Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 December 1
2009 December 3 >

2 December 2009

[edit]
  • Tony Capucci – Overturn and delete. It all comes down to the purpose of a redirect here. Even if the list is kept, it will still be composed of notable subjects (i.e. with articles) per WP:SALAT. Although normally a redirect is "for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles," here it does not make sense to redirect to a list in which the subject is not (or should I say, will not be) even mentioned. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tony Capucci (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject of the article is a gay porn performer who fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG so a merge to List of male performers in gay porn films is inappropriate (see WP:SALAT). Additionally, the list itself is currently up for deletion. The closing admin does not seem inclined to change their closure. Please note that I was not the nominator of either of these, but I have nominated several unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers recently and a precedent is being set here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm quite torn on this as WP:SALAT is pretty clear, but I'm not sure it should be used in a deletion discussion. Are you really arguing that a style guideline should be used as a reason to delete (rather than merge) an article? I don't think I've seen a style guideline used that way before. My current thought is that this discussion belongs on the talk page of the target article, not at DrV. Lists often have red links (or black text), even lists of people (see [1], [2]). I'm a big fan of following the guidelines unless there is a reason not to, but I think this might be stretching things a bit and outside of DrV's remit. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are asking for merge to be overturned to delete, so yes, this falls squarely within DRV's jurisdiction. Endorse. I cannot find anything clearly erroneous within the close. Tim Song (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the discussion on the list article results in removing him from the article then it will be a clear delete. But that discussion about the style guideline goes there, not here. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the close. Hobit (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The merge target is intended to be a list of notable subjects; this has been one of the few points on which there's a very strong consensus, and it's stated clearly in opening sentence, in bold type, of the target's lede section. Deciding that the subject doesn't meet the notability standards for an individual article should preclude his inclusion on the list. On the detail level, one of the delete !votes was changed to merge, expressly relying on the fact that the subject had received an award nomination. However, the applicable guideline (WP:PORNBIO) requires nominations in multiple years; the !voter was apparently unfamiliar with this standard. (The other source mentioned by that !voter is a self-published site, Queer Porn Nation; the exact source appears to be a blog entry, and therefore can't be used as a BLP source or to establish notability.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is consensus at the article, why not just get an agreement to remove it there? The real question for DrV is if the redirect should exist or not. As long as this person is in the list article, the redirect should be there. Once gone, clearly the redirect should go. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely matching WP:AGF to do it "informally" like that. Yes, it's the article's talk page, but if it too a community discussion to reach a "consensus", the same is needed to do the opposite, especially without any time passed or changes in the situation.
Actually, we've had long discussions here about this (see the DrV talk page) and the conclusion has been that overriding a merge result is an issue for the local page. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete, always a frustrating point for me that people like to claim WP:NOHARM as a reason to just redirect any and everything under the sun. Redirects to any list need to be notable on their own. The BKP must notable on their own. Period. Also wonder how that was considered much of a consensus and question the AfD being closed seemingly at random after a relist for just 5 days and recent talk within the past 24 hours. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Redirects to any list need to be notable?" WP:REDIRECT says exactly the opposite. They are (in part) for "...for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles." Further, that's one of the biggest uses of redirects. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete The close was within the admin's discretion for this particular article, but it doesn't fall within the context of the cleanup effort at the list which is currently at AfD. If the list is deleted than the redirect would be meaningless. If the article is kept I would like to see every name on the list be a bluelink for BLP purposes, so the redirect would again be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 07:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of nontheists (surnames H to K) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • Rather than removing a particular entry on these pages, it appears the entire pages have been removed with no discussion:
    • 08:55, 15 November 2009 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "List of nontheists (surnames H to K)" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject and not a good idea either)
    • 23:02, 24 August 2009 Grutness (talk | contribs) deleted "List of nontheists (surnames H to K)" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.203.139 (talk)
  • Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Deleting admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. At the time of the most recent deletion, the list had one entry, which was not wikilinked, and no explanatory text. For the prior deletion, there were no people listed. (If this grouping is appropriate, it should be a category, not a list.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the one entry C.Fred mentions was Kasthala Venkata Vijaya Babu, on whom we have no entry. I see that his name was recently added to Atheism in India. Perhaps there's a bit of astroturfing going on here? In any case, a list with only one entry would seem to meet both the A1 and A3 criteria, so this is a valid speedy deletion. Chick Bowen 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, endorse per the above. Pretty straightforward case. Tim Song (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Pretty obvious. Grsz11 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting admin, however I have no prejudice against a recreation of a list article with actual content that is useful (ie several working links or table form as in other lists in this series), otherwise why not merge with List of nontheists (surnames C to D) and List of nontheists (surnames E to G) to make List of nontheists(C to K). A different debate is to whether any of these lists are actually encyclopedic. But that is not the topic of this debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Though empty or essentially empty, & thus technically deleteable, doing so was poor judgment when other lists in the alphabetic series existed, and these were clearly patterns for articles in progress. In any case, they can and should be recreated after the pattern of the others. I am not at all satisfied with the inclusion criteria, but that should be discussed elsewhere (I think it should be limited to those notable specifically for their religious views, or where their views have clearly been a major influence in their career.) Whether this form of list, highlighting selected information, is polemical, is another matter also. I am undecided whether such lists should contain just the name and a brief description of dates, nationality, and career field--and a reference perhaps, though I would usually rely on a clear fully referenced statement in the article But categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely the series problem is best solved by Graeme's suggestion of just moving the current C to D list to C to K, rather than having an empty list (since Kasthala, being evidently non-notable by our standards shouldn't be included anyway)? Indeed, unless there are objections shortly I'm inclined to just do so. You're certainly right about the problem with the criteria. Chick Bowen 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but but support a close in either direction, generally per DGG, and WP:DEMOLISH. Since open to fair deletion, I'm going to have to completely go against WP:ALLORNOTHING, this is one of only 2 pieces of the alphabet lacking articles-- both of which have been deleted at one point. Why would someone tear down what was almost a completed collection? My opinion on the necessity/notability of this isn't on the line, nor is my opinion on overcategorization in BLP... this is about assuring that alphabetical lists of things actually cover the whole alphabet. Common sense. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would the content be? The version deleted on November 15 is pretty clearly inappropriate per my comment above. Furthermore, the demolish essay doesn't really apply--deleting empty lists doesn't prevent people from working on the existing lists or writing new ones with content. As soon as someone has a few Hs and Is together they can create start the page anew. It's not like, within our software, there's any significant difference between editing an existing page with nothing on it and starting a new page. I actually think this discussion is getting a bit off track, with all respect to DGG in particular for his valid concerns. It may make sense to have something at this title, but per the wording of WP:CSD#G4 no DRV is necessary to do that. I thought we were considering the validity of the November 15 deletion, which seems to me as straightforward as you can get. Chick Bowen 01:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing against any of that. Policy-wise, yes it should stay deleted 110%. I'm just trying giving it a little faith to have content ...preferably soon. Irony being that more time as been spent discussion a DRV than ever would have been used recreating it. If it were only 2 of 10 lists created I'd support the delete, but since the full article list for alphabet is nearly complete... well, it's IAR, but physical consensus is stronger than some strange extra-blanket-on-the-bed type of moral support, so I added to my position that I'd support either close decision. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but not a terribly good choice. Technically correct, especially since the history indicates a previous empty list had already been deleted months earlier. Actual benefit to Wikipedia was infinitesimal, though. Better to have deleted the anomalous entry and added an "under construction" template or some such (also would have been better if the recreator had done so). Suggestion: the nominator should recreate the page with two properly formatted entries, and then somebody can close this discussion and we can all sleep peacefully tonight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added to my opinion that I'd support close either way since the final final result will have this article back and populated at some point. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cardboard_coder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Lack of Citations could be due to the term often being reffered to as cardboard programmer or Rubber Duck Debugging. Such as http://redisblack.com/littlehacks/?p=5 http://compsci.ca/blog/rubber-ducks-help-best-with-computer-science/ http://everything2.com/title/Cardboard+Programmers http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki/Wiki?CardboardProgrammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

The Rubber Duck Debugging wikipedia page has a similar term written for Cardboard Coder. Uplank (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other wiki's are not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS and provide us with two sources that meet this standard for this to undeleted. Endorse both the AFD and my subsequent G4 Spartaz Humbug! 11:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD was properly closed, and the recreated article was substantially similar. If reliable sources can be found demonstrating widespread usage of the term, it's probably just as easy to start a new article from scratch than restore the old. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Given nominator's list of sources, any potential error in not relisting the AfD - if there is any - is clearly harmless. Tim Song (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, links within Wiki? No. Also can't exactly use the fact this term is mentioned on the parent article since the reference is back to the deleted page. , it's something that should be fixed immediately. Wholeheartedly endorse though, if those are of the highest quality of references available then there's no case to debate. This is basically an unknown that apparently hasn't gone anywhere-- something I've near heard at least, and Wikipedia has high standards on internet slang, memes, and any computer terminology in general. A good benchmark for digging into how niche terms don't work out here, see banhammer (without its own article). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Discussion ran for prescribed period and no editor expressed support. AFD discussion may have been a shade thin, but for an article as emaciated as this one was, delete rather than relist was clearly within the closer's discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as accurate close despite the lack of any substantial debate. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_2&oldid=1138435068"