Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3

kidStart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please can you review the deletion of Kidstart. If you read through the history you will see that the page was currently being worked on to fit the Wikipedia guidelines. As per my discussions with fetchcomms I have been working on notability and looking to add further citations. With the speedy deletion tag removed I thought I had a little time to work on this plus in the UK we had a bank holiday weekend.

Also I dont see much difference in this article entry and the Quidco or Top CashBack (or any site listed on the wikipedia Category:Reward websites ) other than on the Kidstart site you actually save money for children / charities. Emmamme (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The purpose of deletion review is to flag cases where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not an appeal court or a venue to get a second bite at the cherry when a decision hasn't gone your way. Furthermore, we explicitly do not accept arguments that some other site has an article and yours does not, nor do we, as a global website, take account of holidays that may or may not exist in various jurisdictions — the deletion discussion, to which the present nominator did not contribute, was opened on April 26th.
  However, in this case, I am minded to overturn and relist this closure. My decision is based on the fact that the deletion argument of Fetchcomms was not well-founded, as the article showed several instances of coverage in reliable sources, and the deletion argument of Nuujinn was not well-founded, as the article was largely neutral in tone, despite that it appears to have been written neutrally.
  I express no opinion, for now, on whether the article will survive such a second deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit recreation. There was a clear consensus to delete which should be followed. However, the basis for the consensus was that the article was promotional. Neither of the delete !voters raised notability as a reason to delete. It therefore cannot be said that the consensus is that the subject is not notable. If a new version of the article can overcome the concerns of promotion, recreation ought to be permitted despite the AfD outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's hard to censure Cirt for closing a unanimous discussion in that way. I agree with Stifle that the article did cite several reliable sources, and I agree that this means the discussion was defective and needs to be overturned and relisted, but I would be happiest if the closer of this debate would please say in the close that no blame attaches to Cirt, who did exactly what admins are supposed to do:- he assessed the debate, and not the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Created based on similar templates for New Zealand and the United States. 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• The template page has never existed; you created a template talk page, which was deleted because the template didn't exist. It would appear that the template talk page should be undeleted, moved to the template page, and this discussion speedily closed. A quick request to User:Anthony Appleyard, who deleted the page, would almost certainly have resolved this matter quickly. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have undeleted Template talk:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong and moved it to Template:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong. (Sorry about the delay: I was at the dentist.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This long-time category was named Category:Jews since 9 June 2004 [1] to the satisfaction of all editors, particularly experienced and knowledgeable Judaic editors. Suddenly on 10 March 2010, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10#People by ethnicity - Fooians to Fooian people, a barely noticed but sweeping decision was made by a tiny handful of editors, without serious input and discussion from Judaic editors or digging into this at WP:TALKJUDAISM, the long-established Category:Jews was redirected to the new Category:Jewish people, sweeping six years of consensus aside with abruptness and now trying to apply it to other Jews categories. This is wrong for many reasons and should be reversed and overturned and because of the complexity of this topic, these are some of the main reasons: (1) First off, there are over 38 million Google hits for "Jews" but a little over 3 million for "Jewish people", "Jews" outnumbers "Jewish people" 12 to 1. (2) The term "Jews" is not offensive and Jews ARE Jewish "people" -- that's what "Jews" means. (3) This flouts the correct English proper noun and 100% correct translation for the Hebrew word and proper noun for the word Jews = יְהוּדִים Yehudim (singular: Yehudi) and the Yiddish word for Jews = Yidden יידן (singular: Yid) and in all languages Jews are called Jews and not Jewish "people" that defies logic, history, facts, reality, truth and much more. (4) At times Jews or things connected with them are described in adjectival terms as being "Jewish" meaning "of the Jews" or "about the Jews" or "concerning the Jews" but the main subject is always "Jew/s". (5) The usage of the term "Jewish this-and-that" is sometimes helpful and sometimes just wasteful circumlocution, but the correct name for Jews is Jews! (6) In the bulk of the sub-categories in Category:Jews the term "Jews" predominates and correctly so. (7) It would also seriously mess up the fact that Category:Jews is the first half of the key parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. (8) Jews are not an ethnicity as such, see the Jews and Judaism articles to better grasp this. (9) To push all Jews into an "ethnicity" category is a violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP and even of WP:NOR. Wikipedia cannot take on itself to decide serious matters of theology and peoplehood and dump topics relating to "Jews" into categories that are totally incorrect and wasteful. Jews are members of a religion, known as Judaism, and they are also part of a "nation" or as some would have it an "ethnicity" but they cannot be split, unlike Christians who are only part of a religion called Christianity and do not belong to an ethnicity unlike Jews who by definition are both part of a religious group as well as a national/ethnic/cultural group. (10) For this kind of serious discussion relating to the complex subject of Jews and Judaism there should have been very long and highly serious input requested from learned and highly experienced Judaic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism many of whom are highly skilled editors some are admins, fully aware of this subject matter. IZAK (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (Overturn) back to Category:Jews for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. The term "Jews" is not offensive in and of itself, a quick search of Google seems to show "Jews" as the predominant term used, and "Jews" is a much wider and far-reaching term than "Jewish people". --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. Apart from all the issues outlined by IZAK, the change of name of this category is also being used (in my opinion, in anyway, unjustifiably) as a basis for changing the word "Jews" to "Jewish people" throughout sub-categories (including the subcategories of Category:Jews by country), using the Speedy Cfr procedure. A CFD was opened by me here for reverting the category Category:American Jewish people back to Category:American Jews and which contains additional reasons supporting the relist (overturn) proposed above. Davshul (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. I don't know who is responsible for this change, but it was a very bad one. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, this seems to have been swept along with a larger change, many of which did make sense. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. I do not see anything wrong with the existing category called Jews. A strong justification should be given for changing it. In the absence of such justification, the category name should remain as it was. —Dfass (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely agree with IZAK on each and every one of his arguments. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) — the standard term is "Jews," not "Jewish people" Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately - there are a number of moves that probably should have been aired more thoroughly. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) Jew is a noun, not an adjective. --Shuki (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per nom. While a few editors took it upon themselves to make sweeping changes across the board, we Jewish editors have been working for years to streamline all the Jewish-content pages through discussion and consensus. Recently, a major discussion over at the main page, "Jew", renamed the page as Jews. I've also noticed over the years that important Jewish-content pages like "Ashkenazi Judaism" and "Sephardic Judaism" have been changed to Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews. Categorizing Jews (and Christians, Buddhists, and Atheists, for that matter) as "people" doesn't work for sub-categories of Category:People by religion as it does for Category:People by ethnicity. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) Per IZAK and Yoninah and because of the unique interplay of ethnicity and religion absent from any other religious OR ethnic group. -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per nom. Also, no need for wordy circumlocutions ("Jewish people") when concise, accurate terminology ("Jews") is available. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per nom. This was one of many listed in a single cfd, most of which were perfectly reasonable renames. The 'interplay of ethnicity and religion' noted above makes this a special case which should be re-considered. Occuli (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per nom. While I agree with most of the points IZAK makes in this review, I have to at least mention something about point 2. While I am Orthodox Jewish and the term Jew/s is something I will always be proud with/of, to some people in this world it's a degrading name calling word. I assume that the editors involved in making this change meant good faith editing for the above mentioned.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (Overturn) per nom. It's ridiculous that less than half a dozen editors swept this major change through in the first place. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist only. The discussion with respect to this particular category was defective. However, we really disagree with the outcome of that discussion, not it's process. The closer correctly read the consensus here, and as such did nothing wrong. Having said all that, I will concede that the number of commentors here may demonstrate to the closer of this DRV sufficient consensus to obviate the need for a new discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for this category only and make sure the discussion is broadly advertised. No evidence has been presented to indicate that the closing admin misinterpreted the consensus of the CFD, which included a number of other changes to which no one has objected. Clearly from the comments above the inclusion of Category:Jews in the rename was something that the broader community did not notice at the time of that earlier discussion, and there are serious objections that are particular to that category. But there is no need to make the same mistake twice by overturning the entire discussion based on potentially one-sided participation at DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, don't rush to relist. Jews are not just another Fooian people. This particular category was not sufficiently discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, don't "overturn". A technicality, to be sure, but as Xymmax says, there was nothing wrong with the close of the CFD. Obviously, there is post hoc dissatisfaction with this particular move, which means it should be relisted, but there's no reason that has been given to formally overturn the closer's decision. "Relist (overturn)" is kind of a contradiction anyway—don't we usually either relist it or overturn it? I don't see how we can call for both simultaneously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good ol, read the wording of the nomination carefully and you will see that it is very clear to specifically return to Category:Jews only. It's pretty obvious from the lengthy nomination that the aim is to overturn. The language of "relist" is to follow protocol and procedures, but the aim of it is clearly to "overturn" and they are not mutually exclusive. What would be the point of bringing everyone who has made themselves very clear here to repeat themselves. In addition, you were informed of this deletion review at the outset [2] and you have always claimed not to care about this subject altogether [3]; so if you had a problem with the wording you should have said so then. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The CFD discussion here, proposing to rename the adherents of other religions (including Christians) using the formula "FOOian people" (e.g. Christian people) was unanimously opposed by all users who commented and the discussion has now been concluded, with a decision not to rename any of the categories. Davshul (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was about the transfer of the sovereignty of a territory from one sovereign state to another, as suggested by the tags on the article's talk page. It was overwritten when Handoff was moved to Handover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This article would probably be best served by a dismbiguation page, as the term can have a number of meanings and doesn't inherently pertain to telecommunications. I wouldn't consider a DRV nessecary for that though. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original article, which was overwritten, already serves the purpose of a disambiguation page. Undelete that article is better than creating a new one. 12:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 (talk)
    • Which would force a move of the current article to a third address, since handover is the correct term for this in telecoms. I'm unable to see the deleted content, but your comments above made me think the previous article was about national territorial transitions - not a generic disambiguation. I'm chosing not to express a hard and fast opinion since I am unable to see the artilce to determine whether it was a valid WP:CSD#A5 (as motivated here). By the way, signing is done by adding four '~' marks when editing, that is "~~~~". Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or alternatively the old content can be moved to a third address. 13:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 (talk)
• Additional information: As suggested by What links here there are many articles pointing at Handover that refer to territorial transitions. 119.237.153.52 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified User:ProhibitOnions of this discussion, since he performed the article move (Handoff -> Handover) and the A5 speedy deletion of the old Handover that were mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. There was an unsourced dicdef-ish stub at Handover, while the telecoms term was located at the secondary term Handoff. The content of the earlier Handover article, which I deleted, was this:

Handover, in the political-historical sense, often refers to the transfer of power of former colonies (particularly those of former British colonies) to the local people. The term was also used for the transfer of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone to Panama, and the returns of sovereignty to Iraq by the United States.

• The transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong, a former British crown colony, from UK to People's Republic of China in 1997. After the Handover, Hong Kong has become a special administrative region, a first-order division. See transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong.
• The transfer of sovereignty of Macau from Portugal to People's Republic of China in 1999, and has become a special administrative region.

Also the term (especially in the media) refers to the Olympic protocol when the mayor of the city that organized the Games returns the flag to the president of the IOC, who then passes it on to the mayor of the next city to host the Olympic Games.

You should, I hope, see the OR concerns here. Now ProhibitOnions does know a thing or two about the 1997 political transfer of power in Hong Kong (I was there), and it was indeed called "the handover". However, it's far from clear that this is the main term that is always used to describe such occurrences, and the specific Wikipedia article titles suggest otherwise. I considered a dab, or moving this to Political handover or Handover (politics) but ultimately there's nothing here that isn't addressed in Sovereignty, or defined in Wiktionary. So I deleted it altogether to move the telecoms article to the more appropriate title, and changed the title within that article (I'm open to a dab or a much better article about sovereignty transfers instead, but at present this is the only substantial article to have a claim to the title). I forgot, however, to add a This or For link, as I had planned to do (i.e., "This article is about the telecommunications process. For political handovers, see Sovereignty). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]