Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 March 27
2019 March 29 >

28 March 2019

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Proposed Portland Ballpark ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

so it can be moved to Draft:Portland Ballpark SportsFan007 ( talk) 19:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply

@ RoySmith: That’s why I want it be moved to a draft so it can be exanded. SportsFan007 ( talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
It would make more sense to start by finding some sources. And, then, once you're found sources, you can start writing an article based on what the sources say. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
@ RoySmith: Ok, but I would like to incorporate what was on the page that was deleted. SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
Surely you can do two sentences better the second time around in draft. Legacypac ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
There was a whole infobox with a rendering of the stadium. SportsFan007 ( talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
The rendering, File:Portland Ballpark.jpg, is in the process of being deleted as a copyvio. Restoring the little snippets of unsourced material will just encourage it to remain unsourced. The sources are the key thing. The right way to write an encyclopedia article is to start with what WP:RS have said, and summarize that. Starting with some text that has no sources is pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
All I’m asking is that the page be briefly undeleted so I can copy and pastie it into a draft. SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
  • Allow recreation as draft I don't really see what the harm in doing that is. If it still doesn't have sourcing, it's never going to get approved at AFC, and if it does, then this whole thing is moot. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify my position here, while I don't think it's either useful or necessary to use this as a starting point for a new draft, I can't come up with a good policy-based reason to deny draftifying it if somebody is adamant that's what they want. You can lead an editor to water, but you can't make him drink, I guess. However, if this does get draftified, don't copy-paste it as suggested above. That would be contrary to WP:CWW. Restoring the original and moving it to draft will preserve the history. As I said before, I don't think that's useful, but it is required to comply with our licensing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kiwi Farms ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This website has received substantial coverage from sources like New York magazine and News.com.au. In addition, this Heat Street article may be usable as well. There is a chance of this topic surviving an AfD discussion. For now I've created Draft:Kiwi Farms, which can be expanded if necessary. JzG, the original blocking administrator, has been inactive for two weeks. feminist ( talk) 09:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • It was deleted as A7. Just create an article that credibly asserts the significance of the subject and you shouldn't get A7'ed again.— S Marshall T/ C 12:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt. The NY Magazine article (which was in the original) should have been enough to disqualify CSD. Also, this was salted as an "attack article". I disagree with that; the site may be about attacking people, but the article itself wasn't. All of this is somewhat moot, since I see the title has already been unsalted and the draft accepted. If somebody feels this doesn't pass muster, bring it to WP:AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • overturn speedy and unsalt just overall a bad close. Not an A7 based on both claims and sources. Not an attack article IMO. I can see the argument that it's an "attack topic", but the article seemed fine. Sorry, I'd not realized that the deletion was of an article I can't see--I thought I was seeing the whole history. Current article is fine, topic is well past an A7. Hobit ( talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Three Men in a Boat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I apologize. I don't recall ever being here because I overlooked a discussion notification and missed the opportunity to discuss an XFD. However at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Template:Three Men in a Boat the close resulted in a Delete Merge. I contend that the close constituted a WP:VOTE rather than a reasoned discussion of relevant policies and guidelines. I.e., that there was no consensus for the closer to evaluate and thus the close should have been No Consensus. I have discussed this with the closer ( JJMC89) and nominator ( BrownHairedGirl) at User_talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close. All TFD discussants (@ JarrahTree, Legacypac, and Chiswick Chap:) were notified, but none chose to participate in my post close discussion. JJMC89 reminded me that the discussion had unanimous support. In my discussion with JJMC89, we went over various WP:PAG (policies and guidelines) that might apply to this discussion. JJMC89 mentioned the WP:TG (template guidelines). Since the nomination was posted under the false assertion of massive overlap, I noted that it should have been nominated as WP:T3, which is the relevant template deletion method if massive overlap actually is the case. However, people familiar with WP:CSD are probably aware that this would not have likely been a successful T3 nomination. The nominator chose to make an assertion of massive overlap, yet chose not to pursue the normal massive overlap procedure. I noted that the WP:NAVBOX editing guideline has many considerations for the use of navboxes on WP including a list of guidelines for templates, a list of advantages and disadvantages of templates over alternatives such as categories and lists. The issue of having multiple templates rather than a single one at WP:CREEP in the section Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep#Do_we_have_two_or_three_templates_where_one_would_do? is not even a part of a policy or guideline. It is merely an essay. Thus, the nomination (made under the false assertion of massive overlap) relied on an essay (rather than a policy or guideline) and the discussion was without mention of any policies or guidelines. Thus, no consensus was met although the VOTE was unanimous. Why does all this matter? The result of the merge is an increase in the number of links on the pages at issue. I demonstrated at the post-close discussion that the merger results in the increase in the number of templated links on the set of pages at issue. Here are the numbers:

the pre-discussion Template:Jerome K. Jerome had 7 links:
the pre-discussion Template:Three Men in a Boat had 10 links:
The merged template has 13 links.
  1. There were three pages ( Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat and Three Men on the Bummel) that had both templates before the merger. These three templates each went from 17 templated links (3 overlapping) to 13. Net reduction of 12 templated links (4 each).
  2. There were six pages ( Three Men in a Boat (1920 film), Three Men in a Boat (1933 film), Three Men in a Boat (1956 film), Drei Mann in einem Boot, Three Men in a Boat (1975 film), Three Men in a Boat (1979 film)) that previously only had the Three Men in a Boat template, but following the merger they had the broader 13-link template with 4 unrelated novels. Net increase was 18 total templated links (3 each).
  3. There were four pages ( Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow, Diary of a Pilgrimage, Paul Kelver, and All Roads Lead to Calvary (novel)) that previously only had the Jerome K. Jerome template, but following the merger they had the broader 13-link template with 6 unrelated films. Net increase was 24 total templated links (6 each).
  4. There was one page that lost its association with the subjects it inspired ( Three in Norway (by two of them)). Net reduction of 10 total templated links.
Overall the merger resulted in the addition of 20 additional templated links to the navboxes of the associated pages. It also resulted in the loss of association of a page with pages it inspired. Since there was no policy-based consensus (just a unanimous vote) and since the result causes bloating of templated links, I am requesting that the merger be overturned. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, as TFD nominator. The merged Template:Jerome K. Jerome has 13 links, all related to a single tightly-bound topic: Jerome K. Jerome, his works, and adaptations thereof. It is neither visually bulky nor confusing nor a forest of links. If it had started like that, nobody would seriously want to split it.
However, Template:Three Men in a Boat was created by @ TonyTheTiger, who has dispalyed the most extraordinary set of WP:OWNership issue I have seen in a long time. See User talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close ( permalink) which started as as outrage that I had in my nom inadvertently miscounted the total number of links. I am sorry about that error, but I don't believe it had any material impact on the discussion. Tony continued on a bizarre rollercoaster of self-contradictions, changing complaints, a false claim that I acted as both nominator and loser, failed policy wonkery, an explicit claim of WP:OWNership, and a bizarre concoction of numbers whose point is unclear.
The walls of text above, at User talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close and at WP:TFD/2019 March 16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat are so over-the-top that I find it hard to AGF that this is actually just about one tiny navbox. What's really going on, Tony? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_March_28&oldid=1209372013"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 March 27
2019 March 29 >

28 March 2019

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Proposed Portland Ballpark ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

so it can be moved to Draft:Portland Ballpark SportsFan007 ( talk) 19:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply

@ RoySmith: That’s why I want it be moved to a draft so it can be exanded. SportsFan007 ( talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
It would make more sense to start by finding some sources. And, then, once you're found sources, you can start writing an article based on what the sources say. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
@ RoySmith: Ok, but I would like to incorporate what was on the page that was deleted. SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
Surely you can do two sentences better the second time around in draft. Legacypac ( talk) 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
There was a whole infobox with a rendering of the stadium. SportsFan007 ( talk) 04:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
The rendering, File:Portland Ballpark.jpg, is in the process of being deleted as a copyvio. Restoring the little snippets of unsourced material will just encourage it to remain unsourced. The sources are the key thing. The right way to write an encyclopedia article is to start with what WP:RS have said, and summarize that. Starting with some text that has no sources is pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
All I’m asking is that the page be briefly undeleted so I can copy and pastie it into a draft. SportsFan007 ( talk) 21:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007 reply
  • Allow recreation as draft I don't really see what the harm in doing that is. If it still doesn't have sourcing, it's never going to get approved at AFC, and if it does, then this whole thing is moot. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify my position here, while I don't think it's either useful or necessary to use this as a starting point for a new draft, I can't come up with a good policy-based reason to deny draftifying it if somebody is adamant that's what they want. You can lead an editor to water, but you can't make him drink, I guess. However, if this does get draftified, don't copy-paste it as suggested above. That would be contrary to WP:CWW. Restoring the original and moving it to draft will preserve the history. As I said before, I don't think that's useful, but it is required to comply with our licensing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kiwi Farms ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This website has received substantial coverage from sources like New York magazine and News.com.au. In addition, this Heat Street article may be usable as well. There is a chance of this topic surviving an AfD discussion. For now I've created Draft:Kiwi Farms, which can be expanded if necessary. JzG, the original blocking administrator, has been inactive for two weeks. feminist ( talk) 09:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • It was deleted as A7. Just create an article that credibly asserts the significance of the subject and you shouldn't get A7'ed again.— S Marshall T/ C 12:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Unsalt. The NY Magazine article (which was in the original) should have been enough to disqualify CSD. Also, this was salted as an "attack article". I disagree with that; the site may be about attacking people, but the article itself wasn't. All of this is somewhat moot, since I see the title has already been unsalted and the draft accepted. If somebody feels this doesn't pass muster, bring it to WP:AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • overturn speedy and unsalt just overall a bad close. Not an A7 based on both claims and sources. Not an attack article IMO. I can see the argument that it's an "attack topic", but the article seemed fine. Sorry, I'd not realized that the deletion was of an article I can't see--I thought I was seeing the whole history. Current article is fine, topic is well past an A7. Hobit ( talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Three Men in a Boat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I apologize. I don't recall ever being here because I overlooked a discussion notification and missed the opportunity to discuss an XFD. However at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Template:Three Men in a Boat the close resulted in a Delete Merge. I contend that the close constituted a WP:VOTE rather than a reasoned discussion of relevant policies and guidelines. I.e., that there was no consensus for the closer to evaluate and thus the close should have been No Consensus. I have discussed this with the closer ( JJMC89) and nominator ( BrownHairedGirl) at User_talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close. All TFD discussants (@ JarrahTree, Legacypac, and Chiswick Chap:) were notified, but none chose to participate in my post close discussion. JJMC89 reminded me that the discussion had unanimous support. In my discussion with JJMC89, we went over various WP:PAG (policies and guidelines) that might apply to this discussion. JJMC89 mentioned the WP:TG (template guidelines). Since the nomination was posted under the false assertion of massive overlap, I noted that it should have been nominated as WP:T3, which is the relevant template deletion method if massive overlap actually is the case. However, people familiar with WP:CSD are probably aware that this would not have likely been a successful T3 nomination. The nominator chose to make an assertion of massive overlap, yet chose not to pursue the normal massive overlap procedure. I noted that the WP:NAVBOX editing guideline has many considerations for the use of navboxes on WP including a list of guidelines for templates, a list of advantages and disadvantages of templates over alternatives such as categories and lists. The issue of having multiple templates rather than a single one at WP:CREEP in the section Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep#Do_we_have_two_or_three_templates_where_one_would_do? is not even a part of a policy or guideline. It is merely an essay. Thus, the nomination (made under the false assertion of massive overlap) relied on an essay (rather than a policy or guideline) and the discussion was without mention of any policies or guidelines. Thus, no consensus was met although the VOTE was unanimous. Why does all this matter? The result of the merge is an increase in the number of links on the pages at issue. I demonstrated at the post-close discussion that the merger results in the increase in the number of templated links on the set of pages at issue. Here are the numbers:

the pre-discussion Template:Jerome K. Jerome had 7 links:
the pre-discussion Template:Three Men in a Boat had 10 links:
The merged template has 13 links.
  1. There were three pages ( Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat and Three Men on the Bummel) that had both templates before the merger. These three templates each went from 17 templated links (3 overlapping) to 13. Net reduction of 12 templated links (4 each).
  2. There were six pages ( Three Men in a Boat (1920 film), Three Men in a Boat (1933 film), Three Men in a Boat (1956 film), Drei Mann in einem Boot, Three Men in a Boat (1975 film), Three Men in a Boat (1979 film)) that previously only had the Three Men in a Boat template, but following the merger they had the broader 13-link template with 4 unrelated novels. Net increase was 18 total templated links (3 each).
  3. There were four pages ( Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow, Diary of a Pilgrimage, Paul Kelver, and All Roads Lead to Calvary (novel)) that previously only had the Jerome K. Jerome template, but following the merger they had the broader 13-link template with 6 unrelated films. Net increase was 24 total templated links (6 each).
  4. There was one page that lost its association with the subjects it inspired ( Three in Norway (by two of them)). Net reduction of 10 total templated links.
Overall the merger resulted in the addition of 20 additional templated links to the navboxes of the associated pages. It also resulted in the loss of association of a page with pages it inspired. Since there was no policy-based consensus (just a unanimous vote) and since the result causes bloating of templated links, I am requesting that the merger be overturned. TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, as TFD nominator. The merged Template:Jerome K. Jerome has 13 links, all related to a single tightly-bound topic: Jerome K. Jerome, his works, and adaptations thereof. It is neither visually bulky nor confusing nor a forest of links. If it had started like that, nobody would seriously want to split it.
However, Template:Three Men in a Boat was created by @ TonyTheTiger, who has dispalyed the most extraordinary set of WP:OWNership issue I have seen in a long time. See User talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close ( permalink) which started as as outrage that I had in my nom inadvertently miscounted the total number of links. I am sorry about that error, but I don't believe it had any material impact on the discussion. Tony continued on a bizarre rollercoaster of self-contradictions, changing complaints, a false claim that I acted as both nominator and loser, failed policy wonkery, an explicit claim of WP:OWNership, and a bizarre concoction of numbers whose point is unclear.
The walls of text above, at User talk:JJMC89#Sloppy_close and at WP:TFD/2019 March 16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat are so over-the-top that I find it hard to AGF that this is actually just about one tiny navbox. What's really going on, Tony? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_March_28&oldid=1209372013"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE