Wikipedia:Deletion review/Sports betting forum


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was that the article was restored and stubbed by closer. - brenneman  {L}  07:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports betting forum
I would like to request that this article be restored.

On 15 January 2006, administrator FCYTravis, nominated the article to be deleted.

The result of the debate as announced by administrator Johnleemk on 20 January 2006 was to keep the article without any qualifications.

FCYTravis ignored the result and speedily deleted the article on 21 January 2006.

Critic 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and keep BlueGoose 20:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete - none of 'misnamed, impossibly written, unsourced, not verifiable, POV' are criteria for speedy deletion. - ulayiti (talk)  21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete, clear consensus, and there didn't appear to be any issues regarding policy or guideline to ignore the result. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and relist: An orphaned article where people voted to 'keep and cleanup', but three and a half months later no-one has? *drops monocle* But it should have been relisted at AfD, and then it should have been deleted unless someone found verification, in defiance of a 69%-for-deletion-'no-consensus' if necessary. I will vote delete when/if it is relisted, but this isn't a case of WP:SNOW. (Really, if I was Jimbo, I would decree that all 'Keep and cleanup' votes for orphaned articles would be forever null and void. If you work to improve a hopeless article that no-one will ever read, you are mad.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Of course I can't write on behalf of the other six editors who voted to keep the article, but I simply assumed that the article had been deleted correctly according to Wikipedia policies. I did not know the outcome of the AfD until yesterday, because once the article was deleted, there was no obvious link to the AfD (this may seem obvious to administrators, but it is not to ordinary editors - figuring out how to formally request a reversal of the deletion also took a lot of time). I only discovered yesterday that FCYTravis had carried out his threat to abuse his administration powers as he said he would in the AfD by deleting the article notwithstanding its outcome. My recollection was that the article was not orphaned at the time, and it was the stated opinion of most of the editors who voted for its retention that the article had potential, notwithstanding the faults that it had. Critic 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Why waste any more time?  As Travis said, "misnamed, impossibly written, unsourced, not verifiable, POV and anything else you want to throw at it."  Hard to find a single policy it doesn't violate, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete Speedy was invalid, and Afd was keep, Nominating an article for afd and then ignoring the result is very poor form for an admin. MartinRe 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * weak undelete and relist Sam's logic is good, but I'm not in strong agreement with him due to the general lack of any expansion/clean up between the previous AfD and its out of process deletion. JoshuaZ 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn, undelete and keep, while "not verifiable" can be a speedy deletion criteria in certain circumstances (CSD G1 "patent nonsense", A7 "non-notability") they do not apply to this article. None of the other reasons given are valid under any circumstances. Thryduulf 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) PS: user:Malthusian's comment in the AfD is definately worth copying to a list of great deletion debate quotes - I'm sure I've seen one but I've got no idea where!
 * Comment, I've readdded this as this edit by Doc Glasgow (which looks like an edit conflict with himself?) somehow removed it - almost certainly unintentionally. Thryduulf 08:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and probably relist. The article should probably be deleted, but speedying is inappropriate here. Furthermore, that the speedying was done by AfD nominating user, in disregard for the consensus reached, immediately after the AfD closed, is in exceptionally poor form, and I would like to see an explanation as to why FCYTravis thought this was appropriate. I also do not see that the deletion justifications are in CSD. I would expect an administrator to know what is and is not in CSD, and to justify speedying accordingly. --Philosophus T 08:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll add a to the talkpage of the admin in question, as they may be unaware this debate is ongoing. MartinRe 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a lot of admins ignore the CSD (or at least interpret them much too liberally) when speedying articles they don't like. - ulayiti (talk)  11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted unless someone here commits right now to a complete rewrite - because the article is not useful and should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's an unsourced POV original-research essay - it's like a laundry list of everything Wikipedia is not and hence no amount of "voting" can change the fact that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Who says that there's "sports betting forum etiquette?" Which published source says that "When making a prediction on a sports betting forum, members are expected to provide a rationale for their "play" (as shown above). Simply stating the teams that you think will win does not help other members of the sports betting community?" This is a pile of junk that sat around for months with nobody caring to so much as touch it. I nominated it for AFD, and everyone screamed "it needs cleanup" - yet not a single person said they were willing to do it. Now everyone wants to scream OMG OUT OF PROCESS. Hey, guess what? Nobody even noticed its disappearance. That means to me that nobody who voted 'keep' in the AFD was interested in fixing the article. I would support a complete sourced rewrite of the article. If someone here publicly commits to cleaning it up and sourcing it within the next week, I'll support its immediate undeletion (and move to a proper title). But I will not support the undeletion of another complete crap article that will simply sit around for another six months with nobody so much as bothering to lift a finger to fix it. So put up or shut up. FCYTravis 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If an afd returns 'keep, with cleanup', and the cleanup doesn't happen after a reasonable time, then the best thing to do would be afd it again, with that extra infomation, not speedy it. Regards, MartinRe 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article had sat around untouched for months already. There is no evidence to suggest that another two months with a WP:CLEANUP tag would have made any difference. None of those voting keep volunteered to clean it up. The offer stands - if someone commits to cleaning up, sourcing and encyclopedizing the article, I will immediately undelete it and close this debate. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? FCYTravis 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and relist Maybe I missed something, but this was speedied the day after the AfD, right? I know there are a class of editors (anons) thereby rendered unable to improve the topic's coverage.  Many registered editors find the "red link" blank page daunting as well.  Speedy deleting it drastically reduced the chance anyone would provide a tidy copy, so citing all the time that has passed without new work is not especially compelling.  Additionally, reversing the closure of another admin one day later, particularly when one was the nominator in the first place, is very bad form.  This pedia is not anyone's plaything, and no single person should so strongly assert his judgment against a contrary consensus, for doing so undermines the comity and professionalism of the community (even if the single person is right, mind you.)  Further: When this is relisted, if it is kept, I will ensure that it is a sound article within a month after closure. (I'm busy, so I need a little time.) Xoloz 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted, moved and stubbed the article per your offer to clean it up and rewrite it. FCYTravis 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.