Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 1-15

Flash Flash Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (VFD)

The result is pretty clearly delete due to no reliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "It's notable OMG", ignoring the issue of verifiablility, which was the main concern. You can't just ignore the issue and get it kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete: As above, no reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. I have to be consistent here, it's obviously notable enough for an article, but we won't be able to sustain one until our sourcing policies catch up to reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not an appeals court; with 5 votes for redirect, 4 keeps (3 of them strong), and 5 deletes, I think it's fairly obvious that there was no consensus. I further point out the potential bad faith motives of SPUI, who has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past. - 71.64.159.158 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, that was me. I forgot to log in. - Chardish 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. AfD is not a vote. If there is no evidence of reliable sources given, the article can't be kept. WarpstarRider 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read the the section on "Purpose". Again, this is not an appeals court, nor is this a reopening of the discussion. This is a debate about whether the closer misinterpreted the AfD debate. The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn the discussion to show that there was a consensus during the previous discussion, not to attempt to prove that their original point was correct. - Chardish 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says that that Deletion Review is to be used "if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer", which is what has happened here. If you look at the Deletion Guidelines for administrators page, under "Rough Consensus", it says quite clearly,

    Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

    If the article has no reliable sources, and is thus unverifiable, then closing a debate based on consensus is not a valid action to take; the article must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. WarpstarRider 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that the current article lacks reliable sources. This makes it a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. Only truly unverifiable articles should be deleted. - Chardish 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that there are no reliable sources at all, for anything in the article. No sources means no verifiability. No verifiability means no article. WarpstarRider 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's obvious that the article could be made verifiable, you have a point. In the absence of showing one or two sourced, it isn't obvious that it could be. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. No sources, no verifiability, no article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No sources, no verifiability, no article" sounds like the exact same thing WarpstarRider said, only paraphrased. I hope he's not canvassing. - Chardish 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like No ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. WP:V is not negotiable. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously some people wish to keep the article, both originally and here. I presume they do so because they think they can improve it, which isthis case seems to mean finding sources.DGG 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then they could just end this by providing a source, instead of just saying they exist and that someone will do it sometime. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete unless someone comes up with some reliable sources. MER-C 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Users Ashibaka and MER-C have, within the past 24 hours, blanked the page in question and replaced it with a redirect. Ashibaka's edit summary, whose summary contained "goodbye article," seemed to be an attempt at a fiat deletion. - Chardish 07:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I don't see a single keep vote that actually uses policy. I'd really like to know how this got closed as no consensus, since the keep votes were completely nonpolicy and spurious. Improper closure. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete per verifiability policy. Tizio 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. It is true that AFD (and DRV) are not the "article cleanup squad". However, for an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist. A Google search that filters out WP, the FFR site, and the primary FFR mirror reveals a whole lot of forum posts, linkfarms and crosslinking between other flash and game sites, but those aren't reliable for our purposes. Note that the convincing sounding Judy's Book review is actually a user-content site much akin to livejournal. This .pdf article might be reliable (I'm uncertain), but the mention of FFR is absolutely trivial (in a list of DDR imitators in the last sentence). Otherwise, this blurb from the company whose software is used for the multiplayer aspect of FFR, saying, basically, "Hey, those people used our stuff!", but I do not believe that is either non-trivial or independent. I can't prove that there aren't any sources, but it doesn't seem at all likely. If there are some, as always, the article can be recreated later through another DRV. Serpent's Choice 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genmay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

numerous assertions of importance in the article. with plenty of sources as cited before Mrtwo 12:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, on the contrary, the article was entirely unsourced and had no verifiability with reliable sources, much less notability. --Coredesat 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been through an AfD, but not under this name (however, it was a copy-pasted re-creation of the article that was deleted at AfD). The AfD link has been provided. --Coredesat 12:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion until such time as those often promised but never delivered reliable sources materialise. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has also been through Deletion review around a month ago, under the other article name, the final version before being closed can be seen here, and the closing of the review can be seen here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreaded Walrus (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy close. Already went through several deletions, AfD, DRV, and nomination made in bad faith by a single-purpose account. --Wafulz 14:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Like Wafulz said, it's been through several deletions among other things. RedKlonoa 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing new apparently and my deletion has already been reviewed and endorsed at DRV, so this DRV should probably be speedy closed by an uninvolved admin. --W.marsh 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is a copy of the article being worked on at User:Lantoka/Sandbox2. Those who wish for the article to be undeleted have the best chance of success by helping bring that up to standards. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I am a fairly new user for wikipedia, and I have found and created many articles, and I am very happy to be here editing with all of you. That being said, I recently was showed Danny or the Tourettes Guy at work. I don't have much of a sense of humor, but I thought it was mildly funny, and definitely a pop culture trend for today's comedy lovers. As I naturally do with things I discover, I looked this thing up on wikipedia, and was shocked to find out that it was not there. Not only that, but I could not edit because it was protected. I believe this is very notable, I looked on Alexa rankings and many search engines to see how popular it was, and I found it was quite notable. I really hope I can at least get some of you to agree with me that this deserves an article on wikipedia. If you don't agree, I can always try to make a proposed article on my talk page, and you can see if it is worthy. Give me your ideas. Of course, I would say Strong Overturn. Thanks Fortyniners9999 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Incredibly speedy endorse deletion with no disrespect at all to the nominator. We've been through this about a dozen times, including just a few days ago. The article has been deleted many, many times before as lack of notability shown via reliable sources. -- Kicking222 05:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Cause 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

When this article of a future video game was created, it had absolutely no sources. Predictably, somebody nominated it for deletion. The first few votes were for delete. Then I found 4 sources confirming that this game is in fact in development. The main source was an interview to Swedish magazine Kong by the the CEO of Just Cause maker Avalanche Studios, Christopher Sundberg. [1] In the published interview, he confirmed it was actually being made and gave some more information on it. Not alot, but it was certainly a confirmation. The source article was credited to reporter Jonny Knutsson. At least one vote was changed to "keep" after this new information was added. But the closing administrator chose to delete this citing there were no "reliable sources". I very much disagree that the company CEO and the magazine he interviewed with, along with credited reporter Jonny Knutsson, is not a reliable source. I tried being bold in recreating this article with this source, plus two more English language ones confirming the first [2][3], (plus some nice wikification) but it was deleted and locked by the first closing administrator. I respecfually disagree and feel this article of a sequel to a very popular game should be re-created. --Oakshade 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Sources provided are from late October and say that the game is confirmed as being in the company's product pipeline - the game designers have just started coming up with the master game design document, if they've started at all. This might be worth a mention in the original game's article but this sequel hardly merits its own article yet - especially in an industry infamous for vapourware. I kind of understand people who want to create articles for future games and films etc when there has been substantial marketing buzz (though we have to be careful that Wikipedia is not coopted into such efforts), but in this case there isn't even any buzz. Just a brief confirmation that the proposal for the sequel has been officially accepted by the company's bureaucracy. Bwithh 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure only for the sake of consistency. When this is announced by something a little more reliable, I'll gladly fight to overturn it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. What is the point of an article which says "This is a game. It may be released at some date in the future."? Because that's all the info you have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was some more info than that, ie, the scenescapes would be different with descriptions and what platforms it was being made for. Even though that's arguably not alot, this can be considered a standard "let it grow" scenario. --Oakshade 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is to have an article ready for expansion, especially for anons/new users who can't create them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New users can create them. And an article ready for expansion is very good, if it can be expanded. Not if it might be able to, at some undetermined point in the future where more info will be released. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, new users cannot create articles immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. This game is not released, and should either not exist or be a subsection in Just Cause. RedKlonoa 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The shortened stub does not contain any original research Horseshoesmith 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You are probably referring to Horseshoe Theory. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've corrected the listing. This article was deleted in AfD on December 3. On December 8, it was recreated, in a shortened form, by Horseshoesmith, and deleted as a G4 by Deepujoseph about an hour later. Horseshoesmith recreated the article, and I redeleted it, noting that the user had been left a message, explaining how to contest a deletion. I think it wasn't entirely clear what was involved, and after a couple of quick recreations and deletions, I finally protected the page and advised Horseshoesmith how to list the article at Deletion review. I think the article, as recreated, still contains substantial original research, and doesn't seem to get past the sourcing problems of the former version. Thus, I suggest we endorse deletion, but I'm open to being shown that this topic is covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources, in which case I'll agree that we can support a well-sourced article about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting case. The question is whether the recreation is substantially different from the AfD versions in the matter of argument. Is it different "where it counts," in other words. The article provides references to some people who have said things about the theory that are similar, although a stable and precise discussion of "horsehoe theory" instead of "the extremes meet" doesn't really work. (Jonathan Swift, in A Tale of a Tub, proposed that Peter (Roman Catholicism) and Jack (the Puritains) grow to look like each other during their fight (the Reformation and Counter-reformation), and that was in 1704. This isn't ever called a horsehoe theory, even though it is the observation being called that theory.) It's the point of view and application of a single term to this general observation that is original research. The general observation is a commonplace, but it doesn't have a single name or, to my knowledge, get a general discussion (only particular ones, like people swatting down the anti-communists who want to say that the Nazis were socialists). Endorse deletion or, and this is controversial maybe, send back to AfD for a new ruling on the more bolstered form. Geogre 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, my !vote must have been accidentally overwritten at some point. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• More discussion has been requested above , but how can this be discussed without seeing the article? please restore long enough for a discussion DGG 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis McClure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion, request speedy close per procedure. Deletion review does not have the capacity to confirm the copyright status in situations like this.

  Slightly modified to be applicable for the situation:
  Please send an email to the Wikimedia Communications committee at the e-mail address "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", where it will be securely archived. In the confirmation that you send to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", ensure that both the Internet URL for the original text which you are re-licensing under the Text of the GFDL and the a Wikipedia link to the intended target for the text is provided so that the Wikimedia PR department may cross reference the Wikimedia page image to the Internet URL text. This must be done through an official email affiliated (and listed) on the website as confirmation.
  After sending the email message to the Communications comittee, drop a note on the talk page (not the article itself) mentioning that permission has been sent to the m:OTRS system, but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. Afterwards, somebody with access to OTRS will come along and tag the article talk with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question. Please note that providing the link to the ticket number is essential to easy verification.
  See also: Wikipedia:copyrights, Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, new editors claiming copyright thread on Wikilegal-l

As I mentioned previously, DRV has no capacity to do this - these instructions are the only way to do so. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion "permission for it to be used here" is inadequate, permission under the GFDL or a release to the public domain so that it can be used/modified etc. by anyone is what is required. --pgk 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Rodefer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I am the owner of modernsculpture.com where the text came from and I wrote it and give full permission for it to be used here. Rodefer 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion, request speedy close per my comment at #Mavis McClure. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as above, "Permission to be used here" is inadequate. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. --pgk 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What pgk means is that you need to explicitly place your work under the GNU Free Documentation License. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request the restoration of Highland Middle School (Libertyville, Illinois) to Wikipedia. I have spent hard work on this article and would not like to see this go to waste. Please consider putting this article on the articles for revising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyville (talk • contribs)

Uncle Sherm's Visit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This episode of SpongeBob SquarePants exists. I provided a neutral source (in german) on its talk page after it was deleted and protected. Kitia 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. A German fan page speculating about a possible episode because someone (unnamed) has seen the storyboards? Can it get any less reliable? ~ trialsanderrors 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a picture of him... ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a reliable source. What's the matter with your signature? ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's messed-up. I don't know how to fix it. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "My preferences" and unclick "Raw signature". ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on more and more are going to believe that the episode IS real! I suggest that maybe you can re-create the page soon, because i signed a petition on the articles talk page. Please re-create the page soon. Thanks. Zany zacky ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Petitions are not reliable sources. Find some and it can be recreated. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Undelete Keep Deleted. Or perhaps suspend deletion? This episode is still in developement and will be aired in Gremany first, like the last few. It seems kind of redundant to delete a page just to make it again a week later with sources... Anyways, here are a few:
  • tv.com episode guide [4]
  • Storyboards [5] Kelden 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • They don't look like reliable sources to me. The first anyone can sign up for an account and add/change the content. The second maybe a story board to an episode (I'm no expert) but doesn't give an verifiability to any material in the article. Far from being redundant if deletion is what it takes to get people to provide sources then the deletion has had a positive result. --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point and I agree. It even appears the some information may have been added by wikipedia members (user:patrickrox11, [6]). I think I was little hasty in voting, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. Hence, I'm changing my vote. If this episode airs, it will be added then, such unfounded speculation is unencyclopedic. ~ Kelden 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion --pgk 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted until Nickelodeon airs it then it can be undeleted --Caldorwards4 19:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

The original vote was here with just three votes: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6#American_businesspeople_by_ethnicity

Category:Jewish-American businesspeople was created to break up Category:Jewish Americans into smaller pieces. It was NOT created to break up Category:American businesspeople into smaller pieces. By changing the category all the people lost their Jewish identity, and as below, their national identity. The change was made with just three votes and was made without thinking of the consequences of the change and the loss of information it would create. Now each article has lost their inclusion in Category:Jewish Americans. Important moves like this need much more debate before enacted. I suggest a minimal number of votes before decisions are made. Category changes are much more complicated than article changes because there are supracategories and supercategories that have to be considered. Remember if the category is a double intersection, you can't replace it with a single category, it has to be replaced by two categories. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same for:

Jewish Americans is currently divided into the following, so why is "business person" not acceptable:

African Americans are identified as:

• Category:African American academics
• Category:African Americans' rights activists
• Category:African-American actors
• Category:African American artists
• Category:African American classical composers

• Overturn and Undelete All subcategories I believe for consistency these subcategories should all remain. Removing ethnicity is not important here. Categories are used to group like things. In this case, we are creating one huge category of things that are different. TonyTheTiger 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow! Wikipedia has that much power? They lost their Jewish identity just through being moved to a different category? Let's move Category:Terrorists to Category:Really nice people who give money to charity and are good to their mothers and start solving the world's problems in earnest! Guy (Help!) 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You should probably avoid sarcasm, stick to what your good at. You also lost me with your terrorist metaphor. Was that an attempt at humor or are you equating Judaism with terrorism? And yes, when you remove an ethnic tag from an article, you are removing their ethnic identity. It is like taking a book from a library shelf, and removing the Dewey decimal code on the spine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.... my guess is that he's not? Bwithh 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite good at sarcasm, actually - what we have here is simply an example of a sarchasm. Be that as it may, the idea that Wikipedia exists to promote the Jewish identity of anybody seems very much like soapboxing. I am not persuaded that it is in any way helpful to identify Jewish Americans separately in this way, it seems to be more of a service to those wishing to validate their religion than to the reader (and I'd say the same if you were to substitute any other religious identity). What one can say with very great confidence is that the Jewish or national identity of any individual is completely unaffected by their inclusion in a category on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but by that logic all of the other "Nationality Profession" categories (which are explicitly supported by WP:CAT) would be invalid. Your trolling is not appreciated, by the way and it would be in your best interests to cease and desist per WP:CIV. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A few opinions:
  • Oppose Anti-semitism
  • Rename American rabbis to Jewish American rabbis
  • Speedy Delete JzG
  • Endorse Closure - crz crztalk 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As the admin who closed the debate, I obviously endorse the deletion, otherwise I wouldn't have done it:-) Other reasons for my endorsement include my thinking that "Jewish-American people" and "Businesspeople" is not an encyclopedically meaningful intersection of categories. I disagree with TonyTheTiger that "Businesspeople" now contains "things that are different". If TonyTheTiger is right then if we have category Category:Jewish-American businesspeople then we should also have Category:Women American businesspeople on the grounds that women are arguably at least as different from men as Jewish people are from non-Jewish people. It is the splitting of the category Category:Jewish Americans (that should be Category:Jewish-American people) that was ill-conceived, not the deletion of this category. This debate shows us why we desparately need category arithmetic. If the result here is to reverse the deletion, then apply to me and I will gladly supply a list of articles that were in the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The action shouldn't have been taken with just three votes, and without doing research into the categories already existing and their inter-relationship. Special care has to be taken with categories that are carefully crafted to provide intersections of other existing categories. You can't remove a triple intersection category and replace it with a single category, without losing information. These changes require some thought and familiarity with categories and the boolean logic behind them. If you don't feel that someone should be identified as African American or Jewish thats a much bigger discussion and needs to be argued elsewhere. You should also have the courtesy to notify the Wikiproject or Portal involved with these categories, since they have been working so hard to tag Category:Jewish-American people and then subdivide that category. And, lastly you should be responsible for undoing the damage you created, not others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly I did not nominate the category for merging: why hold me responsible for notifying the project? Secondly, AFD is not a vote. Thirdly, three clear coherent reasons to merge is actually a pretty good AFD consensus in my opinion. Fourthly, please do not imply that my closure of the debate was thoughtless: comment on the closure, not the administrator. Fifthly, my familiarity with categories is just fine, thanks. Here's the boolean question: do we categorise American businesspeople by ethnicity? The answer from the AFD discussion was a clear no. I thought the discussion here was about whether to reverse that consensus, not whether the closure was incorrect. Sixthly, do not attribute arguments to me that I have not made: people should clearly be categorised as African American or Jewish. The AFD discussion said clearly that ethnicity does not impinge on business-ness. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Richard has apologised for the tone of his comment above, and I accept the apology. I apologise in return for the tone of my reply, but I feel the content of the reply is valid. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete/Keep The individuals involved in the original CfD either have not read WP:CAT or believe it does not apply to them. The existence of Category:British writers is explicitly supported here. Is there some logical reason why Jews should be treated differently? If you have a problem with WP:CAT, propose changes to the guideline, don't use your admin flag to circumvent consensus. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I might have been willing to accept the argument that I should also have added the people in the categories to the other category of intersection, and I am still willing to do so, as it was possibly an oversight, but the WP:CAT guideline you point at supports the existence of Category:British writers, not the existence of Category:Jewish-British writers and is not relevant here. Your accusation of my "using my admin flag to circumvent consensus" is gratuitous and insulting, and you may wish to consider apologising. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. To get back to the debate: the argument Karimarie has put forward in favour of restoring this category is consensus at WP:CAT. I was initially sceptical, above, but following her recent advice on my talk page I have looked there quite carefully. Searching WP:CAT for the word-stems "religio", "ethnic" and "jew" give no results. WP:CATGRS does mention ethnicity, but again I am not sure that it is relevant to this debate (and Karimarie did not cite it anyway). I conclude that there is no such consensus as the one Karimarie cites. I am not infallible, and my usual practice in the face of personal criticism is to withdraw on the grounds that the least said, the soonest mended. I initially withdrew here, but on reflection I feel that it would be allowing Karimarie to carry her point by playing the man and not the ball. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete/Keep - per jzg.Bakaman 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all others or keep this one. And save the wit for a crowd that might actually find you funny, Guy. Grace Note 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What rationale are you using to support one and not the others? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist obviously there is not a consensus yet. Koweja 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• yes, RelistDGG 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete/Keep Again, we have admins getting way over their heads deleting categories (and deleting articles and abusing CSDs) where there is no clear justification for doing so. The category -- and the other, similar child categories -- are meaningful descriptions of the individuals so designated. What we seem to need more desperately in Wikipedia is an "Admins for Deletion" category. Alansohn 14:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much. Reading again what you wrote, I am reminded that hyperbole doesn't really work as a debating technique in Wikipedia discussions. In answer to your one substantial argument, "meaningful" is not the same as "encyclopedic". --RobertG ♬ talk 10:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graal Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Overturn and Undelete. This article does not require deletion so long as it follows Wikipedia Guidelines. It deserves a place in Wikipedia. Also, this was just speedy deleted simply because of the past, while it had no conflicts with the Wikipedia rules. RedKlonoa 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse valid process. WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB or indeed anything else with any degree of consensual support. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing deserves a place in Wikipedia. Nobody and no thing has an entitlement to be here. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ---RedKlonoa 19:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that. Your argument that something "deserves" to be here is specious. Argue based on WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was about to edit that out. Anyways, what I meant when I said "deserves" is that it is just like every other article, and does not need a delete. It is only because of other users that caused the article to be deleted. RedKlonoa 19:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That assumption is not borne out by the AFD discussion linked above, that is full of editors agreeing that the site fails WP:WEB. The large number of trolls in the discussion didn't help anything, but do not appear to be the reason for the deletion, from what I can see. Fan-1967 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion again, process was valid. --Coredesat 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion for the second third fourth time. Far out, seriously, AfD has spoken, Danny (talk · contribs) has spoken (see the AfD), DRV has spoken, and all have said "delete". I also urge speedy close, as there is no new evidence presented. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Apparently valid deletion and process. Linked AfD page settles it for me, I think. Luna Santin 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Extra-strong Deluxe Endorse - It's been recreated how many times now? ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still wondering what your arguement is... RedKlonoa 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You opened this DRV based on what appear to be false assumptions. The AFD shows that a consensus of editors determined that it failed WP:WEB, i.e. it does not meet our standards of a notable website. You have not offered any counter-arguments relevant to that decision, or any reason for overturning the AFD. Fan-1967 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - Failed to assert notability on the original AFD, still isn't notable now. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Overturn and undelete This article was originally listed for deletion as "non notable" and not conforming to WP policy on software related articles. During the original delete debate several assertions of notability were not backed up by necessary references. This has subsequently be rectified. During an initial delete review a number of references for notability were provided. Many more were obvious from Google (>40000 listings and many just as required. I therefore undeleted the article, started to insert such notability information (reviews etc) and add more - as I said google is full with it. The article was again deleted by another admin, who felt it should go first go through another review. Given that even the review said that the article may be recreated with actual references - which I was starting to provide - I did not hold this for necessary, but I am happy to submit to process. Summary : the software is notable, and the necessary references are provided. This should be sufficient to satisfy policy Refdoc 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples for notability are here [7] [8] and [9] In each listing it is finalist in one magazine or another.

Actually, all 3 links are from the same source, and the program is only labelled as a finalist (for the religious category of pocketpc programs) in the first link Bwithh 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a finalist in the Pocket PC awards [10] and is described here - an academic theological journal [11] Latter is a 32 page review and analysis of various pieces of Biblesoftware. E-Sword features prominently throughout the whole article. Refdoc 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Undelete. (though it might be weak) I still think the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) was closed was completely inappropriate. I also wish that the first deletion review actually addressed this closure, rather than the lack of sources in the article. Had the amount of criticism in the last review been made during AfD with no improvement toward the article, I would endorse deletion. Refdoc has claimed that he put sources and more evidence for notability in the article after he undeleted it. If this is true, I don't think Robdurbar should have redeleted it--Mackensen and the last deletion review both allowed recreation of the article, so long as WP:V and WP:RS were followed. --Karnesky 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object in the strongest possible terms. There was a deletion review of this decision on December 5, and the close was upheld. Refdoc acted inappropriately be undeleting on his own authority. Are we reviewing DRVs now? What the hell is this? Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that Refdoc didn't add sources? If so, I might have to change my vote. --Karnesky 18:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text of the addition: e-Sword has been subject to numerous outside reviews and has been several times named (one of) teh most comprehensive and usable free Biblestudy programmes. Color me unimpressed. Perhaps more to the point, this is an abuse of process. The decision was already reviewed and upheld. Re-creation is fine, but the undeletion stuck me as a bit raw. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close bad faith DRV listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you get envolved and have a sensible review when it gets closed before getting started. It strikes me that there could be another adgenda here than pure unbiased assessments of notablility. Agreed it was a little short of proper referencing in it's original form. That I believe is largely due to good references being buried in the search engines such as Google by the "download related" sites that are too numerous to mention (obviously a hardly known piece of software then!). You have to dig deep to get the referencing for this one. But it can be done. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footballdatabase (edit | [[Talk:Template:Footballdatabase|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

i don't knoow why afd became tfd and not cleanup, the template is useful for create external link for some footballer. Matthew_hk tc 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, template creates external link to a commercial website. —Angr 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, WP:VSCA appears to apply to this case. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PocketGPSWorld.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The Keep reasons were based on the notability of this site - it is referred to in most articles and websites on GPS systems. There was also a majority (5-3) for a Keep. The closing admin overruled this based on "the lack of sourcing in this article, and the quality of the article itself". Neither is a ground for deletion against the concensus. I should welcome a quality threshold, but that is for another day, and it is not a deletion reason. Inadequate sourcing (as opposed to being unverifiable) signals the need for editorial action but not deletion. Yes, this is a poor article that needs a thorough cleanup but procedurally it should not have been deleted. Overturn and Keep. TerriersFan 10:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by closer WP:V is an inviolable reason to delete and overrules both notability arguments (or rather here: assertions) and vote counts. As I said in my closing statement, if someone thinks they have sources and wants to write an article based on them I'm happy to userfy or restore. But with zero outside sources either in the article or in the AfD discussion the argument by User:Pan Dan that the article fails WP:V trumps all others. ~ trialsanderrors 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - thank you for this helpful reply. Though the article has a regrettable lack of sources there are plenty enough /available/ to verify its safety camera database, its main claim to 'fame'. User:Pan Dan was arguing (I think) on notability not verifiability. He/she acknowledges that verifiability is not an issue by saying "no one denies that this company & website, and its services, exist". The company's existence is verified here and its safety camera stuff is verified here. TerriersFan 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion, it fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Safe a small group of topics that are considered notable per se, articles that do not assert the notability of their subject risk being speedily deleted, articles that do not support the assertion to notability via independent sources risk being deleted at the end of an AfD. This is what happened here. Elvis Presley doesn't have an article because his birth certificate verified his existence, but because multiple outside sources exist that attest to his notability. In simple terms, if the subject of an article is notable it shouldn't be hard to find sources unless it's historical or from a remote part of the world. ~ trialsanderrors 11:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Number one is a directory listing, number two is a passing mention in a forum post. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources in article or AfD = delete. Alexa ranks are not indicators of notability - they were removed from WP:WEB months ago - and even when it was, the threshold was 10,000. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close - endorse deletion - OK I am persuaded by the arguments and withdraw the nomination. TerriersFan 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see the article and perhaps look for references but evn on the basis of the discussion above, the article needs to come up for further AfD discussion.DGG 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penumbra (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history) — (AfD)

The article about Penumbra has been deleted before because the game was only a tech demo. Since that deletion (and the article's recreation), Penumbra has expanded into a full commercial game that has received the mention and interest of major gaming websites such as Gamespot and IGN. It is possible that the game will be digitally distributed on Steam: a major market for gaming. The full game is significant enough to warrant its own article. The focus of the article as of now is on the tech demo, but it could easily be changed to place the emphasis on the full game being developed.

I also think it's incredibly unfair because the second deletion was only a proposed one. The template said to remove it if any reason was seen as to why the article should be kept (there was no actual AfD involved). I brought the argument up on the talk page and removed the notice, and a few hours later, the article was deleted. That aside though, I still think the article should be remade to focus more on the full version of Penumbra. ShadowMan1od 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the link to point to the AfD debate, as it should. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an AfD from the first time the article was deleted though (which isn't the one this is contesting, but oh well :P). ShadowMan1od 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's felt the situation hasn't changed enough for it to not apply, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that you mention it, I guess that's the whole issue of debate. All the votes to delete it in that AfD were because it was just a college project and it wasn't notable enough. It's gone beyond that phase now, so should it still be deleted for the same reasons? ShadowMan1od 01:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The second deletion wasn't a proposed deletion -- I placed the {{prod}} and then it was brought to my attention that the article had already failed an AfD, so I deleted it without letting the prod run its course, and told this user to come here to have it undeleted. I do note several references in Google. However, I don't know if the article truly passes notability, it's possibly close. Andre (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against future recreation once the game is actually released. The game company's own website says that the first episode of this game isn't scheduled for release until Q1 2007[12]. Gamespy says this game isn't due to come out until October 2007, and hasn't been rated or found a publisher yet [13]. Gamespot has a preview of the game-project-development-still-in-progress from October, which suggests the first episode is likely coming out in March 2007[14]. IGN has like 3 screenshots, and that's it as far as I can tell[15]. What's the hurry in recreating this article if the game won't be out until maybe some time March to October 2007? Wikipedia is not a place for creating pre-launch/pre-"possible distribution through Steam" marketing buzz for unpublished software projects. Bwithh 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:SombatMetanee.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

The image was uploaded as a {{promophoto}} and included in the article Sombat Metanee in the infobox. It was flagged by User:Chowbok with a {{Replaceable fair use}} tag, which I then disputed. Through that process, however, I learned that the use in the article was indeed not fair use, so I moved it to a section of the article that detailed the actor in the era depicted in the photo. That was "not good enough" for User:Angr, who then deleted the image. I disputed this on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg, and Angr offered some helpful suggestions about how to improve the article so that the image might be kept. Those improvements were made and a new fair-use rationale for the image was crafted. Angr then made a subjective judgement about the photo and asked if a different image could be used. I accommodated him by offering an external link to another image, but it wasn't good enough for him, either. I then offered a link to several images that he could choose from, and that's when his responses ended. So I've brought the issue here, seeking a resolution. — WiseKwai 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I'm still not 100% convinced the image is unreplaceable yet, but I was surprised when the talk page was closed for further discussion. My responses only ended because I felt out of my depth in making decisions on what images do or do not adequately illustrate the physical attractiveness of an actor I've never heard of. I was hoping for more input from others rather than "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it." —Angr 10:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who closed the debate. I just thought it was policy to close debate after the image was deleted. I certainly didn't mean to stifle debate if it's still up in the air. I personally wouldn't have deleted it, FWIW, but I know it's a borderline case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- we don't appear to have a source for this image or know who owns its copyright -- there's a statement that the image was "released by" a film festival. This fails our image sourcing requirements. Jkelly 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image was part of promotional material distributed to the press for the 2006 Bangkok International Film Festival, which holds the copyright to the material. — WiseKwai 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn — per DRVers request. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per above. If it fails policy, I'm certain someone will come along and tag it again, but the move made appears to make sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VirusBurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This is crossposted from the closing admin's talk page: User_talk:W.marsh#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FVirusBurst

I weighed into this AfD thinking that it was a straight-forward delete: No evidence of notability was presented, and my understanding is that editor testimony without supporting evidence is tantamount to a naked vote and will be disregarded. A quick breakdown of the participants:

Whatever way we cut it, this looks like a clear delete to me: Nose counting (spit) give three-to-one in favour of deletion if you're into that sort of thing, and argumentation shows that the only evidence presented for keeping was Google hits, something the person who made the argument recanted. WM suggested I re-nominate it when I raised it with him, which I'd prefer not to do because a) This nomination has a clear outcome to me, b) The stigma of a renom leads to knee-jerk keepage often enough, and c) I can't create the sub-pages anyway.
152.91.9.144 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Why do people think that they can make an article verifiable by saying "It's verifiable!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Um. The AfD debate was largely a waste of server space, for reasons noted above, and although this is verifiable from AV vendors' sites that does rather place it in the category of a directory entry. Neither GNews nor Factiva shows any significant coverage other than press releases and AV vendors' threat databases. I say relist. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. If no sources are presented in the article or the AfD, the article should be deleted. AfD is not a vote, WP:V is a cornerstone policy, guess which wins. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's verifiable enough, the problem is evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Existence may be verifiable, but I see one directory listing in the article and one press release in the AfD which mentions the virus in passing. The AfD participants didn't come close to making an actual case for the article's retention in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is what I said above :-) Guy (Help!) 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's why I believe this AfD should have been closed as 'delete', and consequently we should overturn it. It doesn't seem a good use of Wikipedians' time to have the same discussion again (no new evidence has been presented that would indicate that a second discussion would be substantially different from the previous) just so we can hope it gets closed in a different way, when the purpose of DRV is to change closings when necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem with the debate was that it was almost entirely irrelevant to inclusion. My first searches show no significant coverage, but there might be some. I am undecided, hence I'd like to see more discussion of the content, not the process. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The keep arguments may have been irrelevant to inclusion, but the delete arguments weren't. Both the nomination and supporting editor cast the subject's notability into doubt, which is a good enough reason for deletion if no-one can debunk it by showing significant reliable coverage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "It's verifiable enough" is good enough for me. Do not overturn. You had your shot and it was correctly kept. It's terrible that this forum is used for a small clique to delete articles they could not manage to rid us of in a more widely read forum. Grace Note 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why does saying it's verifiable make it so? I also find it funny that people claim either that only deletionists come here or only inclusionists do, depending on which they are. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has been edited and verifiability demonstrated. I have just edited the article, added links to the pages about this virus from 3 of the major-antivirus producers in both the US and UK, (I could probable go on and find another 30 or so, because I found 198,000 ghits.) Probably I should have done this earlier, but to me at any rate, the Symantec link already there was verification enough. DGG 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... No you haven't. It hasn't been edited since the close of the AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links such as the one currently in the article should be considered directory entries anyway. Thousands of viruses are created, and it's Symantec's job (as well as McAfee's, Grisoft's etc) to document as many as possible, just as it's the Yellow Pages' job to document every person and business with a phone. We are not the Yellow Pages, or Symantec, we do not document everything, we document notable things, which means non-trivial coverage. ILOVEYOU is an example of a virus that received such coverage. I can't comment on the links DGG said he added, because he didn't add them, but the link currently in the article is definitely the equivalent of a directory entry. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Moving here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the temporary restoration - Must^TC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion log; 18:21, December 13, 2006 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z)" (WP:CSD A3 - no article content, this shouldn't be in article space. Userfied version already exists.)

My message before deletion to the admin who deleted article here:

Dear FPaS,

Thanks for your good faithfull commends.

You are right, there is no enough number of editor which deals with these kind of works.

I undertake a project (One contributor, me) to organize categories,templates,images and articles.My first job is to collect related categories,organizing,renaming and cleaning of them.That is reason why I have a subpage "deneme", I created a new article.There will be another one; "List_of_Turkey-related_categories(by topics)".I think, many categories was created accidentally, and needed cleaning and reorganizing. Also I will create a Category tree and user manual in WPTR. I hope in the future other/newcomer user will use categories in proper way. This project will take a big time of course( all linked articles are needed to scrutinized one by one), all helps are welcome. I need some bots to handle so huge number of articles, is it possible?

I think My message include the undelete reason.RegardsMust^TC 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin's comment: Page has now been userfied to User:Mustafa Akalp/List of Turkey-related categories(A-Z). Sorry, I would have done so right away, but I mistakenly thought you already had a copy of it there. Also, for some reason I didn't see your message on my talk page in time. - That said, I think the deletion was correct, this is a list that doesn't belong in article space. Project space ([[Wikipedia:...]]) might be okay though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and userfication metacontent like this doesn't belong in the article space. It is, however, exactly the sort of this that you can keep in userspace or, if you want others to help out, project space. Eluchil404 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per Eluchil404. We should never have articles which link to Wikipedia meta-content. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. What exactly is wrong with just using the higher-level Category:Turkey? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for close. I'm satisfied with the message of Fut.Perf. and all comments here. I already transferred the article to WikiProject Turkey and my subpage. No need to keep that article anymore.Sorry for headache to all of you. Please help me to finish this discussion(I dont know the correct procedure). Regards.Must^TC 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Burner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

• Delete or Merge with article on Election -- WP:BIO. Proponents for keeping the article during the July discussion centered on her viability as a candidate in the November 2006 election. As the election is over and she has lost, her notability seems to have declined. AndrewSaint 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, Speedy close There is no procedural error in the closure, so a new consensus can be found by renominating it at AfD. Nominating it here is just a time waster. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, speedy close, per above, no new info, Deletion Review != Articles for Deletion, take II. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Close, send to AfD AfD's more than a month or two old should simply be renominated (see WP:CCC) rather than taken to DRV. Eluchil404 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, speedy close Send it through AFD again. Even though Burner didn't win the election, she received significant local and national press during the campaign. As for her notability declining.. WP is full of people who were notable for a short period of time and then disappeared off the radar, see Jessica McClure. --Bobblehead 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to Close My bad on the using the DelRev instead of re-AfDing.AndrewSaint 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Medical Advisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Legal Medical Advisor Certification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has been edited to comply with wikipedia TOS lpritchard 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please review this blatant spammer's contribution history, permanently block the user, and delete and protect the latest spam pages. -THB 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion and keep protected. Every version of it has been spam, no reason to believe the author is capable of anything else. Fan-1967 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion and keep protected. The author openly admits the WP:COI and ignores our spam policy. -- RHaworth 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, spam from a single-purpose account. Speedy close if possible, we've wasted more than enough time on this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion of both and keep salted. Anytime I see "we" in a user's comments, that's a bad sign. -- Satori Son 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense Humor Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Page was deleted citing "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I would suggest that a college humor magazine that has published for more than 23 years, providing critical and alternative analysis of society and its publishing university, is significant. Article has autobiographic tendencies, but that's an argument for editing, not outright deletion. Toomuchjoy 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy organizations and publications of single colleges are generally not considered notable on wikipedia. I am suggesting that the deleting admin place a copy of the article in your userspace so that you can edit and improve it to show how this one is notable enough for an article. Things to consider are has it won any awards, has it published work by notable authors, has it been mentioned in other reliable sources. Eluchil404 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Send it my way; the magazine has indeed won awards, been covered in other reliable sources, etc., and it will be simple enough to recast the last current info in the listing to reflect that and its relevance in a larger scope. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

• Endorse deletion. A grand total of 24 Google hits, if you take Wikipedia and its mirrors out of the equation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the magazine is typically just referred to as "Nonsense," try a Google search of "Humor Nonsense Hofstra" and you get over 9,300 Google hits. Toomuchjoy , 13 December 2006

• Endorse deletion, unless you can provide a reliable source. I can't find one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, below are a few from Newsday that I was able to dig up on short notice. Also, the magazine was awarded "2nd place, Special Interest Magazine" by the Society of Collegiate Journalism in the mid-80s (I'm still digging up specifics on that), has appeared in The Joe Bob Report. More to come if needed. Newsday articles, letters to the editor, etc. regarding Nonsense:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100187141&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104078480&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104782470&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=104781543&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=49254948&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100891649&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=100191828&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=13371&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Coverage of when MIT plagarized Nonsense:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_110/TECH_V110_S0615_P002.pdf Toomuchjoy 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic League argues with Nonsense in The Catalyst, a magazine for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/1997_catalyst/197catalyst.htm#Anti-Catholicism%20Hits%20Campuses Toomuchjoy 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse although I would support a history undeletion, because any mention of the magazine should be at Hofstra University#Student life. Campus publications that do not achieve independent standing get discussions at their university articles. We do this with nearly all campus publications, no matter how august. The very, very few exceptions, such as The Crimson or Dartmouth Review, have other reasons for articles than that they have a long run and/or popularity on campus. Geogre 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These college humor magazines--

• McMaster University The Plumbline
• St. John's University, New York Spectator
• University of California, Berkeley Heuristic Squelch
• University of Maryland The Maryland Cow Nipple
• University of Maryland The Terrapist
• University of Texas at Austin Travesty
• University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Second Supper
• Yale University Rumpus Magazine

-- all have Wikipedia entries, but haven't been around as long as Nonsense, which was founded in 1982; thus it seems the requirement of "a long run" is arbitrarily enforced (I might politely add that allowing an entry purely because a publication has been around for more than 24 years doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the publication). Meanwhile, judging a publication based on "popularity on campus"--which Nonsense always has been (Vault.com characterizes it as "a student favorite" here: http://www.vault.com/survey/school/college/Hofstra-University-social-life-74210.html ) --contradicts the argument that the publication has to be judged based on its relevance to the world at large.

Toomuchjoy 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those magazine articles listed above appear to be clear candidates for deletion Bwithh 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense Humor Magazine was listed prominently in the The Directory of Humor Magazines and Humor Organizations in America (and Canada) 3rd Edition. Published in 1992 by Wry-Bred Press.

Nonsense was listed and sold by Spy Magazine in its December 1991 issue. "Spy Humor 101, Go Back to College for a Few Laughs". Spy got enough of a response to the listing to start buying advertising in Nonsense itself.

Heyitsal 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Couldn't find any hits in Factiva (which includes Newsday archives - though may not include letters to editors/some minor articles etc). I looked at a mirrored version of the deleted article here - I couldn't see any claims to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent, up-to-date version of the article--which is NOT the one mirrored around the web--had been updated substantially in November with a lot of facts, figures and information, in order to make it more of a comprehensive survey of the magazine's history. Please don't base your opinion of the listing on the meager (and inaccurate) version still floating around on the web. Toomuchjoy 13:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dot Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(deleted history)

G11 does not apply here. The purpose of the article is to describe a company, not promote a company. Further, the company is notable by reference to the cited independent news sources covering Blue Dot. I feel it was quite rude to have the article summarily deleted with no discussion; the article was obviously well structured, informative, and undergoing a process of improvement. Mike Koss 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You say? I reckon you're the head cheerleader at Blue Dot, having a great time working to help Blue Dot "become a great service and a great company." You didn't mention that YOU LOVE BLUE DOT. Given your self-evident conflict of interest I'm more inclined to believe the Crazy Russian, and my own reading, and diagnose spam. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:COI, WP:CSD G11, notability never at issue. A non-COI user may recreate this if notable (on which I reserve judgment) - 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior to deletion, notability was in question, as which point I added citations to demonstrate notability. I don't deny I have a COI. But I would ask that you judge the article for yourself. I believe it displays a NPOV, and contains factual, valuable, and cited information. I've created a copy here so you can read for yourself User:mckoss/Blue_Dot_Inc. The article was not created by me, but I started to improve it when it came under question as to the notability Mike Koss 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. Comments like "Crzrussian seems to be a real a**hole here", even off-Wiki, are not very helpful in convincing us you can present this topic in an unbiased and dispassionate manner. WP:NPOV is one of our most important policies, which is why we have the WP:COI guidelines in the first place. Please let someone unaffiliated with the company recreate this article when it reaches a sufficient level of notability. -- Satori Son 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why my comments off of wikipedia are relevant. I have a long history of wikipedia edits accepted as NPOV. On my own private web site, I don't think I need to maintain NPOV. As yet, I've not heard any justification for speedy deletion based on the content of the article. I believe that should be the ultimate guiding principle - all other guidelines are meant to aid editors in making decisions. Mike Koss 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I am supporting the statement, but the Arbitration Committee is very close to passing a motion that effectively protects the right to call him so off-wiki without blowback on-wiki. See WP:ARBCOM(Seabhcan)#Calling_CRZ_an_arsehole.
  152.91.9.144 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even remotely suggesting that action should be taken against Mike Koss for his personal attack that is off-Wiki. I am simply stating that, because of his uncivil behavior and severe conflict of interest, he should be strongly encouraged to allow other, uninvolved parties to recreate the article if and when the time comes. -- Satori Son 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep deleted, clear bad faith request for undeletion and WP:COI violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You people have a clear problem with being civil. In what sense did I act in "bad faith"? I may not have understood the esoteric wikipedia guidelines. But I never acted in bad faith and have always been honest and forthright about by relationship to the company. I would like an apology. Mike Koss 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly say calling someone an asshole is not bad faith? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just playing the devil's advocate, it's possible to say something like that off wiki and still operate in good faith on wiki. Although in WP:ARBCOM(Snowspinner) linking to one's own nasty comments off-wiki was found to be uncivil, in WP:ARBCOM(Giano) Cyde's reposting and linking of Kelly Martin's off-wiki smear didn't even rate a mention. The ground is fairly well trod that unless off-wiki comments are death threats or lead to harrasment, we're meant to simply ignore them.
152.91.9.144 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've dashed off a version here of this article that should at least go to AfD. I have no idea of the content of the deleted article, and must admit the it's very thin and might not pass the proposed guideline but then again there is another guideline that it could be said to pass as there are multiple media mentions and the question of if they are "non trivial" is not to be hashed out in this forum. I can't create pages, but if someone wants to make the User:152.91.9.144/Temp page with nothing on it but perhaps {{software-stub}} I'm happy to copy-paste my own material into it to avoid any GFDL problems. - 152.91.9.144 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Aww sheezamageeza. Why did I not see User:Mckoss/Blue Dot Inc until after I wasted that twenty minutes? Note to self: Read discussions more carefully next time.
  152.91.9.144 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've taken the liberty of posting it at Blue Dot. I think this discussion is moot now. We have a neutral version, supported by references. Thanks, asshole asstalk 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (BTW - Please accept my apology for the A**hole remark - it reflected my frustration at being cut off mid-discussion on the talk page, and that fact that you used sarcasm when making comments to me). I realize that the new page may be marked for deletion - I will just stay out of it (as recommended by COI guidelines). I am generally a big fan of wikipedia and have been amazed at some of the results. The problem, I think, in this case is that because of the speedy deletion rules - there is no record, debate is cut off prematurely, and a (potential) author is cut off with no sense that the community respect that there might be some value in the contribution. If the article is porn, profane, or link-spam, I can understand a speedy deletion reaction; but I don't think this article falls into that category. It's not just me - several of my friends (all potentially good conrtibutors) have written off even contributing to wikipedia again becuase of heavy handed administration. Mike Koss 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 193.1.172.163 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The term "barse" referring to the bit between the balls and the arse has been deleted 6 times from Wikipedia. It is a term I as an Irish person regularly use. I did not make it up. All my friends use it. People I don't know use it. I have met English people who use it. It seems to be a well used term in England and Ireland, and was probably coined on television. Reasons for deletion have included "hoax" "complete load of arse" etc. While it may be a vulgar/humourous term, it is certainly worth having a look at, unfortunately I do not have the time/resources to do this. I am responsible for the last article (my first on this site) and can't help but feel frustrated by the situation. Perhaps instead of googling the term you could use a blog searcher to search bebo or myspace for "barse". It is a part of modern culture, I am sure of it.[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps instead of asking others to do your research, you could locate Reliable Sources to support your argument. First read the definition of Reliable Sources. Myspace and bebo, as well as blogs, do not qualify. Fan-1967 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What are reliable sources for commonly used internet slang?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.104 (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

• • The same as for anything else, independent sources, which are not forums, blogs, or the like writing about the topic (not just using the word). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Respectfully, endorse deleting and salting because, even with the most reliable sources in the world, this is an utter deletion from start to finish because it is a dictionary definition and therefore would belong at Wiktionary, if it could be validated. In the absence of validation, it's an inappropriate entry inappropriately done. Geogre 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not only is it a slang dicdef, it is also either a protologism or at the very best a highly restricted neologism (stated to be British Isles usage, and I live in England), and it's already been to BJAODN at least once. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Video Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

proposed deletion This article was deleted with the following reason - 05:17, 16 November 2006 Crzrussian (Talk | contribs) deleted "Transition Video Magazine" (Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 November 2006). I propose reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.44.65 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion. Series of documentary videos that doesn't assert notability and is riddled with external links. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete as a contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored. Mentions some notable groups, I think this avoids A7. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin Cerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — {AfD}

This article was deleted on December 3 with conclusion: "Deletion endorse among established editors" because the article was very poor in information.After that time we recreate another article,with more information and now we beleive that article is good to be in Wikipedia.The new article was deleted on December 11 with conclusion:"the article must to go first through deletion review again"Alinaro 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. A forced DRV only applies if someone wants to repost deleted content. The new version of the article (before it was redeleted by Jmabel) asserts notability by national news coverage, which the originally deleted version didn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per MgM and cleanup. Zocky | picture popups 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per above. Said it perfectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn You can't delete an article with the same reasoning if it's substantially different. Xiner 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armeniapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Article was definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. If the deleting admin believed there was no assertion of notability as stated in the deletion log, then he or she should have listed it immediately through AfD, which is standard and proper procedure, rather than delete unilaterally without discussion or notification. metaspheres 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:CSD A7 is for exactly this: articles that do not even assert notability can be speedied without AfD. And I didn't "believe" there was no assertion of notability; I saw there was no such assertion, I don't need AfD to tell me that much. BTW, as a courtesy to interested editors I even notified the Armenian noticeboard in advance, which I wouldn't have been required to do. But anyway, I'll be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted material if you want to work on it and improve it (although I'm skeptical). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Fut. Perf. is quite right. There was no notability asserted. It did however have 3 links to the same domain where one would've sufficed. Sounds like spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Please read WP:CSD A7 again. Then read it a third time. Dragging an utterly non-notable wiki to DRV after a perfectly valid speedy is ill advised. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'd advise you to assume good faith and not attempt to look cool by treating other editors as children by telling them to read something again and again. Deletion review exists precisely for these reasons, and if you believe otherwise, that's tough. If you have any other problems with me, take it to the proper channel. metaspheres 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment would somebody please delete Urdu Wikipedia as well? There is no assertion of notability there as well. Tizio 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There is nothing that asserted notability in the article's previous incarnation, but if notability becomes asserted at a later date, then recreating it is OK. --SunStar Net^talk 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Imaging Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

See also: [16]

• Endorse deletion, read WP:ORG and WP:WEB please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Overturn deletion I found at least one third-party non-company reliable source, see "Ex-files" which means this entry has the potential to satisfy WP:CORP. Deletion was definitely a hasty a decision and the user should have received notification of the standards needed for the article to pass muster. Endless blue 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then just write a new article. A7 doesn't care if something is notable, it cares if the article asserts such. If it does not, it gets deleted. There's no prejudice against creating a new article that does assert notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hear you, but I'm not the author, and the author requested more than restatement of policy that does not apply in this article's case. I'll put something on their talk page. Endless blue 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because the deleted version was awfully like an ad. It was promotional in tone and wording, with how many products now offered, etc. In other words, undeletion of this article would be to reinstate an article that violates the deletion policy pretty clearly both in terms of lack of reliable sources and for being an ad. The fact that the company could be covered just puts us back to the "article needed" stage. I do not think this is a cleanup case: this is a rewrite from scratch case. Geogre 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Square Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Not a commercial page, only meant to inform viewers about the company. It's a non profit organization, they don not advertize on wiki. I was a volunteer there onece just thought i would make a page, cause i love wikipedia. If I broke a rule please explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.163.100 (talk • contribs)

• Informing people about a company is exactly the same as advertising even if you don't call it that. To be listed on Wikipedia it has to be notable (i.e. covered by independant third party reliable sources). Being famous for something is not required but helps. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if AfD: This isn't a speedy deletion candidate, but it is an article that violates the deletion policy. "No advertising" is one of our most important principles at Wikipedia. We can't promote even the things that a majority support, and so we can't be used to announce or promote awareness of even non-profit and humanitarian organizations. Instead, we report on things already reported on by multiple others. Geogre 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Dial Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version. Thanks for the comments, I will rewrite the article with references explaining why the company is not just another communication company, but an organization which should be included in wikipedia pages.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Try reading WP:ORG and WP:EL. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the page was recreated (no reason to assume anything but good faith). I redeleted it and left a note on the user's talk page explaining what's going on. Zocky | picture popups 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - A classic CSD A7 example. 0 hits on Google news. I'm in the GVRD and I've never heard of them, it seems rather unlikely that they'd meet WP:CORP -- Tawker 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a business directory, and there was nothing that showed they met WP:CORP criteria. --SunStar Net^talk 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, if he becomes the leader of the opposition, he'll be so booked by shadow cabinet meetings, national publications and stations, etc., that he won't have time for the little people. When was the last time you saw Bill Graham at an event? Yes, he's interim, but so what. Can we not just undelete, and then discuss this on Monday? -- Zanimum 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People will still be able to take photos, he'll still make "public" appearances, taking a photo doesn't have to be posed or one on one. The image was originally deleted over a month ago, we've had over a month to replace it and no one has bothered, I can't see what difference a couple of days without an image would make. --pgk 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you eliminate (a) all the events that are $100 a plate, (b) only for the registered media, (c) only for Liberal members, you're not left with a lot. The only opportunity to see Bob publicly, for free, was in Toronto at 8 am on a Thursday, and on a Friday in Ottawa from 3 to 5 pm, at the Slovenian Canadian Club of Calgary, and in Cupar, Saskatchewan, which is in the middle of no where. He's trying to attract a very limited bunch of people, the Liberal delegates. Thus he has no need to be freely accessible to folks like us. -- Zanimum 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll still be appearing in places the public can attend and take photos, again it doesn't need to be a posed shot or a one on one. Why you eliminate (a) and (c) I'm not sure anyway, are we saying the being a Liberal member and being able to take a photo for use on wikipedia are mututally exclusive? The policy on replaceable fair use says nothign about replacement images needing to be taken for zero cost. --pgk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list is to prove that almost all of the events on his tour of Canada were inaccessible to Canadian Wikipedians. They were members-only or expensive. Do you see anyone that's willing to spend $100 dollars for one photo? -- Zanimum 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the criteria says nothing about cost or willingness of any given individual to meet that cost. The person will still be appearing in public and will still be able to have his photo taken, and indeed you can still persue getting an "official" image released under an appropriate license. I assume this individual doesn't get out of cars with a blanket over their head as they get shuffled into buildings with blacked out windows with individuals searched to remove photographic equipment, they aren't a recluse. Your list doesn't "prove" anything regarding unavailability of a photo or ability to take one. As to the general principle is someone willing to pay $100 to get a given photo, if not then I guess the photo simply isn't that important to the article. --pgk 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone took a picture of a unicorn, but kept it under copyright, you'd say we couldn't use it? Because "oh, we can just send a photographer to Antartica to wander around for five months to take a free alternative". Correct? -- Zanimum 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well putting aside that unicorns don't actually exist, then I can't see what this has to do with anything. Bob Rae isn't a recluse hiding out in Antarctica, he is a public figure, he appears in public regularly, I would guess he probably even has a fairly public diary. Go to flickr and people have photos of him, (they aren't licensing them under a suitable license) they undoubtdly have managed to take photos of him, why those people can manage to but you reckon no one else in the world will be able to is beyond me. If your unicorn appeared in public regularly, then yes it would fail replaceable fair use, if it cost $100 to get the picture, it would still fail replaceable fair use. For sports personalities in such situations we say people can go to a game and take a photo, they can indeed cost $100 or more to do. --pgk 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. This is a classic case of replaceable fair use. howcheng {chat} 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Rae has "retired" from Canadian politics, future photos may be impossible to gather. Rae has stated he's avoiding the public eye now, as such, photo chances are very minimal -- Tawker 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:CRIIRADmap.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could have copied the information from that map (the coordinates of the dots) and incorporated that same information into a PD map of France. It looks to me like this deletion was proper. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure simply copying the coordinates from this map would clear copyright issues. As I understand cartography copyright, we would need a new map constructed from the same data, if it's available in a published source. Zocky | picture popups 11:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Facts aren't copyrightable. A new map constructed from the same data would put the dots in the same location, so what's the point (or what's to stop me from just doing that and saying I reconstructed the whole thing)? howcheng {chat} 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UBXEssay (edit | [[Talk:Template:User UBXEssay|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

Inappropriate Application of T1. Cyde claims that this is "divisive" which is just a thinly veiled excuse to force another userbox to User space. The template and the essay that it refer to are intended to help editors think about the userbox discussions in an informative, albeit somewhat humorous, fashion. This template and its inclusion on user pages is not divisive, but conciliatory. It has done a great deal of good in bringing people to see each other's points of view on this Wiki issue more openly. Forcing this particular template to user space will lessen the effectiveness of the discussion because several of those involved in the discussion believe that this is exactly the sort of template that should be allowed to remain in Template. Forcing them all to User is inflammatory in and of itself. In any case, a speedy delete per T1 was rushed and probably inappropriate. NThurston 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the text? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has read the essay on userbox personalities and might be a Centrist.

Users can put whatever categorization they prefer in place of "Centrist." --NThurston 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Do not endorse deletion, but see no major issue with it being in userspace as it is now. Certainly wasn't a T1, in any regard, but it continues to exist, so there doesn't appear to be a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Remember this is about process, not necessarily outcomes. The question is whether Cyde should have used Speedy Delete (T1). In my opinion, T1 was mis-applied. At a minimum, this should have gone to MfD, where a discussion about Template vs. User could have taken place. As is, Cyde is imposing a userfication that may or may not be justified, and this case in particular shows why that imposition is not appropriate while the discussion on userboxes continues. --NThurston 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DRV is necessarily about outcomes. When an incorrect process gives a possibly-incorrect result, DRV is empowered to correct it. If an incorrect process produces the right result, then we have nothing to do - correcting the process is beyond the scope of DRV. Chris cheese whine 02:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion while I'm here. This didn't belong in Template space -- any reference to the userbox war in template space is an automatic T1. Properly userfied, where it belongs. Xoloz 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz, that was exactly what I was thinking when I got rid of it. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse userfication. Boarderline T1, but nothing is gained by undeleting since clearly should be in User rather than Template space. Eluchil404 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse userfication and deletion If it was properly userfied I have no issues with the deletion. CharonX/talk 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And theoretically, even if it wasn't properly userfied, then userfying it should be the outcome of a debate like this, not restoring it as a template. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. If it had not been userfied before deletion my "issue" would have been that it had not been userfied before deletion. Okay, now that sounded weird. CharonX/talk 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, the box already exists at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay. Userfied (and ironic, concidering it's about a userbox personality essay). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse status quo. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be out of Template: and into userspace, which is precisely what happened. Precisely how it happened is none of our concern. Chris cheese whine 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse userfication, since little is gained by having two copies of the same userbox. However, I state for the record that T1 shouldn't have been used as the criterion for deletion (it was not, as far as I know, actually causing any divisions or controversy amongst the community); it would have been easy enough just to use its redundancy as the reason for deletion. CameoAppearance ^orate 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete It's the right thing to do. Some of the other comments here can be less harsh in tone, though. Xiner 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - it's not an appropriate use of template space to promote userspace content. By the way, the image of the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is obviously mistagged (I will correct it) and is a non-free image. It should not be used in userspace. BigDT 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't care if it is in template namespace or userspace. Note: this template is an exact copy from the one in userspace, originally by the same editor. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's already been userfied, so I've no problem with kicking it out of templatespace. jgp ^T_C 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to Close Since it is apparent that a consensus is emerging, I see no point in furthering this discussion. However, I would like to note that there is some feeling that Cyde did mis-apply T1 in this case. I presume he used T1 because there was no other criterion to justify Speedy Delete. So, the bottom line is - yeah, maybe it shouldn't have been a Speedy Delete, but "oh well" the outcome is not that bad, so what the hay. While there is something fundamental about this approach to editing that bothers me, I accept that this is the consensus. --NThurston 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to NThurston - What an incredibly arrogant and bad faith assertion you make above. Simply because you don't like the rules doesn't mean Cyde is abusing them. It's divisive because it invokes that pile of crap people call the userbox war. It was in template space. Kindly explain to me using logic and not "Gee I'm going to make a wild accusation of Cyde making up a reason to delete my thingie". --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Elaragirl - I have responded on your talk page. To the rest - I think you should know that Royalguard has done more to calm the userbox war than the rest of us put together. The personality essay has helped to bring people together, not drive us apart. He deserves some credit and/or recognition for being willing to talk about what makes us different. Understanding is the key to progress. --NThurston 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion/userfy - no reason for this to be in existence as a template. Moreschi 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The template, like the page it directs you to, is divisive and polemic crap. Valid T1. Proto::► 11:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that way to me; all it does is sort the existing attitudes towards userboxes into categories. How did you draw that conclusion? CameoAppearance ^orate 09:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion (edit | [[Talk:User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

I'm shocked that the page was deemed inflammatory, when I didn't disparage anyone but am just stating what many pro-choice people believe, that we're pro-life, too. If the page is T1 then so is every pro-life page that is against choice, b/c they're saying we're against life. I'd also have liked a notice on my talk page about the deletion and about my "inflammatory" behavior, because if I'm guilty of such behavior, I should be warned against it. Xiner 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I just realized how difficult it is for anyone to form an opinion about this case if they don't know the original text. It was, as I recall, a userbox saying "Abortion|This user is pro-life and pro-choice". I wrote it with WP:GUS in mind. I hope no one got defensive about my mentioning the violence against abortion clinics? Xiner 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have not seen a cogent argument for speedily deleting my page. I thus feel Dmcdevit abused his admin privileges in this case and has filed a grievance at the appropriate page. Xiner 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. "I'm just stating what I believe" doesn't keep something from being inflammatory. Please direct me to these other pages you're complaining about so I can nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Category:Pro-Life_Wikipedians is a prominent example of what I'm talking about, and openly too while my page sat in my user space. I am also complaining about the speedy deletion that took place. While you promised to nominate the pro-lifer pages for deletion, my page was deleted without a whimper. Xiner 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:INN is a good essay to read in this case. This is a wiki, and deletion is necessarily inconsistent, if only because rightfully deleting one thing does not obligate someone to undertake rightfully deleting everything of the same type. If you actually want that page deleted, that's another thing, but its existence offers no argument for keeping your page. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  When I found the pro-lifer category, I wanted to nominate it for deletion, but decided to present a balancing view instead, which is now removed from Wikipedia. I'm waiting for Amarkov to do something about that page now. Xiner 04:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I assumed they were like yours. They are just like the standard pro-choice userbox, which wasn't deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew it. The only differences between mine and theirs is that theirs is in Template and Category while mine is in my userspace, and theirs implies I'm against life while mine just says everyone is pro-life. Can I say Biased Admin? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you won't do it, I've listed the related categories for renaming. Xiner 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia aims for neutrality, and templates used for transcluding POV advocacy and organizing Wikipedians by POV serve no productive purpose. That is why this userbox was deleted as divisive. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, my page says an abortion supporter also supports life, while the pro-lifers' page implies I'm against life. Which is divisive? I'd also argue that deleting my page removes an inclusive point of view and is thus a divisive act itself. Xiner 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter what your POV advocacy was, just that it was. Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny the only thing you've said is that my page violates something. How about a substantive debate? Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete, provided that the content was something along the lines of "This user is pro-choice" and not "This user supports the slaughter of unborn babies". It was in userspace, and WP:GUS was applied for userboxes of a political or religious nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. My page falls under GUS while their pages fall under Template namespace rules. Apparently some admins find "This user is pro-life and pro-choice" inflammatory. Xiner 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete, list at TfD. Speedy may have been proper, but it seems controversial enough where a better hearing should probably happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for admitting at least that much. May I ask why I can't say I support life? Xiner 15:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really care what you state, honestly. But if it's obviously this controversial, you should be able to make your case in the proper forum. I don't know how it was worded at the time of deletion, so I don't want to make any real judgement calls. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete It makes me wonder what made this userbox so obnoxious and vile that it required speedy deletion. If Dmcdevit feels this box should be gone he should take it to MfD rather than going straight for the delete button. CharonX/talk 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So that people know what is at issue, here is the most recent version of this deleted usebox:

- TexasAndroid 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete not so inflamatory as to be a speedy candidate in userspace. Should be deleted through MfD instead. Eluchil404 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to MfD, that userbox isn't inflammatory enough to warrant a T1 deletion. Better to send it to a deletion debate rather than delete it outright, because this would definitely be a controversial issue. --Coredesat 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per Jimbo: "The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that." (from WP:JOU) -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per GTBacchus. T1 should not be applied to userfied userboxes. --NThurston 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete as I did. I've been off-wiki for a while, so I had no clue this was already here when I restored it as a simple mistake. Seeing now that it is, I must support undeletion. The box is userfied. T1 deletions of userfied content are very bad, as they threat to reignite the Userbox Wars. If a userfied box is egregiously bad, it will violate G10, and may be speedied. This box doesn't so violate, and deserves a hearing at MfD. Xoloz 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Having now seen the deleted userbox, this does not merit a T1 deletion, especially in userspace. MfD is optional in my mind, so I really don't care whether it receives an MfD nomination. GRBerry 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & Undelete as a WP:GUSed userbox. Honestly, this was suppose to solve all of this, not just delay inevitable deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to MfD. I think the correct result originally happened (POV advocacy is bad regardless of which side is doing it), but I think enough people object that a debate is warranted. Chris cheese whine 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  But it's ok to say you "will not stand for American 'English' (common grammatical and spelling errors mistaken for dialect)"? Xiner 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Damn straight. You did read the big bright bold messages at the top of my userpage, right? Chris cheese whine 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  But mine, well, that's another story. Xiner 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  My non-template patently-humorous box can stay while your template-in-userspace deadly-serious POV box might have to go, that's so obviously discrimination. Here, have a cookie. Chris cheese whine 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What to someone is "patently-humorous" may not be to someone else. If you think my userbox is deadly serious, you're sadly mistaken. Xiner 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Undelete; T1 is not a valid criterion for the speedy deletion of userfied userboxes. Perhaps put it on MfD instead, since its content seems at least somewhat objectionable, but T1 does not apply. CameoAppearance ^orate 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory about this box. It shows someone can be pro-abortion and pro-life at the same time. It actually tries to stop those inflammatory situations that arise from who think they're mutually exclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Undelete. If it's in userspace, it shouldn't be deleted. jgp ^T_C 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm: This was undeleted quite a while ago, with no objection from me. Please spend your time doing something more useful before looking at this. :-) Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close per Dmcdevit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the only reason you've stopped objecting to the undeletion is the overwhelming consensus of your peers. I still think it's an abuse of adminship, but regardless, this case itself is due for an end. Xiner 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Undelete, MfD please if you want to. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn & Undelete There is no way that this is the kind of noncontroversial deletion envisioned by CSD. While assuming good faith, I do think that a disinterested party should look at whether sanctions on the original deletion are in order for the following reasons: First, this userbox is in User space, not Template space, so T1 is, by my reading, inapplicable. Second, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would consider the deletion of a userfied userbox as noncontroversial, much less the deletion of a userfied userbox dealing with abortion. Undelete it, leave it be, & edit articles instead. --Ssbohio 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo2Leagues.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

This page is not spam, we are posting information about a free leagues website. If MLG has the right to a page we should also have that same right. CBTS Pennywise1 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per sixth word of the above nomination, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your site. No version of the article asserted notability despite repeated recreation, let alone verified it with reference to non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. No-one has the "right" to a page, see WP:INN. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See WP:ILIKEIT, that one article exists is not automatic permission for any article on the same subject to stay around... if whatever MLG is doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, feel free to nominate it for deletion. --W.marsh 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - the page was actually up for about a week or two before it was deleted, so deleting it then was a little harsh. Regarding verification and reliable sources - I own the site, so anything quoted on that page can be sourced from the site - most of the info is on the "About H2L" page. I feel that information that appears on our site which describes it, it's purpose, features and history should be included in an encyclopedia, as it is worthy content. And also MLG was nominated for deletion before, but managed to remain after it was voted to keep the page. Can I also add - if you guys seem to think that our page the way it was didn't comply with your views - how should we create it so that it will be worthy of being in the encyclopedia? --- TheChrisD, Halo2Leagues.com Head Organiser 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think you'd be a neutral source about yourself, and certainly your site by itself is not enough to support your article. Try independent non-trivial material from reliable sources instead. If you're talking about Major League Gaming as the article that was kept, you'll see references from MSNBC and Gamespot in that article. ColourBurst 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, this was a valid A7. Also per W.marsh, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:INN. --Coredesat 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid CSD A7 and WP:COI issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:NOT and yes, this is spam. Xiner 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, salt, blacklist - Per above reasons and perhaps even corporate vanity. -WarthogDemon 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixity of the species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The article was originally called linnaean lawn when it was proposed for deletion. After being moved to fixity of the species, a more commonly used name, and more was added to the article, it was not reconsidered as a legitimate article by the many who agreed to delete the article. The article now meets all the wikipedia criteria (although, much more can be added). Furthermore, some who agreed to delete the article appeared to be confused as to the difference between "merging" and "deleting". Pbarnes 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Valid close, and you admit that the delete !voters didn't consider it legitimate after the changes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit what??? I said they didn't reconsider there votes. They assumed it was the same article as before with the same title as before. How in the world did you conclude "you admit that the delete !voters didn't consider it legitimate after the changes." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • You may be right, but you may also be wrong. Maybe they did reconsider it. Either way, there was nothing wrong with the process. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid process, and with only 84 Googles I see no pressing reason to spend too much time agonising further over this. If someone wants to make it a redirect to creationism or something then that should be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Closure was valid per procedure and policy. Doc Tropics 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User:Pbarnes re-created the article. I have re-deleted it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Raggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was speedied per CSD A7. The article contained an assertion of notability, however tenuous (major contributor to All Music Guide), so I feel the article should have been prodded or listed at AFD instead, to give editors a chance to clean up the article and attempt to make a stronger case for inclusion. The subject has had multiple articles published in a major newspaper (Seattle Weekly[17]), and as a significant contributor to All Music Guide (over 2000 reviews) his writing is widely quoted and reproduced with attribution by sites that use AMG metadata. I've written a draft stub that attempts to make a case for notability. --Muchness 04:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list, deletion seems to be trying to weasel WP:COI in as a speedy criterion. Which it isn't; it isn't even a deletion criterion by itself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Can you explain the WP:COI? I don't see a conflict of interest. —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 05:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must know what the COI is, as you deleted it for that. I'm confused. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn valid assertion made, A7 inapplicable. - crz crztalk 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undeleted I by no means intended to do that. I appologize, Amarkov, thanks for pointing out that fallicy in my deletion reason. —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 06:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article has been undeleted in the light of more evidence produced. Evidence as to the notability of the article was not present either on the AfD discussion or the page itself. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Linux game. Has been mentioned in many industry publications, online and offline, e.g. linux.about.com, UnixReview.com, CNN.com. It was Game of the Month [18] at the Linux Game Tome, arguably the most notable online Linux game website. If we have any Linux open source games at all, then we should certainly have Pingus -- it is among the most well known ones. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingus did not show any consensus to delete.--Eloquence* 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. "Admin discretion" doesn't mean "delete whatever you feel like if you disagree with people who want it kept", or "Ignore given sources if you don't like them". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Notability is established here, and the AfD did not produce anything remotely close to consensus. -- Kicking222 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, but undelete. The sources offered here were not offered in the AfD, which means that, for once, I can endorse a NHN closure, but we obviously came to the close without the full information that made it apparent that it meets standards, so it should be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, but undelete due to new evidence (sources). AfD was pretty much WP:ILIKEIT voting, DRV nom thankfully is not. --W.marsh 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as there are enough sources mentioned here that weren't mentioned in the AFD to merit reconsideration. GRBerry 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Undelete. We've already proven notability. jgp ^T_C 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note: an anon misplaced this on the December 5th page; I've moved here, Patstuart^talk|edits 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Tourettes Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourettes guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourette's Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tourette's guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes guy (Oct 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy (Oct 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy (Feb 2006, delete)
• DRV, July 2006 [19] (endorse deletion)
• DRV, Nov 2006 [20] (endorse deletion)
• I make it 27 deletions (not including deletions of old deleted-protected pages), three AfDs, two DRVs. In no case has any debate I can find ever done anything other than delete or endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article for Tourette's Guy be reinstituted for the following reasons:

1. He is a famous person.

2. HIs website has sparked an internet phenomena, with many people visiting his the site to watch the videos of him in action, parodying his videos on YTMND, and putting his stuff on YouTube and other video-sharing websites.

3. Similar internet phenomena, such as "O Rly?" and "Leroy Jenkins" have their own Wiki pages.

4. He has appeared on an MTV commercial.

Moreover, any offense taken by those who think he is "faking" his illness and alcoholism ought to be disregarded, specifically on account that many offensive articles are to be found on Wikipedia. Certainly, if David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, not to mention a Cleaveland Steamer, have wikipedia pages and are not banned for the offensive content, Tourette's Guy can have his own? 69.22.252.216 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

• Endorse deletion as per previous debates. No new evidence, WP:ITSFUNNY does not trump WP:V, WP:OTHERCRUFTEXISTS does not trump WP:N. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks PatStuart, I was the person who put it there. Sorry about the date! Anyway, re: the above user's points.

It is most certainly verifiable. The man's website routinely adds new videos of him doing stupid things and his works are widely dispersed over the internet. His existence as a subject of a series of videos about his antics is grounded in fact and this so much can be seen by simply looking at said videos. Moreover, a search on Yahoo for "Tourette's Guy" brought up over 9000 results. This is a level of notority worthy of mentioning on an Encylopedia, specifically when we have articles on Japanese anime characters, professional wrestlers, and webcomics - all equally as trivial as the Tourette's guy.

There is simply no sensible reason why Tourette's guy should not be included in a small entry on Wikipedia.69.22.252.216 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)(Anonymous).[reply]

• That which is "verifiable" only by reference to the guy's own website or by reference to crap off "teh internets" is not verifiable per policy. Please provide evidence that this has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Cite new evidence available since this was endorsed last month. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The version I looked at was a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35 10 December 2006 (GMT).

• Endorse deletion and let it drop already. It's most definitely not verifiable, and it's probably not notable. No reason given why three seperate AfDs and two DRVs should be overturned. You could at least provide some of these reliable sources you claim to have, since you need them for verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The AfD on the above article was speedily closed by Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the explanation "NN blogs (it's on Livejournal) and attack pages both qualify for speedy deletion". Regarding the non-notability: the article asserted that the site was covered by Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today. Those are all "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", which means that the article met WP:WEB. Whether the site is hosted by LiveJournal is immaterial. Rachael Ray Sucks also didn't qualify for G10 because it was not an attack in itself: it merely reported an attack site. Writing about an insult does not repeat the insult. This means that the article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I request reopening the AfD, to assess some kind of community consensus. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - non-notable attack site. Newyorkbrad 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an attack site. But what matters is whether it was an attack article. Attack articles qualify for G10, articles about attack sites do not. And how is it non-notable with the outside coverage? (Yes, it needs referencing, but that's no ground for speedy deletion.) Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per nom. Seems to meet the relevant standards, but certainly shouldn't have been speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G10 covers articles that only attack a subject, not articles about websites that do so. If/when sent through AfD, it'll probably end up being deleted anyway, but that's neither here nor there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow AfD to run its course. Not an unambiguous speedy. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Article never even alleged notability, it's not even on its own website, it's a Livejournal blog, there's nothing notable about it, and therefore it clearly fails WP:WEB. There were four sentences, nothing which talks about the website itselft, no sources except to the site itself and to the place where the quote from Rachael Ray about the site came from. Speedy endorse deletion (I was the most recent deleter). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article asserted notability in the sentence "The community has been mentioned in newspapers including Slate, Newsweek, The New York Times, and USA Today." That meets WP:WEB criterion 1: "The content [of the site] has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." And per WP:CSD: "If the assertion is controversial ..., the article should be nominated for AfD instead." Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Contrary to what Aecis is saying, it does not meet the notibility criteria sited. It was not the subject of the articles, but rather a passing reference. However, per JzG, it is not a unanimous/unambiguous speedy, and should have let the AfD go. - JNighthawk 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Notability is asserted, so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. jgp ^T_C 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist about an attack page rather than being one itself. Let AfD determine whether the sources cited cause the subject to meet WP:WEB. JChap2007 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin emperor style dildo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)

widespread pornographic usage

I believe this article should be undeleted. The mandarin emperor style dildo is being featured in more pornography and is for sale in numerous sex shops. 128.233.151.203 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been an article by this name. Are we being trolled? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to Mandarin Emperor style dildo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --W.marsh 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: The deletion argument is quite easy to make: one does not create an article for "low flow economy toilet," despite that being for sale, as what we're talking about is a specific design of a topic that has plenty of coverage here and elsewhere. Separate articles for every conceivable configuration, design, shape, action, orifice, color, scent, and speed setting of a vibrator is absolutely useless. Geogre 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, W.marsh. I think it's pretty clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin Emperor style dildo that we are being trolled. Speedy keep deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Poe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), AfD

0942 PT Dec 9, 2006 Heater Poe is the life partner of Mary Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney). It was announced this week that they are expecting a baby. She is mentioned several times in the Mary Cheney article. When you pull her up in Google there is a lot about her and photographs of her. She is important as she is one of the first openly gay spouses invited to the White House for State Dinners - (I.E. The recption for the Prince of Wales). She also helped co-auther Mary Cheney's book "Mine Turn" and has several chapters about her in the book. Her name is [[]] in the article and when I tried to expand it twice it was remove as being NON REVLEVANT. I think anyone with so many google pages, on the front pages of newspapers and in a current best selling book is revelent and should have an article on them. (By the way the comments from the remover were really in combative and natsy tone) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfphotocraft (talk • contribs).

• Why not just redirect to Mary Cheney? It's what we usually do with family of notable people, and it wouldn't need a DRV to just make a redirect. Also I don't see what comments from any of the 3 people who deleted this article had a "combative and nasty tone". --W.marsh 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe User:Sfphotocraft is referring to User talk:Sfphotocraft#Heather Poe which says "Please do not repost it again". Mike Dillon 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AFD consensus was clear and obvious. Nothing in the nomination indicates that she has any notability other than being the partner of a daughter of the current VP of the U.S. By our standards, the VP automatically merits an article, their children have to do something publicly notable to get an article, and the spouses/partners of those children really have to meet WP:BIO all on their own. De-redlinking the name in the Mary Cheney article would help prevent more attempts from recreation. GRBerry 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, but create redirect The AfD closure from ~6 months ago was obviously valid, and the person does not have any notability of her own. However, there's certainly no reason her name can't redirect to Mary Cheney's article. -- Kicking222 03:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, redirect and protect: I'll do it, if others won't. At this point, the name is going to be entered into the search box with increasing regularity ("Mary Cheney's Partner Pregnant! Film at 11:00!"), so we both need the redirect and need to prevent homophobes and ... others ... scribbling on the spot. (I'll do it meself.) Geogre 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cheney's the pregnant one, not Poe. Fan-1967 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that shows my interest in the President Vice President's Verbotten daughter's reproduction. Geogre 12:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD. Circumstances have changed considerably, and it should probably get a new hearing with that in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Geogre. She has no independent notability and can easily be covered in Mary Cheney's article. Eluchil404 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both the relationship and issues raised by the current situation make this topic noteworthy. Did the request originate with her?FasterPussycatWooHoo 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article made a notability claim and was sourced, it was a valid stup and should not have been speedy deleted. --Striver 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the logs, it seems the "source" is a google video, which isn't reliable (and is primary). Not to mention probably a copyright violation. ColourBurst 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just recreate the article as more than a tiny substub? Add some context, something about what the show's actually about? The article that was deleted had basically no useful information, it was less than you'd get from the TV Guide capsule description. Seems faster than DRV at any rate. --W.marsh 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ill recreate it and go for undelete history. withdraw nom. --Striver 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SheezyArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I closed the AfD for the article and speedy deleted it due to CSD A7, but since even those who supported speedy deletion mentioned it had a decent Alexa rank, and also due to requests, I'm placing this on review. Personally I still think it is a borderline speedy candidate. (Note that the article used to be titled Sheezyart, and was apparently copy-and-pasted to SheezyArt last year.) Kimchi.sg 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid A7, Alexa ranks are not indicators of notability. Will reconsider if notability is asserted and verified through multiple non-trivial reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. I actually had an account there once, amazingly enough, but I can attest to its non-notability. There isn't anything in the article itself that suggests that WP:WEB is met in any way. --Coredesat 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are talking about a site that now exceeds 100,000 members; would you consider a city of that size "non-notable"? Do you assert "non-notability" on the grounds that you did not enjoy your experience? Or simply based on the fact that the site is non-commercial unlike archives such as deviantART? Even that would be a spurious argument, as I can provide you upon request with the URLs for many artists who make a living off of their art who make use of SheezyArt. I suggest you justify your claim further, especially considering that you were a member. Exactly when were you a member--from what date to what date? What exactly did you find non-notable besides your dislike for the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.21.218.60 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Membership isn't a measure of notability, either. While I was there I did not see anything that showed that the site was very widely known or notable in any way aside from the number of members (granted, this was some time ago, but as far as I can tell, it still applies). Whether I can say it's notable or not, it doesn't solve the problem that the deleted article did not meet the standards in WP:WEB. --Coredesat 22:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cities cannot be equated to websites, simply due to the fact that the latter isn't bound by a physical location and is therefore easier to grow to 100,000 people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Alexa ranking doesn't mean automatic notability, and besides, A7 says "that do not assert notability", so if the article didn't mention anything which would make it notable, it's valid anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per everyone above. Not just does Alexa ranking not confer notability, but the site's Alexa ranking is in the 28,000s, which isn't that high to begin with. If no importance was asserted, then there's no reason not to speedy the article. -- Kicking222 03:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Alexa rank is higher than a lot of website articles that come and go, but nowhere near high enough to suggest this needs any special treatment or exemption from our fundamental policies. Besides, the article as written was almost entirely trivia desperately stretched out to get it near article length: server downtime this, forum drama that, etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R G C Levens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I wrote a stub about the Merton Classics don, R G C Levens (Robert Levens) which was twice speedily deleted for notoriety. As he was well known at the time for his school edition of Cicero Verrine V how do I get the entry restored if such arbitrary methods are used? Alternately someone might provide a fuller entry----Clive Sweeting

• Endorse deletion. He isn't notable, despite being the editor of some random Latin textbook. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a link to the AfD debate, if any. If speedied without debate, the decision is impossible for non-admins without access to the article to evaluate. Newyorkbrad 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the article said R G C Levens (Robert Levens)( - ) was Classical Moderations Tutor at Merton College, Oxford in the mid twentieth century. Married to the theatrical producer Daphne Levens (née Yarnold) he was particularly well known for his school edition of Cicero, Verrine Oration V. His only son, Andrew, was killed as an undergraduate in a traffic accident in Russia.. No claims of notability whatsoever. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" particularly well known " is a claim of notability, albeit somewhat strained. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 10 December 2006 (GMT).

We have gone over this many many times. If somebody writes "Joe Blow is particularly well known for his large penis and his way with the ladies", I can't speedy delete it? Be realistic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would more than likely be blatant vandalism. This, of course, is not analogous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion Not notable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but there is a case to make. The problem is that what was written gave no claim for notability except that he prepared a pedagogical edition of Cicero. It's exceptionally rare that an Oxford don produces such slim publication history. I would suspect that he far passes the Random J. Professor test, so the topic is probably highly appropriate, but the performance didn't give us anything to debate. Geogre 13:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. I'd say the "particularly known" part is a controversial enough assertion at this stage to give it its AfD. Remember A7: "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD — per Jeff. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD — per badlydrawnjeff. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete without prejudice to relisting if the article isn't improved within a reasonable period of time. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeouinaru Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The votes in the AfD were Keep: 8 (2 "Strong Keep" and 1 "Speedy Keep"), Delete (including nom): 5 (no "strong" or "speedy") . The closing administrator cited no sources for the reason for deletion. It is the view of at least some of the keep voters that rail and subway stations are inherently notable and per WP:AFDP ("Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [21]"), Wikipeida consensus has agreed with that. With 8 to 5 votes in favor for keeping and per precedent, this warrants an undeletion.

• Note: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We always know that. The vote is just one factor in this. --Oakshade 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So did the article have sources, as mandated by WP:V? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently it doesn't, but that's part of the point of this review. Per long standing precendent, it hasn't been felt that something considered inherently notable doesn't need sources or even assertation of notability. To memory, I don't recall a rail station ever being deleted even though hundreds (thousands?) don't have either. --Oakshade 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a one sentence article... I wasn't even sure how people verified that much was true as no sources were ever cited anywhere. That was the real problem... it's not my job as closer to do everyone's homework, if there were sources to be found, they should have at least been mentioned in the AfD. I think I was more than reasonable... if sources can be found, I would and still will undelete. --W.marsh 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean sources that confirm the validity of the content? That, of course, can be done quite easily (official station link) (google English translation). --Oakshade 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, we've confirmed that there's a "ferry point" :-) This would be where independent and hopefully english language sources are important, enough to create more than a directory entry at some point. Even this much wasn't presented in the AfD though. --W.marsh 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Notability does not automatically mean inclusion. No matter how notable something may be, you still must have reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The comment of the admin (W.marsh) who closed athe AfD was no reliable sources means no article..1-sentence substub....Provide sources and I will undelete Since this article hasn't been salted, if proper sources are provided and the article stub is filled out, someone could be bold and re-create the article, right, rather than having to bother with this DRV? Tubezone 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that would be the best way to go about it really. --W.marsh 06:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the first time I created a DRV, so I'm not completely familiar with protocol. With these latest comment and being the initiator of this review, I'm happy to withdraw it. Is it possible then to bring this to a speedy close? --Oakshade 07:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. Since it's a redirect anyway I recommend restoring the edit history behind it so if someone actually has the sources to expand it it can be done quickly. ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people whose full names are not commonly known (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

After looking at the AfD for this list, I'm concerned by the reasons given for deletion. Also, several people seem to have the wrong idea about what the list actually is. I've tried to follow the policy at the top of this page, and resolve this informally on the deleting admin's talk page first, but he refused to answer my specific points and pointed me straight here, so here I am, I guess. These were the three main points made for deletion:

• Criteria's too vague, lots of people don't have their full names commonly known

This point was made by several people, including the deleting admin, and it's quite valid - if the list really was a list of "people whose full names are not commonly known", it would be too vague. However, if you actually bother to look at the list, you'll notice it's specifically based around use of the person's first name. That's why I reworked the introductory paragraph there, to tighten the criteria needed to list a name, and suggested, with some support, that it be renamed to "List of people whose first names are not commonly used".

• Can't be verified or checked for notability

If there's an article on Sean Connery, he's passed the notability test.
Sean Connery's full name is Thomas Sean Connery.
Due to community consensus, and based on the volume of published works which use his name, he is referred to as "Sean Connery" throughout the article.
Therefore, by Wikipedia standards, he falls into the category of "someone whose first name is not commonly used", and is a valid candidate for the list.

Re: the original nominator's example: if there were no references, then all occurences of "Buzz Aldrin" in his own article should be replaced by "Edwin Eugene Aldrin". However, the article can use the Buzz name, since it has several references showing how frequently this name is used, even in official publications. (That's where the change from "known" to "used" becomes more useful.)

• List is unnecessary, just go to the person's page

This defeats the purpose of the list. If you're trying to find people whose first names aren't commonly used, and you don't know exactly who you're looking for, what do you type into the search box? Quote from WP:LIST:

If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

Indeed, there is a whole category, "Lists of people by name feature", which is then seperated based on the nature of the common name. This list is now a notable omission from the category. (However, List of people named after famous people seems far too vague, so I've prodded it).

I made most of those points during the discussion, but they went unanswered. Based on those points, I still believe the list should be renamed to List of people whose first names are not commonly used, as proposed. If, at the end of the day, there's a true consensus to delete it, fine, - but I'd still like to hear a few answers to those specific points. Thanks for your time. Quack 688 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. "Commonly known" is entirely based on editors' POV, as the nominator admits by saying that the basis for Sean Connery being on the list is because that's what we refer him to as in his article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As this isn't AfD round 2, let me be more specific about process; the main argument for the consensus that argued for deletion in the AfD was that 'commonly known' is POV, and this is absolutely right. Hence, valid AfD and no reason to overturn. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The main argument seemed to be that it was POV what is "commonly known", which it is. Even if it wasn't the main argument, I'd still endorse deletion for that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, we should refer to this guy as "Thomas Sean Connery" in his own article, since "it's POV to say his common name is Sean Connery". However, if it's community consensus that the shorter name is the one more commonly used to identify a particular individual, then it should be used all across Wikipedia - both in his own article, and in this list. I'm just after a bit of consistency.

As I previously said, I agree that "commonly known" is bad, that's why I proposed changing it to "commonly used", since it's easier to verify. Can we please direct any future comments towards that? Quack 688 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • But we still don't know how common something must be to be "commonly used". To address your other point, that isn't POV, any more than it's POV to use "humor" instead of "humour". It's just the name we use, it doesn't express a viewpoint. To say something is "commonly used" does express a viewpoint. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree - continually referring to him as "Sean Connery" throughout the article isn't "just the name we use", and it's not a regional issue like spelling - it makes an implicit statement that "Sean Connery" is, in fact, his common name. That is simply an editor's POV - until reliable sources are supplied, that is. The only reason people can use this name is because they have references at the bottom of the article, showing how often he's referred to as such in primary sources. However, I can't refer to author Robert A. Heinlein as "Anson Heinlein", since there are no sources which suggest that this name is commonly used. It's all about the sources. (I've got some errands to run, I won't be able to answer for a while, but I hope people keep this in mind.) Quack 688 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid per process. Also valid per policy: list is subjective (define "commonly known") As to the nickname argument, that's why we have redirects. No reason to overturn deletion of this subjective list. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, I've said four times on the page (twice in bold text) that the term "commonly known" is inherently problematic and should be replaced. Quack 688 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per everyone above. Incredibly subjective criteria for the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an encyclopedia primarily uses the name "Sean Connery", then it is already implicitly claiming that this is his common name, not just a fashionable nickname. A reputable encyclopedia should not imply anything that it is not prepared to openly state, and needs to be consistent across all its articles.

Can you please be more specific, and say exactly what part of the following reasoning is "incredibly subjective"?

- The name "Anson Heinlein" does not appear in any notable sources, so it would be intellectually dishonest for an encyclopedia to suggest that this is Heinlein's common name - either explicitly ("He commonly uses the name Anson Heinlein"), or implicitly ("Anson Heinlein did X, Anson Heinlein did Y...")

- Connery's birth name is "Thomas Sean Connery".

- The name "Sean Connery" is used in primary sources much more often than his real name. (Interviews, award ceremonies, film credits, reviews, etc.)

- This is not his real name. (His real first name is Thomas, not Sean.)

- However, due to the weight of primary sources, "Sean Connery" can be used as his common name:

explicitly ("He is commonly referred to as Sean Connery", or "Thomas is his first name, but it is not commonly used")

implicitly ("Sean Connery did X, Sean Connery did Y"). Quack 688 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've struck the "incredibly subjective" section from my comment. However, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be more specific about saying "I agree with the other people who endorse the deletion".

Your rationale is moderately sound (though it potentially falls apart for anyone who isn't as famous as Sean Connery), but I still can't shake the opinion that this article is just plain useless. Sorry, but that's just how I feel. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to address the "useless" criticism, but first, I'd like to point out that verifiability was the main concern of the original nomination, and of several of the "delete per nom" comments there. If a valid verifiability method was presented to these people, several of them might change their stance.

Regarding its usefulness, I've mentioned the WP:LIST quote and my basic reasoning in my first post. Also, if you want to find examples of stage names, but you don't know anyone in particular, you can go to Stage name. However, that article's own criteria makes it clear that Sean Connery is not welcome there:

People whose main forename just happens not to be the first one (such as Paul McCartney and Marie Osmond) are not listed here—these are their real names, not stage names.

This sounds like the exact criteria for the deleted list - wouldn't this be a great list to link to from that paragraph? If you want to find examples of these people, but you don't know what names to type in, how do you go about it without a list? Type in random celebrities until you get lucky?

In summary, if the list helps users find the information they're after, if it's based on the same standards used throughout Wikipedia, and if the three main reasons used for deletion are addressed, the only reason outstanding is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Of course, someone could come up with a new reason for deletion, but that's what AfD is for. I'd be perfectly happy to see the article renamed, updated with the verifiability criteria I mentioned, then given a fresh procedural AfD listing. Hell, if someone revives it, I'll tidy it up and relist it for open discussion on AfD myself. How does that sound? Quack 688 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for Quack to recreate as [[List of people whose first names are not commonly used]] unless a better name can be found. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24 10 December 2006 (GMT).

• Please tell me that any reworked version is not going to contain the less than surprising fact that Katie Couric is named Katherine, or Bobby Cox is actually Robert. Next thing you know, they'll give us the shocking news that Dick Cheney is actually named Richard. Fan-1967 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, common abbreviations like those shouldn't be there, and should be removed if discovered. Quack 688 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me that was a substantial fraction of the list in the earlier article. Fan-1967 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "A substantial fraction needs to be removed" (assuming that's true, it's a bit hard to check right now without access to the list) is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Quack 688 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse myself per closing statement and JzG. Yanksox 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You endorse yourself based on your own closing statement of "there are a great deal of people that their actual full names are not known."? Sigh. Like I said to Guy before, I've now said five times on this very page (twice in bold text) that the term "commonly known" is inherently problematic and should be replaced. It's six and three if you count this post. Same for the "full names" part. If you don't intend to address any of the specific points brought up here, I honestly don't know what else I can say. Quack 688 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to endorse myself, I'm not entirely insane, thank you. Let's take a look here, shall we? I judged this AfD based upon strength of argument this is not another AfD. There was almost no or barely any strength in the argument for keeping this page. The subject matter is inheriently trivial, and nearly on the boderline of insanity. Also, I don't think anyone is too keen on you essentially badgering everyone here about how you feel about this page. Just because you're going on near tirades doesn't negate the consensus of the AfD, which is being fully endorsed. Yanksox 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never suggested you were insane, and I don't appreciate your statement that the list is bordering on insanity (and the implication that anyone who endorses this list might also be bordering on insanity). The main concern people had with the article was verifiability. I've outlined a method of verifying the statement "Sean Connery's first name is not commonly used". Too many people's full names aren't commonly known? That's what the rename's for. The article is trivial? It's a list - it's not supposed to add new information itself. It's used to organize existing information based on a common feature, just like the current list of stage names. That's the purpose of a list. Several people commented that it was useful, just not verifiable.

I thought the point of the discussion process was to highlight problems in an article. Three main problems were found, and I proposed three solutions for them. If there's a specific problem with one of my solutions, point it out and it can be addressed. If my solutions are valid, then the original concerns have been addressed, and the article should be kept. At they very least,it should be fixed, then put back on AfD so people can check and see if their concerns have been addressed or not. Quack 688 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I haven't seen any comments in a couple of days - what happens now? If there aren't any new criticisms beyond those I've addressed above, can I get this list put on my user page to start work on those problems? Quack 688 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Con Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

What? Closed in less than one day? It may have been bad, but from what I saw, it was not that self-evidentially bad. 4 people was too little to generate discussion, and it was not even unanimous. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]