Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 16 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 18 >

17 July 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The George Nethercutt Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This organization meets notability requirements and secondary sources were provided on the talk page. George Nethercutt is a well known politician who many have seen as a candidate who is "waiting in the wings" for a future run at high office. The foundation is active and is recruiting students at multiple universities. The likelihood that people will look for it here are high.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridan (talk • contribs) 17:58, July 17, 2008

  • Restore and take to AfD. Borderline notability, creator seems to have some sense of what is required on Wikipedia to establish notability. Taking it to AfD will give him a chance to develop and generate discussion/consensus on the topic. Tan ǀ 39 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While it was written badly enough that it didn't assert its importance, the link at the bottom suggests there may be some notability. And A7 is meant to delete non-notable things, not possibly-notable things. Anyone can feel free to take it to AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe so. A7 isn't meant to delete non-notable things, it is meant to delete things that do not indicate why they are notable. There's a difference. An article about a clearly notable subject would be A7-eligible if the assertation of notability wasn't included. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It was deleted under CSD G11, not A7. Tan ǀ 39 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was deleted as A7, no assertion of importance, with G11 listed as an additional reason. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Sorry. At any rate, will anyone involved here terribly mind if this went to AfD? Tan ǀ 39 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Training ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted under PROD, even though there only appeared to be content issues. I think it could be developed into a good article, particularly if you bring in the qualities of various facilities of different clubs in different sports. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

This, and Template:Oppose were deleted, it seems, on the basis that loading a little green tick annoyed someone, and that voting goes against consensus. However, I feel there are places where voting is appropriate - for instance when deciding on an image to use from several possibles, in an RfA, etc - and that these templates provided a useful tool to help people pick out the votes on proposals. Yes there are situations where they are not appropriate, but they should be available for those situations where voting IS appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that they can really be restored without a pretty good reason. The TfD discussion here is pretty clear. If you'd really like, you could create some substitutes in your userspace (it's not like the templates were complicated, I could write them in ten seconds each) for your own use, but I think any recreation would be G4'd. So, endorse. I think I'll go write a User:Lifebaka/+ and User:Lifebaka/- now, though, in case anyone wants them. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these things are kind of tacky, personally. Is it really that much to ask that people actually read a comment and not expect it to be boiled down to a shiny button (or even a bolded word)? --Rividian (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not in theory, but we can't stop people from using them if they want to. Unless we make it a blockable offense, but that'd just be crazy. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just think that in some cases, they have a use. Wikipedia is about consensus I agree, but consensus generally requires compromise, and there are some issues on which there is no middle ground, simply a question of yes or no and in the end tallying up the results. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - keep them deleted and burn them with fire. The templates had the subtle but undeniable effect of misleading new users into believing that we make decisions here at Wikipedia through voting. We have far too many people who make the mistake even without the templates. We don't need to encourage people to make that mistake even more easily. The very few times when such a template might be appropriate are vastly outweighed by the times when they were demonstrably harmful to the discussions. Rossami (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I quite like these, a taste inherited perhaps from the French wiki which uses them as a matter of course at Pages a Supprimer (their VfD). But consensus on enwiki was indisputable that these should go. Eusebeus (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Endorse Closure - Clear delete consensus for the two templates from template space. As for the practice of using a sytem of and in consensus discussion, I think ending such a practice would require policy adoption, partcularly since the images are in commons. I'm all for ending the practice, but find the irony in presently using the image humorous. GregManninLB (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. having these in userspace is perfectly fine. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • . Endorse, although I have done what Lifebaka did, and whisked copies away to User:Neil/s and User:Neil/o. Neıl ☄ 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you stole mine, which is fine, but you might also want a User:Neil/n for the "neutral"-ish things. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hay, there is one! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Really not necessary, especially when you can use a script to do it automatically for any bolded !votes. Just put:
importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js');
... into your monobook.js and that does it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether that means you like or dislike the close/deletion/etc. Could you clairify? --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:58, 18 July 2008 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_17&oldid=1138432922"