Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 23

Wyoming Incident – No issues raised with the deletion process, just didn't like the result and some ironic rant about throwing tantrums – pgk 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

personal attack RMc 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone explain this to me. I create an article about The Wyoming Incident, a minor but interesting internet hoax. Several people add to the article; they seem to like it. Then some petulant child named User:Thunderbunny decided he wants to delete it (using such sage reasoning as "it sucks"), gets a few of his buddies to agree with him, and WHAM! it's gone. Huh? Is this the way things work around here...throw a tantrum and you get what you want? I mean, what the hell? RMc 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

CBM · talk) 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

{{{

The claims by the nominator says that my redirect among other redirects aren't "useful or helpful." Others have said that there is "No plausible use." I know for this redirect here, it's the complete opposite of what the nominator claims. This was a very convenient way of writing the project in messages, templates and so on. Kingjeff 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Part of a batch of cross namespace redirects deleted about a month ago. The discussion at RfD was unanymous and correctly closed by After Midnight. If a shortcut to this project is needed, I suggest using the pseudo WP: namespace and creating WP:Munich → Wikipedia:WikiProject Munich. WjBscribe 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It wasn't correctly closed. The fact is that this is a user friendly redirect. Kingjeff 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not "user friendly" - users of the encyclopedia wish to read encyclopedic content, not find our Wikiprojects. That is why we use special shortcuts for us to keep this content out of the mainspace as much as possible. There is clear consensus to delete these sorts of redirects - see here (May 19) and here (March 13) for example... WjBscribe 15:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per WJBscribe. ^
[omg plz] 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

CLSA – Overturn speedy deletion, restore article in the interim, and list on AfD if deletion is desired. – Kurykh 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

well-known, influential, and privately held company that clearly satisfies the notability requirement, documentable sources 867xx5209 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google or yahoo search on the key words: CLSA and "Hong Kong" (to distinguish it from potential other uses of the initials C,L,S,A) and you get approximately 100,000 entries. How is that neither significant or notable? Do a similar keyword search on most other Wiki entries and see how many instances you retrieve by comparison.

202.82.31.75 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who deleted this without discussion needs to explain the reasoning.

Chance in HK 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted this because the article satisfied
WP:CSD#A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. The article had been prodded previously with no objections. —Anas ^talk? 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse Google hits are not a measure of notability. Please read up on
Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Counter-Argument Fine, but do a little RESEARCH of google hits to investigate the web-based articles themselves and decide whether a subject is notable or not. Isn't that what an encyclopedia requires: research? Or is that too much bother?867xx5209 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout you do the research and provide the actual links rather then leaving this to other people? You are the one who wants this undeleted after all.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I am the user who tagged this article with {{linkspam for User:pulrich's book (whose article was deleted by AfD and then recreated by one of them) to the Saudi Arabia article. —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 10:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply ]


Comment to the Comment Admin should look into this user's obsessive activities with regard to the aforementioned Ulrich article. In Wikipedia nomenclature, the user is a classic TROLL in the repeated and persistent misuse of Wikipedia's processes. This 72, who seems to change IP addresses every week, (why? to avoid yet another Admin block?) ought to find better, more constructive use of what s/he alleges on own talk page to be a Mensa-level intelligence. Perhaps 72 could contribute content, edit articles, or add links rather than looking for ways to vandalize, er - speedily delete legitimate entries. 867xx5209 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per Spartaz. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Argument as per above to Spartaz.867xx5209 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Spartaz and the fact that the users requesting review are puppets, in some way/shape/form. --tennisman 14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Argument The one who requested the CSD, 72, "believes" puppets are involved. You're basing your argument on alleged beliefs, not facts. If we apply this line of reasoning, we would ignore your argument in tallying the level of "consensus". Why? because how do we know you're not a puppet of Spartaz?867xx5209 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I submit this edit of your personal attack against me on Talk:Jing Ulrich as proof that you and User:202.82.31.75 are in fact the same individual. —72.75.85.234 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Counter-Counter - If I was a sock of Spartaz, I would not say "per Spartaz"> I would just repeat his comment, which is what all of the inclusionist DRV requesters here are doing. --tennisman 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overthrow as an incorrect use of speedy, without any comment on actual notability. The speedy reason given is "not assert significance". The first sentence of the article is: "CLSA is an award-winning brokerage house covering the Asia-Pacific Markets from a headquarters in Hong Kong. " That is a clear assertion of significance. If speedy is overused, it puts the trustworthiness of the procedure at risk. We shouldn't cut corners in deletion. DGG 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn. i agree with WT:CSD#A7 Scope again for a longer discussion of the general issue. DES ^(talk) 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
To DGG and DES: I placed a {{WP:COI/N case of User:Pulrich from a month ago (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 13), since it was recreated primarily to support his agenda of promoting his wife, Jing Ulrich ... BTW, my IP changed (again) a few hours ago, and I'm trying to update sandboxes and other pages to reflect the new ID, but have been interrupted by having to address this very upsetting matter ASAP. —72.75.85.234 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I gather from this that you are agreeing with and extending what I said, not arguing against it?DGG 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I might have been a little trigger-happy with deleting the article. I was initially hesitant but deleted it because I thought it was just a recreation of a unopposed deletion; I should have checked the previous deleted version and noticed that it had a different creator. I agree with taking this to AfD. —Anas ^talk? 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Affirmative ... my stressed TROLL in this matter, as alleged by this sockpuppet
 User:867xx5209?)

By all means, I endorse restoration and immediately taking it to AfD for WikiGnomes are willing to invest the resources in finding reliable sources
 for unsubstantiated claims of notability ... but it's obviously "too much bother" (to use their own words) for this particular author to do it themselves. :-)

As for the above comment by User:Anas, the jury is still out on whether or not "different" creators are involved, since I cannot access the edit history of either incarnation to confirm meatpuppet activity by multiple editors residing in Hong Kong. —72.75.85.234 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn and list at AfD - there is an assertion of notability so the fuller discussion of an AfD is appropriate. TerriersFan 02:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn and list at Afd for full discussion without (one hopes) users sniping at one another: umpire the ball, not the player. — Athaenara ✉ 22:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD per DES. I am concerned that the lines DES cited might make the article look a bit promotional, but if the awards are true or significant, there is a clear assertion at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Overturn to Allow Time for Introduction of References and Citations
Rationale: Notabiity for Feed Article to CLSA Demonstrated: I recently established notability for Gary Coull, CLSA's co-founder, through links to three detailed, online obituaries in London's Financial Times and The Times newspapers as well as in FinanceAsia magazine. (Thanks to those who subsequently formatted the additions properly.) If a company's co-founder is notable, it is easy enough to do the same for the company, which continues after his death and has even more online references than he had.867xx5209 07:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, User:867xx5209, "those who subsequently formatted the additions properly" in TROLL that you accused on the article's talk page as having "not much useful in the way of content or language skills to contribute to Wikipedia" and "getting admins in cohoots to delete the article" ... you're welcome, BTW. —72.75.85.234 11:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.