< February 13	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 15 >

14 February 2009

Magic donkey – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Magic donkey (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` The Magic Donkey is referenced by the Flickr support people as being made to cry when multiple emails are sent regarding the same problem. I feel this is a cultural icon, not specific to fickr, and if more well known can help prevent the common problem whereby people send multiple emails to support people hoping that will help somehow. So please consider undeleting so the public at large can flesh out the Magic Donkey. No this is not a joke, Team Flickr really does use the term Magic Donkey and it is a useful uh, entity.I can forward the email as a reference. TimL (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I can't tell much about the deletion from the log or what you've said above so I could be wide of the mark, but when I get to "I feel this is a cultural icon", the answer is going to be, the general notability guideline doesn't care what you, me or any number of other wikipedian's "feel", what it cares about is does the rest of the world consider this significant enough to give non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? If so show us those sources. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] This was a completely unsourced one-line factoid about a community meme on a single website, so pretty hopeless as a potential article. A Google shows that the term has virtually zero currency outside the flickr community - it's an in-joke. If it could be shown to be a likely search term then a redirect might be warranted, but this deleted content does not actually merit the time spent thus far on debating it. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment by deleting administrator: This article was deleted under the wrong category; it is clearly not G3 but it is A7. The article is about a figure of speech used internally within a single website, which has no general currency. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Magic donkey – Deletion endorsed – kur ykh 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Magic Donkey is referenced by the Flickr support people as being made to cry when multiple emails are sent regarding the same problem. I feel this is a cultural icon, not specific to fickr, and if more well known can help prevent the common problem whereby people send multiple emails to support people hoping that will help somehow. So please consider undeleting so the public at large can flesh out the Magic Donkey. No this is not a joke, Team Flickr really does use the term Magic Donkey and it is a useful uh, entity.I can forward the email as a reference. TimL (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell much about the deletion from the log or what you've said above so I could be wide of the mark, but when I get to "I feel this is a cultural icon", the answer is going to be, the general notability guideline doesn't care what you, me or any number of other wikipedian's "feel", what it cares about is does the rest of the world consider this significant enough to give non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources? If so show us those sources. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a completely unsourced one-line factoid about a community meme on a single website, so pretty hopeless as a potential article. A Google shows that the term has virtually zero currency outside the flickr community - it's an in-joke. If it could be shown to be a likely search term then a redirect might be warranted, but this deleted content does not actually merit the time spent thus far on debating it. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by deleting administrator: This article was deleted under the wrong category; it is clearly not G3 but it is A7. The article is about a figure of speech used internally within a single website, which has no general currency. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.