Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:05, 2 September 2010

< 2010 August 31

Deletion review archives: 2010 September

2010 September 2 >

1 September 2010

Manabu Suzuki

Jclemens said he can't find any sources to confirm his existence, but I managed to [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]...to name but a few. Therefore I say did he really try, did he try hard enough. Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I most assuredly did not try at all. Nor did I write that text, for that matter. DRV is not necessary for the restoration of PROD'ed articles. Please review the steps to request undeletion on my talk page, which I assure you are a lot less hassle than a DRV. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)undelete per WP:REFUND but I think you've misunderstood. The "Can't find any sources to confirm his existence" was the comment of whoever originally proposed the article for deletion, not Jclemens. Reyk _YO! 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin James (closed)

Carbonite (polyatomic ion)

This page was split from Carbonite when I turned it into a disambiguation page, and I think it had at least one cite. Carbonite is a hypothetical polyatomic ion which may not exist, but has been used as an example in areas of theoretical chemistry. It was, ignoring all rules, deleted by DragonflySixtyseven - see [6] - I had no notification, and there was neither a SD template, a PROD or an AFD discussion. The grounds for deletion was "verifiability" which is not a criteria for speedy deletion. I tried to contact Dragonflysixtyseven two days ago, but haven't received a reply. Claritas § 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Could have sworn I left this message earlier, but...) Prove there's been theoretical discussion of it and you can have it back. And I apologize for not having responded earlier, but I'm not available on August 31. DS (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the GoogleScholar search: "Carbonite"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. "Infrared spectroscopic evidence for the formation of carbonite CO 2 2− ions in CO interaction with basic oxide surfaces" obviously indicates theoretical discussion (though I can't access it) and this paper [7] also indicates that the ion may well exist. Search is complicated by geology papers using Carbonite to mean "Carbonate mineral" or something similar, and there are a few explosives related ones (check out Carbonite (explosive). Claritas § 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as the right outcome, but I refrain from endorsing the out-of-process deletion. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why was it the "right outcome" ? Claritas § 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn-Verifiability is an issue for the community to decide via AfD, not an admin supervote.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and have the proper AfD debate. Contact WP:Chemistry if you need people to chip in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Lack of verifiability is not grounds for speedy deletion, and appears inaccurate in terms of the nom's description. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. The deletion was out of process, so I think the best thing to do is treat it more or less as a contested prod. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole naming controversies

Out of process deletion of a well-referenced article on a real topic. Maybe it's not notable, maybe it is, but there was no debate other than a thread on WP:PHYS where people thought this was a stupid controversy, and that "black hole" isn't an offensive term. But idiots exist, and their being offended was covered in several news outlet. There are also controversies in other languages as well (such as French, where some deemed the term too close to anus for their liking). This should be speedily undeleted as this is nowhere near a speedy deletion candidate. The article was proded, then contested, then summarily deleted by User:Kwamikagami for being an "idiotic" article. If you want to delete, have a proper debate about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep speedy delete - I think this article should have been speedy deleted on the first day it was posted. I will just repeat what I just posted over at wikiproject physics talk:

The title is obviously misleading - it is not about Black Holes at all, or naming black holes. The article is just a venue to stir things up, and a cover to make disparging remarks against certain groups of people. This was hardly a real topic. The subject matter had nothing to do with the title. There was no sources supporting controversial names for black holes. And it had no connection with black holes as astronomical phenomena, Even the WikiProject Astronomy tag on the talk page was misleading. There was no connection to astronomy in this article.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I will repeat my reply. "I'm fully aware of that this has nothing to do with black holes and does not fall within the scope of either WP:PHYS or WP:AST. But that has little relevance on whether the article should exist or not. Bad templates can be removed, and issues with the title can always be fixed via the standard method of page moves." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want interested parties to know that I actually placed a speedy delete tag on this article as an attack page, it was reverted, and then User:Kwamikagami deleted this page. So, there was somewhat of a basis for this adminstrator to come along and delete the page. I don't know if this is relevant to this discussion, but I thought it neccessary to bring it up. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not an editor placed a speedy deletion tag on the article has no bearing whatsoever on whether the administrator was right to speedily delete the article. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undo speedy delete - I don't see anyone being attacked by this article. I see an article about people who felt attacked by a scientific term. I.m.o. there was no reason to delete the article. DVdm (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy delete. The article encourages racism. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It does nothing like that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy deletion. I declined Steve's G10 speedy, because this was not an attack page. It did not say anything disparaging; it did not even quote any disparaging remark. It did not "encourage racism". It just described two occasions when people made a fuss because they thought (mistakenly) that a reference to the astronomical concept of a black hole was disparaging to African Americans. The article should probably sent to AfD as non-notable, but it was not speediable. JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion nothing in the deletion policy supports the deletion of this article in this way. "Idiotic" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The article was not written to disparage or threaten the subject. Other concerns, such as "obviously misleading title", "not a real topic", "encourages racism", or "no sources", even if true, should be discussed at articles for deletion. I'm personally not convinced Wikipedia should have an article on this subject, but that does not mean the article should be speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion While I would vote for this to be deleted or perhaps merged into an article with more general scope, I do not think the speedy rationale applies. Take it to AfD and do this thing properly. Icalanise (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not covered by any valid criterion for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn-Doesn't meet any speedy criteria. The CSDs are narrowly construed for a reason. Admins don't get to delete any article they don't like.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn. The deleting administrator has not even attempted to nominate a valid reason for speedy deletion. None exist. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn - per Mkativerata, no valid criteria given for speedy deletion. Claritas § 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and trout admin. Bring at AfD if needed. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 [[user:Jclemens|Jclemens]] said he can't find any sources to confirm his existence, but I managed to [http://speedhunters.com/archive/2009/05/25/event-gt-gt-d1gp-2009-tokyo-drift-exhibition-pt2.aspx] [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u9YBHfWFqwUC&pg=PA1989&lpg=PA1989&dq=Manabu+Suzuki+drift&source=bl&ots=2wdGXVl52C&sig=mwMLVu5usEWMU-p86xuO4flokLk&hl=en&ei=N7R-TJ6HBNTP4gan3ei7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Manabu%20Suzuki%20drift&f=false] [http://www.d1underground.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:d1gp-usa-introduces-pro-1-advanced-computerized-scoring-to-professional-drifting&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50] [http://www.formulad.com/general-info/formula-drift-history.html] [http://www.teamyokomo.com/japan/0701/index_0701_en.htm]...to name but a few. Therefore I say did he really try, did he try hard enough. [[User:Donnie Park|Donnie Park]] ([[User talk:Donnie Park|talk]]) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 :I most assuredly did not try at all.  Nor did I write that text, for that matter.  DRV is not necessary for the restoration of PROD'ed articles.  Please review the steps to request undeletion on my talk page, which I assure you are a lot less hassle than a DRV.  Cheers, [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
+*(ec)'''undelete''' per [[WP:REFUND]] but I think you've misunderstood. The "Can't find any sources to confirm his existence" was the comment of whoever originally [[WP:PROD|proposed]] the article for deletion, not Jclemens. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 ====[[:Justin James (closed)]]====