansion]], [[Flip-flop (politics)]], [[Faggot (epithet)]] ad nauseum). Second, there was the argument that the term is a neologism, which is true, it's first use in print (in [[The Washington Times]]) was in 1992. But solely being a neologism isn't a good reason to delete, having little or no meaningful use in reliable sources is, and I think this term clearly has been used in plenty of reliable sources ([http://www.wordspy.com/words/trustafarian.asp], [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=trustafarian&btnG=Search+News], [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&q=trustafarian&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw], etc). Third, there was the argument that this is a dicdef... but I think the article that was deleted, at 5 paragraphs, still had room for expansion so it clearly wasn't a dicdef. I'd like this to be relisted with this new evidence, or alternatively, the article just kept outright. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion''', it's a neologism and a dicdef. No prejudice against creation of a proper article on the term if one can be written, I guess, although "proper" articles on neologistic slang dicdefs are few and far between. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
:The problem is that anything under this title is getting deleted as G4... even though it really isn't a recreation. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. [[WP:NEO]] says that for neologisms, reliable sources to support an article are reliable secondary sources ''about'' the term, not ones that merely ''use'' the term. I don't see in the proposal here, the AFD, or the version over on Wiktionary, any evidence of such sources. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Endorse deletion'''. Per above.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 01:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
* '''Restore'''. There is evidence of repeated use of G4 to prevent the writing of a legitimate article on a subject which obviously merits one. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. I checked the three versions of the article deleted by G4 since the AfD. Two were identical, and both different versions were someone writing down [[WP:OR|what they think a trustafarian is]]. The first said that a trustafarian is "one who is within the broader social class of anything above lower middle", which would result in a lot of dropped monocles if we actually pretended that was an article worth a fresh AfD. If someone had tried to write a sourced article which wasn't a dictionary definition then we might have reason to reconsider G4-ing, but no-one has. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Sam Blanning. If editors are concerned that a valid article will be G4-ed, they can always start it in user space and invite comments from the community before going live. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Even if you could find evidence that this is no longer a neologism (and I couldn't), it's still a mere dicdef. I'd recommend a [[m:transwiki|transwiki]] to Wiktionary but [[wikt:trustafarian|it's already there]]. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 03:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


====Axe Murder Boyz====
====Axe Murder Boyz====

Revision as of 15:27, 1 September 2006

< August 26 August 28 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

27 August 2006

Axe Murder Boyz

This article was speedily deleted as a "nn band" on August 9 [1] by User:King of Hearts. this qualifies as an A7, and he claims the article had no assertion of notability. As the userfied version shows[2], the assertion notability was clearly established by the noting of a national tour, and the hangon tag either ignored or never followed up on, having been there for two hours. Upon bringing up at the talk page of KoH, the page was userfied and has not been acted on since I attempted to cooperate even though the CSD policy didn't require it (A7: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead."). The assertion isn't disputed, or controversial, so this should certainly be undeleted, but I'm not opposed to a relist to put this to bed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave deleted: A national tour has never been a claim of notability in the past, and for good reason. Touring is difficult, but it's a thing everyone does. "National" can mean different things in different places, too. A national tour of Australia is hard. A national tour of the US is difficult. A national tour of Luxemborg...not so difficult. The point is that touring is gigging, and it's a fine thing and necessary, but it's something that thousands of club bands are doing at any given moment. This is not "should keep delete" that I'm arguing, but "is not an assertion of notability": I don't think saying you've toured nationally is even a claim. Geogre 13:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete: I've not seen the original content before it was deleted but this seems like a reasonable topic to have content in Wikipedia for. This band is currently opening for well known acts Insane Clown Posse and Shaggy 2 Dope both of which are well covered in Wikipedia. -- rtphokie 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assert notability or leave deleted. If an article doesn't really make it clear that the subject is notable, then it doesn't belong. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, if undeleted take straight to AfD. Not on Allmusic, and the article is barely intelligible. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the standard for disputed A7s to take to AfD already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prior to deletion, yes. Once deleted the judgment may be that restoring and AfDing is a waste of time since the result is a foregone conclusion. Sometimes the speedy is simply an error, and then no AfD is necessary. The theory is that we are intelligent people and have no need to slavishly follow process when a result is obvious. In this case it's not obvious. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why was the hangon tag ignored in that case? This was also a challenged prod a number of months ago. In this case, as you adit, the result is not obvious, so why are we endorsing a speedy where an AfD makes more sense given the assertion of nobility was ignored by the speedying admin? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, the "tour" guideline for notability is really a vague and potentially unusable one, as shown in the discussion here. Andrew Levine 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if we're not allowed to use the notability guideline here, what are we supposed to use? For the record, there's no consensus to stop using touring as a guideline for notability, so whether it's "vague and potentially unusable" is neither here nor there at the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Notability was correctly asserted. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Andrew Levine and Geogre. This band would never survive an AfD, so restoring it just to have it sent back there is just favoring process over outcome (and I say that as a "process wanker.") Nandesuka 14:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rec.sport.football.college

Note. I have now restored Talk:Rec.sport.football.college and added to it two versions of the article. Also in the deleted history is a long article by user:Drjudsjr discussing the sociology of the group. It is assumed that the contributors below are referring to the short version of the article. (I was asked to comment on my speedy deletion. Given the evidence, I consider I was toally justified in deleting it as "repost") -- RHaworth 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of rec.sport.football.college should be reviewed as it was deleted to hastily. The deletion discussion of this page was not very complete and attempts to improve the content of this article are being twarted by repeated deletion.

Rec.sport.football.college is one of the longest running USENET groups and set itself appart from the thousands of other groups not only because of it's longevity but because of the culture that has developed in the group itself as well as it's reflection of collegiate cultures as well as southern cultures. It is truely a diverse discussion group with a long history that could be well covered in Wikipedia if administrators would allow it.

Personal feelings and rivalries should not contribute to whether an article is deleted or not. -- Rtphokie 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn This group has contributed to the life and culture of the Internet in a number of ways. The original deleted article was poorly written, but a new article was being created when the page was deleted. It's really annoying when someone tries to make a good faith effort to fix a problem article only to have someone else wipe their work out. --D Wilbanks 03:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion at AFD is not automatically a ban on creation of a new article on the same topic and unless your article was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD, it should not have been speedied. However, that said, are there any verifiable sources of information about the group? I can't imagine an article on a newsgroup being very useful. BigDT 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I start again, it will be the third time in 24 hours the article will have been recreated. And that's starting to drive me nuts. Right now, we're working on digging out every verifiable source we can find. The article was substantially different from the version sent to AFD -- that version was original research. I was in the process of reworking the article when it got deleted. As for whether articles about newsgroups are useful or not, a number them have articles, e.g. Alt.sex.stories and Alt.tv.game-shows. --D Wilbanks 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggestion: work on it in someone's user space. That way it is safely away from a speedy deletion. Seek input from WP:CFB. When it is done and filled with verifiable sources, move it to article space. BigDT 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An interesting suggestion, but why should this be necessary? This can be of interest to non-college football fans. It reflects a culture. I've never seen something so non-controversial deleted so quickly. rtphokie 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • sources? We could start with what I'd venture to say is one of the oldest continually maintained pages on the internet: this page. It has a treasure trove of history, records, and information about college football. Much of that information was culled from the RSFC newsgroup. this other page chronicals the lighter side of the newsgroup including the yearly "RUTSies" contest, a parody award system which is entertaining but also sees college athletics in the harsh light of reality. RSFC reflects life on Saturdays in much of the United States, particularly in the south. While I agree that are USENET news groups with wikipedia entries that add nothing to the overall content of Wikipedia, this isn't one of them. How can we provide useful content if it keeps getting deleted? rtphokie 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While those are interesting ... keep in mind, if it doesn't have non-self-generated sources, it isn't likely to survive an AFD. By the way, GO HOKIES! BigDT 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Self generated or not, those sources are refernced by many, particularly the first one (which is referenced by numerous other sources inside of college football, college athletics, sports and in general). I assume that what the administrators want to see here is that recognition of the subject of the article extending outside that subject's sphere of influence. RSFC is referenced in Wikipedia itself in the article on [Woofing] which itself is referenced as an African American topic. Are you going to find an article in Newsweek about RSFC, probably not, will you find it referenced in blogs, discussion boards, and even here in other Wikipedia articles? Yes. Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia, to provide a hyperlinked path of information on a wide variety of topics rtphokie 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick comparison with other newsgroups that are included in the WIKIPEDIA shows notability insomuch as Rec.sport.college.football has very high user volume virtually all generated spam free without moderation. The unique sub culture that has developed includes almost an entirely separate language. The contributors include persons of notoriety in the public at various levels. Many users are individually cited in their fields of notoriety and the newsgroup content has been sourced elsewhere several times. While the source links that are included to support the newsgroups inclusion may be self generated by the users this is actually a defense of the uniqueness of this group in that the same sources have been cited elsewhere on the Wikipedia.
  • Weak keep deleted. Does not really establish why it is more notable than hundreds of other newsgroups. There are more than enough edit wars in Wikipedia without inviting an edit war over this newsgroup. -- RHaworth 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to know by what criteria we should judge articles on Usenet groups, and whether we should have such articles at all. Many have thousands of participants (more than the average deleted webforum) but often lack even the possibility of external sources, since even the homepages wich are occasionally set up for such groups are entirely self-referential. I don't know how we can cover Usenet groups. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do know that off-Usenet, published sources do exist for some newsgroups (usually but not always the most popular ones). In those cases, where there's been meaningful coverage and even academic studies... I think there's a strong argument for inclusion. Some examples of the coverage I am talking about: [3], [4], [5] just off the top of my head. I am going to need to review this specific article further... --W.marsh 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep deleted on the particular version that was deleted. I have looked at it and it does not assert importance, or any kind of independent, off-usenet coverage. However, my gut feeling is that an inclusion-worthy article probably could be written on this group. I might try to do so myself at some point. But if there are no off-usenet sources to be found on why the group is so important... sorry, Wikipedia isn't really the place to do original studies like that. --W.marsh 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you were to write an article yourself, what would you include? Would you include the sociology information in the original article? Also, I'd like to understand why Rec.sport.pro-wrestling is also not subject to deletion and is even protected from further edits. How is it different from rec.sport.football.college or a USENET group like Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated which is notable in it's popularity and the fact that it receives contributions from regular people as well as people known off-usenet (I was starting this section the last time this article was deleted)? What in this article asserts importants of coverage of the topic outside of USENET? Rec.sport.soccer, Talk.bizarre, Rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc, Talk.origins, Alt.sex, Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs and many many others were created for an by regulars to these USENET groups and are of no value to anyone else. These are all a dictionary entries at best and vanity at worst yet they remain here. Something like Alt.atheism identify the existence of a USENET group for a topic which is already well covered by USENET and offers nothing on it's own. I guess what I'm looking for is a definition of the standards used in determining which USENET newsgroups are worthy and which aren't. Rtphokie 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of them have claims of notability outside of just existing and having a lot of posts. The Babylon 5 newsgroup, for instance, included the creator of the show, and the newsgroup feedback actually affected the show's developement. I agree with you that some of those newsgroups probably should not have articles however, if there's no evidence that they have relevence outside the forum itself. --Fang Aili talk 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep deleted. I deleted this twice per a recent AfD. I also did not see any claim of notability other than that lots of people post. I'm not convinced that 10000 posts/month = notability. If there was evidence that this newsgroup actually affected college football in some way, then I would say keep. --Fang Aili talk 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The deletion was arbitrary and unnecessarily speedy - and the comments supporting deletion attempt to substitute repetition for actual argument, as with the previous one. --Mdahmus 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit since Feb 17, 14th ever edit. --Fang Aili talk 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how this is germane to this conversation. I would like you to strike it. --D Wilbanks 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's relevant because it bespeaks of possible sockpuppets. And it helps the closing admin determine consenus. --Fang Aili talk 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mdahmus is not a sockpuppet; in saying he's made 14 edits and none since February, you're actually confirming that. I do not like these little lines people throw in with how many edits people have made because it reinforces the idea that the mega-editors own the site despite what people with comparatively few edits have to say. I've made 121 edits. Does what I say have little value compared to you because you have thousands and thousands of edits? I find this practice discriminatory. Sure, if this is someone's first ever edit, note it, but 14 suggests that Mdahmus has contributed enough to have a voice here. --D Wilbanks 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete this newsgroup is a major part of internet culture Yuckfoo 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_27&oldid=73236571"