Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 17: Difference between revisions

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The intention of this page is to provide a resource for interested parties to obtain information on this State Organization. The copyright violations that were described shall be corrected promptly and we request that the page and it's content will be Temporarily reposted in order that corrections and source sitations can be made. Thank you. Lefirre 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After 5 days, the result was clearly keep. The AfD was not closed. After 10 days, there were a few more delete votes, but there was clearly no consensus. A non-admin closed the AfD in frustration at lack of admin action after the failure to close had been reported on WP:AN for two days. The AfD was plagued by argumenative sockpuppets of Kephera975 and/or indef blocked user Frater FiatLux as strongly evidenced in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd), both of which were also ignored by admins despite requests to review on WP:AN and/or WP:AN/I. The arguments that these socks presented were for the most part invalid, and based on bald assertions of various writers' membership in the order without any valid citation to a source where the individual self-identified as a member. Due to the argumentation, El C incorrectly deleted the article upon review, apparently w/o taking into account the sockpuppetry and/or single purpose accounts and invalid arguments. IPSOS (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it appears that the AfD was never transcluded onto the daily logs or elsewhere, so the consensus was not representative of the entire community. At the very least it should be overturned and properly relisted. IPSOS (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken into account all the factors presented and have nothing to add beyond what I already stated in my closing statement. Thanks. El_C 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected GRBery's request that I overturn my decision. Again, I was aware of the factors. Enough established editors participated. El_C 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: there's a whole host of WP:COI breaches going on in that AfD discussion. While I originally voted to merge I now agree with the current closing decision based on the earlier closure by a non-admin who was partisan to the debate. At the same time, the allegations of sockpuppetry against User:Kephera975 raised by User:IPSOS have yet to be proven and this is a clear failure to assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. I'm not getting in to this debate again, and I have already noted my own suspicions that the AfDs were raised in bad faith in the first place, but that does not mean we're free to cast aspersions against fellow editors with whom we disagree, willy nilly. I am certain that the closing admin took the merits of the article, and the debate, into account when making the decision, rather than the 'who might be a sock of who' tit for tat going on between User:Kephera975 and User:IPSOS. Coldmachine^Talk 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - care to explain your COI comment? Which editors are you referring to? IPSOS (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This behavioural guideline notes that editors who fail to disclose an interest in a given topic, particularly when making controversial edits (and I would include debate on an AfD as potentially controversial), risk being accused of a conflict of interest and this template, which might be placed on a users' talk page, makes specific mention to "participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I refer here to the non-admin closing the debate, but I am assuming good faith and have refrained from templating people. The debate, and the notability of the article in question, speak for themselves. Coldmachine^Talk 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, El C took the correct action here. Neil ム 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Due to an honest mistake by the nominator, the AFD was never transcluded in any of the AFD daily log pages. (The nom omitted the word "The" when attempting to transclude.) This is a basic issue of procedural fairness that compromised the entire AFD discussion, and is itself necessary and sufficient reason to compel a no consensus closure or a relist. I probably should have closed it myself as no consensus when I first learned this, instead of just leaving a note in the AFD for someone else, so I award myself a WP:TROUT for failure to take the correct action myself. But a delete outcome is the one untenable outcome given this procedural failure, so overturning is necessary. The unresolved sockpuppet concerns are an additional issue, and hopefully someone will step up to resolve them (I have no expertise to inject myself) prior to relisting. GRBerry 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that really matters. It was in the AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) category, and was later noted on AN, so many people noticed it. I, myself, never even look at the convoluted daily log, refering instead to the topical categories (although admittedly, I am the one who created the AfD categories). I don't feel this procedural oversight really hindered the balance of the debate. El_C 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, the sockpuppet allegations were taken to account, within reason. I don't think another closing admin can do better on that front. El_C 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  On the sockpuppet point, what I meant by "resolve them" was figure out which, if any, are valid, and issue any appropriate blocks. GRBerry 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I understood that. The point is that it just wasn't that pertinent as a factor, in any case. El_C 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. -- Avi 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could someone please take a look at the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page? User:IPSOS has now merged the majority of this deleted article into the main page. In the edit summary he lists it as "including a summary of the most significant contemporary golden dawn order". Isn't this out of line? Kephera975 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I don't think the omission from the log mattered--clearly everyone from both sides saw the debate. DGG (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was deleted about two months ago due to it's newness and lack of reliable sources or notability. Since then, it has spread surprisingly fast as an esoteric programming languages, including being the subject of a Microsoft joke and Media coverage of that. It was also apparently mentioned at linux.com(another page linking to it, which might be an RS in itself) , although that article seems to have been deleted for some reason. It has been the subject of academic lectures at Australian National University, which according to our own article has been rated as one of the top universities in the world, and the top in Australia. It has also been mentioned significantly in an article by the Houston Chronicle, while it was discussing Lolcats. It has been mentioned in a Computerworld blog, although I agree blogs are almost never RS. In addition, in just two months, it's GHITS have gone from around 750,000 to nearly 950,000. Also, as the original AFD and DRV stated, it has a rapidly growing community, and has made it onto the front page of Digg, Reddit, and del.icio.us. It is clearly 'out there' enough to be notable, if not then, now. Lucid 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I do want to note that someone has already taken the initiative to recreate this at LOLCODE. That particular version doesn't address the notability concerns, though. --- RockMFR 07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I didn't know about that. Per MOS that page should probably be redirected to 'Lolcode', though. That paeg, as it is now, is rather unencyclopedic, and could probably be speedied for making no claims of notability --Lucid 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article, it's currently a protected redirect to Lolcat, but there's plenty of resource and reference out there for a full article on the topic. Merge in from LOLCODE, as the deleted article was better. Neil ム 11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to be protected, I can edit it fine. I just brought it here to make sure there was a consensus to restore it before I got into something ugly --Lucid 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, you're right. The protection has expired. I'd wait for a few more views, but I would imagine that an article is now fine, provided all those lovely references above find their way into it. Neil ム 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]