Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 11
2007 May 13 >

12 May 2007

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

1. The reason given for speedy deletion - "recreation of deleted material" is not true. The deleting admin had assumed this, and has been proved wrong. As the author of this article, I was unaware of the previous, related article entitled Male Unbifurcated Garment, which was deleted about this time last year. My article has a different focus, being about the subculture rather than the garment, describing the issues involved and offering valuable resources and information about it.

2. The deleting admin, User:JzG, appears to be advancing a personal prejudice, as evidenced in the recent discussion on his talk page (archived here - PLEASE READ), and by his proclivity for deleting all related discussions, eg. on Talk:Men in skirts recently (which contained a valuable debate), again giving spurious reasons and offering no debate or warning prior to deletion; and by his inability to defend his position, offering up excuse after excuse and being defeated rationally on all of them.

3. The deleting admin's strong influence in deleting the related article last year adds more weight to the above. I and others have recently posited strong arguments for the undeletion of that article, which have also been ignored.

Bards 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title was originally capitalised as "Men In Skirts", aka MIS - a popular name for the movement. It was unilateraly changed to "Men in skirts", again without any debate or warning. I can't remember who changed it, and now I am unable to find out. It wouldn't have been one of these admins here, perchance - as part of the application of their godlike and therefore "correct" prejudice - surely not?! For The Truth will come out in the end, right? Bards 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For values of "popular" which amount to around 140 unique Google hits outside of Wikipedia, many of whihc turn out to be unrelated. Your definition of "popular" may need a little work. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could remind me who changed it (with zero debate or prior warning)? Bards 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to remind you that Google is not a reliable indicator of notability, according to Wiki policy at WP:GHITS. Bards 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion pretty much per Guy. WP:UNDUE applies here, as does WP:IWEARTHEM and WP:BEENTHROUGHTHISMANYTIMESBEFORE. – Steel 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/list at afd as the deleted article did not meet CSD G4. It's about the same topic but this speedily deleted article had much more content and many sources than the AFD'd ones, and the sources seemed credible at a glance. Not saying I'd vote to keep in an AFD, but this wasn't a clean speedy deletion, sorry. If the community deletes this version at AFD, yes I'd agree there's pretty clear consensus against giving an article to this topic. --W.marsh 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which says nothing about the quality of the article or the validity of the deletion process, unless the editor was banned so that even valid contributions should be rejected. Note also that I don't see anything particualrly "disruptive" in this user's edits. DES (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of the debate I have linked to above, shows clearly that JzG assumed I was another sockpuppet of that user, and that was the basis of his speedy deletion. He was wrong, but is refusing to rectify his error - why not? Bards 23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems straightforward to me, although the answer may not be one you like. JzG's replies below clearly indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT, although he claims WP:UNDUE. Neither of them justifies speedy deletion, but I can see how his emotional reaction prompted him to be ruthless. Bards 00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, then place on AfD The purpose of a deletion review is to determine, not if an article meets the criteria for deletion, but whether the process by which an article was deleted was in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. it is a review of the process that was used. User JzG misinterpreted criterion for deletion G4. This applies only if the article content is substantially identical to an article previously deleted. Bards states that he created 'Mens in skirts' from scratch, unaware of the earlier articles. There is no reason to doubt this, so it is reasonable to assume good faith and accept it. It is thus highly unlikely that 'Men in skirts' was substantially identical to any of the earlier deleted articles. I also think that the discussions JzG had with Bards indicate that JzG is not impartial, and in this frame of mind may not have made a proper judgement when he deleted 'Men in skirts'. It is also notable that JzG, in his comment here, fundamentally misunderstands the scope of English Wikipedia with the statement: "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums". English Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia about the world, but written in the English language. It is thus appropriate for English Wikipedia to properly reflect the wearing of unbifurcated garments by men throughout the world, not just the West. I don't know if the article meets the criteria for deletion, but I think that the wider community should decide this. Alan Pascoe 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, I think I understand the scope of the English Wikipedia tolerably well. I have one or two contributions to my name and I have been an admin for a little while. Perhaps you could refrain from joining the hysterical accusations of bias? The article was a largely uncited essay about how awfully clever those few brave souls are who choose to wear skirts in defiance of fashion norms, and how terribly significant the movement is likely to become, and how afully downtrodden they are and... well, we've seen it all before. Textbook WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your "hysterical bias" is showing again, JzG. If you wish to tell people what the article was like, in order to persuade them, restore the article and let them read it for themselves. Please do not even attempt to paraphrase the entire article in your own demeaning terms. Bards 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was indeed as JzG describes. Considering it was written by pro-skirt wearers, this shouldn't come as a surprise. – Steel 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a good reason for speedy deletion. What's wrong with AfD? Bards 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think anything in the aticle is WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, you need to say what needs attribution, what is NPOV, and what and where it is NOT. For that discussion, we also need the article restored and put through AfD. Wagging your finger vaguely over the whole thing doesn't get us anywhere, and certainly doesn't justify a speedy deletion. Bards 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please just put this on AfD and get it done and over with already? List. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD This is not substantially similar to the article deleted under the name of Male Unbifurcated Garment, it is simialr only in that it deals with a related topic. Therefore, this is not a G4 (recreatd content) speedy. Furhtermore it included multiple references to reliable sources, although more would be needed for the articlek to remain. Whether this article is to be merged, or deleted, or modified, should be the subject of a consensus discussion. It should not have been speedy deleted. Let matters be discussed in the usual way. If JzG is correct that Wikipedia does not want this article we will see so after 5 days of AfD. Note that we have pleanty of articles on the actions of small vocal groups, prexcisely because they are vocal and unusual, they are often notable, provide that the articel keeps a neutral PoV there is no problem with this. DES (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion and list at AFD. If the movement isn't notable enough for a full article, then at least we can salvage the best-referenced parts for merging into Skirt and dress. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I do not see the reason for CSD G4. Perhaps AfD would have been fine, but not a speedy delete. I now doubt my decision to delete Million Skirted Men as WP:CSD#G4, so I'll restore it. --Ezeu 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The article as it exists is written in a stridently POV manner and lacks reliable sourcing. This is without prejudice to a sourced, encyclopedically-toned rewrite, provided such is possible. Try userspace. I will provide the content of the deleted page should it be requested to assist in that effort. FCYTravis 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It is true that the article did not fall strictly under the letter of CSD G4, as it was not a straight recreation of the material. However, it is still an article on the same topic, in the same improper tone, with the same problems with lack of sourcing and undue weight that were previously deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. Krimpet (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Based on the comment, "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums" it seems that the subject would certainly be notable. Small but vociferous groups are very often notable, because people notice them. The argument: I know its notable, but it still shouldn't be in WP can be translated as idontlikeit . DGG 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion article appeared to be one massive piece of original research. A it has existed in a different form but the same basic material and hasn't substantially addressed the issues of the original AFD the G4 deletion seems reasonable. --pgk 07:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"one massive piece of original research" is your personal oipinion, which others would dispute. It does not justify a speedy delete without discussion. Bards 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, list at AfD Substantively different article. Whether this is OR, NN or POV falls in the purview of AfD, where everybody can look at, and possibly improve, the article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, list at AfD It doesn't look like this specific article was ever deleted at AFD, so it is not a recreation. Perhaps it has addressed the concerns of the similar AFDs, perhaps not. This isn't the sort of judgment a single person should make. --Samuel Wantman 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I suspect that User:DenmarkEuroB11 is a sock-puppet? It just seems fishy that a new user goes directly to this page and makes these comments.—Gaff ταλκ 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been here before, ages ago.... I won't deny it. It was 2 years ago I last edited here (not that that's of any real importance!). --DenmarkEuroB11 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your inability to discriminate between related but essentially different articles only shows your prejudice and your ignorance. One was about the garment; mine was about the subculture. As a side note, I will direct you to Category:skirts, where (imo) an article titled ""Skirts for men" covering those sold, for instance, by Midas Clothing, would be a useful addition - as detailed, for instance, at Mindstation. Articles on notable companies such as Midas Clothing and Menintime would also fit well in Category:Clothing manufacturers. Your ignorance of the subject is a very good reason to add a whole range of articles about it to Wikipedia. It is not advocacy; it is information. If you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you can choose to not read it. If you WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I suggest you find out a few things before stating an opinion. Bards 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bards, it seems the world divides into two: those who support having this content, and those who are prejudiced and ignorant. The only problem is, per our many previous debates, that means only a tiny minority of the world is anything other than prejudiced and ignorant. This is, of course, quite likely true, but Wikipedia is not the place to fix the prejudice and ignorance of the rest of the world. And that is why you are having trouble here. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG, you are wrong in your assessment of me. There are some arguments against me which seem reasonable, and some which do not. I am refuting the unreasonable ones. As I see it, there is a small minority of the world who are vociferously opposed to this article, with you amongst them. If it was the whole world, I would concede defeat. Probably. Bards 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Bards. Apparently only those who are prejudiced could possibly oppose this, apparently it's intuitively obviously notable, and only the ignorant and the prejudiced could not vote in lock step with you. Corvus cornix 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not accuse you of bad faith, Corvus. Ignorant is a descrptive word meaning lack of knowledge or understanding of a subject. I presume you are prejudiced, as I can't see other reasons for your unwillingness to study the subject before voicing an opinion on it. From what I can gather (not being able to read them), the previous articles appear to have been substantially different in both coverage and intent, and you lump them together, making no distinction. Bards 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, the subject has already had consensus as to not be notable. Whether you use different words or not, that doesn't change the fact that there's no there there. Corvus cornix 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Enrique A. Pollack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I recreated the article because I had found other articles to show his "notability" Such as the Cuban government mentioning him in a formal protest to the United Nations.. I believe that the new article that I created is sufficiently credited and refrenced to be included in Wilkipedia. I woul like to request to have it reinstalled and see if there are any more problems with it from others. Callelinea 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. There were two new sources: one didn't even talk about the guy (just mentioned him as a witness to something), and the other was something from the Cuban government that didn't really talk about him either. I think it should be undeleted for the purpose of review, though. -Amarkov moo! 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. In many articles there is a lack of sources. I have added new sources and and am looking for more sources. Mr. Pollack has been a host of a popular South Florida radio show and has appeared in numerious TV shows discussing the Cuban government. Just because there are no specific published works on him does not mean he should be deleated. Plus it is not often that a government mention an individual to the United Nations by name. The problem with his original article is that it was written by the subject himself and was filled with POV.. The new article as I have presented it, takes away POV and states just facts.Callelinea 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, if there are "no specific published works on him", how can we verify the facts asserted in the article? Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. Perhaps he is a widely-noted activist and popular radio host, but without reliable sources to verify that, how do we really know? --MCB 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore WP:DP says an article can be recreated after deletion without review if the editor wants to improve the article. Callelinea asked for me to review his work after he recreated the article and to offer suggestions. By the time I looked, it was already gone. I have no idea what was added so I can't comment further. I was one who voted for delete during the Afd discussion but I am certainly willing to take another look. I guess this was speedied but in the spirit of DP can it be reinstated pending some review of the work? Please note, this is not a request to restore the version that went through Afd, just the recreated one. JodyB talk 01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored for review. This is a procedural matter and not an expression of opinion. FCYTravis 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find only the originally deleted article, not the revised one.DGG 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's there, try a permalink? -Amarkov moo! 04:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional references on Mr. Pollack to help show his notability..

I really must admit I am a little baffled by excess of proof required to prove that he is personality that merits an article.. Universities have had him debate on Cuba issues, the Cuban government has mentioned him by name in a written protest to the United Nations, He has an AM radio show heard throuout South Florida and parts of the carrebean. Callelinea 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore. The subject's notability is more than sufficient for an encyclopedia article. — Athaenara 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see below) Endorse deletion for now. I'm afraid the new sources, which I had requested in the original AfD (when the article was called Henry Pollack, not sure of the reason for the move) just seem weird and obscure. If this guy is notable as an activist and major radio host, why is there hardly anything on him in normal, verifiable, mainstream media? Resorting to things like "being mentioned by the Cuban government", being interviewed as a bystander in a news article about something else, a single (not easily verifiable) newspaper article from 2001, and some obscure web pages (a brief mention in an unpublished Masters' thesis and a 1-line mention in a page about a minor educational forum) all all up to... well, very little. These sources do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, excepting possibly the Miami Herald and Miami New Times -- neither articles are linked online, titles are not given and they are thus hard to verify). Notable people are easy to identify; you don't have to go digging through obscure and semi-relevant sources for 1-line mentions of them. Perhaps Mr. Pollack will become more notable in the future, but for now he seems like a very minor figure. --MCB 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I am new to this but to me an online encyclopedia should be very inclusive and not exclusive. Mr. Pollack's radio show has a large following both in South Florida and in Cuba where it is heard also. He has been on the air for over 10 years. He has a political web site that has been online for almost 10 years also. Besides that he has appeared in many local South Florida programs, has been interviewed many times by local papers ( yes maybe only a line or two) because he is a well-known local personality. And he caused enough of a ruckus during the Human Rights discussion by the UN in Geneva that the Cuban government felt it was necessary to mention him by name and explain his actions in a formal protest to United Nations. I a not going to get petty but I looked over an article that you mentioned in your list of articles mentioned JTV and the only reference that is given for that small local cable TV station is a link to its own web site. I feel that this article merits inclusion much more than that article but I also believe that both articles have a place here. Callelinea 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright here are some more articles. The first one is actually all about Mr. Pollack and the rest he shows up prominantly in them.. I searched them in a newspaper web search engine ( http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives) he was easy to find. These show the name of the newspaper, the date of the article, and the title of the article.
        • El Nuevo Herald - May 19, 2000 - HENRY POLLACK: VEHEMENCIA ALTERNATIVA
        • The Miami Herald - July 25, 2001 - E-MAIL VIRUS ARRIVES IN MESSAGE PURPORTEDLY FROM CUBA
        • The Miami Herald - August 25, 1998 - CUBAN MUSICIANS FACE PROTEST
        • El Nuevo Herald - October 18, 1996 - RADIO REBELDE Y EMISORA DEL EXILIO UNEN FUERZAS PARA EMERGENCIA DE CICLON
        • El Nuevo Herald - September 23, 1996 - RADIO DE CUBA REHUSA DEBATE RADIAL CON MIAMI
        • The Miami Herald - August 22, 1995 - REACHING CUBA WITH ROCK 'N' ROLL
        • El Nuevo Herald - August 22, 1995 - HAVANA ROCK: NUEVAS ONDAS DE LIBERTAD RADIAL A CUBA

Does this help in changing the minds of those of you who do not believe he is notable or that he does not have enough references?Callelinea 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and keep, including the new sources above. These are exactly the kind of things that Wikipedia needs as sources -- that is, multiple independent reliable sources as to the notability of the subject and the facts asserted in the article. I'm confident that any notable contemporary figure will have references like these, and it is not necessary to rely on obscure and oblique references. Excellent work by Callelinea, and especial thanks for acquainting me with NewsBank. --MCB 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_12&oldid=1258133272"