Xtreme ice skating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Wrote the entire article from anew. Prolite 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I'm sorry, but it really appears to be something made up one day. The version you have on the talkpage isn't exactly confidence-inspiring either. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list per badlydrawnjeff's comments. We need to relist this at AfD or prod it; I didn't really see anything that made it nonsense, per se. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list. I wasn't aware games were a speedy deletion criterion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It's nonsense. --Coredesat 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Xtreme endorse yet another extreme foo neologism. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologisms can be speedied? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, when they are nonsense, vanity and spam as well. This one was. And it was created by a single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evidence of the first and third, perhaps? Not that the second is a speedy criteria... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jeff, seriously, what do you seek to gain by making badgering remarks like this one whenever I or some other people make a comment on deletion review? >Radiant< 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So asking for further evidence for a claim is a problem for you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Evidence of the first and the third are in the article. You appear to be being contrarian. Please choose worthier targets for your enthusiasm, this article was egregious puffery. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can accept contrarian. The version I saw certainly wasn't either of those things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In your opinion. Several of us disagree with you. It is a one-person term promoted by one person, with multiple namechecks to that person, and no sources in the article or externally that I can find which trace back to anyone other than that one person. Valid G11 and A7. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Valid G11 maybe. I don't believe the version required a "fundamental rewrite" as required, but maybe there's some wiggle room there, I certainly can't see it now. Games and neologisms, however, are not valid A7s. Period. This is a statement of fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list Perhaps any speedy contested in good faith should be listed or prodded. Most of the ones contested are obviously not in good faith, but an honest attempt to rewrite an article deserves a hearing.DGG 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist just so it can be erased with an honest-to-goodness AfD. JuJube 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waste of time, I'd say. All 23 unique Googles track back to the supposed originator. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted as self-promotive spam of a nn group (CSD G11 and A7, not to mention the iceball clause...) and redirect to Ice skating to solve the problem. >Radiant< 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion. JuJube tagged this page with ((db-nonsense)). This was incorrect since the articles were not patent nonsense in the very narrow way we use that term here. However, the article was essentially unsourced and did not make an assertion of notability that I can find. Google turns up nothing that qualifies as an independent, reliable source. I think this was a valid speedy-deletion under case A7. No prejudice against a rewrite if someone can find the required sources and evidence of notability. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are not a requirement of A7, nor does A7 allow for the speedy deletion of games. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the deleted content and the source material, I consider this to be an article about about the commercial enterprise which is promoting and profiting from the "games", not about the games themselves. This is not baseball. These games do not exist independently of the enterprise. In my opinion, A7 applies. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wrong speedy tag used, but templates breed faster than rabbits so I find that difficult to see as a good reason to overturn deletion. As there is no indication that the sport described in the article exists independently of the sole external link, this article should be considered as promoting that organisation, and falls under Articles-7 as no notability is asserted for that organisation. Xtreme deletion review awards bonus vani COI style points for using the founder's name twice in a two-sentence lead paragraph. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weakly endorse deletion I have to agree with Jeff's assessment that this deletion was out of process. However, since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this will survive AfD because of obvious failure of WP:ATT, I don't quite see the point of going through undeletion. Pascal.Tesson 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a pre-emptive strike, because I think whatever User:Radiant did in this category discussion might've ended up here. To be clear, I agree with Radiant that "Listify and delete" was the right solution to a complex problem. I voted Keep all, though, because the system had just been put into place after a series of very contentious arguments, and I wanted to see if the problem he theorized would actually develop. What Radiant did that I object to was introduce a solution that had not been discussed during the debate. I think the right answer here was for Radiant to introduce his solution and relist the debate. Because right now it looks like 17 Keep alls, 9 votes for deletion, and 1 vote for listifying, which is what won. I'd like to see if people agree with that direction.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant deletion debate is here. With respect to the vote count, I must point out that there were several people other than myself suggesting listifying, and there were at least one sockpuppet, one sleeper account, and a few objections on procedural grounds only, in the "keep"-camp. But this is one of those issues where strength of argument trumps strength of numbers. I should also point out that it was closed (by me) as a listify, and changing a category into a list is not a removal of information.
• With respect to the actual issue - there are several dozen categories like Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate ice or cold that are basically intended to categorize superheroes by what they can do. Apart from the awkward names, this gives two problems. First, for many characters it is unclear what they do (e.g. they can shapeshift into a flying creature, or use a tool for manipulating fire, so which cat do they get, if any?). More importantly, the proponents of these categories have apparently not thought of Category:Fictional wizards and Category:Fictional deities. If we think about Raistlin Majere, Gandalf, Mustrum Ridcully or Edward Elric, we must conclude they can do just about all of it. So if we use these categories properly, we have to add 30+ long-named categories to Albus Dumbledore, Merlin, Q and Willow Rosenberg. Clearly that is not a good idea, and by that token this categorization scheme is not practical. So endorse. >Radiant< 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Radiant's second bullet point (though, as I mentioned, I would have liked to have to seen it develop naturally). But I don't agree with his first point. Changing to a list is removal of functionality, and shouldn't be viewed as a information-neutral change, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, changing to a list is adding functionality, in that you can add extra comments and remarks, as well as sort it in ways other than alphabetical. >Radiant< 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn for wider discussion. There were a great many lists and categories of this type brought up for deletion recently. The general voice on AfD was that they were impossibly vague--that criteria could not be made that would be sufficiently helpful.

This is something which concerns the many WP eds. who work on a wide range of fictional genres, and I think needs a general policy discussion. Personally, I find them interesting--but so did many who nonetheless !voted to delete.DGG 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn since I've said all along that the arguments offered for deletion didn't hold water and the closing nom specifically cites "strength of argument" in his reasoning for his decision. I would also like to point out that one of the categories included in this nomination was deleted separately and the DRV for it is here. Otto4711 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with Otto4711's assessment of the arguments to "delete". I could just as easily say that the "keep" arguments did not hold water, either. We should avoid ad hominem attacks and focus more on resolving this issue. A more fair assessment would be to say that the majority of people disagreed with the arguments for deletion, although several people apparently thought that the arguments to delete "did hold water". Dr. Submillimeter 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that a person's argument does not hold water can not reasonably be interpreted as an "attack" on the person. You are free to express your opinion that my keep arguments didn't hold water and I promise to not take it as an attack on my person. Otto4711 21:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - While I appreciate Radiant's actions, and while I still think that the categorization system is infeasible, I think the decision to delete and listify does go against consensus. Apparently, most people wanted to use the categories for navigation. Maybe a new discussion on listifying is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Radiant raises an interesting proposal, but it probably should have been introduced as an ordinary voter such that it could have been discussed in the CfD, not as a closer and discussed in DRV. Anyway, as CfD part II, the problem with listifying this is that it seems like it'd be rather awkward to get to the list from an article. Maybe Superman will have a lot of categories at the end of his article, but that's better than a giant "See also" section with 10 "List of characters with power X." With television series casts, the television series is likely to be prominently linked somewhere in the article (and be an obvious place to go to find other actors from the series); that's not as likely for this. Plus, categories aren't just about getting the information. Cats are also a handy summary of key vital facts about the subject, and these "powers" seem to qualify as a decent cat on that basis. Now, maybe there's a good response to why lists are okay and this solution should be used... but again, this should have been discussed at the CfD. (Also, the issue about wizards and the like is valid, but ideally there'd be some standard in these categories that general magic-users, deities, etc. should be excluded.) SnowFire 21:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that the major problem with these categories was that they were all Category:Made-up characters by made-up name for their made-up power. How is that proposed to be fixed? Guy (Help!) 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen discussion with Radiants' suggestion of listifying. While I understand and appreciate the reasons for deleting these categories, these categories seem to be the major ways in which these characters are now subcategorized. I think there is much room for improvement by renaming, perhaps removing a couple, and perhaps listifying most, but I don't think the case for deleting and listifying all of them has consensus. Nor is there a clear policy or guideline that can be cited that justifies making such a bold decision. Perhaps in the future there will be a consensus for handling this information in a different way, but we're not there yet. Lacking precedent, guideline or consensus, nothing is lost by reopening the debate to discuss Radiants' suggestion of listifying. -- SamuelWantman 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lot of debates for and against not only the deletion, but also the listification, were made in the original discussion, so if it were to reopen, a fairly detailed plan needs to be given, either on the discussion itself, or on a separate page. A lot of suggestions were made with no means of either replacing or repairing the system (it was stated as being irrepairable in the nom, however it seemed that no alternate method was researched, working off the evidence--this may not be the case). I'm still keeping the suggestion of forming clear, concise guidelines for a system (either of lists, which started long before the discussion was even considered, or categorization), of which I will unhesitantly assist with the creation and drawing up, so that it can be put into place immediately. --JB Adder | Talk 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaminari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

User:Redversunilaterally deleted a sourced article based on a Fudokan kata Kaminari. If this page is deleted i shoud deleted the page Fudokan, Taiji Shodan, Heian Oi-Kumi. That page is important karate kata. I continue to be troubled by the increasing numbers of unilateral deletions like this. UNDELETE_REASON Snake bgd 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Certainly not unilateral [1] [2] [3] [4]. Article is now in user space and can develop there beyond its previous one word-and-a-pile-of-external-links existence. 〈REDVEЯS〉 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, falls under CSD Articles-1 or -3 due to lack of any content whatsoever. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I read it twice and still did not understand a word of it. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that to be the standard? There are a remarkable number of articles on various topics in highbrow and popular culture, and in science too, that I cannot understand. The question is whether someone interested in the subject would understand.DGG 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page (with history) was moved to User:Snake bgd/Kaminari. No one, whether interested in the subject or not, would understand this page. It lacks both context and content necessary for understanding. Endorse speedy-deletion as both A1 and A3. Moving it to the userspace was the right solution. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, a rare proper application of A1. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Being sourced does not depend on having sources alone. For content to be sourced, there also must be content. Not a single word. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Stand-ups of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

User:ChrisGriswold unilaterally deleted a sourced article based on a Comedy Central poll. By this logic, we need to delete lists like List of billionaires (2007) and Pop 100 number-one hits of 2005 (USA) unilaterally without any kind of AfD. I continue to be troubled by the increasing numbers of unilateral deletions like this. Jokestress 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, those do need to go. Those lists are the intellectualy property of Forbes Magazine and Billboard, just as this is the intellectual property of Comedy Central. We can't reprint lists taken from such sources in full. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that covers speedy deletion of Fortune Global 500, etc.? Jokestress 09:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Can we speedy delete a list of Oprah's Book Club selections, or Time 100, or Inductees of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? These kinds of things seem as if they should be discussed in AfD. The article in question has over 50 links to it. Jokestress 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists such as this, which are copied whole cloth from an original source violate fair use: Lists created by a single agency are their intellectual property. They are copyright violations and should be removed. It is for this reason that a number of these articles have been deleted.
      These lists are described at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4:
      "Under US case law, e.g. Eckes v. Card Prices Update, lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection. This explicitly excludes lists which are derived solely from facts, statistics, or polling data, as only opinion based lists are considered by the courts to have the requisite creativity required for copyright protection under US law. Consequently, the inclusion of the entirety of such a list solely for the purposes of adding it to Wikipedia will generally constitute a copyright infringment. Excerpts of such lists can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use when they are associated with meaningful discussion of the contents of the list, but under typical circumstances, one should never reproduce the entirety of such a list." --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the list had not been speedily deleted, other editors could see that it was derived from polling data and had nothing to do with the "editorial opinion" of Comedy Central. Also if it had not been speedily deleted, I could check with the editors who created it. I had nothing to do with its creation. I was merely filling in the last red link when I returned to see an established article removed unilaterally. Jokestress 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not only is it a copyright problem but we do not need to have an article on every single seasonal spacefiller from every single outlet. If the list is discussed by other sources in depth, then we can have an article on the concept of the Comedy Central "100 Greatest Stand-ups of All Time", but unless that is the case we should not have an article. Reprinting the list is a definite no-no, as noted above. As a point of principle, if you find yourself copying and pasting large blocks of text into Wikipedia, you are almost always doing something wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A poll of comedians rated by other comedians on the largest comedy-based media outlet in the world has more informational value than "seasonal spacefiller." This list is referred to constantly in the press, including NY Times [5] -- try doing a Google News Search right now. Jokestress 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and list Thorough discussion on the copyright page concluded that list of billionaires based on the Forbes list was not a copyright violation, as the placement of names on a list was a fact, which could not be copyrighted in the US--as supported by the widespread use of such lists in newspapers and other media. Same applies here; the apparent intent of the organizations producing the lists is to have them used with their name. If wider discussion of this is needed, fine. But the use of speedy is for incontestable deletions, and this was an erroneous use of process. From WP:DP "Article is possible copyright infringement: List on Wikipedia:Copyright problems." And the Speedy category is for (WP:CSD: Blatant copyright infringement. This could not be reasonably consider incontestable, and one person should not make the decision for the community.DGG 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list. DGG's statement is extremely compelling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion but I have a question - Can the Feb 4 copyright discussion be cited as authoritative in AFDing other lists that are covered by the quoted legal opinion? Otto4711 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. More to the point, can it be cited as authoritative for a unilateral speedy deletion? Jokestress 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright violation of Comedy Central's intellectual property. Should be speedy deleted. Corvus cornix 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. JzG's comment that "[a]s a point of principle, if you find yourself copying and pasting large blocks of text into Wikipedia, you are almost always doing something wrong" seems to sum up the situation nicely. If it's not a copyright problem, or some obsolete PD source that we could do without, then WP:NPS likely refers. If the list was faithfully reproduced, and if the list is copyrighted as suggested, then the speedy deletion was valid. I'll change my mind if someone can point to a legal opinion, and not just a hunch, to the effect that this specific list was not somebody's intellectual property. There's little to gain, and potentially much to lose, by including this information. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the legal standard of copyright violation, nor is it the one in WP, but rather general advice. If you are copying from the old EB, it is permissible (although in that case it does not usually make for a good article)DGG 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Comedy Central made up the poll, set the criteria, chose the people to question, collected the data, and compiled it. It's their intellectual property, not a collection of raw, objective, public-source data. This is a copyright violation, period/full-stop. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as objectively clear blatant copyvio, per case law cited by ChrisGriswold. Article cited no WP:RS sources, and the single NY Times source mentioned in this review discussion isn't enough basis to overturn the decision. I have no objection to creation of a new non-copyvio article describing (rather than reproducing) the topic if sufficient reliable sources are found; multiple genuinely independent sources, not just media outlets serving as conduits for promotion. Barno 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That NY Times article, the only new source cited here, does not feature this topic but only makes mention of it in one-third of one sentence. That coverage is independent and non-promotional, but not non-trivial for establishing notability. As I prefer consensus to unilateral action whenever possible, I would be fine with an AfD on a stub with the copyvio content removed; but we don't need to retain copyvio content, just as we wouldn't need to retain libelous content in a biography of a living person during the run of an AfD. Barno 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as a confirmed copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list. Doczilla 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doc, but I don't quite see the relevance of that link. It is concerned with the use of these lists to create categories. In fact the example used is precisely one where the cat was deleted (rightfully so) but where the article Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time remains. (though it's not so clear that it should be). Pascal.Tesson 05:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Afd seems a good idea I actually agree with the deletion but if the above debate shows anything it's that ChrisGrisworld's rationale needs to be debated in a forum more widely-read than DRV. I do believe that this list is at the very least the moral equivalent of a copyright violation and more likely a copyvio in the legal sense but some other cases like the Forbes list seems at least worthy of a debate. I know we already have our fair chunk of policies and guidelines but how about a specific guideline to clarify all of this? Pascal.Tesson 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert or die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

• Rush to delete a highly interesting phenomenon, not seeing the edited version or on the basis of blind intolerance or intolerance to critics of intolerant-jihad.

I created an entirely NEW page [6], which yesterday's aguments do not apply (IMHO), in deleting it so FAST... How can one see the difference?

The ones arguing for redirect or even rushing to delete... (most probably) did not see my edited vesion, which is 1) Not just an interview, 2) facts presented, 3) encylopedic terminology. 4) It is not about "race". 5) A rational person, a moderate Muslim would NOT regard exposing radicals as an "attack on all Islam". ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fixed nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect. Sources fall into two categories: unreliable sources, and sources which are not discussing this term (and in some cases don't even mention it). The article is original research, a novel synthesis from published sources. At best it's a little-used soundbyte. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Are the follwing sources "unreliable"?

Or did the Guardian invented the Steve Centanni story as a "novel"? Shall I guess, the editor did not see the sources?

[7]FoxNews on Al Qaeda's ultimatum to US[8]BBC on the Mandaeans 'face extinction'

[9]NewsMax in general

On the Steve Centanni 'forced to convert at gunpoint' by: [10]The Guardian

[11] IHT

And even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2006

Why be one be so obscure in pushing to delete such important cases, current events & a goal by Jihad? ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse redirect. None of the sources provided above establishes the importance of these specific words as a slogan. Most of them don't even use it. They simply refer to conversion on pain of death, which is already the subject of forced conversion. —Celithemis 07:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely. A novel synthesis from published sources. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect, but unprotect. Redirecting is an editorial decision, the protection is not valid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is when the editorial action is inevitably re-creating content which fails policy. That is rather the point. Please stop making these strange assertions, you are not usually this wilfully contrarian. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly not convinced that's the case, which is rather the point. I don't believe the assertion to be strange at all - there's certainly no consensus to protect the redirect, and I'm only finding one AfD which had nothing to do with recreating valid content, which should be allowed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]