Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 26

June 26 2006

Sahaba's ancestors

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaba's ancestors

Should not have been deleted in the first place, contains lots of important information. The main reason for it being deleted was that there was a afd spree at that time, and this one sliped below the radar. Further, i think the closing admins words are telling:

The result of the debate was delete; merging and deleting is a pain in the ass (at best), since the GFDL requires the preservation of the content's history

The result was: "3 Delete", "3 keep", "4 delete AND merge". Closing admin deleted since he didnt care for merging. No consensus to just delete in the first place.

Also i want to upgrade the article in the same maner i uppgradet Family tree of Muhammad. --Striver 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've notified Johnleemk of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, "Delete and merge" is an invalid vote because doing so breaks GFDL attribution requirements. Most closing admins seeing that comment count it as a straight delete, rather than a straight merge. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I argue that the people making that vote wanted the information to be preserved somewhere, and it is not so right now. Even if they would be counted as a straigh delete, 7 delete vs 3 keep is not consencus. Pleace consider the value of the information, and remember that a afd is not a vote.--Striver 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It is the fact that AfD is not a vote that I agreed with John's closure. Looking at the comments, the consensus seems to be that the article should not exist by itself and that a redirect is useless. Therefore, the article and redirect should not exist. If you wish, go back to Sahaba and add information there, but the article should not exist by itself. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • What is your view, is the information in the article unencyclopedic? --Striver 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • My view on the worthiness of the article is irrelevant, because when I close AfDs, I only look at the comments without actually analysing the article itself. The same goes for the DRV: I am not looking at the notability or worthiness of the article, rather, I am looking at whether process was followed when the article was deleted. I have not examined the article content or subject matter itself, so I have no judgement on the article itself, just the process. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok. Im not so much intrested in the proces, since i view that very few of the people actualy involved in the subject participiated. I am mainly focusing in salvaging the information, i hope to have it undeleted in order to work further on the article.--Striver 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• As the closer noted, "delete and merge" comments are extremely problematic since they almost always lead us to violate the attribution requirement of GFDL. In some cases, you can still divine the intent of the user and decide if the comment should be interpreted as "keep" or "delete". In this case, many of the comments are very difficult to interpret. I recommend that we overturn the closure and immediately relist to AFD, this time with a very clear statement at the top that "merge and delete" comments will be ignored. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Striver, in your edit summary when you changed my comment, you said "I hope its not wrong to do this." It is very wrong to tamper with the comments of another editor in a deletion discussion, even if you think that you are being helpful and you think that you are not changing the meaning of the comment. I made a deliberate choice in the organization of my comment. This is not a vote and I want others to read my comment in full, not to just glance at the first few words. You may disagree with me and think that my comment will be marginalized as a result but that's my mistake to make.
    About the only edits that are acceptable to another editor's comments are 1) to standardize indentation, 2) to add a signature using the {{unsigned}} template if the user forgot to do so or 3) to remove an egregious personal attack. See WP:GAFD for more. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks for correcting and informing me.--Striver 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, allow temporary undeletion to transwiki to Wikinfo if requested. WP:NOT a genealogical tree. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist where my vote would be rename to List of Sahaba ancestors. "Delete and merge" is a vote to keep the content in my analysis. David | Talk 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist is something i could support. regarding "WP:NOT a genealogical tree", read Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:

While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic.

Then, see also List of family trees. I want to turn this article to something like this: Family tree of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt.--Striver 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Delete misuse of deletion review process.--Jersey Devil 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's say that it isn't a misuse because I didn't have a chance to comment on that AfD... gren グレン 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I have been thinking about this for a while and I'd say that the content could be encyclopedic. The biggest problem is family trees up the wazoo with not enough organization. Most/many of the articles from that list have articles (you can dispute if they should--that's another issue) and if they have articles and are related then a family tree page is in order. When it says Wikipedia is not a genealogical database it is referring to giving the genealogy of one person with no notable family members. The fact that so many of the Sahaba's ancestors have pages seems to me that a organized genealogy of them is in order. (I'd also argue that most are as notable as Christian mythic / saint figures--although there is less English language material on them. gren グレン 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Green, what is your preferend title for the article? --Striver 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - process was followed, concensus was clear. --Doc Tropics 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI/jajaja

I never thought I'd bring anything to deletion review. Ever. The deletion rationale provided was "Causes Firefox to freeze and contains swearwords". The malware accusation is patently false. I have viewed User:SPUI/jajaja several times in Firefox without any difficulty, and I don't see how it would be possible for a mere 1 Kb of (non-javascript) text to crash any web browser. The second point is so completely irrelevant I'm not going to dignify it with a response. How would you like it if somebody deleted your userspace-sandbox for no valid reason? — Jun. 26, '06 [16:40] <freak|talk>

• Overturn and undelete per nomination. Ridiculous. Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete and suggest the closing admin reconsider the mechanical counting of votes which would appear to be to blame for this result.
  For the avoidance of doubt, the aspect which is alleged to "break browsers" is a series of badly-nested <big> tags, which any self-respecting browser will cope with perfectly adequately; one suspects that the actual problem might have been that these tags were not terminated, which relates to an ongoing bug which is under investigation, and causes the framing Mediawiki tabs and stuff to also render in an enormous text and might lead some to panic.
  I'm not going to comment on the questionable "poem" which prefaces the text, save to say that it does indeed contain "naughty" words; I would be interested however to discover how this sub-page of SPUI's user-space came to anybody's notice—it doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, unless it's been de-linked recently—and what right people think they have simply to erase other users' sandbox pages. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: Out of process. I don't like it, but I don't go to SPUI's user pages. Geogre 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've notified Xoloz of this DRV, since he deleted it per this MfD --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• I certainly have no serious objection to the restoration of this thing, but I will respond to the suggestion that deletion resulted from mere vote-counting. The charge that the page was designed to freeze browsers was not invalid: my own Firefox browser froze on the first attempt to view the thing. Given SPUI's failure to respond, and the vocal interest of other editors in a eliminating a possible browser "booby-trap" -- albeit one very much out of the way -- I saw the deletion consensus as proper. If SPUI had indicated an interest in keeping the thing at any time, including post-debate, I would have gladly kept the thing. I am surprised other editors cared to bring this to DRV at all. In general, if an obvious user test page exhibits a feature which inhibits site performance, if other users object, and if the user in whose space the page rests makes no reply after notice is given, I think deletion is in order, and I'll stand by that as a principle. As I said, though, I'm hardly wedded to the result -- just surprised that anyone other the SPUI would bother bringing this up. Xoloz 19:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How is this edit not an indication that SPUI has an interest in keeping it or a failure to respond? Kotepho 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry -- in skimming the debate, I was too confused by the first portion of that comment (which is too much techno-speak for me) and I missed the bit at the end. If I had noticed the last sentence, it would not have swayed my choice of itself, because I consider it equivocal, but I might well have asked SPUI for clarification, yes. Xoloz 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Failure to respond? I wasn't even aware of the MFD until someone told me the day before it closed. --SPUI (T - C) 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion mfd is the correct location to discuss user pages for deletion, and the discussion was vastly in favour of deletion, so closing as delete was the correct decision, imo. While users do have a wide latitude for userpage useage, this does not mean that they are immune from deletion from a valid mfd just because they are out of the way. Regards, MartinRe 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it curious that policy is never invoked once here. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Miscellany for Deletion is a forum empowered to make decisions in cases where no precise policy would be expected, is it not? I wouldn't expect user subpages to crash browsers often, and so I wouldn't expect a formal policy to exist. But I'd support "Avoid needlessly hindering site performance" as general maxim if you'd like you'd like to codify something. Xoloz 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No evidence that it did any of these things, though. As I stated during the MfD, my browser (Firefox) didn't crash. See also Phil Boswell's comment. Mackensen (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • As closer, the evidence I went by was that it crashed my Firefox browser, making the claims of others seem sound to me. I think that's pretty reasonable; at the least, it isn't "ridiculous," as it has been called. Do you disagree? Xoloz 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Obviously I disagree–unlike others I try to remain consistent in my comments. It didn't crash my browser and users are traditionally given considerable leeway in their sandboxes. Now, could you reconcile the following statements: If SPUI had indicated an interest in keeping the thing at any time, including post-debate, I would have gladly kept the thing and If I had noticed the last sentence, it would not have swayed my choice of itself, because I consider it equivocal. When a user votes keep, that's hardly equivocal. How do you rationalize this? Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
            • If I had a sandbox page which other editors cared enough to bring to MfD for any reason, and I said something like, "keep the thing, I guess" in plain text at the end of a long comment, I'd be indicating that I didn't care much either way. Since this, to me, seems the best way to regard a test page in any case, I'm going to assume that is what SPUI meant. If he cares enough to ask me, I'll be glad to undelete, but I'm not going to gainsay a solid consensus on account of what I take to be an almost indifferent statement. I do hope this meets your expectation for consistency, Mackensen. The marvelous thing about a sandbox is that it is oh-so-easy to make a new one, so I assume by default that people aren't especially attached to theirs. Xoloz 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Considerable leeway, yes, limitless leeway, no. If in doubt it goes to Mfd as per deletion policy. To my eyes, the mfd seemed to clearly indicate that consensus was that this leeway was exceeded. From your disagreement, you appear to be saying that you'd have closed this mfd as keep, could you clarify how you would have come to this interpretation from the mfd that occurred? Regards, MartinRe 23:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz's comments on his closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the last content I see on it is nothing but a clear attempt to offend with rhymes about penises. --Improv 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I took a look at the Google cache - [1] - the cached version doesn't crash Firefox, but if you look at it in Firefox (or look at the source), it's obvious why it would. Considering that, as well as the misuse of the sock puppet tag, I see no reason why this should be kept. Please see Wikipedia:User page. I see nothing on there that would make me believe such a page is permissible. I can't imagine any legitimate reason, for example, for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jesus to have any pages in it. This user has five of them. The MFD was a unanimous delete - I see no problems with the closing admin's decision and endorse the deletion. BigDT 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since the MFD provided a near unanimous consensus to delete and I can also testify to having had severe trouble with my browser after viewing the page. (I had to close it and start it up again). Also, I cannot see how this user-subpage aids in the construction of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, and while I oppose any attempt to wander around speedying people's userpages based on that policy, I do think that MFD is a perfectly acceptable forum for drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Patently intended to be disruptive, and no encyclopaedic purpose. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Isn't MFD supposed to not be a vote? --SPUI (T - C) 15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This has the potential for vandalism. True, WP is not censored, but that extends, in my view, to articles that might possibly have encyclopedic value. This stupid page is was essentially a waste of bits. No reason for undelete. If anyone can give me any value that this page might hold have held, I will change my vote. Alethiophile^{Evil Kitten wants you to TALK TO ME} 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Page does not benefit the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Kelly Martin. As a side note, this actually did crash both my browser (Firefox) and my operating system (Mac OS X) when I reviewed the page. -- SCZenz 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per MartinRe. Closed in process, consistent with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site and the WP:USER page's "Removal" section. My AfD comment rejected the reasons of browser incompatibility and vulgarity, but cited the absence of encyclopedic purpose. User sandboxes get some latitude but there's no help that can be added to Wikipedia by restoring this simple test of (apparently accidentally) malformed HTML. Barno 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - Didn't crash Safari. How can something be "disruptive" if it's not used to disrupt? FCYTravis 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion whether or not it crashes a web browser is irrelevent; and WP:BEANS in response to 'How can something be "disruptive" if it's not used to disrupt?'. It isn't actually being constructive. --Quentin Smith 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the decision was A) well within admin discretion, and B) 100% correct per every single reason stated; we don't need this crap. --Doc Tropics 07:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Gilles Trehin

Those of you who think I'm nothing but a heartless deletionist may be surprised by this request for deletion review. Gilles Trehin is a Frenchman with Asperger syndrome who created a fictional city, Urville, complete with plans and an extensive history. The article on Urville was deleted in AfD in March. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urville (fictional city). I personally tagged the article on Trehin for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The article on Trehin was repeatedly recreated and finally protected. Although I do not believe Trehin or his city to be encyclopedic or interesting in the least, it has come to my attention that Playboy Magazine has published a blurb about a book published this year by Jessica Kingsley Press entitled Urville, written by Gilles Trehin. See page 147 of Playboy Magazine, July 2006. (Check out the nude pictures of Vida Guerra while you're at it. If you're an ass fan, you won't be disappointed.) A description of the book can be found at this link: [2]. Perhaps the speedy deletion of Gilles Trehin should be overturned and the article should be listed at AfD for its day in court. The fictional city of Urville can be sufficiently mentioned on the disambiguation page Urville. The original article Urville (fictional city) was long, rambling, and tedious in the extreme, and that's putting it kindly. Most of the AfD voters were either baffled or completely unimpressed. I personally don't think that the details of Urville are interesting or worth noting, mainly because one can't visit Urville, but possibly the idea of the city is notable and would better be covered under a brief article about Trehin. As I recall from the talk page on Trehin, there was significant interest in an article, and several recreation attempts may imply notability. Brian G. Crawford 05:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Are you disputing the deletion of Gilles Trehin? I ask because I see nothing in Gilles Tréhin. If so, I would suggest that you change the heading of this DRV to "Gilles Trehin". --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I thought several recreation attempts meant the web-site containing information about the article should be spam-blocked? User:JzG, can't you fix this for us? --Rdos 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Number one: I am not talking about restoring a link to a website. I'm suggesting that an article be restored. Number two: This DRV discussion has nothing to do with your personal beef with JzG, and therefore you are disrupting this discussion to make a WP:POINT. Please make relevant comments or refrain from making any comments at all. Brian G. Crawford 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Are we confident this is a book which has reached a significant audience? It seems to be from a very small and specialist publishing house. Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We can at least be confident that the book has been reviewed in a number of unique places. Playboy, Metropolis Magazine, The Guardian to name a few. I don't know if a Channel 4 documentary would count for anything either [3] or whether it was originally considered. I think we might have been wrong on both of these articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unprotect. I would say that a Playboy review implies it's gotten some notability. Also--this came up in the AfD--Gilles Trehin was the subject of a short documentary. It's still marginal, but I think it would be reasonable to take out the warning against recreation at least and approach future versions without prejudice. I also don't think the speedy deletion was appropriate, and I appreciate Brian's suggesting AfD would have been a better avenue. But I wouldn't recreate it expressly for that purpose. Just drop the protection against recreation and see what happens. · rodii · 13:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I meant nothing in article history, which means that "Gilles Tréhin" (note the "é") has never been created, let alone deleted, while Gilles Trehin has been deleted and protected, so I suspect this DRV should really be about that. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Old DRV it was speedied, give it an AFD with all of this evidence. Kotepho 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. I see no harm in further discussion and consensus-building in light of the evidence presented by Brian Crawford. I'm not sure which side I would support in said AfD, but I would like to have a look myself. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/Overturn - Per Jeff and Brian. I doubt I'll ever use that phrase ever again. - Hahnchen 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect, allow creation of an article but stick to what is verifiable, rather than the fan page seen in the past. Allow a redirect from the book title. One article should be sufficient since there is in essence only one subject here. I know what Hahnchen means.  :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are those horsemen I see? Are there four of them? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Five, I think. Ronnie Soak is with them. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/Overturn/Rewrite This seems to be a notable example of outsider art. (yes, i'm another avowed heartless deletionist). Excellent and high-minded nomination for deletion review Bwithh 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect, recreate, AfD if anyone wishes. There's enough new information for a rethink of the decision to be justified. Proto///type 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/Overturn/Rewrite per Bwithh. I'd say this appears to be a case of nascent notability, but I'd probably flunk WP:NEO. --Doc Tropics 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)