|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
That picture claimed to be necessary for showing an historical event that can not be reprodued in anyway and the debate was completely in favor of keeping it. Pejman47 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Battle Against Bald is a valuable resource for people seeking hair restoration. It shows informative videos and offers tons of information about hair loss. It's a blog, not a company trying to make money. Respond2 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion (well, the deletion vote turned into a redirect) was carried out a long time ago. It clearly passes the notability test, and there are now many other University Police departments with pages on wikipedia (see Category:United States school police departments). Besides, the people on the Norwegian wikipedia don't think it unimportant enough, ( no:Universitetet_i_Washingtons_Politi). This article clearly should have not been turned into a redirect. I propose restoring it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute " me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored. — Bigwyrm watch me wake me 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it. Stakes Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians Players
Events
Discuss
That being said, I would support moving this category to a page with a different title. “Pseudo-religion” implies something phony or inauthentic. This is presumptuous for a subject matter where the buzzword is “Faith” rather than “Fact.” One person’s absolute truth is another person’s pseudo religion. The faithful have all kinds of pejoratives for those who differ in their beliefs: heathen, goyum, infidel, gentile, gray-face, damned, condemned, and so on. The bottom line is that alternative religion, or subculture, or minority world-view would be more descriptive.-- Libertyguy 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, in order to avoid being tagged, I'll mention that Bigwyrm posted a message to my talk page as well. I will also note that this is my first Wikipedia space contribution in two days (so clearly I'm not an active member of the community and my opinion is useless?). I will also note that I discovered the original deletion debate as it was being closed and so was unable to participate in it. I can only speak for Category:Discordian Wikipedians myself, because I'm not really familiar with the others. The only argument given for deletion that I cannot thoroughly dismiss is Sawblade05's “Does not belong here,” to which I can only say “Yes, it does.” (Or perhaps “ WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”) The nominator's assertion that the religions do not exist I personally find extremely insulting. Discordianism obviously exists, and I don't think we'd have an article about it if it didn't. The assertion that no collaboration is possible is also false. As DenisMoskowitz pointed out above, Discordians have collaborated before. The assertion that “they are parodies or satirical religions” is an opinion that may be true, but is not relevant. It says right in his own sentence that they are religions, and I can personally assure you that there is at least one adherent of Discordianism. I see obvious elements of parody and satire in Satanism, but Category:Satanist Wikipedians seems to be free from being deleted for this reason. The assertion that “People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats” is about as relevant to Discordianism as it is to Islam. After all, don't Muslims express their disbelief in thousands of deities in Tawḥīd? Discordianism, FSMism, and IPUism are even named after deities! Black Falcon's assertion that “There is no collaborative value to these categories” has already been done away with by showing that there is. His point that “Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. ” is a very good one, but again DenisMoskowitz has shown that the ability and desire is there. ^demon's assertion that “There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research” is incomprehensible to me. It has of course been shown that there is collaborative potential, but the original research comment is just plain strange. Discordianism, like most Wikipedia articles, is not as well cited as it should be, but is it all original research? Sufism “is primarily concerned with direct personal experience” (according to its article); is that article therefore original research as well? Octane asserts that “The nominated categories cover one article each”, but Category:Discordianism currently has 35 pages and three subcategories. Any other reasons for deletion I have either overlooked (if I have please correct me!) or have not yet been voiced. I'm not really sure if there are any obvious procedural violations in the original discussion (just poor reasoning), but I think this counts as “significant new information” per DRV purpose statement 3 (even though that is guided at articles). In summary, I believe that at the least the deletion of Category:Discordian Wikipedians should be overturned. I cannot personally provide much information as to what should be done with the others. — The Storm Surfer 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, Bigwyrm notes that I endorsed the deletion of all the religion cats, but rather egregiously misrepresents my position on the issue. I specifically stated (at first) that I did not endorse the mass deletion, but when I was informed that the categories were being used to canvass (like what was done here), I supported the deletion proposal. I didn't participate in the DRV, because I really didn't feel THAT strongly about it. Seraphimblade takes me to task for targeting certain "religions" (yes, the scare quotes are appropriate in this case). Four of the five main articles for the categories state that they are parody religions, which means they are not real. I repeat, they are not real. This is the crux of the issue. See Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which specifically state that they are parody or satirical religions; Church of the SubGenius notes that it is an offshoot of Discordianism, and later notes that it mocks Scientology and New Age religion. Cthulhu notes that the deity was created by H. P. Lovecraft as a plot device for his series of books. I am of the belief that the "religion" category should be reserved for real religions, or the lack thereof. There are several categories that are appropriate for non-believers ( Category:Atheist Wikipedians and its subcategories, or perhaps Category:Bright Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Any religion that states in its introduction that it is a parody does not qualify as a religious belief in and of itself, and is more appropriate for some type of humor category. We go to great lengths to avoid offending people with the octopus-like scope of WP:BLP, which now covers dead people as well; why should we allow categories which openly mock traditional religions to exist? Note also that this does not affect the userboxen associated with the categories; while I think they are pointless, I would oppose any attempt to delete the userboxen in question. I wasn't around for the great userbox purge, but I would have been there swinging against the deletionists in that case. A userbox is appropriate for noting the affiliation. If there is a consensus that the categories should be restored, I really think that they need to be moved out of the religion (or philosophy) categories into a category of their own. (Somewhere in Category:Wikipedians by interest would be appropriate.) I begin my vacation tomorrow, so my internet access will be spotty to non-existent. If I don't respond, it's not because I don't have a response to whatever you say, it's because I cannot log on or am actually doing something more important than Wikipedia. Horologium t- c 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Compromise (not to highlight my opinion, but because we need another section break)
References
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This file was deleted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson for the reason of "18 USC Section 2257". I'm unaware of which speedy deletion criteria that falls under. That law requires producers of porn to maintain records verifying the identities of models used. Since the image was produced outside the US and is not porn but simple nudity, which is exempted from that law, I can't really see how it would apply here. In addition, I don't think that would make this a proper speedy deletion even if it did apply. - Nard 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The company and its product is notable. Its motherboard and power supply is very notable in Hong Kong and China. Its motherboard is one of a few major brand comparing to Intel and ASUSTek [3]. It has 17500 entries in Google. It is unreasonable that the article was deleted within a few hours after its creation, without notifying any major authors and I have no chance to put a hang-on tag. — HenryLi ( Talk) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Game is notable - online numbers claims can be verified This makes no sense, the article was apparenty flagged as needing references since February which was brought to my attention today. References were added today along with links to external reviews and an entire DMOZ category for the MUD, and suddenly the page is deleted. Meanwhile many of the muds on the list of MUDs in "borderline" status cite reviews on Topmudsites and/or The Mud Connector with a note that they will probably be OK based on the reviews - Aardwolf had many of both. After spending several hours today trying to fix our page this is a slap in the face with zero feedback - would appreciate some transparency here please. Part of the contention appeared to be the claim of being one of the "most popular" - we have notified the administrator that we were working on this, but were not given time to complete. The game is notable and online numbers can be verified at any time simply by logging in and looking. If it takes a third party to verify our numbers that can be done too, but just deleting the page right after we start dialog seems unreasonable. Please reconsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardlasher ( talk • contribs).
[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: So you are deciding the references at the two top ranked non-wikipedia sites for 'Mud' and 'Muds', dating back to 1996, are not reliable? DMOZ review of the site and granting it's own category is not noteable? If you decide MUDs in general aren't notable fair enough, but to arbitrarily decide one of the largest MUDs around isn't notable? Why the deletion *today* of all days when the article has been flagged for months? The day we contact you for help and confirm intent to provide those references? Sorry, but this just looks like someone wanted us gone quick before we came back with the necessary info.
[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: There was a lot said on the articles 'talk' page today. Apparently this was in the wrong place and should have been on the delete discussion, my bad for not knowing the inner workings of Wikipedia. Please read the 'talk' page from the article before it was deleted and the exchanges with Martijn.
""Sounds good, thanks! Can you include a link to info on the process to move from user space back to an article? Appreciate your help with this.[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 04:38 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
That picture claimed to be necessary for showing an historical event that can not be reprodued in anyway and the debate was completely in favor of keeping it. Pejman47 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Battle Against Bald is a valuable resource for people seeking hair restoration. It shows informative videos and offers tons of information about hair loss. It's a blog, not a company trying to make money. Respond2 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion (well, the deletion vote turned into a redirect) was carried out a long time ago. It clearly passes the notability test, and there are now many other University Police departments with pages on wikipedia (see Category:United States school police departments). Besides, the people on the Norwegian wikipedia don't think it unimportant enough, ( no:Universitetet_i_Washingtons_Politi). This article clearly should have not been turned into a redirect. I propose restoring it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute " me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored. — Bigwyrm watch me wake me 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it. Stakes Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians Players
Events
Discuss
That being said, I would support moving this category to a page with a different title. “Pseudo-religion” implies something phony or inauthentic. This is presumptuous for a subject matter where the buzzword is “Faith” rather than “Fact.” One person’s absolute truth is another person’s pseudo religion. The faithful have all kinds of pejoratives for those who differ in their beliefs: heathen, goyum, infidel, gentile, gray-face, damned, condemned, and so on. The bottom line is that alternative religion, or subculture, or minority world-view would be more descriptive.-- Libertyguy 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, in order to avoid being tagged, I'll mention that Bigwyrm posted a message to my talk page as well. I will also note that this is my first Wikipedia space contribution in two days (so clearly I'm not an active member of the community and my opinion is useless?). I will also note that I discovered the original deletion debate as it was being closed and so was unable to participate in it. I can only speak for Category:Discordian Wikipedians myself, because I'm not really familiar with the others. The only argument given for deletion that I cannot thoroughly dismiss is Sawblade05's “Does not belong here,” to which I can only say “Yes, it does.” (Or perhaps “ WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”) The nominator's assertion that the religions do not exist I personally find extremely insulting. Discordianism obviously exists, and I don't think we'd have an article about it if it didn't. The assertion that no collaboration is possible is also false. As DenisMoskowitz pointed out above, Discordians have collaborated before. The assertion that “they are parodies or satirical religions” is an opinion that may be true, but is not relevant. It says right in his own sentence that they are religions, and I can personally assure you that there is at least one adherent of Discordianism. I see obvious elements of parody and satire in Satanism, but Category:Satanist Wikipedians seems to be free from being deleted for this reason. The assertion that “People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats” is about as relevant to Discordianism as it is to Islam. After all, don't Muslims express their disbelief in thousands of deities in Tawḥīd? Discordianism, FSMism, and IPUism are even named after deities! Black Falcon's assertion that “There is no collaborative value to these categories” has already been done away with by showing that there is. His point that “Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. ” is a very good one, but again DenisMoskowitz has shown that the ability and desire is there. ^demon's assertion that “There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research” is incomprehensible to me. It has of course been shown that there is collaborative potential, but the original research comment is just plain strange. Discordianism, like most Wikipedia articles, is not as well cited as it should be, but is it all original research? Sufism “is primarily concerned with direct personal experience” (according to its article); is that article therefore original research as well? Octane asserts that “The nominated categories cover one article each”, but Category:Discordianism currently has 35 pages and three subcategories. Any other reasons for deletion I have either overlooked (if I have please correct me!) or have not yet been voiced. I'm not really sure if there are any obvious procedural violations in the original discussion (just poor reasoning), but I think this counts as “significant new information” per DRV purpose statement 3 (even though that is guided at articles). In summary, I believe that at the least the deletion of Category:Discordian Wikipedians should be overturned. I cannot personally provide much information as to what should be done with the others. — The Storm Surfer 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, Bigwyrm notes that I endorsed the deletion of all the religion cats, but rather egregiously misrepresents my position on the issue. I specifically stated (at first) that I did not endorse the mass deletion, but when I was informed that the categories were being used to canvass (like what was done here), I supported the deletion proposal. I didn't participate in the DRV, because I really didn't feel THAT strongly about it. Seraphimblade takes me to task for targeting certain "religions" (yes, the scare quotes are appropriate in this case). Four of the five main articles for the categories state that they are parody religions, which means they are not real. I repeat, they are not real. This is the crux of the issue. See Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which specifically state that they are parody or satirical religions; Church of the SubGenius notes that it is an offshoot of Discordianism, and later notes that it mocks Scientology and New Age religion. Cthulhu notes that the deity was created by H. P. Lovecraft as a plot device for his series of books. I am of the belief that the "religion" category should be reserved for real religions, or the lack thereof. There are several categories that are appropriate for non-believers ( Category:Atheist Wikipedians and its subcategories, or perhaps Category:Bright Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Any religion that states in its introduction that it is a parody does not qualify as a religious belief in and of itself, and is more appropriate for some type of humor category. We go to great lengths to avoid offending people with the octopus-like scope of WP:BLP, which now covers dead people as well; why should we allow categories which openly mock traditional religions to exist? Note also that this does not affect the userboxen associated with the categories; while I think they are pointless, I would oppose any attempt to delete the userboxen in question. I wasn't around for the great userbox purge, but I would have been there swinging against the deletionists in that case. A userbox is appropriate for noting the affiliation. If there is a consensus that the categories should be restored, I really think that they need to be moved out of the religion (or philosophy) categories into a category of their own. (Somewhere in Category:Wikipedians by interest would be appropriate.) I begin my vacation tomorrow, so my internet access will be spotty to non-existent. If I don't respond, it's not because I don't have a response to whatever you say, it's because I cannot log on or am actually doing something more important than Wikipedia. Horologium t- c 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Compromise (not to highlight my opinion, but because we need another section break)
References
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This file was deleted by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson for the reason of "18 USC Section 2257". I'm unaware of which speedy deletion criteria that falls under. That law requires producers of porn to maintain records verifying the identities of models used. Since the image was produced outside the US and is not porn but simple nudity, which is exempted from that law, I can't really see how it would apply here. In addition, I don't think that would make this a proper speedy deletion even if it did apply. - Nard 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The company and its product is notable. Its motherboard and power supply is very notable in Hong Kong and China. Its motherboard is one of a few major brand comparing to Intel and ASUSTek [3]. It has 17500 entries in Google. It is unreasonable that the article was deleted within a few hours after its creation, without notifying any major authors and I have no chance to put a hang-on tag. — HenryLi ( Talk) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Game is notable - online numbers claims can be verified This makes no sense, the article was apparenty flagged as needing references since February which was brought to my attention today. References were added today along with links to external reviews and an entire DMOZ category for the MUD, and suddenly the page is deleted. Meanwhile many of the muds on the list of MUDs in "borderline" status cite reviews on Topmudsites and/or The Mud Connector with a note that they will probably be OK based on the reviews - Aardwolf had many of both. After spending several hours today trying to fix our page this is a slap in the face with zero feedback - would appreciate some transparency here please. Part of the contention appeared to be the claim of being one of the "most popular" - we have notified the administrator that we were working on this, but were not given time to complete. The game is notable and online numbers can be verified at any time simply by logging in and looking. If it takes a third party to verify our numbers that can be done too, but just deleting the page right after we start dialog seems unreasonable. Please reconsider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aardlasher ( talk • contribs).
[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: So you are deciding the references at the two top ranked non-wikipedia sites for 'Mud' and 'Muds', dating back to 1996, are not reliable? DMOZ review of the site and granting it's own category is not noteable? If you decide MUDs in general aren't notable fair enough, but to arbitrarily decide one of the largest MUDs around isn't notable? Why the deletion *today* of all days when the article has been flagged for months? The day we contact you for help and confirm intent to provide those references? Sorry, but this just looks like someone wanted us gone quick before we came back with the necessary info.
[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 26 July 2007:: There was a lot said on the articles 'talk' page today. Apparently this was in the wrong place and should have been on the delete discussion, my bad for not knowing the inner workings of Wikipedia. Please read the 'talk' page from the article before it was deleted and the exchanges with Martijn.
""Sounds good, thanks! Can you include a link to info on the process to move from user space back to an article? Appreciate your help with this.[[User:Aardlasher|aardlasher] 04:38 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |