TKatKa ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Page was deleted by either User:JPG-GR or MBisanz (with some confusion as to who exactly) citing that it lacks 3rd party coverage. This is incorrect, I can provide many independent 3rd party press articles. Matter has been discussed with both users, please see their discussion pages for more info. Have been directed here by MBisanz to have the page reinstated. 100m ( talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• There's no confusion. The deletion log is clear: MBisanz deleted TKatKa, and JPG-GR deleted Tkatka. Uncle G ( talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin I deleted a broken redirect, JPG deleted a page per A7 I think. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No. It was Proposed Deletion. Which makes this simply a contested Proposed Deletion, requiring that the person who wanted this deleted, RadioFan2 (usurped) ( talk · contribs), to go to AFD if xe still wants the article deleted. Uncle G ( talk) 00:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closed as SNOW after only a few hours, with headcount 13-5, would have been 13-6 but closed while I was editing. A perennial controversy, but situation has changed since one of articles principal sources shut down, probably making it impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• You know, it would be nice if people didn't jump to conclusions. I would have thought the failure to observe the standard WP:SNOW criteria and the short run would have left me time to come back and put my thoughts together in detail. I doubt it will make much difference now, but: the issue I raised over the defunct resource was not citation, but the inconsistency going forward. When one site provided most of the info, occasional inconsistencies weren't a big deal. So long as it met reliability criteria. Now the info comes from multiple different sites. And there's no real reason to believe any one of them is reliable. They don't come close to getting the same word counts for major movies. Here are a few examples for major, well-known movies. Including one from this month. Acronyms as cited in article.

Casino

FMG: 398 PO: 245+ KIM: 100+

Observe and Report:

PO: 160 SI: 131 KIM: 117

Big Lebowski

FMG: 260 PO: 225 KIM: 240

I don't believe this article can be reliably maintained any longer. Given the big, big variations in counts that I pulled up on a semirandom search (looking at films with high wordcounts, since that's where the problems would be easiest to spot); I don't think we can say any of the remaining sources are reliable.

And they don't cover anywhere near the full set of released movies, just the most famous ones. My New York Times yesterday had about a dozen films being released, there are usually 6-15 per week. The remaining resource sites list only 2 or 3 per week. Then we've got the historical problems -- almost nothing from the 1980s, and nothing before then. Where's Putney Swope?

That's why I think the article needs a real debate, not the kind it had in the past, or was closed early two days ago. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin. The consensus of the discussion was for keeping. Also the Afd was open more than "only a few hours". feydey ( talk) 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I hope people actually read the discussion, instead of doing a headcount. feydey ( talk) 09:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as an improper closure. 16 hours is far short of the 7-day length for AfDs, and while it has been almost six months (177 days) since the previous nomination, a 13:6 ratio for keeping vs. deleting the article certainly does not strike me as warranting a SNOW-closure. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- There was no fucking (sorry, I had to) way this was going to close as delete. The nominator's rationale was a big whopping I don't like it with a side of keep listing till it gets deleted. The votes for delete were all (IMHO), also based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any basis in policy, while the votes for keep were based in policy. 7 hours, 7 days, outcome would have been the same. There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of it being deleted. Umbralcorax ( talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the nomination was this: "It really pains me that such a horribly non-encyclopedic list has managed to last so-ooo long on Wikipedia. Without stepping foot into the territory of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or rather, OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXISTTHANKGOD) this list is too arbitrary in nature and the "fuck count" really boggles. Hopefully the ninth time is the charm here." really doesn't give a rationale to delete other than arbitrariness. On that the community has spoken 8 times before this nomination:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Record for most number of times the word fuck has been used in a film (Dec 2004)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck (Jun 2005)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" (3rd nomination) (Feb 2006)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck" (4th nomination) (Jul 2006)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (5th nomination) (Feb 2007)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (6th nomination) (Feb 2008)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (7th nomination) (Mar 2008)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (8th nomination) (Oct 2008)

The last two closes were keep, one of them WP:SNOW. Since the waters have been tested and the nomination was basically appealing that consensus has changed, well early closure when it's clear it hasn't is judicious to avoid the drama that has occasioned prior deletion attempts, even prompting one editor to draft a policy to prevent the article's nomination for deletion (see Wikipedia:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" - deletion policy, which didn't get much traction, but indicates the level of drama on the issue). Closing this when it was clear that conseneus has not changed per WP:SNOW is justifiable and commendable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow new nomination, if the rationale is better than this one. In this case, the nominating rationale was lousy. But a well-reasoned argument should always be given a fair hearing. Chick Bowen 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The situation has changed since one of articles principal sources shut down - There is a method to citing sources that are no longer working. Just because a website goes down does not mean that their sources are invalid. It makes double checking sources tougher, but a source directing towards a shut down website should not be removed simply because the link doesn't work, if the citation indicates that the link is no longer working. VegaDark ( talk) 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That's indeed what The Internet Archive and so many other cache archives are for. - Mgm| ^(talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The nominator did not provide a valid reason and the response already received showed that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell it would close as anything else than keep. No prejudice against a well thought out nomination. - Mgm| ^(talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and allow a full debate. Even a 13-5 headcount can swing over the course of seven days. Stifle ( talk) 08:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Stop forcing drama on the community by making WP:SNOW closes like this. Just let people debate if they're debating and haven't done so for a few months. Closes like this create drama, which is the opposite of what using WP:SNOW is supposed to do. -- Chiliad22 ( talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. One of the sites used for sourcing is indeed no longer active. But all the information used from that site is still available online at the internet archive, which is where the links are directing to. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and insist on at least a two year interval before renomination. This many nominations is unreasonable and it would have been sufficient to speedy close on that basis alone. that should have been given as the reason. There's no formal rule yet, but I think there soon will be--it is nominations like this one that convince people. In the meantime, its just common sense, because, If here's a 20% error rate at AfD, which I think an estimate on the low side, then for any disputed article, only about 16% can survive 6 prior deletions. Anything a few people care to delete can be deleted if brought up enough times, through the random variation of other people present here. The claim of changed circumstances is not applicable: If a source becomes unavailable, one looks for the information elsewhere. This is not esoteric information. DGG ( talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per my comment at the AfD:- bringing something to AfD nine times in succession is abuse of the AfD process. I find it indefensible.

  I agree with DGG that there should be a limit on the number of times a case can be brought to AfD, to avoid systemic bias in favour of deletion. I think in this case the number of nominations that could reasonably be made has been well and truly exceeded.

  Further, I think that a "relist" outcome at this DRV, leading to a tenth AfD for this article, would be ludicrous.

  There's a long-established, well-tested, often-repeated and recently-confirmed consensus to keep. Please, just accept it.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, although I am generally not in favor of early closures and would have liked to see this one do the full length, the likelyhood of an other outcome is extremely small given the past AfD history of the article and the votes already cast. Therefore it would be just a waste of everybodies time to do a tenth AfD at this time. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Agree with DGG about the regularity with which this article has been nominated; a ninth AFD less than 6 months after the eighth is way too soon. Also note that the deletion rationale didn't really seem to be supported by policy, and basically amounted to a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "if we keep this article, we'll have to allow all these other articles too". Perfectly cogent arguments were presented that dismissed assertions of arbitrariness of the inclusion criterion (i.e., that the phrasing of the criterion follows all relevant accepted standards for lists of the biggest/best/whatever items ordered by some statistic). Lack of notability of the topic (raised by multiple delete commenters) was more than addressed by keep comments before it was mentioned in favour of deletion; there are plenty of sources discussing the use of this word in various media, which adequately demonstrates notability. Other arguments for deletion included that the exclusion of porn films was arbitrary and makes the list indiscriminate (this can be fixed by editing so is not a valid reason to delete per WP:DELETION), "I don't see the point of it", a trivial variation of "I don't like it", "we don't have an article on [related topic]", that WP:IAR somehow suggests it should be deleted, and yet another repetition of the slippery slope fallacy. So, in summary, there were plenty of policy-supported keep arguments, and no policy-supported delete arguments. Having received more than twice as many comments as the average AFD ever receives, and with such a one-sided debate, I don't see anything wrong with closing it early. JulesH ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article, I don't know why some people just like to delete every article, claiming they are trivia, what is trivia is another discussion, yet this is an electronic encyclopedia, it has no space limitation, some users' hard work making others life easier or more interesting. The article even might be a good source for a sociology thesis, what harm is there for an article's mere existence. It may also be a very good source for anyone against the cussing words' usage in the movies. If you don't like to use the info you may always ignore it, you don't host the Wikipedia servers yourselves. It is up to page editor's business how they spent their time, while they created the page, if it is not useful to you maybe it is useful to anyone else. I am also having a hard time defending my rights for creating a sub article below for Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, yet editors or even admins may just ignore even Wiki Guidelines itself time to time. Why I don't know. An article creating is a really hard and time consuming process, several hours even weeks, months or years may be spent. And then 1 user came and say delete this, delete that, that is not useful, I don't like the content, that is not my style of thinking. Why I really don't know. They may always use the time and energy they waste for getting deleted an article, to create or improve several other ones. Well maybe they just can't and that is why they insisted on getting deleted others' hard work. Kasaalan ( talk) 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse retention the article provides a sourced overview of the subject and provides a handy table, including a convenient "'Fuck' count" column for rankings, with each count sourced to one of several sources. While there are discrepancies, which should be noted, we are seeking verifiability, not truth. The pattern of continued stabs at the apple of deletion after a ninth AfD over a period of almost five years makes a complete and absolute mockery of consensus. No explanation of why consensus was changed was offered, and the consensus is not even close to supporting deletion. If under some circumstance the article is deleted at AfD 37, why should anyone respect the change and not recreate the article repeatedly. Alansohn ( talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I created the new page with consensus of even conflicting parties' agreement at Rachel Corrie discussion page, since the main article getting crowded, and we cannot add every detail we decided on creating a new page to avoid information overflow and long debates for saving space.

A non participating user to the page nominated the article for deletion. The majority votes [5 keep 3 merge into new public reactions page 4 delete] for in favor of either keeping or a merge as a big Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie page instead Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie. I am aware article deletion is not about voting but as a reminder even most of our dedicated editors from Rachel Corrie page didn't even vote in the page. In his page discussion Discussion with Mod we tried to discuss with mod but he didn't change his mind.

From my stand of view, the alleged reasons for deletion was NPOV Forking and Forking which is only misjudges since Wikipedia:Content forking is clear on the matter.

What forking is Forking can be unintentional or intentional. POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

What content POV forking is not There are some things that may occur from time to time that may be mistaken for content forking, when that is not necessarily the case. ...

Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. ...

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

The article I created on consensus from the main article, cannot be considered a Fork, POV Fork any other other kind of deletable article according to the wiki guidelines.

I even provided some other examples which has same method for keeping the page.

• • Just read Ford Mustang article you can see it is divided into First-generation Ford Mustang, Second-generation Ford Mustang, Third-generation Ford Mustang, Fourth-generation Ford Mustang, Fifth-generation Ford Mustang
  • Look at Ludwig van Beethoven separated into Beethoven's musical style and innovations, Beethoven and C minor, List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Ludwig van Beethoven
  • I also found a The Beatles Tributes, List of artistic depictions of and related to Pride and Prejudice, Artistic depictions of Bangladesh Liberation War, List of artistic depictions of Beowulf, List of artistic depictions of Grendel, List of artistic depictions of Grendel's mother pages

I am aware otherpagesexist is not a good reason for keeping a page, yet we agreed on creating a different page for tributes and reactions to Rachel Corrie since if we merge it into the main article either we lose context, or the main page gets too long to be read. We have some article size restrictions after all. Or at least we will have to argue on the page length much for every single sentence as in the past, which neither of the main page editors willing to.

We actually planning on merging artistic tributes section into a bigger public reactions to rachel corrie section since there are also some documentaries and politicians' comments on the matter. Yet the article even in its current developing situation is also deserves to be exist on its own without merging to any other page Kasaalan ( talk) 12:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Correct outcome, correctly read by the closing admin. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as POV fork. No artistic reactions critical of Corrie (including the notorious cartoon) were included = POV fork. Jclemens ( talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

1 The admin himself told me to put my objections to this page, so I posted here, is there any issue about it. 2 Sorry but are you even aware what you claiming. Is there any artistic reactions available critical of Rachel Corrie that I am unaware of. If there is please point it out so we can add it. If such thing doesn't exist or we are not aware of, howcome we can add it to the article. Blatantly saying something is POV doesn't make an article POV. If there is any artistic tribute that criticize Rachel Corrie, I will personally support adding it to the article. But as far as I know there is none, if there is any put some evidence before you blame others. Kasaalan ( talk) 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I searched a lot for the artistic tributes you mentioned. Only came by 1 particular "notorious cartoon" by a "non-notorious cartooner". By the way if you claim the cartoon by Dainel J. Freedman contains any artistic attribute, instead a direct personal insult by blatantly calling a dead peace activist as stupid, maybe we have different sense of art and humor. In my point of view this is neither art nor criticism, but a direct insult over a tragic death. Yet, still we can add it to the article if it doesn't violate any wikipedia guidelines, and why don't you just add a paragraph about the cartoon and the protests afterwards. Everyone says this is POV that is POV this is missing that is missing but makes no effort on improving the article. Did you ever tried adding the valuable notorious artistic tributes that criticizes Rachel Corrie to the page and I ever tried to stop you. No. Then instead complaining you may spend some time over improving the article to help us don't you. Kasaalan ( talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Gerrymandered content fork, merge was necessary, discussion accurately evaluated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I really wonder do you even read the guidelines "Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. ... Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." Wiki guidelines clearly points the page is not a fork, as the main page editors we have a consensus to "have different levels of detail" for sub articles, since we didn't like to make the main page very long. I read wiki guideline for fork description, yet didn't slightly get the idea how you can call the article as fork. Kasaalan ( talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed.

The article currently has over 5.200 words with 12 printed word pages with 53 KB length already and if we merge the article into main article it will be over 6.000 words. You are misjudging the guidelines. Kasaalan ( talk) 00:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin Open five days, standard close, nothing out of the ordinary. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - standard procedure, proper weighing of input, sound result. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse Reasonable outcome, correctly read. DGG ( talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I really cannot understand how you all say endorse for the judgement. No merging possible without turning the main article into a big pile. We have space issue on the page, even that is enough reason. How can you ignore the guidelines itself and endorse just as you like. The artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie page is 33 KB long already and still in progress, if we merge into the main article it will be near 80 KB in total length and near and over 15 pages long without references. Your merging decision has no point at all. Kasaalan ( talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You are presuming that all the content in the "tributes" section is encyclopedic content, as opposed to fluff and trivia. It's like "MINORNAME in popular culture" sections that are bloated up every time a talk show host or South Park mentions MINORNAME in a joke. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

First of all, you are wrong about trivia. Why, because it is not like 1 band dedicated or mentioned her in a single line, over 30 artists-bands around the world dedicated their songs to Rachel Corrie, because they support her cause and feel bad about her death. If you listen the track and read the lyrics you can easily understand that. That includes world famous artists like Patti Smith. Also there are 2 documentaries about Rachel Corrie, which still I haven't implemented to the article, along with poems. That is no trivia, did you ever read a trivia where a symphonic orchestra and full cantata involved. So this is not about popular culture or any trivial dedication by a trivial band because they liked a movie. We are working over months about the main page, and it took my weeks to collect all the info needed for the article, after we created an agreement by conflicting parties in the main discussion page. Yes it took weeks to implement the table, because it is not short or 1 line mention like the real trivia's you refer. As I clearly explained above we have length limit to merge, that is why we created the sub-article in the first place. You cannot just stock every information in the main page, that will what actually makes it trivia. How can even the List of Star Wars video games is encyclopedic content and list of over 30 dedicated songs along with other artistic tributes is not. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• weak endorse close was reasonable and probably the right short-term solution. That said, I'd strongly recommend creating Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie or somesuch. That would address the NPOV issues and would seem like a reasonable spinout given that there are notable articles on wikipedia that already discuss specific reactions Hobit ( talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The admin said he wouldn't mind creating a public reactions page. Yet the decision is merging into main page which is not possible due to length restrictions. In my opinion the article should be stay even as standalone, yet if that is not possible the correct verdict should be merge into Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie page. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

And After I read above even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" deserves its own page, well I don't mind that at all actually I support keeping that page, yet if even that title is not trivia and deserves a separate title, how and why our sub-article is getting merged back into main article because an admin ignores the wiki guidelines and decides so. Again I am telling Wiki Guidelines encourage editors to create sub-articles when the page gets longer than some certain extent. I already proved that with quotes, said the page created on agreement from all parties at main page. Exactly what you need more to change the verdict. Why the verdict didn't change, how do even admins can ignore guidelines I really cannot understand. Kasaalan ( talk) 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Deep down inside, before I saw the details, my personal political biases on the subject were assuming that this couldn't possibly merit a standalone article; This had to be a blatantly POV fork. In reviewing the article under discussion, I see clear encyclopedic handling of a topic that has received far more media coverage than I ever realized, providing several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the material in the article. In looking at the parent article, there is a section on tributes, and a merge would largely overwhelm the parent article. This is exactly what forks are for. The consensus in the AfD was extremely muddled, and while there were calls for a merge, there seems to be no way that the results of the AfD could have been read to support any one result, and least of all merge. I would suggest using a lower case "t" in the second word of the title. Alansohn ( talk) 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. In the AfD, there were 2 reasons given for merging or deleting : 1. it is a fork or a pov-fork and 2. the content should be summarized. This article is clearly not a pov fork : there is no pov inside... It only gathers [list of] songs, poems, films, books, ... about Rachel Corrie. And summarizing this is not possible for an list-based article. Additionnaly, people suggesting to keep the article argued, there were many articles of the same types, a consensus on the talk page had lead to the creation of this new article, that the main article is already long and the information about the topic of this one is already summarized there properly... Their points haven't been answered negatively. keep seems to me the logical conclusion of this AfD Ceedjee ( talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply