Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 16-30

< June 1-15 2007 Deletion review archives July 1-15 2007 >

30 June 2007

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

The page was deleted because Adam Cuerden thought one section of the page was copyrighted, In reality the single section paraphrased the source and the terminology and wording was vaguely similar. The person concluded that if a few sentences were copyrighted then the entire page must be copyrighted(despite it's being several years old) so he deleted the entire page without even bothering to find other instances of copyright or discussing it on the articles talk page after having removed the suspected content. The user has been addressed here on the articles talk page [[1]] Wikidudeman (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the content of the article and placed the deletion review tags at the top of the text. I'm sure this can be resolved amicably. Tim Vickers 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that a major contributor is claiming that quotes that are extremely near the original aren't copyvio - that's exceptionally worrisome. It makes my worries of copyvio elsewhere all the stronger, as Wikidudeman was such a big contributor. Adam Cuerden talk 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing a source isn't the same as copying it. If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. NONE of this justifies deleting the entire article mind you. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should never have been deleted. The concerns of Adam are being discussed on the talk page of the article and the evidence that this is a copyvio is flimsy at best and most clearly this is not a case of CSD G12. Pascal.Tesson 17:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing a source isn't the same as copying it. If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. NONE of this justifies deleting the entire article mind you. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Pascal.Tesson. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, although those re-workings of the source should really be a bit more thorough, so that the it is no longer even close to the original, I don't think this meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Moreover, rather than assuming that other text that may be copyrighted exists in the article and deleting all of the content (including some I have written myself Adam), it would be best to just highlight the items you have found on the talk page. Tim Vickers 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speedy tags should go off, and the offending paragraphs temporarily moved to the talk page, and then have the editors discuss it. Deleting it doesn't seem right. enochlau (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim Vickers and enochlau. The WORST scenario is I failed to paraphrase the source more. As Pascal.Tesson has said, the objections to it are flimsy at best and it should simply be changed a bit more so it's not as similar to the source it was taken from. As clarified above, The two versions are drastically different and hardly a cause for any concern. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that a few sentences were near, it's that the information was in the same order, and much of the phrasing was the same, and it was then attributed to a different source. However, I'll provisionally accept that no further copyvio exists, though a complete reworking'd probably be best, to move it further from problems. Adam Cuerden talk 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Containing the same content and being in the same order and being attributed to a different source (not sure about that one) don't mean it's a copyright violation. I could of quoted an entire sentence from them and it wouldn't have been a copyright violation. I paraphrased what the source said and put it into my own words, sure it was in similar order, so what? Reworking the article isn't required, If you're concerned on specific aspects of it then I would suggest you address them as they come up, Right now you seem to only want the article gone or back to how it was a year ago. Take a look at how it was last year [[2]].

Wikidudeman (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'm glad that was resolved so quickly. Thanks everybody. Tim Vickers 17:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this request be removed since the problem has been solved? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted as Non-notable Advert with insufficient sources. I arugue that sources were indeed missing, but Article was not non-notable, and not an advert. Maybe should be restored along with Pullyapantsup, Australia (possibly merged) and tagged with {{Unreferenced}} Kc4 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Valid AfD. Consensus is clear when the quality of the arguments (and policy) is taken into account. Eluchil404 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse you can't argue the AfD was wrong unless you have a strong argument (like coming up with those sources). DRV is mainly concerned with whether the deleting administrator's actions were reasonable. And asking for an unreferenced article is be undeleted so you can add an unreferenced tag is scoffable. -N 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment why waste the effort of creating the article in the first place, most of the source are the lenny games themselves. Kc4 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lack of secondary sources makes a prima facia case for non-notability. Articles on minor subjects without independent sources are routinely deleted as inappropriate for Wikipedia. That doesn't imply any particular judgment on the subject itself (I happen to really like the games in question) but rather goes to the appropriate scope of an encyclopedia and the necessity for attribution of content. Eluchil404 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closing admin this wasnt deleted as an advert that was the previous WP:CSD deletion which was under G11, that discussion in January concluded it wasnt advertising, hence the deletion wasnt appropriate, though it also indicated it was probably WP:CSD#A7(non notable). This AfD raised the issue of notability while the majority opinion was to delete, the keep opinions didnt offer anything to establish notability, the one source provided was only a game review there was nothing in the review to established it as being notable. Gnangarra 09:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Closing admin followed clear consensus; no case. DRV is not the Supreme Court. Orderinchaos 12:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Klingoncowboy4 suggested I come here as the closing admin. Sorry, I don't have a mop it wasn't me. My suggestion was for a merge but I can see why it would have been deleted.Garrie 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Thomas Howarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

My concern here is that the discussion was speedily closed after notability guidelines created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket were cited. However, these guidelines do not appear in Wikipedia:Notability, either as guidleines or a proposal. Instead, they are confined to the Wikiproject page, and appear to have been decided on by Wikiproject participants. Notability proposals put forward by Wikiprojects which are listed under WP:NOTE would be a different case, as then the whole community would get a chance to take part in the discussion. However, confining the discussion to a Wikiproject means most people are unaware of proposals, even though they could end up being cited in AfD. This seems to me to be something of a walled garden. I'd say that only notability/inclusion criteria that come about via discussions on Wikipedia:Notability pages should be cited as consensus decisions in AfD debates. Therefore, I propose the article be relisted in AfD Lurker 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A speedy keep is a procedural not a substantive decision. If you think the article should be deleted, just relist it yourself. You don't have to come to DRV. Pan Dan 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created (by myself) and speedily kept by longstanding principles on WP:CRIC, and WP:SNOW respectively. Going through another AfD will, I wholeheartedly believe, produce the same outcome as before, however, if you wish to do so, feel free. Bobo. 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To refer to a Wikipedia:Notability guideline, here is the criteria for notability of athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport" First-class cricket is the highest level of the game before we get to international contests, and is the level at which the vast majority (if not all) of the world's fully professional leagues are played at. This player played one such game, hence is notable. Andrew nixon 17:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can argue that the Wikipedia notability guideliners should be changed, but if the current clear guideline quoted by Andrew is to be changed then it needs to be replaced by something equally clear if we are to know where we stand. In the meantime, I can see no grounds for deleting the article. If the final decision is to delete it, then there are literally hundreds of other articles that logically should go as well. JH (talk page) 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not all first class cricketers were professionals. Many were amatuers. That's why you need a clear line. First class or list A seems sensible. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there is a real notability guideline, then I see no need for relisting it. I raised it because of the citation of a Wikiproject page as a consensus notability guideline- I didn't realise there was something in the actual notability guidelines that would allow it to be kept. Nomination withdrawn Lurker 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All first class cricketers meet the notability requirement for sportsmen that have been established for a long time. Haddiscoe 00:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mohamed Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted in 2005 with the following reason: '{{db-nocontext}}Dictator in algeria for 1 week'}. Provided the page content itself isn't ground for deletion I think the give reason alone is spurious. Also, two pages link to this page. meco 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it were me I'd probably just recreate this as a redirect to Islamic_Salvation_Front. As you can see from the log, the page content as simply the words "Dictator in algeria for 1 week". --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may have misread those words as the deleting admin's rationale for deletion. I'm not sure that I should have been able to assess this correctly. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a properly referenced stub (or even a redirect as Tony suggested). Undeleting six words is not worth the effort it would require, and there is not, and has not been, any bar to starting anew here. Xtifr tälk 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will, of course, as deleter, say that this was deleted totally in accordance with policy. :) But...There was basically *no content*... it said: "Dictator in algeria for 1 week". These sorts of deletions aren't done with any prejudice against a recreation, that actually has content (assuming it exceeds other deletability bench marks....which it should!). --Stephanie talk 11:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you seeing now that the article was in fact almost empty. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree: there was minimal content, but enough that the article could not be called "patent nonsense" (G1, the only speedy criteria that mentions a lack of content), and it certainly had context, so it didn't qualify as A1 either. I think the deletion was absolutely against policy, and if it had consisted of more than six words, I might actually care! :) Xtifr tälk 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Oh come on...if he's notable, create the article. Don't waste time on DRV trying to restore a 6 word article. ^demon[omg plz] 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

29 June 2007

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

Delete due to infamatory and defamation of character links and irrevelance to modern history

I am requesting the reconsideration of the deletion of Mark Bellinhaus' Wikipedia page. Not only are the links that are attached to his profile filled with misguided and hateful propaganda but I cannot see the relevance that this person has to the modern world. It is a waste of Wikipedia's space and a serious embarrassment to the integrity of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.50.16 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2007


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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. However it seems to me that an article about a charitable foundation which states that it has created and runs two schools, a hospital, and an Eye institute; that it has existed for over one hundred years; and that it is "an important spiritual destination of Northern India" at least asserts the significance of that institution. This would need sources and probably expansion to pass an AfD, but I don't think a speedy deletion is warranted. Overturn the speedy, and optionally send to AfD, to allow sources to be found if they can be. DES (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then after restoration, revert to a clean version, or if only part of the content is a copyvio, delete that part, and posisbly selectivly delete any copyvio revisions. No need to delete the whole thing if there is a clean version.DES (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the viability of the article has to be judged from the clean version. The top version can't be restored. The obvious thing to do is to restore only the June 10 version and list it on AfD. Chick Bowen 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joey Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, and salted to prevent recreation. The article, as it was before deletion, asserts that "Joey skates in local and national competitions and has been invited to skate at the AST Dew Tour in both 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he became the youngest skateboarder in the world to perform a 540 at the Dew tour." and "Joey skates at competitions around the United States". The article as it was written would require both cleanup and sourcing to pass an AfD, but it seems to me that those are pretty clear "claims of significance" -- sporting competition in any sport at a national level is a pretty good indication of significance, and if sourced, will normally pas WP:BIO. Therefore i don't think A7 applied. Overturn. DES (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am the person who created this page. I also do his PR and his website. He has gotten massive press locally, regionally, at LAT34 (the extreme sports network news outlet), and has had interest from national TV morning shows, and even Ellen DeGeneres.

My plan was to just make an entry and later add supporting details but I never had the opportunity to do that because it was immediately deleted (within minutes).

I would be happy to do a detailed page and submit it. Is there an area to submit to for approval? This is all very new to me. Thank you!

How do we get it unprotected so I can do that? What is Afd?

Also....there are videos on YouTube from two of the stations that interviewed him, along with pro skater Bucky Lasek (also from Maryland)- WBAL TV and 98 Rock Radio

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. The article was about a stunt performer. It said "Oakley has doubled for many of today's top actors including Paul Walker, Josh Lucas, Chris Evans, and Josh Duhamel." And the IMDB lists over 30 stunt roles for Lehman, some in quite notable films such as Snakes on a Plane, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Timeline, and The Fast and the Furious. I think that working as a stunt double for multiple notable actors is at least a claim of notability. Overturn and send to AfD DES (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I think that "He shot to fame for putting down caste based riots in southern Tamil Nadu with iron hands" and "He was awarded with the 'Communal Harmony Award' by the Governor for his efforts." and "The Periyar University, Salem in Tamil Nadu has appointed him as the Honorary Visiting Faculty" are at least assertions of significance or importance. it might well be that this article would have PoV problems -- it might even be that it would be deleted at an AfD, but no one can be sure of that in advance. A good article might result. Overturn speedy deletion. DES (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article clearly asserts notability. I tried to contest this prod, but Spartaz refused to undelete the article, stating that it was a7 - but it's not: it clearly asserts notability. A7 says nothing about sourcing anyway, though I can include some: Polish newspaper, independent South African site calling it a "top Polish band" (I can look for others, but I speak no Polish). The archived version of the page can be found here. 64.178.96.168 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This would need expansion and sourcing to pass an AfD, but "The band released several CD" is a claim of significance, and if sourced might alone pass WP:MUSIC (depending on whether they are self-published or not) This was deleted as an expired prod, which is supposed to be an automatic undelete if anyone questions the matter. But ignoring that technicality, and assuming it had been speedy-delted under A7, Overturn and send to AfD so that notability or lack of it can be established by consensus discussion. DES (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in the nomination, right here. You said you wouldn't restore the prod. 64.178.96.168 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I remember this now. Personally I don't see any reason why you simply don't go ahead and rewrite it with sources as the deleted article was one line and from April. Hmm I seem to be reversing myself a lot this week - but this clearly was a lousy decision. I have undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2007 London car bombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1|AfD 2)

A deletion discussion was never permitted. Event happened today (29 Jan) and both of the AfD discussions were speedily closed today. First was closed with just two comments (lasted just 14 minutes since start to closure). Second with mere four comments (lasted just 13 minutes since start to closure). I feel this is a minor event that is worthy of a wikinews article but not a wikipedia article. A merge would be a fine alternative to delete. I do not see why it was speedy kept

-- Cat chi? 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure if you want a merge why do you want an AFD? Just discuss on the article talk page. At any rate it's impossible to assess how important this will be in the long run at this point... if people want to generate a verifiable article here for now, that's fine. --W.marsh 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdrew merger suggestion. It isn't worth a merger. -- Cat chi? 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy - it's worth having a discussion, and falls under no categories of WP:CSK. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify: as long as it's on the front page, I agree with Tariq's reasoning. It's ugly, and it will probably be keep, so we should keep the deletion notice off the front page. The Evil Spartan 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind. Endorse speedy for now clearly appears to be a notable event. The Evil Spartan 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by one of the closing admins Although this does not nicely fit one of the points under WP:CSK, WP:CSK "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This is an example of "common sense" and "occasional exception", as there was overwhelming support for keeping the article and the event is still unfolding (thereby making its notability impossible to assess). Besides, the rationale behind this deletion request was almost entirely a "What about article X?" rationale. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep - Attempting to open a debate to delete an article related to top-headline news event just seems extremely premature. The nominator should have considered that not only the information on the event but also the significance of the event story is in flux. He should have waited a few days to see if the story would achieve the notability level that is justified for a Wikipedia article. (While Wikipedia is not a news source, Wikipedia can be used to record recent events as described in news sources.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by other closing admin: I fully agree with Tariqabjotu. It's entirely too early to tell if this will be notable or not. If in a week or so we decide it's not, AfD it then. What's the rush? Why this has to be deleted now is what I truly fail to grasp. ^demon 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep This sails over the notability bar. Haddiscoe 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. For now this is useful. In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is acknowledged in the international press as a very competent chronicler of events as they happen. In due course we may want to merge it and trim, perhaps into an article about post-2001 terrorist bombings in London. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeps there's a line where deletionism goes too far, and that line was crossed sadly by requesting the article to be deleted. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep according to WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". It is definitely clear this sentence turns out to be true in the case. --Angelo 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, current events that is well-covered by international press (particularly the BBC), comparable to 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. As a thumb of rule we do not nominate Main Page material that has passed vetting for deletion. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Notability completely obvious Johnbod 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This event has been the subject of days of non-stop international coverage and the article cites dozens of sources. Notability is proven. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep This comment on the second AfD says it all: Airplanes collide with structures in New York on a regular basis. That doesn't stop us from having articles on all of them. Mathmo Talk 06:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep and why are we still debating this? per the above and WP:SNOW - let's see there are about 30 footnotes with such reliable sources as Reuters, BBC, SkyNews, etc. At moment 1 questions as to notability may have properly been raised, but is anyone still contending it's not notable now? Let's just endorse the keep and if someone really wants to delete it send it to AfD to see how that proposal would fare. Carlossuarez46 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg – IfD closure endorsed. Per Nv8200p commenting below, the image may be re-uploaded with a substantially different fair use rationale, if its proponents really wish to press the argument. The DRV consensus below is that the old rationale was insufficient, and the deletion therefore justified. – Xoloz 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I do not believe the closing admin followed policy in deleting this image. His closing comments indicated that he deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on his own opinion that the image violated WP:NFCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate NFCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed NFCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on NFCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." This was not followed. There were disagreements as to whether this image passed both NFCC #2 and NFCC #8, but I can't see how anyone could in good faith come to the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I informed the closing admin of this, but he does not appear willing to revisit his decision. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted the image because the arguments that the image didn't meet WP:FUC, particularly #8 and #2, were particularly compelling, and the arguments that it did not were not. WP:IFD's standard that Quadell is quoting are for typical editorial actions, not fair-use issues. Fair-use issues are, broadly: do not allow an image unless and until an image can just justified as fair-use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: If an image clearly violates policy, we can't keep it, even if a lot of people vote "Keep" just because they like it. In this case, however, the contention that the image violates NFCC#8 (that it doesn't "contribute significantly to an article") is a matter for the community to decide. A closing admin should follow consensus, not his own personal opinion on how important an image is. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn consensus was not followed. PageantUpdater 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer - the vote above was from the image's uploader. --Abu badali (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer - the disclaimer above was from the image's deletion nominator. ;-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I am a bit shocked of how the clear, reasonable consensus in keeping the image was not followed at all. A discussion was made on if the image would violate NFCC #8, and a wide consensus was found in support of the fact that this picture is significant for the beauty pageant article, probably even the only one to be really significant in it. --Angelo 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. One admin should not decide that an image fails #8. The fact that many more people disagreed with him in that did not matter, it seems. Have a legitimate discussion about it instead of simply wiping the image based on your opinion and nothing else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some sort of misconception that I decided this by myself and ignored the arguments. Rather, I examined the arguments, looked for what arguments weren't refuted and which were, and decided based on that. Since when are copyright issues decided with a nose count? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not decided with a nose-count, but they are decided with consensus. – Quadell (talk) (random) 06:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being claimed, here, that I just forced my own opinion through. Instead, I examined a discussion and derived its conclusion. That's what closing admins are supposed to be doing when they determine consensus, no matter what the context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Detailed discussion, administrator discretion in interpreting the weight of the arguments -- and the "Keep" arguments didn't hold much water -- not the unilateral and arbitrary decision some people above seem to be trying to imply. Calton | Talk 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Policy trumps snoutcounting, especially our policies in the realm of how Wikipedia interacts with copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of the opinion, as can be seen in the original discussion, that the image is simply not a fair use. It is a recently (as in, this year) photograph that I argue is still marketable. Wikipedia, as a top-ten website, can seriously affect the market of non-free images. Our use of every non-free image must be with discretion, not simply by seeing a non-free image and saying, "Oh, that image is not free ... well, then, its fair use!" I am also of the opinion that the "keep" comments were not particularly weighty. That said, I did make several assumptions in my own argument, and it could be said that my own argument was flimsy. I wish we had had more time to discuss. If this decision to delete this image is overturned, our use of the image will need to be discussed, on the image talk page / article or at another IFD (but please, no procedural listings, that's simply a waste of time and it drags the drama out longer). --Iamunknown 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of your views on this image, do you think consensus was followed in its deletion? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I offer no comment, for there is, or so I observe, a disparity between the popular concept of "consensus" and the marginalized concept of "reasonable interpretation of law", and I do not wish at this time to become embroiled in it. My previous post was more of a rambling about copyright issues, which unfortunately were not well addressed in the original deletion discussion because of (what I consider to be) a premature closure. (I do not begrudge the closing administrator; IFDs are, generally, promptly closed after five days, barring backlogs. I do wish, however, that we had more time to discuss.) --Iamunknown 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The IFD was closed after more then ten days, although it might have been wise for the closing admnin to wait until discussion had stalled. I agree with Quadell's comment here, your opinion on the matter is not the issue, what is the issue is whether consensus was followed. PageantUpdater 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, thanks to both of you for regarding my opinion as irrelelvant. How we can actually engage in a productive discussion while summarily considering another's opinion as irrelevant is beyond me. I think you are both asking the wrong question; copyright is not consensual. Our interpretation of what is a "fair use" is, to some extent, consensual, and it should be informed at least by the fair use factors and relevant case law, at most by our mission to be a free encyclopedia. Relevant case law is all about marketability. [3] [4] That wasn't even addressed in the IFD prior to my comment. Most of what was talked about was the significance of the image to the article (though these type of discussions are necessary in order to reconcile our mission to be a free encyclopedia with our use of non-free content). There was, however, no consensus to be followed concerning the marketability (i.e. what really matters as determined by recent cases in actual courts), because no one talked about it. --Iamunknown 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider an overturn if use of the image is reworked The original reason for nomination for deletion was correct and I believe the closing admin acted properly. The image was being used solely to illustrate the information that she was crowned. However, the image itself is unique and presents an emotional response that cannot be conveyed in words. If the image was used properly in the article, I believe it would meet NFCC #8. This means providing commentary on the image and what the image conveys. The website the image came from specifically states that images are provided at no charge so I don't see a conflict with NFCC #2. Beyond Wikipedia policies, I believe the image would also pass muster for a claim of fair use under U.S. Copyright law. -Nv8200p talk 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    About the re-work... any discussion about "the emotional response" this image conveys should be properly sourced, to avoid original research. I.e., Wikipedia can't be the first publication to talk about the "emotional response" of these kind of images.
    About the image being provided "at no charge"... the whole conditions from the source website says that the images are to be used solely by "news publications", and "for a period of sixty (60) days following your download of the photographs". We would need a strong fair use defense to use these images, since the copyright holder explicitly opposes to our use. --Abu badali (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fields (1970s band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Should not have been deleted because it passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC due to Andy McCulloch's membership in the band. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Process error. This category was deleted on 25 June following a deletion discussion in which only the nominator himself had commented. This was probably because few people knew about it, as there was no notice on the main article UMIST of the category, as suggested in Wikipedia guidelines for category deletions [5]. I was one of the main contributors to the deleted category, and I only found out about the proposed deletion a few hours after it had taken place. Previously suggestions regarding articles and categories related to UMIST or Manchester University have always attracted vigorous and knowledgable debate on the appropriate talk pages. I therefore request that the category deletion is reversed and relisted, with notification on the UMIST article page so that others can join the discussion. Although I'm asking for a relisting on the grounds of process, I would be equally happy with the categrory deletion simply being overturned, as I feel there is no prospect of reaching a consensus on this deletion. I myself strongly oppose the deletion of this category and there are solid reasons for retaining it. (The nominator has been kind enough to chat with me about those reasons on my user talk page - See [6] ) Dodo64 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

VFD_question Was poking through my watchlist to clean it out a bit, and remembered this article: Danny Sveinson, which was deleted back in 2005. I submit that the subject is notable, for reasons that I state in the original incarnation, but which were later removed in the version of the article presented in its VFD. Furthermore, it appears that the old version of this article was never examined for the purposes of the VFD. It's worth noting that I'm not really heavily invested in this article anymore, but I'm curious to find out if that version of the article would provide notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

SENSIBLE_NEW_ARTICLE -->I am Adam Long from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and I'd like to write a new article about myself. I know that it's not the done thing, but it looks like people have written a lot of rubbish under 'Adam Long' and I'd like to write a short piece detailing my work with Reduced Shakespeare and post-Reduced Shakespeare (Raindance award winning film, comedy for Lucasfilm, radio work for BBC Radio Four). Best, ajaxsemaphor Ajaxsemaphor 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse salting for now. I'm technically the deleting admin, but only because I did a mass migration of Salted pages from old salting to Title Protection salting a few days ago, and thus I had to delete the old salt page. I did not delete/salt the article originally. That said, looking through the history, we have a page that has indeed had a lot of "rubbish" in the past. Student vanity pages, etc. But the idea of un-salting this just so that another potential vanity page can be written, with no idea of whether the new page will be of any worth, is not appealing. My suggestion is that the nominator withdraw this DRV request, and first build out their intended article in theri User space, maybe at User:Ajaxsemaphor/Adam Long for instance. Then, once they actually are able to show that the intended article meets the various project policies (WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc.) a new DRV could be submitted and the situation could actually be effectively evaluated. As it is, the proposed new article is just too big of a question mark in my mind to support the unsalting of the page title. - TexasAndroid 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with the suggestion of salting. I'd be happy to work with Adam to compile a decent biography. My early research suggests that Adam is not only an early member of the Reduced Shakespeare Company which had a pretty heavy West End presence at one time, long a fixture at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly, but also The Barn, the screenplay of which he cowrote with fellow Reduced Shakespeare alumnus Jake Broder, won a Raindance award at British Independent Film Awards in 2004. More recently he contributed the script to "Star Wars: Shortened!", a Sky Movies-commissioned movie which does to George Lucas' magnum opus what the Reduced company earlier did to Shakespeare's oeuvre. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With Tony personally mentoring the page creation, I would consider unsalting to be acceptable under that circumstance. - TexasAndroid 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and undelete if there's anything salvageable. WP:COI says If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. - well they won't write anything if it's salted. In addition, autobiography is discouraged but not outright forbidden and since Tony S is offering to help out we shouldn't have any worries at all. CIreland 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to be salvaged. Of the three previously deleted versions, two were for different, totally NN Adam Longs, and the third, which was for the same Adam Long, read, in total: "Adam Long is a hilarious member of the Reduced Shakespeare company. He, along with his fellow members, has become a role model for many people out in the world who find Shakespeare dull." - TexasAndroid 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


28 June 2007

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

Just want to make this a redirect to ScrewAttack Buc 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are plenty of worthy articles on internet. G.ho.st has been reviewed in Red Herring, PC Magazine, Info world and thousands of Blogs. G.ho.st notability now is very high it returns nearly 120,000 Google results. Rami Abdulhadi 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Eight deletions, three protections; given G4, it would be difficult to claim that process was not followed here, although I can't see it ever having gone through XfD. One of the deleting admins did suggest DRV, but wouldn't AfD make more sense here? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Township of Asstree, Alabama. Heather 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow creation of new article if the sources are used. The last few deleted versions look like blatant advertisements with no salvageable content. JoshuaZ 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to undelete and go to the 5 Feb version per below. JoshuaZ 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember that G4 is never appropriate unless there is an AfD (or other XfD for non-articels) soemwhere in the history -- it is not for things previously Speedy deleted. The original delete was a speedy under A7 -- which doesn't apply to articles about software anyway. All others cited G4 (repost). The most recent few versions are spammy, and if they were they only versions i would say this could bdeleted as blantent advertising under G11, and forget that an incorrect criterion might have been listed in the log. But IMO the version of 5 February 2007 by User:Adel.Hazboun is not spammy. The text of that version reads "G.ho.st is a hosted OS or WebOS developed by Ghost Inc. It is an acronym of Global Hosted Operating SysTem. It provides, over the web, a working environment that is similar to the classic desktop provided by personal computer operating systems. As a web based service users are able to create, save and return to a working environment from anywhere over the Internet. G.ho.st software is currently in alpha stage." (plus an info box, a list of features, and various links). Overturn as improperly speedy deleted (because G4 doesn't apply, and there is celarly enough of an assertion of notability to avoid A7 -- which doesn't apply anyway) and revert to the version of 5 Feb, or the best spam-free prior version. After which, cleanup and source, or face an AfD. DES (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a good point, I didn't notice the lack of AfD (however all of my G4 cited deletions also read hugely like spam to me). I am happy to abstain provided a neutral and non-spam article can be written (lacking, as I said in one of my email conversations with an owner, original research) but prepare for an AfD otherwise. (5th Feb version looks like a good base article to me.) Ian¹³/t 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, nothing new here. Congratulations to the requester on finding deletion review wiht his very first edit, though. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please overturn deletion This is Zvi from G.ho.st. I truly apologize if our initial article was premature (before notability) or appeared biased in any way - we have absolutely no intent to reduce the quality of Wikipedia's wonderful content in any way. I believe that Notability is very clear now after multiple articles in major magazines and thousands of blogs and a major award from InfoWorld. I promise that our future article, if allowed, will be brief, factual, and based on externally validated data only.
  • Overturn and restore A prima facie case has been made for notability. Obviously notability may have been acquired recently, so the previous deletions carry little weight. Haddiscoe 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
:Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I don't think that a governmental agency fits under "people, groups, companies and web content" to which A7 is supposed to be limited. I don't know if this would survive an AfD or not, but IMO a speedy delete is not the best route for articles such as this. Clear evidence of notability might emerge at an AfD. Furthermore, from a very brief google search, it appears that the Commission was involved in a major class action suit over how cable television companies could or could not charge late fees, an action that influenced subsequent state-wide legislation. A scholarly account of the case is at this rand corp site, and a report on the legislation that refers to the Commission is at this state senate site. The site of the [http://www.secctv.org/downloads/about_SECC.pdf Sacramento Educational Cable Consortium] referred to the Commission, and this Multichannel news story discusses action by the commission on possible content restriction. of cable programming. In all I think the likelihood of a valid and useful article resulting is high. Overturn and expand. The deleting admin was requested to consider undeleting this -- no response has been made so far. DES (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BYU 100 Hour Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([[S
pecial:Undelete/BYU 100 Hour Board|restore]]|cache|AfD)

Like many other articles, this was subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and protected from recreation. The first version of the article was deleted for the same reason, but the second article provided ample evidence of notability, scope, and significance. The admin appears to have interpreted the 100 Hour Board to be a cork notice board rather than an online service similar to Google Answers. The Board is cited in multiple print media sources and websites, including Wikipedia itself. This open letter to Wikipedia details more articles in print media and online citations. Overturn as improper speedy deletion, or alternatively, list on AfD for proper discussion. - Peter 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why on earth would we want to have an article on a student website? What an utter waste of time and server resources. I guess that if you had edited slightly more widely you may not be quite so keen on an article on a student website, even if it can trace its history right back to an actual noticeboard. It's still not clear what the assertion of notability is supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criticizing Peter solely on the basis of his editing history is a cheap ad hominem shot. It's illustrative of the high emotions running on both sides of this issue, and that's why we would like a more thorough review of the article's merit by people who might be able to look at the situation a little more dispassionately. -- Soren.harward 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all those print media from BYU newspaper itself? If so, that presents an obvious problem in independent media covering it. Why does this deserve a separate article? It should work just fine as a redirect, or a sentence in the BYU article at best.-Wafulz 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I advise editors commenting here to read the open letter, which says, in part:

The 100 Hour Board has regularly appeared as the focus of news articles since 1999, most frequently in BYU's daily newspaper, the Daily Universe. In 2006, the Daily Universe began to publish a periodic column in its print and online publication with select questions and answers from the 100 Hour Board. A list of articles mentioning the 100 Hour Board is available here. The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT

The 100 Hour Board is frequently cited by third party sources on the Internet. Due to its affiliation with Brigham Young University, the 100 Hour Board often fields questions about the practices and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the university's sponsoring institution, which are not found in other easily-accessible sources. Some sites that refer to the 100 Hour Board include Boxxet.com, QDnow, and ProvoPulse. Wikipedia itself cites the 100 Hour Board as a source in multiple articles related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 100 Hour Board has an established reputation as a unique source for difficult-to-find information on any subject, not just BYU- and LDS-related topics. This makes the inclusion of the 100 Hour Board article on Wikipedia crucial for users who find information from the 100 Hour Board and want to analyze the source of that information.

    • I'm not sure if this is enough to pass an AfD, but i think that perhaps it takes this out of the A7 speedy delete zone. There is more relevant info in the rest of the letter. DES (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The process wonk in me wants this taken to AfD, but that seems like unnecessary processcruft, given the current consensus to either delete articles on student groups or merge them into the articles on the schools with which they are affiliated. If student groups with decades of history don't merit their own articles, I can't imagine a noticeboard (physical or electronic) surviving at AfD, even if it does have (non-independent) sources. No objections to a line or two in the article on the school. Heather 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This article has significant content about a censorship controversy with BYU; as there have been a number of such, and BYU is one of the universities which continues to claim such rights. Discussing university censorship of student opinion is significant. In the latest version, this is unsourced, and it needs to be sourced to show the significance of the controversy.

    the administration of BYUSA began to take issue with some of the content on the Board. They had received a complaint about an answer regarding a faculty member and wanted to moderate all content on the Board. ... a 100 Hour Board writer posted a controversial response regarding homosexuality without approval from the editors. When BYUSA administrators investigated the initial complaint, they discovered the unapproved answer and other content to which they objected. In response, BYUSA had a network administrator take down the whole site.

...a BYUSA administrator would approve every answer before it posted. During this brief period of operation, the Board editors reluctantly engaged in widespread censorship for the first time in the Board's history.... Depending on the sources, the article might hold up under AfD. There are several pages of local-interest only content about who was running the board at different times, and the like, which should of course be removed. Possibly this influenced the decision to use A7, and the significance, both with respect to what DESiegel noticed and with respect to what I noticed was overlooked. It's good that we have deletion review to deal with such cases.

Agreed, most student organization websites are not significant, but the few that are should have articles. DGG 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with DGG above about removing the local-interest only content, and sourcing the material on the censorship controversy. I also agree that being a student-run organization does not, in and of itself, mean that a separate article is superfluous. In particular, a site that receives over 70% of its visits (see the open letter) from outside its university's state clearly has a much wider audience than its own students. Disclosure: I am a current writer for the 100 Hour Board. Peppergrower 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD as per DGG. AfD should make sure that proper sourcing is added and verified to establish clear notability, or else opt for deletion. I urge that if this goes to AfD it not be closed early, to allow time for sources to be inserted. Alternatively, don't send to afd and check in two weeks or so -- afd then if not clearly notable based on sources. DES (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a deletion is likely to be controversial, it should not be speedy deleted, but rather sent to AfD. I vote that the speedy delete be overturned and that the article be sent to AfD—the speedy deletion is clearly controversial. The Jade Knight 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quote (from WP:SD):
    • "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum."
  • And under deletion #7 for articles:
    • "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. "
  • According to Wikipedia policy, the Speedy Deletion is clearly inappropriate, and the article belongs at AfD. The Jade Knight 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fuck process". It's a student website, coverage is only in student newspapers (which is not a claim to notability). And doubly fuck process in the face of blatant offsite solicitation (by the editor who created the article and has almost no other contributions to the project, of course) plus total lack of independence of the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had said "fuck process" in my RfA, it wouldn't have succeeded, and rightly so. DGG 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is untrue that "coverage is only in student newspapers": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU, and not student run. DES (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - There comes a point where process and rules become nothing but a hindrance. So what if it's sent to AfD? It'll be deleted, and we'll be right back where we are now, but seven days later. Sean William @ 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per JzG and Sean. The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper. Without more there is no way this would pass AfD. Citation in Wikipedia itself does not establish notability. There may be room for coverage of this in WP, just not in its own article. The "we" who "would like a more thorough review of the article's merit" should, after carefully reviewing WP:COI, may want to pursue this alternative course per WP:GETONWITHIT. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it is untrue that "The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU. DES (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you are refering to this: The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT. A single mention in a local newspaper still does not come close to notability. Student newspapers are usually independent of the universities at which they are based and usually cover the organizations on campus. AfDs have not considered such coverage as establishing the notability of the organizations, however.
    But guess what? Even if the "mention" in the Daily Herald is actually several sentences of coverage and even if a second source can somehow be found that the message board members themselves did not know about, and even if, based on these sources, a stub article can be created, it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU. Rather than burning hours on processwankery, it seems better simply to get on with writing that material. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "mentioned" might mean a single trivial reference, or it might mean multiple, non-trivial stories. I don't know, and it appears from your comment, neither do you. The language of the letter is not precise enough to easily find the citations, if they are there. If this went to an AfD, those supporting it would be able to find such citations and add them to the article, if they exist. Then it would be possible to intelligently discuss if the Board is notable enough for a separate article. You say that "it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU" You may well be right. I have often favored fewer, larger articles over more, smaller ones (note my merge of Aubrey-Maturin series several years ago, which some now want to undo). But that isn't always the best course, and i don't think we can say that it "undoubtedly" is best in this case without the opportunity for all editors to see the articles in question, and to work on them, adding properly sourced content and challenging improper or unforced content. A merge could be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and a consensus formed. Obviously some of those who comment here do doubt that such a merge is the proper course. And "hours" would not be burned on this DRV if those supporting the speedy deletion of this page had simply allowed it to be recreated and put to the test at an AfD, possibly after it had a little time to develop. You assume that such an article could never be anything beyond a stub, but I see no foundation for such an assumption. it might not be, in which case a merge would probably be a good idea, but how can you know in advance. Speedy deletes are supposed to be for uncontroversial cases where it is virtually sure that not even a valid stub will result. They are not supposed to be AfD in advance, with the admin guessing what will or won't happen at an afd that s/he doesn't permit to be held. Neither is DRV supposed to be AfD in advance, with people guessing what might be found and added to an article at a later point, while no one can actually edit the article, and non-admins can't even see what it used to look like. DES (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The open letter was puffing the board as much as possible. If it had truly been the subject of multiple stories in the Herald, it certainly would have mentioned this. The letter's co-signers included two people who are both members of the board and Wikipedia editors and are thus in a good position to know both the sources that cover the organization and the notability guidelines. Yet even they cannot seem to produce any independent sources on this board. The main reason why this article cannot be more than a stub (or even less) currently is the lack of sources. If the Daily Herald mentioned the board, it did not do so by name. Various Google News archive searches only show reprinted stories from the campus newspaper. When the conclusion is this bleeding obvious, I see no reason to waste hours at an AfD that looks likely to turn into puppet theater. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD I read the article a few times, and I may have saw some notability. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. "Fuck process" has no validity once someone objects to the action. Admins are not infallible and their judgment is not beyond question. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Xpression FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable Station Seddonism 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the original deletion discussion , that I was not aware of at the time, the main argument for deletion seemed to be based on the error that the station started in 2001, when it is actually one of the oldest in the country, and that a user believed that no student radio station merited inclusion, and on assumptions by users. While broadcasting on LPFM, this is to a significant geographical area (not the several metres mentioned), as well as online, and on regular citywide broadcasts to a potential audience of a large City. Membership of the station alone is in the region of 50-ish people each year made up of the current students. Many alumni (which include, apparently, Thom Yorke) have gone on to work in media professions (this could be an area for expansion). This NME student guide to Exeter University gives massive prominance to Xpression FM, which reflects its standing as a significant part of campus life. A 360 degree photo of Studio 1 was recently carried out, which should help show this isn't an operation run out of a bedroom. On this Wikipedia entry this is a group of some of the many student radio stations that have not been deleted. I am not arguing that they should - rather that this station seems to have been singled out. In addition there are pages for apparently hundreds of campus radio stations worldwide. Perhaps the article could be tiedied up - but this can't be done if it is deleted. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work as a useful resource - not every article is going to be of interest to every person.

  • Comment. Whether or not other articles are deleted isn't relevant- you can't expect a group of editors to find them all and immediately list them all for deletion.-Wafulz 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close discussion, no arguments presented for overturn. Corvus cornix 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, My arguument is that the basis for deleting this page was on incorrect assumptions (station broadcasts only within a few metres, is was only founded in 2001), and seems to have been singled out for deletion by someone with no knowledge of the subject, on the basis that as a student radio station it can't be important, when there are apparently hundreds of other, probably less notable, student radio stations with their own pages.

Seddonism 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, no problems with process asserted. Consensus is that student radio stations (like other student groups) do not merit their own articles. Heather 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong--about that statement: The standard was and is that student organizations and radio stations are usually NN; some few will be, but the article has to demonstrate it. There is no overall class of object about which it can be safely said that none of them can possibly be notable.
Right--about the article. But they did not show significance in the article, saying only that it was now on the regular broadcast MWBand., so
  • Endorse close, but not speedy--once a discussion has started, it should continue according to the rules & to avoid further arguments after the fact.DGG 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In principal DGG is right. But the smart-aleck in me reacts bady to absolutes, like "There is no overall class of object about which it can be safely said that none of them can possibly be notable." I defy anyone to suggest how an article about a particular shoelace (not sheelaces as a class) could ever be notable. DES (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped for a challenge. Good choice, let me think. If I can come up with something, it'll be on your talk page. DGG 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see not a single !vote in the AfD for keep. You can't complain that the staton was "singled out" when not a single person who discussed it at the AfD felt it was notable. Corvus cornix 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No one seems to be plausibly defending actual notability in this case. However, allow recreation if someone later finds evidence indicating specific individual notability of this particular station. DES (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability
  • The station is one of the oldest campus stations in the UK, celebtating it's 30th birthday in 2006. Unfortunately much of that history is in pre web days so i can't bombard you with links.
  • Local station Gemini FM has such high regard for Xpression that they give some of their own air time for Xpression produced programmes.
  • They are partnered by prestigious station, XFM
  • Xpression have in the past produced segments for Radio 1, the UKs biggest radio station for young people.
  • They have one numerous awards, including Guardian Media awards.
  • Alumni Include Radiohead's Thom Yorke, Formula 1 cmommentator Ted Kravitz, BBC presenter Daniel Lawrence, Radio 1 presenter Emma B , Metro Radio's Tony Horne just off the top of my head.

Correction to the above: "now on the regular broadcast MWBand" - this is how it started out, but is now on permanent LPFM.

In my opinion there seemed to be only a couple of informed comments in the original AFD, such as from "tdg1986", the rest were mostly blanket statement against student radio, or errors about how old it is, how far it broadcasts etc etc.

Anyway, I can't see myself winning you over - if anyone can provide me with the text from the page before it was deleted then that would be appreciated.

(Seddonism 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy – Ultimate outcome endorsed... Yes, policy was being pushed here, and as Ashley Y cites from a previous userbox close, proposals to expand CSD T1 (which were advocated for by the closing admins) have been rejected by the community. That being said, T1 is not the only criteria for speedy deletion, and I think that these fit CSD G10. This is particularly because of the images that the templates contain. It is one thing to say you are against Islamic misogeny. It is quite another thing to take a picture of a woman in burqa and call it an example of Islamic misogeny. To quote CSD G10: "[this] serve[s] no purpose but to disparage [the] subject or some other entity". I think these could be carefully recreated, but not with the current images in place. – IronGargoyle 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy (edit | [[Talk:User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It doesn't really matter what any admin thinks or where it is, T1 does not apply to userspace. End of argument. It just doesn't. Also nominating:

That speedy closure was utterly inappropriate, as there was not likely to be consensus on the issue. In addition, the consensus built around WP:UBM as well as what Jimbo has said implies that yes, a template in user space is actually quite different to an "officially sanctioned" template in template space, and WP:USER, not T1, applies. —Ashley Y 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think you are applying double standards here - Templatespace templates are intended to be used in Wikipedia and Article mainspace - thus they have to be NPOV and all that. Userboxes in userspace are solely intended to be used in userspace and rules there are much more relaxed. Basically you are applying the hard non-userspace rules on userspace, which is quite counter-intuitive, so say the least. 84.145.213.91 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at MfD Speedying an userspace userbox once again with T1, even though that one is already listed at MfD. No, that's not how the thing works. Let the MfD run and see what the community says. If they agree it should be deleted, ok, if not, then don't delete it. Last time I saw something very interesting on the top of the page for WP:CSD: "...In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule keep votes that might otherwise occur in AfD..." I think attempting to extend T1 to userspace is just that. And the community does not agree - see the results of the attempted widening of T1, the failed U4, and the DRVs which again and again overturn those speedy deletions. On a personal note, I find this usage of T1 on userspace distruptive. 84.145.213.91 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — 84.145.213.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's hard to tell if it was truely divisive and inflammatory without acutally seeing the template. --Android Mouse 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic T1. Endorse deletion. It even has a little picture of a flag on fire. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn T1 by its terms applies to tmeplate space only, and Jimbo has endorsed thsi restriction on it. This is soemwhat legalistic, but IMO any restriction on the use of T1 is a Good Thing. (Abolishing T1 would be better.) Recent discussion at WT:CSD show strong opposition to extending T1 to userspace, or anyhting like T1. DES (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Templates in user space still have to conform to template standards, and the title alone is divisive & has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. -- Kesh 07:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - clearly divisive and inflammatory. If it looks like a template and functions like a template then it is a template. Polemic doesn't belong in an encyclopedia that strives for neutrality. MER-C 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions, divisive, inflammatory, and polemic. These are essentially templates even though they are not in the template space. Just because something is in userspace doesn't mean it can ignore policies and guidelines. --Coredesat 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. To quote IronGargoyle's closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination), "Expansions of CSD T1 to include userspace transclusions have, however, been clearly rejected by the community and I must take this into account when considering the arguments for speedy deletion per CSD T1." See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist. —Ashley Y 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fight Club in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

User:Kurykh closed AfD2 as delete, but I believe there was no consensus and that every delete argument was sufficiently refuted. The closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means (there are concurrent discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT). It's therefore important to explain exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I interpret the entire discussion as being based on personal judgment calls, resulting in a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines. More people holding one opinion in this case is not indicative of consensus; consider that AfD2 is merely an extended rehash of AfD1 (no consensus) with a different sample of editors.

Kurykh told me that some of the keep arguments border on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was referring to a fundamental property common among all encyclopedia articles, and I used as basic examples lists that are not even in popular culture articles. If there's any legitimate application of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is it. See my final paragraph below for an illegitimate application.

The article certainly looks like a laundry list, but the format of the article is not an inherent fault: it can be converted to prose, and any "trivial" mentions can easily be removed. Throughout the debate, I repeatedly encouraged other editors who take issue with this to remove any unsourced items, which should take one minute at most (I did not do so because I was continually working to source those items, and removing them myself then adding them back later would defeat any chance of collaboration). No one did remove the "junk", but still a brief glance will allow anyone to see that a decently-sized portion of text would remain even if they are removed, a good size for an article that has no need for merging.

Some editors advocated such a selective merge, which would require a redirect and does not constitute a bolded delete. The closing statement also implies that a merge is possible. However, as pointed out in the AfD, merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary given many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with WP:SUMMARY.

Note: The following paragraph is obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it to argue for restoration, merely pointing out a relevant practical consequence.
If consensus here is to endorse closure, I urge there to be a community decision on whether to delete most if not all of the hundreds upon hundreds of in popular culture articles, because most if not all of them (including the featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc) take a format similar to this article. While previous attempts have been shot down, it's seriously inefficient and creepy to systematically an AfD on each and everyone of them, as the same arguments are repeated each time with no regard for the specifics of each article. This will also prevent people from nominating an article until it gets deleted. For instance, there's no essential difference between the nomination statements of AfD1 and AfD2 by the same user. –Pomte 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak endorse of this closure, but I agree with Pomte in saying that there wasn't much consensus and there is need for a broader solution on this issue. X in popular culture articles, or variants thereof, have been populating AfD quite heavily for some time now and every time virtually the same arguments get recycled. Efforts to come up with a broader solution may have failed in the past but it might be time to approach the issue again and seek a more definitive answer on how to deal with these kinds of articles. Arkyan • (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse closure - as nominator. Closing admin correctly interpreted the arguments in favor of deletion, which enjoyed a more than 2-1 margin over the keeps (and yes I know AFD is not a vote, thanks) as being superior to the arguments for keeping. Pomte assumes that anyone citing NOT#IINFO is misinterpreting it, which frankly I find a little insulting. IINFO is a policy subject to consensus just like any other, and if the consensus is that it applies to "...in popular culture" articles as it has been applied for any number of AFDs over the last several months then Pomte, with all due respect, needs to find a way to live with that. But, even if we assume that everyone who's argued IINFO is wrong, neither the AFD nor this DRV overcome the NOT#DIR objections raised to the article as well. The community seems to be speaking pertty clearly in saying that articles that consist in whole or in large measure of lists of every time a subject is mentioned or every time a line from the subject is quoted or parodied or every time something reminds any random editor of the subject constitute a repository of loosely associated items and are not encyclopedic. Otto4711 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argued against the NOT#DIR claim in the AfD, and won't repeat it here. But IINFO has been deeply misinterpreted and there is current consensus on this fact at WT:NOT. The first phrase of your nomination has nothing to do with IINFO, and yet you linked it to strengthen your point. The comments that only say "Delete per IINFO" should be discredited unless the person comes back to explain why the article violates IINFO. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsourced popular culture articles, the community feels that not all articles of this nature should be deleted. If you believe there is community consensus that in popular culture articles can never be encyclopedic, then don't waste everyone's time with these AfDs and push for mass deletion at village pump (proposals) or somewhere appropriate. Also, please focus on issues specific to this article; it does not contain instances of "every time something reminds any random editor of the subject". –Pomte 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the mass AFD nom you linked to hardly says what you claim it does. Many of the keep !votes were based on the mass nature of the nomination and many others were based on fallacious arguments like WP:USEFUL. Given that a number of the articles nominated there have now been deleted, I don't know that I'd be pointing to it to support your hypothesis. Second, I never said that "...in popular culture" articles can never under any circumstances be encyclopedic so I have no particular interest in pushing for a mass deletion. Finally, one of the items on this deleted list was an episode of Ugly Betty, included because one character said "I want you to hit me as hard as you can" and a completely different character dated someone named "Marla." Yeah, I'd put that under the "reminds any random editor" column. Otto4711 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 2 articles in the mass AfD have been deleted so far, so I don't know what that supports other than that they will continue to be nominated while voting trends arbitrarily favor deletion. The majority of comments there note that at least some of the articles are worthy and just require cleanup; their rationale is not in any way solely against the mass nature of the AfD.
  • I had not noticed that Ugly Betty item, and the fault is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because you made no attempt to remove such material, which implies you would support deletion even if the article contained no such content.
  • Perhaps you'd like to divulge in what circumstances can an in popular culture article be encyclopedic, and whether the current ones need to be deleted without even attempting to achieve this ideal. What is so fundamentally wrong with this one that it cannot be rectified? Does it have anything to do with Fight Club as works, or merely the style or format of the article? It cannot be the former, because there were no arguments specific to Fight Club; you could replace "Fight Club" with the name of any other equally notable work, and the argument would sound equally convincing. So it must be the latter, but the style or formatting of the article can always be improved, so make suggestions.
  • You said on my talk page that there may be an article on real world fight clubs. Well, what you could have easily done was remove everything down from "General references in popular culture works". Then optionally do a move, and that's the article right there.
  • Again, if I may emphasize because I don't see how this is hard to understand: If it is a content issue, eliminate that content. If it is a style issue, propose a new style. –Pomte 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other articles from that mass nom are on their way out and at least one has been redirected to its source article because the standalone was filled with crap but people thought that someone might search for the in pop culture article. Regardless, the fact that dozens of pop culture articles that consisted of nothing more than "I spotted it" trivial references have been deleted indicates that the community is not in favor of "spot the reference" crap articles. The point still stands that this article, which is the only article directly under discussion, was correctly deleted following the outcome of the AFD and what you're doing here is trying to take a second bite at the apple. I am not going to be drawn any further into a philosophical debate on the general merit of IPC articles because any such debate is irrelevant to whether this article was properly deleted. The AFD for this article was correctly interpreted and implemented by the closing admin and nothing that you've offered up here, either specifically about the article in question or about the broader aspects of the article class in general, demonstrate that this AFD was improperly closed. Otto4711 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and either selective merge or keep and edit down. While the laundry list of trivial, passing references in popular culture certainly isn't encyclopedia worthy, the larger cultural influnces are and are not found in as much detail on any other Fight Club page. I think this would clearly include the real world events/fight clubs, but also the few artists who were significantly influenced by the film, such as Taking Back Sunday. (Sorry that I don't know enough to quote the Wikipedia cannon to back this up btw.) Thepopularloser 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus has moved towards getting rid of these egregious violations of WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Corvus cornix 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per clear consensus against such articles and a correctly closed AfD; WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR both apply, and I'll also cite WP:HTRIV, which says that trivia articles should be avoided. Heather 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TRIVIA is about presentation, not inclusion. What are the WP:OR violations, and are they unsalvageable? There is no need to add your own argument here: whether this is a trivia article is up to debate, and whether WP:HTRIV is a valid essay is up to debate (no one in AfD2 cited HTRIV that I can see). –Pomte 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion because there is a trend to get rid of lists of topics loosely associated by a brief mention of the topic. Even if there is prose written about a certain entity in popular culture, this does not warrant a list of editors' own examples to back this, especially when the mentions are only in passing. The article failed notability standards by not presenting any independent, secondary sources that had significant coverage about Fight Club's impact in popular culture -- films, TV shows, et cetera. We don't need to synthesize an argument toward the prominence of that topic by personally listing firsthand observations of Fight Club mentioned in passing. This is also not comparable to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc because you cannot culturally depict Fight Club beyond a passing mention, as it is copyrighted and still fairly recent compared to entities long in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion "In popular culture" is just not a type of article that we should have because they will hardly ever be of an encyclopedic quality, and unlike good article types they have a tendency to get worse over time, as people toss in more and more trivia. Haddiscoe 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

^demon deleted it on June 25 because he/she thought it was unused, apparently unaware of the fact the image was being used on Lemony Snicket since June 21st. CyberGhostface 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 "Biographical article that does not assert significance". But the article (as it was when deleted) says that the group has twice "toured throughout the East, South, & Western United States". if sourced, that alone is enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and even if not sourced should be enough of an "assertion of significance" to avoid an A7 speedy delete. Overturn and list on AfD for a proper assesment of notability by consensus. DES (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. While IMO this article would need improvement and better sourcing to pass an AfD, i think that "He anchors Eyewitness News at 5, 6 and 11 p.m., the top-rated newscast in Indainapolis" is at least a claim of significance. Overturn as an improper speedy, and optionally list on AfD. DES (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extremely useful and significant website Sm8900 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted with the note that it did not assert significance. However, there was an onoing discussion at the talk page, where I indicated I would provide more material. I did indicate that the deletion was contested. clearly, there is reason to include it. it is very significant and unique among websites of thst type. with more time, more facts and soruces can be added, as I indicated at the article talk page. i feel this deletion was very unwarranted. thanks. --Sm8900 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really. The only assertion it made was "It is highly significant and unique, in that it is the first blog-driven website to integrate networking, tags, blogs and groups". It doesn't provide any external sources or state why this is important. It was five sentences long and sounded like an "About Us" section of a website. If you'd like, I can move the content to your userspace for you to work on it until it meets notability criteria. However, in its current form, it will be deleted again and again by other administrators.-Wafulz 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn "First... to combine" is an assertion of importance. It doesn't have to use the word "impotant" or "notable". It may not be a sufficient degree of importance , but that's for AfD. DGG 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to respectfully disagree. I can create a product that is the first to combine nuts and gum, or the first band to combine Mozart with gangster rap with The Beatles, but that's not a claim of importance in and of itself.-Wafulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is the very definition of indiscriminate inclusion. You will need something more, like combining 3 or 4 specific relevant technologies, and similarly for some of the proposed products. DGG 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. --Sm8900 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Four Reigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Four Reigns was deleted with the logged reason "see WP:OR". But Original research is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I agree that this would need sourcing and cleanup to remain for long, it appears that parts of it, at least, are OR. Parts appear to be a factual description of a book. While the book might not be notable, a google search on "Four Reigns" Kukrit Pramoj gets several hundred hits. Also, as the author Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand, he is clearly notable and his novels are likely to be so. This is the sort of thing that can be discovered more easily if possibly non-notable articles are not speedy deleted (when they do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria) but are given a little bit of time, Rather than having new speedy criteria made up to get them deleted quickly. Such speedy deletions prevent debate and the prime virtue of wikipedia: "More eyes". Overturn and cleanup. The deleting admin has been requested to undelete, but has not chosen to respond. DES (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeed I might add the mere fact that a novel first published in 1981, originally written in a non-english language, is still widely on sale in english translation alone sugggests a degree of notability, although that alone does not prove notability. DES (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Undelete OR is not a criterion for speedy, and that is the end of that. I ask for a Speedy Undelete. As for the article itself, although this isn't strictly relevant to the undelete, it needs an outside reference or two-- including reviews--but if the subject is notable it might well survive AfD. DGG 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm with DGG on this one - WP:OR is not and should not be a criterion for speedy deletion. Just because one person believes it is irreparable does not mean that sources do not exist and the article can be written to standards, and discretionary closures without any discussion are a bad precedent when they don't meet any of the CSD criteria. Put it on an AfD if it seems unworthy, if the results there start looking like a snowball, then delete it. Unilaterally deciding to do so ahead of time is not good. Arkyan • (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • óverturn per nom, DGG and Arkyan. JoshuaZ 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:SNOW. Since when has OR been a CSD? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has been deleted before for being composed of OR and being non-notable. As of this writing, this group is now notable and verifiable. It has been featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, PC Format Magazine, PC Zone Magazine, and Computer Games Magazine. Please keep a clear mind, don't let your opinion of this group or the number of times it has been deleted cloud your thoughts on this. Android Mouse 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please point me to the last discussion on this? What I had read, it was closed because of OR and being non-notable, neither of these are applicable now, so I'm wondering what I've missed. --Android Mouse 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd DR seems to have been a year ago, May 2006. Closed mainly on the basis of the DRV vote count, 17 to 14. [7] The previous history is complicated--a DR one month earlier had ended up by keeping the article, and there seems to have been a string of less-than-obvious decisions in various directions. I think rapid closing in these circumstances might perhaps be reconsidered, or is the proper course to bring another DRV. There has to be some way to get a hearing. DGG 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation of new sourcing seems to be worth it, and consensus can change in a year. If no one objects, I'm going to reopen the DRV. JoshuaZ 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems like we've been a year since this last had a full hearing, and if there's new sources we may change our conclusion. It worked for Jeffree Star Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the evidence / sources advanced are any different from that seen in July, August and September last year or March 7, March 25, April 25 of this year. I believe some other requests were speedily reverted before the {{drt}} template came into use. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources provided are much more than many other articles here would ever hope to obtain. If all other articles were put to this rigor, I'd estimate Wikipedia would have less than a fifth of the articles we have now. I don't see the harm in having a small stub about this group, since they are definately notable in the field of game raging. I also think it is a double standard that other DRs get by with much less evidence of notability. --Android Mouse 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Wikigroaning – Endorse closure. As Night Gyr pointed out, if consensus was later obtained for a merge then you could merge. It looks like that has been done. If consensus at some point no longer supports a merge. Then you can unmerge, but this is not the place to discuss that. Take it to the talk page. – IronGargoyle 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikigroaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have new information regarding this AfD process.

  1. The Wikipedia article was linked to from Something Awful, complete with the AfD tag, on the day that the page was nominated for deletion. This likely caused a large influx of SA readers interested in the topic. Since Something Awful coined the term Wikigroaning, this created a imbalance in contributions to the discussion, weighted heavily towards editors would be sympathetic to Keep votes. While I think we can assume good faith on the part of the Something Awful editors, this action amounts to inadvertent votestacking. This was not addressed during the discussion.
  2. The AfD discussion was directly linked to in the Something Awful forums, as well. This was not addressed during the discussion.
  3. User:Night Gyr, the administrator who closed the debate, is a longtime and active member of the Something Awful forums, who apparently (based on the linked forum post) has a vested interest in this topic. Again, while I believe NightGyr acted in good faith, there is a conflict of interest here that possibly tainted his interpretation of the results.

Overturn and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close The AfD seems perfectly in order. Sources in multiple independant major media outlets were cited. Another AfD can be tried in a few months if anyone wishes, when linking will not be an issue, and ther will be more evidence one way or the other on notability. As to the merge, that should be setteld on the relevant talk pages, not here. The AfD neither mandated not precluded a merge, but it looks to me as if the consensus of those commenting on the AfD was opposed to a merge, which makes doign one promptly rather problamatical IMO. DES (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only arguments given for deletion were claims of being a non-notable neologism, which were countered by the sources in the article, and even the nominator proposed a merge rather than a deletion. AfD is the place to take things when you want them deleted, not merged, and there was clearly no consensus for a merge within the afd, so I referred it to the talk page for more discussion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If "merge" can't be the result of an AfD discussion, then someone better talk to all of these administrators: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] ...and that's just closures from the past few days. Furthermore, this DRV is about the fact that the process that was possibly compromised through imbalanced influence by Something Awful members. - Chardish 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't say a merge result was impossible, I said consensus was in favor of retaining the content, and if it ought to be merged, that could be worked out on the talk page. Stop fighting over this with revert wars on the article and work it out on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close and try to merge the article so that it won't matter anyway. I voted delete, but if I had to step back and evaluate the discussion, it looked like there were half-decent arguments to keep. I'm not willing to overturn based on the COI because I think the result would probably have been the same without the COI. Shalom Hello 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ludicrous - if process says keep unencyclopedic self-referential nonsense, then process is hopelessly broken. --BigDT 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not heartening to see one with the mop speak so lightly of community consensus. Unless of course you mean the !vote was tainted with single purpose accounts or whatever, in which case your wording is poor. -N 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - not a dictionary, etc. --Android Mouse 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will endorse close, with some reluctance, since there was no consensus for deletion, although I don't know why people considered a remarkably new term which has just popped up on some internet sites notable. As an editorial decision, I fully support merging this in with criticism of Wikipedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with criticism of Wikipedia. Pretty much, this term just highlights a problem we always had of systemic bias on articles. In this case, it is about articles getting shafted due to age, fictional importance or for one reason or another. I don't find the term notable enough to make this article stand out by itself, but it would be useful at criticism of Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete. "Wikigroaning is a term brought to public attention in June 2007"... WP:NEO, WP:ASR and pretty much WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem a wildly unreasonable close. There were some problems with this afd: apparently advertised on Something Awful, and looking at the huge number of editors commenting, and the relatively high number of new, inexperienced and unacculturated editors it's evident that the discussion was heavily skewed. Having said that I would probably have closed this one as keep myself. Criticism of Wikipedia does look like a suitable merge target, but that (as Night Gyr rightly says) is a decision for the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as reasonable. There are obviously sharp divisions on how to deal with these articles, and a discussion on a possible merge would seem a reasonable next step. DGG 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is nobody addressing Something Awful's involvement here? While I support the opinions of the people who support merging, I thought DRV was more than just an appeals court; I guess I'm wrong. - Chardish 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Plain Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia; if this gets worse, Relist. Looks to me that few people bothered to deal with socks in the AfD in any case. However, I don't think the article should be deleted, merely merged, and for merging, we don't need to go through AfD yet again. Would save time, no? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close, but I think a merge + redirect would be a perfectly reasonable final outcome as well. JavaTenor 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Youth First (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Political Spam" Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted "COI spam by owner of politcal party", however while it was created on the behalf of the President, whose account this is, it is hardly spam as much as it is a recognition of our status as equal to comparable movements who are similarly referenced in Wikipedia, including, but not limited to Australian Young Labor and the Young Liberals (Australia). Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See that word "our"? Endorse deletion until we have credible evidence that anyone but the group cares. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If the group is notable, someone uninvolved will create a real article in time. We'd need a pretty darn good reason to undelete a blatant WP:COI violation, and nominator presents no such reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion A quick glance did not find any reliable sources that talk about the group. If we had them we might be able to have an article but we can't without any real sourcing. JoshuaZ 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • self endorse deletion. Per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: "recognition of our status as equal to otherstuff" is not a valid argument for anything here. First of all, Wikipedia does not exist to "recognize" anyone's status. Status may be an issue with respect to notability, but, second, this wasn't deleted for a lack of notability. It was deleted as spam! And third, of course, the existence of other articles is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All this obviously means that there is no prejudice against creating a non-spammy article, but it would have to establish notability using verifiable information from reliable sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Anyone who can do that (even the president and/or owner) is welcome to do so, but it is, in general, very hard to do if you have a conflict of interest. Xtifr tälk 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GoLite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, but it wasn't advertising. The article was about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado, GoLite. The company is of similar size to other companies that have articles, such as CamelBak and Kelty, and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, such as the article on Hydration packs, the article on rock climber Ray Jardine, and Primal Quest. Lucien Dray 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was the creator of the Andrew Lande article and upon returning from my trip to Europe to my surprise the article was deleted. Maybe I didn't write up enough sources the first time but the guy is in fact encyclopedia worthy.

I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People)

First the broad notability

Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary.

Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc.

Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes.

Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS partly where it passes

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources.

Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)

  • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)

  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.)

Andman8 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


26 June 2007

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

Deleted as "blatant advertising" instead of being reverted to a neutral version, one of which can still be found in the google cache [18] Kappa 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specifically the revision by User:VoABot II on 12 June appears to be quite spam free. Overturn DES (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version I deleted was also a blatent copyvio containing information from [19] and [20] as well as reading like a school brochure. If anyone cares to check my talk page (and/or Kappa's) they will see I offered to undelete the article yeserday - subject a request to Kappa to keep an eye on the article to prevent it getting into a state again. Quite why we are having a deletion review is beyond me since the offer is still there. Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Kappa's reply on his talkpage may have been unhelpful, but the fact that there were good revisions to revert to is a valid reason to let the article stay. In addition, I don't think that he or anyone else has the ultimate responsibility of maintaining the article to keep it free of copyvios, spam, and vandalism, considering that this is an all-volunteer project. It is the responsibility of the community at large, not the responsibilty of an individual. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jaxtr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

now have a better understanding of necessity to reference everything in posting, would like to have the opportunity to create a new page from scratch which is strictly informational, not advertising Comet111 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you create a new version in your userspace first and then bring it for us to review. We can unprotect the page if we agree that the new article meets WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB and WP:RS? Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations on finding deletion review with your very first edit. What happened to the editor who created the article, they don't seem ever to have contributed anything else to the project. Guy (Help!) 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Friendbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should be undeleted, as it now sites its sources. James3uk 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

deleted six times and protected in January 2007. The band is now releasing an album on notable label Fueled by Ramen, and has a respectable Allmusic entry. Note also article regarding nationwide tour. Would like to have the article Unsalted because band has enough press to establish notability. Chubbles 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Unsalt if a well-referenced version is created in userspace. Certainly getting on Fueled by Ramen is a great leap forward as far as notability goes, but it still takes 2 albums to pass WP:MUSIC. I think a good article should be possible at this point, but given the article's history some care is warrented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Cubbles. You are going to get some resistance I suspect because of the lack of something to show as a alternative to show the band's new status (like the "conditional" opinion of Starblind). I propose that you have the most recent version of the deleted page userfied to you so that you can do this work, updating their status and given sources for the changes. In general showing in a version of the article exactly why you think they are now notable. You then withdrawn this DRV as premature and, when you have the article version in your user space at a point where you think it will stand WP:BAND scutiny, you resubmit for DRV at that point. Does that sound workable, Chubbles? - TexasAndroid 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that works. The album comes out in a couple of weeks, I can come back then. I would like to know if there was any information worth salvaging in the deleted versions. Chubbles 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
InspIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted without consensus reached. Also article rewritten within Afd timeframe for notability but did not receive any new reviews after the article was rewritten. Should be undeleted and at minimum relisted for consensus to be reached. 83.88.224.53 11:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I wish to quote one comment in particular from that debate (from a SPA, no less) which adequately sums up the 'argument' for keeping this article:

    I have been following InspIRCd in it's development, while it may not be notable right now, it is one of the most interesting (and successful) recodes and re-thinking of IRCd, with fresh ideas.

    "Stskeeps", 84.238.9.161, 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    That sums up why Riana was perfectly correct in applying WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and close this as 'delete'. Daniel 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The delete votes made some very good points on why the article should be deleted. Bizarrely enough, the keep votes also made some very good points on why the article should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable closure, consensus not numbers. Moreschi Talk 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse - decision seems fair enough. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin A generic SPA-flooded AfD filled with 'I have used this product, so it must be notable' - 'I have heard of this product, so it must be notable' - 'It's on Google' - 'I have been with it since it's conception, so it will one day be notable' - wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. We are not the establishers of notability. It's why we have policies like WP:CRYSTAL. The Google test is, as we all know, subject to fallacies ("67k Google hits is quite poor for something that is available on SourceForge... you're going to get thousands of hits just by being on SourceForge"). Ultimately the arguments for deletion were grounded in real, pithy policy, and that's what I based my decision on. Cheers, Riana (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (This is my first deletion on DRV, so if I shouldn't have said anything here, please let me know. Just felt like I should explain myself a bit further.)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Australian soccer players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:Australian football (soccer) players was renamed yesterday. This action happened without any imput from the Australian football community on wikipedia. I am requesting this decision be reversed. Players, fans, clubs and parts of the media refer to the sport as Football. User:Shalom started the process and he has said here :

I'm sorry that I failed to get the word out regarding the CFD. I don't do many CFDs, so I'm not familiar with the need to tell everyone. My main line of work is AFD, where this is generally not necessary because users who care about an article will usually see it on their watchlist. I have no opinion on the debate anymore. Feel free to decide things without me. Best regards. Shalom Hello 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tancred 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is also currently nominated for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 26. I suggest closing the WP:CFD discussion and simply redirecting all debate to this page instead. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Although I suspect that many people will say 'CfD valid, endorse move', and I would normally be one of them, I must protest on this occasion. Wikipedia has come to the compromise to call the sport Football (soccer) in countries where 'soccer' is used as an alternative (ie. Australia, USA, etc.). The comment that 'everyone in Australia calls it Soccer' is just wrong, because a) I don't (and make a point of not doing so), and b) the Football Federation Australia (main governing body) uses 'Football', the national league (A-League) uses 'football', including in their motto 'It's football, but not as you know it' (see also here), and Wikipedia's naming conventions on Australian football/soccer topics is to use 'football (soccer)'. I wasn't aware of this debate, and wouldn't have even known about this DRV if I hadn't have followed a link to a DRV above this from Riana's talk page, and I ask that the move be reversed and the CfD reopened. There's six years of site-wide consensus which is being over-ruled here. I won't say that the category should be at 'Australian football players', because I acknowledge that there are half the population who call it 'Soccer', but I ask that the other half be respected, as they have been on Wikipedia through this long-standing compromise, and that it be called 'Football (soccer) players'. Daniel 11:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Relist] Agree with Tancred. A hasty, bureaucratic decision, made wiithout any consultation to relevant editors. Blackmissionary 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I won't disagree with the last part of your statement, but there is no need to call the closure hasty or bureaucratic. This category stood for deletion as long as any other and the closing admin can't be expected to check to ensure that the appropriate parties were notified before making his decision. --After Midnight 0001 13:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'm sorry to have to point this out but not everyone who edits wikipedia is on here every day. 5 days to debate a change means that many editors will miss out. I would also suggest that the person who proposed this change made no effort at all to contact anyone who might have wanted to join the debate. There is a Australian football project page. Posting one comment there would have allowed many more people to join the debate. The Australian national football team is another easy to find page where a comment could have been left. Tancred 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand why you feel the need to point this out. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be notified within the boundaries of WP:CANVAS. I am only saying that the closing admin is not responsible for this. I suggest that you discuss this with the person who nominated the category, not the closing admin. --After Midnight 0001 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was not having a go at the closing admin. I sent posts trying to follow the 'paper trail' so i could get to the source of the nomination. This established, i tried to gather an understanding as to why and how this came about in the way that it did. I'm here just about everyday, but i mostly just check the items on my watchlist; not everyone has the time or inclination to go through all the bureaucratic stuff that goes on behind the scenes. I apologise if my mtheod was perhaps a little clumsy. Blackmissionary 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Daniel. Riana (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, on a technical, DRV-based standpoint, I must endorse the closing, as there was nothing wrong with it. However, I wouldn't be upset if it were relisted to let the football/soccer people weigh in. --Kbdank71 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if DRV has jurisdiction on renamed things, so I won't be making a bolded "vote". However I see no harm in inviting additional comment and gathering more complete consensus, whether on a formal relist or on the talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist taking jurisdiction under IAR, first time i've said that. The change can obviously be undone by another request at CfD but there seems to be a general concern: the obscurity of CfD (and RfD and MfD) is a problem, and there has to be a better effort at notifying those concerned. DGG 16:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The procedures were correctly applied. It is not desirable to have more input from Australian soccer fans, as they are a biased minority within Australia, seeking to promote their sport making a claim to primary use of the word "Football" which is dismissed by the vast majority of Australian sports fans. This is a perfect example of a discussion where utilising more so called expert knowledge could lead to a biased POV outcome. If this is relisted, it should also be brought to the attention of Australian rules football, rugby league football and rugby union football fans. Alex Middleton 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no problem with it being relisted and notified amongst the followers of the other codes. I happen to be one of them. It is not wise to try and put people in boxes. The key issue here for me is not petty point scoring, after all i follow both aussie rule and soccer equally. The key issue is that there has been months of negotiation between the various relevant projects/editors that has been utterly diregarded. Blackmissionary 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is wiser to take counter action in such cases than to be willfully blind to bias, and thus allow groups of biased people to have unfettered control over any aspect of Wikipedia to which they choose to turn their attention. Alex Middleton 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. This seems to be an obvious case where consensus might not have been represented completely by those at the discussion. No harm in letting it run again. --- RockMFR 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Even though process was followed, the fact that the Australian football/soccer project wasn't notified meant that opinions were coming from those who were apparently not privvy to the previous debates (big list here). It's taken a lot of time and effort, and "football (soccer)" is clearly a compromise between the two, it's not ambiguous and it follows the WP standard for the name of the article itself. I have no problem with the RL/AFL/RU projects being informed, but it should be made clear that there should be no bias towards "leaving things as they are" because the way things are at the moment is different to what they were a couple of days ago, and for months (without complaint) before then. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Process was fine, but another discussion seems likely to get a different result, so let's put it up again.--Mike Selinker 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have relisted the debate Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Australian_soccer_players Tancred 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It would have been appropriate to wait for this discussion to close first before relisting. Having two discussions in one place is confusing. Moreover, as this discussion has been open for only one day, people have not been given adequate time to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Correct procedure, correct result. Nothing further to discuss. Postlebury 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please add a link to the discussion under review at the top here. Thanks. Johnbod 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Make-Up.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Make-Up.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson failed to cite appropriate or valid reasons for speedy deletion, and has since all but refused to discuss the matter further. Image was originally deleted for Fair Use violation, but the image seemed to have satisfied all criteria of WP:FUC. Deletion was also rationalized by redudancy and resolution issues, but the image still satisfied all criteria of WP:IUP and WP:CSD. An archive of the discussion (or lack thereof) can be found here. Drewcifer3000 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Image, in lower resolution, exists here: Image:Makeup.jpg. It's redundant, and larger than the dupe, which is a valid reason. There is no need for a second. Fair use is restrictive, and we cannot have as many different versions of random copyrighted images hanging about to meet pathetic aesthetic whims. You people should be damned lucky that we even allow fair use in the first place - this is the Free Encyclopedia, after all, not the Encyclopedia where we rip off images as we see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid hashing out the discussion here, I would first point out that I completely agree with most of what Jeffrey said above. However I have previously responded to this exact line of reasoning here (3rd bullet point midway down). I believe Jeffrey's line of reasoning, and Wikipedia policy, dictates deletion of the other derivative image more so than the original which was instead deleted. Drewcifer3000 09:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of which image here is the right one to delete, it's a replaceable fair use image. The people in question are still alive, and in general we do not accept copyrighted media for such people since it is reasonable that a free licensed equivalent either is available or can be created. I've tagged the remaining image as such, and notified the uploaders. --Durin 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with Fair Use, specifically the first criteria, if a picture is of a group (rather than a single individual) then the important factor is whether or not the group is still active. In other words, is it a realistic (or even remotely hypothetical) possibility that these four people would ever gather together and be photographed as the same group. Unfortunately the Fair Use criteria does not specifically mention this, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion to come to that the band will never be photographed as a band again, since the band has dissolved and everyone has moved on. Even if the members were gathered together, which I suppose is realistically possible since they are all still alive, they would not be "The Make-Up" since "The Make-Up" has long since dissolved and the members are parts of other bands now. I checked a few archives of WP:FUC Talk Page and couldn't find any discussions related to this, but perhaps this might be a question better suited to the policy itself rather than this one image. Drewcifer3000 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting point. I do think though that the policy still applies, as the band members are all alive. It would be possible, for example, to take individual pictures and montage them. --Durin 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way: in the same way that a fair use image of an individual is replaceable if a person is still alive, a fair use image of a group is also replaceable if the group is "alive." Since the Make-Up is, for all intents and purposes "dead" it is unrealistic to assume it is replaceable.
As for the montage idea, that would also seem insufficient to me since it would depict the people who were part of the Make-Up but not the Make-Up themselves. If that makes sense. But, the same concept could be applied to an individual. If an individual is "dead" might it be possible to create a montage of fair use images to represent them and their physical features? Take Photographic mosaics for instance, specifically the sea gull at the top. If we, for the sake of argument, assume the sea gull is a celebrity, and we had no free photo of the sea gull, would this photo montage of free-images be a replaceable alternative to a fair-use image of the sea gull? I personally don't think so. This might seem like a tangent, but given the current language of WP:FUC, we must treat media of individuals and groups under similar criteria, since there is no clear distinction made.
Finally, you might think of an image of a defunct band as a historical document. The band existed from 1995-2000, and the image represents the band within that time frame. Any article concerning a defunct band could similarly be considered a historical document, as opposed to a document about a current event. Therefore, a historical article would require a similarly historical image.
But, like I said above, perhaps this might be a discussion better suited to WP:FUC talk page rather than this one isolated image? Drewcifer3000 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consensus on whether to delete pictures of defunct bands. If there were it would probably go against deletion. I don't see a legal problem, and there is no policy or guideline to address this directly -- an administrator who deletes this is making up his/her own guidelines. So I don't think deleting this picture as an isolated test case is a good idea. Let's make the policy first, then decide on the individual issues. On this point, it's silly to say that a rock band is four isolated individuals, or a picture of the band is four unconnected pictures. As a practical matter a photo montage is impossible. The band in action, or posing in their trademark clothing and makeup, shows a collective energy and identity, a branding and an image, that you just can't convey in words or through disjoint free use images. If that were the case the band would release its publicity shots that way. Obviously somebody thought there was something special to getting the whole band together for a promo shot.Wikidemo 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Drucifer3000's request, I have restored the discussion about the image. Per Jeffrey O. Gustafson's objection to it being in article talk space, I have put it at User:Drewcifer3000/TalkForMake-Up.jpg. Hope that makes things easier for folks to decide. William Pietri 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BatchMaster Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

BatchMaster Software is the leader as far as formula/recipe based process manufacturers are concerned. There are many companies listed in the 'List of Software Companies' that are less notable than BSI.

I admit that I am guilty of placing our article on Wikipedia repeatedly, but I was making changes to the article every time based on the comments on the talk page or the primary cause of deletion. I honestly believe that considering the position of BatchMaster ERP in the world of process manufacturing, having an article on BSI is justified. Rahulkhare 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted as promotional; I am willing to unprotect the page to allow somebody else to write a new article about the company (the deletion discussion/vote was more about the article than about the company); but Rahulkhare, please don't re-post your version of the article. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will completely re-write the article. A humble request to please unprotect the page. My assurances that my version of the page will never see light again. Rahulkhare 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, I really appreciate this. Will do as you've suggested. It might take me upto a week to create a new page. Will this thread be active until then, so that I may place my request to the editors once again? As you may have noticed, I am fairly new at this. Do you think If I removed the company infobox from the original page, it will be less offensive? Rahulkhare 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the subpage as suggested by Mike User:Rahulkhare/BatchMaster Software. Please provide your feedbacks if any changes are desired. I am prepared to make any change as required, but humbly request the editors to give specific suggestions for improvement. Please let me know the next step in the process. Rahulkhare 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please advise on the next step in the process of re-inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. Rahulkhare 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI: I am eagerly waiting for instructions for the course of action. How do I attract the attention of editors to view my sample article so that it may be included as a real article. Rahulkhare 12:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why did this page get deleted as if it were "blatant advertising?" This makes very little sense considering it was three sentences long, one giving the title and web location of the magazine, a second stating when the publication was born and a third naming the two parties who founded the publication. I feel like a disservice to the wikipedia community has been made here and ask that it is corrected. Wishtank isn't even a commercial magazine, it is run by volunteers and sells absolutely nothing. What would this wikipedia entry be blatantly advertising? Garrettheaney 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is it about the article that you consider and advertisement? The information and language are unbiased and straight forward. It makes little sense to me why anyone would find the article inappropriate for wikipedia. How does the short Wishtank entry differ in form from any other wikipedia entry giving information on a magazine or resource? Wishtank is a voluntary service and doesn't monetize in any form — this claim of "blatant advertising" is simply untrue.

  • Just because it doesn't say "BIG SALE!!!" or "AMAZING OFFER!!" at the top doesn't mean it isn't blatant advertising. It's an article about a brand-new (less than a month old) website, obviously created by the operator of said website. How else are we supposed to see it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could see it for what it is, an entry holding basic, unbiased information on a magazine. Is there a policy regarding the length of time a publication has to be in circulation before it becomes a valid source for wikipedia? I was not aware of any such policy, and if there is, I sincerely apologize. It's actually funny, that you noticed a third attempt of the wishtank entry, and you inaccurately describe that as an "advert" deletion. The reason given for the third deletion was that it didn't do enough to "sell" the magazine as an important source. This seems contradictory, considering you are here saying that that sort of "advertising" is not permittable. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you do in keeping Wikipedia free from advertisement, but any reasonable person would see that the entry made for Wishtank is purely informational, without any of the "blatant advertising" you site in your deletion and endorsement of deletion. You are providing a disservice to the Wikipedia community and wrongfully censoring information. But I digress, you have the authority to do so and it is done. It's just disheartening from my perspective to see an objective, informational entry be labeled "blatant advertising." Go look at other magazine entries on wikipedia and tell me how they differ (other than their duration on the news stand, which again, I wasn't aware was a qualifying factor).

  • Actually, the third deletion was for advertising as well, specifically tagged as "db-ad - note that the article creator has the same name as the magazine's editor". And yes, we do have guidelines for websites and web content, which can be found at WP:WEB. Even if advertising were not an issue (which it is), the article would not pass our web standards. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any independent reliable sources on which an article on this topic could be based. And in addition, creating or editing articles on things you own, manage, or are personally involved with is discouraged per out conflict-of-interest policy (WP:COI) as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would consider it a valid speedy. It was just a product announcement, with no sourcing at all, and to me, that counts as an advertisement. If it becomes notable enough to write a sourced article, then would be the time to reconsider. DGG 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted the first two versions as spam (G11) and the last one for no claim of notability (A7). - Mike Rosoft 08:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Lying Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as Patent nonsense, and it simply was nothing of the sort -- Patent nonsense has a very restricted meaning. I undeleted as per WP:DP#Deletion review which says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." But having undelted, I find that it was in mid-afd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Game), which discussion was speedy closed by the speedy deletion. I want some support in undoing this close, and reactivating the AfD. DES (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and Endorse resubmitting at AfD. Clearly a violation of WP:MADEUP, but not a speedy candidate that I can see. I also note it has a PROD tag in addition to the AfD tag, which should probably be removed if we're going to do a full AfD. -- Kesh 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is process for the sake of process; had I seen the article, I would have probably speedily deleted myself. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it would clearly be deleted at AfD, endorse deletion is the only sensible response. To overturn and send to AfD is an abuse of process as "process for the sake of process" which is very much against Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY). However I see that DESiegel has gone ahead and undeleted, which is okay I suppose. A minor abuse of policy and a flagrant waste of time, but not egregiously damaging. --Tony Sidaway 09:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that DESiegel has undeleted but not (as I thought) sent it for deletion again. So I suggest that the article should be redeleted. Unless DESiegel thinks a deleted article belongs on Wikipedia, he should never restore it. That would be very, very silly indeed. --Tony Sidaway 09:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, endorse undeletion since the article is not patent nonsense in the strict sense we use the term on Wikipedia. However, I have grave suspicions that the article utterly fails notability requirements. Nonetheless, I could be wrong, so I think it's best to wait it out, and see if someone has sources establishing the suitability of the article (I cannot rule it out completely). I have tagged it with a "prod" notice along with my reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (For clarification, Ram rottenly tried nominating the article both through prod and afd at once, which looks like an honest newbie mistake. Nobody has yet objected to the article being ultimately deleted, so prod seems appropriate.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedied it again as an A7. It was clearly not a G1, but I don't quite see the point in restoring for the sake of following unnecessary process here. Kusma (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable given the cirumstances. Can we close this now? If someone comes up with a reference for this they can create an article and we can restore the history. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Whether it strictly fits speedy criteria or not, I see no point in running an AfD which is absolutely certain to result in delete, just to say we dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Deletion is oviously correct. Starblind 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me be clear. I undeleted this because whatever else it was, it wasn't a speedy. It wasn't an A7, because it wasn't about a person, group, firm, or website. It is just possible that references might have bene found at an AfD that would make it notable enough to be kept, although i doubt it. I would have placed it on AfD, but there was an AfD in progress, and I was unwilling to revert the close of that without some support here. Had I encounterd this untagged, i would probably have tagged it with prod, and possibly {{hoax}}. Perhaps this was a case where soemthing that clearly wasn't a speedy shouldn't have been argued over, given that the chance ogf it being kept as a valid article is low. Buit I am seeing far too many invalid speedys recently, and given that some editors, and indeed soem admins, infere precedents from lack of action (look at the spoiler debate) failing to act on this kind of invalid speedy is tacitly agreeing to an extension of the spedy criteria that is IMO a vary bad idea. DES (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If we don't have process, what are we doing here--deciding whatever comes up on the merits? Why do we need DR for that, when we have AfD. WP has a deletion policy. I do not agree with every bit of it, but I abide by it and work within it, and I expect everyone else to do likewise, and delete what the rules say I should delete, and refrain from deleting when such is the rule, regardless of personal opinion. When I became an admin--fairly recently--I was asked about this, as customary, & I promised to never do otherwise Any admin. who is not willing to follow it shouldn't act as an admin. in anything that concerns the part they do not wish to follow. DGG
    • Speedy is being overused; to many eds. and probably some admins., speedy means not able to withstand AfD. This destroys the utility of it if everyone follows their own standard. Nonsense does not apply to things that are not nonsense. Early on here, I tagged a few things which read like English but had nothing solid; an experienced admin. lost no time in telling me not to do that. Now I tell beginners that also. The same rule goes for everyone else, I think, even the most experienced. This is a place to correct errors of judgment, and that's what we ought to do. DGG
    • A7 applies only to a person, group, band, firm, or website. I stretched that a little myself as a beginner, and was called to account then too. I now remind others. I once tried deleting an obvious hoax under that provision also, and I was similarly taught the right way. If we have rules for deleting something, and something needs deleting, it should be deleted according to the rules. Seems simple enough to me. DGG 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn If DES wants to have it run through the full time let him. It was out of process so its clearly within his rights to do so. There isn't much reason to do so since it is unlikely for the article to succeed but out of process deletions are not good. JoshuaZ 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I am no fan of process for process' sake, but when an article does not meet any of the CSD categories and has generated this much controversy in a DRV, that tells me that the speedy deletion via a preemptive snowball clause is probably not the way to go. Let it have it's day (or 5) on AfD. Arkyan • (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the article is completely and totally unsourced. Process does not give you the right to have garbage hang around for a week. This page is about a game that some friends at college made up, not something that actually exists. --BigDT 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell me, exactly where in WP:CSD is the criterion that says that "completely and totally unsourced" is a speedy deletion criterion? When did {{unreferenced}} becomw a speedy deletion template? I recall such an idea being proposed, and failing to gain consensus by a wide margin. Did I miss the change of policy? DES (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Wikipedia going to be a better place if we undelete somebody's joke/made-up game for a week? You are an administrator - have you looked at the deleted content? I see nothing remotely redeemable there. --BigDT 05:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I have. I think it likely that after an AfD this would be deleted, but I think it just possible that this game has in fact become common on some college campuses -- I have seen far more foolish games that did. If it has, and IF that can be documented through reliable sources, then there would be a valid article here. If not, the afd or even prod would probably have taken far less of people's time than this discussion has, and if an editor had hung {{notability}} or even {{hoax}} on the article, no harm would have been done to the project as a whole, because no one would have been fooled into thinking that we endorsed this until and unless sources were found. WP:CSD says: "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I think it is important that every editor who tags for speedy deletion, and particularly every admin who deletes under the CSD should keep that firmly in mind. The reason is, that when we step outside those narrow criteria, we increase the risk of deleting valid articles by mistake, because not enough eyes saw them. We also increase the risk of divisiveness because people felt that their concerns are not being heard. If speedy deletion really means "Anything an admin in good faith thinks doesn't help the project may be deleted without consultation", then being an admin becomes a very big deal indeed. I think that would be a bad thing for the project. DES (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: I've seen too many articles that looked completely hopeless get saved by the intervention of some knowledgeable editors at AfD (which is one of the main reasons that the speedy criteria are so narrow). This may not be such a time, but to assume that it isn't violates our crystal ball policy. This is not blatant spam or an attack piece that we need to get rid of ASAP. This is just something that's probably not notable, so it will do no harm to let it sit around for a few days while people mull it over. Xtifr tälk 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DES is right that the contents of this page did not meet any speedy deletion criterion. He's also right that we shouldn't give admins carte blanche to delete whatever they think wouldn't pass AfD. Haukur 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
X-sample (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with the log comment "CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance (emphasis added by me). Now of course A7 does not extend to "subjects" in general, and this is an article about a pseudonym. Furthermore, even if A7 extended to such articles, the assertion that this pseudonym was used by the very notable Eric Clapton is IMO at least a claim of notability. Now at an AfD, this might well be merged into Eric Clapton, or perhaps even deleted. Or it might be kept and improved. Overturn as improperly speedy-deleted. DES (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#G1 (Patent nonsense). It is clearly not patent nonsense -- i have no trouble understanding what the article says and means. (Note that PN is limited to content that "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.") Liam Hunt is an article about a fictional character. The character might be non-notable, and too much of the article is written in an in-universe style, and there is too little real-world context. Those are all things that could be fixed, or if judged non-fixable, might lead to deletion at an AfD. But none of them, IMO, is a good reason for a speedy deletion. Overturn so that other editors have a chance to improve the article and, if need be, debate its deletion. The deleting admin has been asked to consider undeleting this, and has not responded, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. DES (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, it's one in a series of hoax articles started by a vandal-only account. Yes, it's not patent nonsense, but undeleting it and speedy deleting it later as a g3 would be stupid. - Bobet 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - user indefblocked --After Midnight 0001 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Obvious hoax/vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax/nonsense related to speedily deleted article Nathan Bragg, see VfD. Keep deleted. - Mike Rosoft 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kim Amidon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted this under WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance or importance). I think that the text "She and Wallengren both received together a "star" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for their work on the radio." in the article constitutes an assertion of significance sufficent that it should not be deleted via A7. Whether it would/will survive an AfD is of course another matter. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, avd has made no response, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. Overturn as invalid A7 speedy delete. DES (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
23andMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable but speedy deleted with 150K Ghits, deleted without review. There should be a stub there, this never should have been speedied without review. Please check again under the capitalized spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

  • This was speedy closed as "never anything there to begin with", but there was an article at 23andMe. I've reopened this DRV, but I still say keep deleted as a valid A7. Google investing money in a company isn't an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when Google invests in a company it gets "multiple, non trivial coverage" which makes it notable. 150K Google hits and stories in Forbes, New York Times and CNN. How does that get a speedy delete without review? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, list at AfD optional. I wouldn't say that Google investing in a company gives it a free pass and a guaranteed article, but I do think it pushes it out of speedy-deletion territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn improper deletion. For a stub, this was even referenced. A biotech company that gets a multi-million investment from google may not turn out to pass WP:CORP. But I think it has enough chance of being notable, just on those facts, that it shouldn't be speedy delted, particualrly not as an A7, but should insted be put though an AfD if soemone thinks it ought to be deleted -- and I'd make a small wager on it surviving AfD. DES (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per DES. JoshuaZ 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it needed a bit of help, but a quick search shows some good things to cite, a couple news hits in the last month, etc. Sparse articles should be improved, not deleted. --Thespian 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a Catch 22. I don't want to invest a lot of time in an article that may be deleted, but then people delete it anyway saying its only a stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: can we see the history here? I'm inclined to say endorse without prejudice against a good re-creation, but some of the comments above make me wonder if it was really as bad as most of these cases usually are. Xtifr tälk 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it was undeleted, and Andrew didn't see fit to use {{Tempundelete}}, I have edited this, adding some content and several references, in the way that I might have done had this been listed on AfD. I think these help make the notability of the subject clearer, and there are more out there, lots more. Do a google search on "23andMe". DES (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/keep undeleted per WP:IAR (if nothing else): DES's improvements were arguably out-of-process, but I'm not a policy wonk, and the result is good enough that a speedy is no longer justifiable (assuming it ever was). Listing optional, since I'm only here to judge the deletion, not the article. Xtifr tälk 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jennifer_Ann_Crecente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

"deleted this article as a recreation."

Overturn

This article has a notable subject that has, amongst other things, been responsible for two legislative changes in Texas as a result of her murder - one of which is named for her.

Follows is the somewhat lengthy precursor to this "speedy delete."

Yes it's me, the anon user who nominated Brian Crecente for deletion. I was debating on nominating her (ed. note: referring to Jennifer Ann Crecete) article as well, but I figured since you added alot to it, I would run it by you first. I feel neither her article or the charity are really notable so I've been thinking about a possible merge of her article and the charity based on her, what are your thoughts? I know you are probably angry about the comments I made in the Brian Crecente afd, so I don't expect your words to be sugar coated. Please speak your mind.64.231.250.116 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still consulting with a few other users about the pages we are questioning, we are currently looking for sources. Going to give it another week or two and then a possible rewrite or afd will be dealt. 64.231.250.169 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted this article as a recreation. I saw that you used the legislation as a justification for moving it back out of User space, but I do not agree that that is enough to overcome the reasoning given at the AFD debate. At this point, as I'm pretty sure you will disagree with my actions, I encourage you to contest this at WP:DRV. Deletion Review is the proper place to try to overturn AFD deletions if the circustances have changed. - [User:TexasAndroid] 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew30319 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Was the article that was moved from Userspace to Mainspace relatively unaltered? If so, then Endorse as recreation of previously deleted material. The entire point of userfying is to allow folks to improve the article first and make sure it is up to Wikipedia's standards before moving it back to mainspace. -- Kesh 04:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are the two pieces of legislation added to the userfied article. Both were entered into legislation and then passed as law since userfying the article. The first legislation requires every school district within Texas to adopt policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. The second legislation (called "Jennifer's Law") is to award posthumous diplomas. Refer to the deleted article to follow the relevant references and are fully cited in newspapers.
  • On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. [15]
  • On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. [17]

Drew30319 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AFD For the sake of this discussion, I have placed back in Drew30319's user space both a copy of the version that was originally deleted by AFD, and the version that I deleted as a recreation. As far as I can see, the main thing that has changed since the original AFD is that the Texas legislature acted in the just finished session to pass some Teen Violence legislation that has emerged from the murder. But I just do not see that as being enough to fulfill notability, sorry. So I have to stay on the side of endorsing the AFD at this point. - TexasAndroid 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist at AfD - The article has changed enough to not be a direct recreation of the original, and Drew30319 has gone to the effort to cite the article well. However, I agree with TexasAndroid that the subject is likely not notable enough outside her local area to have a Wikipedia article. There's enough of an assertion in the rewritten article, though, that I think it deserves another shot at AfD to reach a consensus. The issue for DRV is, did this qualify as a simple repost of previously deleted material? I believe the content has changed & improved enough that this is not the case, so deleting as such does not appear correct. Given the notability issue, though, it should go through another AfD process. If the AfD again shows she is not notable enough, it should remain deleted. -- Kesh 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist G4 shouldn't be used when the article is markedly different, DelRev shouldn't need to be involved. The article on its face is different, as specified. Whether the legislation is sufficient will be an interesting question at AfD. DGG 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist' per Kesh and DGG. JoshuaZ 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist per the above. The legislation may be the only difference, but it is better to let the community decide if that is enough rather than a unilateral decision that it is not. Arkyan • (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There are multiple opinions in the first AFD that explicitly reference bringing the article back when a law passes. (Alba, Addhoc, Nehwyn, but not myself demonstrate that in their comments.) That is adequate evidence that the law passing does constitute a significant difference in the eyes of the original AFD's participants. Given current attitudes about bios of people involved in only one noteworthy event, we might instead want an article on the law or event, but that is a decision to let editors and or AFD participants make. GRBerry 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Opinion seems to be pretty overwhelming to overturn me. So be it. I have no objection if someone wanted to close this DRV out and go ahead and get the AFD relist underway. I guess I'm saying to WP:SNOW it, as it's fairly obvious where the consensus lies at this point. - TexasAndroid 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again. This is another article that pretends to be a biography but isn't. If the law gets passed, it will make a fine start for an article on the law, but the case itself is a news story not an encyclopaedic biography of a person. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually there is not one, but two laws that are associated with the subject of this article and both have already passed the Texas Senate and House. One has been signed by Governor Perry and the other becomes law on Sept 1st by default. The relevant content is up above but I'll reproduce it here with emphasis added to the pertinent sections:
  • On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. (emphasis added) [15]
  • On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. (emphasis added) [17]
As to your comment about "Here we go again." it's difficult for me to respond without more specifics. My understanding is that this is a forum to discuss not the merits of the article but instead the unilateral "speedy delete" by User Talk:TexasAndroid. Drew30319 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pizza Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The following are the arguments I have made for the undeletion of this article on Encephalon's talk page more than two months ago. I have not received any response from him since making those arguments, and so I must add this deletion review.

The former Pizza Corner article, about the landmark in Halifax, Nova Scotia was created by myself, and as I was not active on wikipedia last september when it was deleted, I did not have the opportunity to defend it. The current Pizza Corner article is about a pizza chain in India. While I do agree that this chain deserves its own article, I do not see any reason there should not be a disambiguation page leading to both that and the landmark in Halifax.

I have read the AFD Page for the original article, and would disagree with the assertion [the closing admin] made: "Besides, surely such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots—alone reason enough to approach any such write-up with considerable caution. Hence, delete." My response to that would be to ask, what is Times Square if not a moniker for a little spot, just like Pizza Corner? Pizza Corner may not be as widely known, but it is known, at least as well or better than the Armdale Rotary, Scotia Square, Spring Garden Road, Barrington Street, Bud the Spud or The Dingle - all of which undisputedly deserve their own articles.

I would therefore like to ask that the article be reinstated, in the location Pizza Corner, Halifax, and that the present Pizza Corner page be changed to a disambiguation page, with the article presently there being moved to Pizza Corner (food chain) Uniqueuponhim 00:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - Based on the AfD and the cached version of the article, it does not show that the business in question is notable, has no reliable sources to establish its notability, and the article reads like the back of a menu or ad flyer. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. The further arguments here (Times Square, etc.) boil down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Kesh 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Pizza Corner is not a business, it is a location in Halifax. And just like the Armdale Rotary and every other place I mentioned, virtually every resident of Halifax (that's more than 300,000 people) has at the very least heard of Pizza Corner. In fact, it is notable enough that when a US sailor was killed near Pizza Corner last November, many newspapers (including ones outside of Halifax) reported that the man was killed near pizza corner, rather than use the street names. Uniqueuponhim 11:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've struck out my endorsement, as it's now more clear that there is a seperate article in question here. That was not clear to me, as reading the DRV and AfD, I got the impression it was a re-written version of the same article. I'll look through this more closely later. -- Kesh 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion nn local "corner". Comparing this to Times Square is just silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must disagree, it is a perfectly valid comparison. Perhaps not as many people know about Pizza Corner as do about Times Square, but I would certainly say being known by more than three hundred thousand people, being mentioned by name in news articles and editorials, and being (while perhaps not exactly an attraction,) a place which many tourists visit would be enough to make it notable. Uniqueuponhim 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also point out that the comparison was made in rebuttal to the closer's argument that "such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots". The name "Pizza Corner" is perfectly analagous to the name "Times Square", both nicknames given to notable intersections in their respective cities. In fact, those nicknames are a testament to the fact that they are indeed notable. If they were not, they never would have been given those nicknames in the first place, and they would have continued to have been called "Grafton and Blowers" or "Broadway and Seventh Avenue". Uniqueuponhim 21:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It is nn, and was deleted following the rules. The article still shows it's origin: it includes a list of menu items, it includes advertising slogans. DGG 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this DRV isn't about the Indian restaurant chain (which is an okay article IMHO, but could use a trim). This DRV is about an article which existed before that one, and was about a street corner in Halifax with 3 adjacent pizzarias on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not one, but two of these endorsements have been made under that erroneous assumption. Perhaps these people should actually read the AfD rather than blindly posting endorsements. Uniqueuponhim 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read the AfD, but it did not seem to make a clear distinction that there was a different article in question. This complicates matters. -- Kesh 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pokemon species by gender categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|CfD)
  • Category:Pokémon species by gender
  • Category:Female-only Pokémon
  • Category:Male-only Pokémon
  • Category:Genderless Pokémon

Nominator believed that gender played little role in only a small aspect of the Pokemon franchise, two users came forward with more detailed examples of the significant role this feature plays. supporters of the nominator added little to the discussion, characterizing the categories merely as "over-categorization" with no arguments or reasoning to back them up. The closing admin unilaterally closed the debate when a consensus was clearly not evident. ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - clear consensus shown in the discussion. Also, Wikipedia is not a game instruction manual. --After Midnight 0001 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your definition of "clear consensus"? --Brandon Dilbeck 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4-1 is pretty clear. Endorse deletion as the information presented on genered Pokemon does not outweigh the overcategorization issue and the closing admin correctly recognized that. Otto4711 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 4-1? it's not a vote... if four people came on saying, "Keep b/c pokemon is the best" would you have determined the category was closed correctly as Keep b/c the overall count was 4-1? take a look at WP:CON before giving your own interpretations of consensus. secondly, when deciding if a category is appropriate, people should be looking at WP:CAT and seeing if the category satisfies the 3 criteria presented there (note that "overcategorization" is not a reason to not create a category). the closing admin closed based on majority, not actual discussion which happened to refute the nom's determination that gender was an insignificant aspect of pokemon. these cats satisfied all 3 guidelines -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, you really might want to step back from this. It's pretty clear from your comments here that you are taking this way too seriously and personally. It appears that you've made up your mind that there wasn't a consensus, so I'll just skip my explanation and go to sleep. --Kbdank71 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • if you'd like to explain why you think there was any actual discussion as per {{WP:CON]], i'd be happy to hear it. and to come on, make personal statements about me, and then refuse to even contribute to the discussion is incendiary. i've kept a perfectly level head and not made any personal attacks or said anything out of line. i just happen to prefer to respond to multiple people in the same post. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Looks like the correct call from a clear conclusion. Please bear in mind that CFD often reaches consensus with less debate than we see elsewhere in the Xfd spectrum. Spartaz Humbug!
  • Endorse per clear consensus in the CfD. Even if it were a closer margin of !voting, it appears to be a pretty evident case of overcategorization. Arkyan • (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Especially "genderless" category. It's probably entirely based on assumptions or what was not clearly revealed in the English series/games. Tellerman 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse This Wikiproject should stop claiming ownership of pages. There was a CLEAR consensus. FunPika 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the reason for this DRV is because it was more like a vote rather than discussion, not a single person added more to the discussion than "overcategorization" or denounced the opposers viewpoints. there was no discussion and therefore no consensus. and btw, you're the only person to mention the wikiproject... -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. 4-1, as mentioned above, is pretty clear. --Kbdank71 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per Tellerman, Arkyan and Spartaz. JoshuaZ 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this isn't the pokemon wiki. I also fixed the header of the DRV. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ty for fixing that, didn't remember there was a template for that. well this isn't the slave dictionary, so i guess we should treat that subject as superficially as possible too? u and all the other people who use the arguement "X not Pokemon Y" need to take a look at wikipedia's five pillars especially the first one. "Wikipedia... incorporat[es] elements of ... specialized encyclopedias...." see my above arguements for further discussion. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as original nominator. It seemed like consensus was clear that categories aren't to be organized by minor game mechanics. And PokeZap, we heard you the first time. No need to continue to drive home the same point.--Mike Selinker 03:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i wouldn't need to drive home the same point if people didn't keep merely restating their opinion rather than countering my arguements. it's like you say, "A" and I say, "well what about B?" and you just say, "A" again, what am i supposed to do? in the CFD it would have at least had the appearance of a discussion if you responded to the people who refuted your claim. I'm not arguing that trivial mechanics shouldn't be categorized (i'd nominate Category:Shiny Pokemon by color any day). The thing is that you said gender was trivial, some people came on explaining why it wasn't, and you ignored them. everyone else just parroted eachother resulting in a vote that's been interpreted as consensus. two people even in this discussion have used the arguement "4-1 means consensus". -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Nom seems to be under the misapprehension that "over-categorization" is merely an epithet, rather than recognizing it as a widely accepted guideline (WP:OC), and therefore recognizing that the people who cited it were offering arguments and reasoning. (If it isn't a trivial intersection, it is at least, definitely a narrow one.) Arguments to keep, on the other hand, seemed to be based on the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a game guide. It is not. Xtifr tälk 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i appreciate your link to WP:OC, i'd like to point out that in the original CFD the only reference to WP:OC was "no sex/gender" which isn't actually on there (closest thing is "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" which allows for categories if a head article could be written). you cite Trivial intersections, and Narrow intersections. besides what was posted before, i'd also like to add that genderless pokemon are specially affected when it comes to breeding because they cannot breed with others of their species, but must breed with a Ditto. and gender in general has even been extended into causing visual differences between sexes of the same species as of Diamond and Pearl, so gender is not some small mechanic of the game, irrelevant to comprehensive understanding. As far as "Narrow" goes, WP:OC states, "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article." This isn't what's going on here, there never was a Category:Males or even Category:Fictional males. "Narrow" would be creating Category:Female-only Bug-type Pokemon. so if you want to cite WP:OC you're going to need a different reason. And there is no misunderstanding about game-guide material, except perhaps that if people are ignorant about a topic related to games that they immediately call it cruft or a violation of WP:NOT. the concept of gender-specific pokemon is not instructional nor superfluous. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OC leads one to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states in relevant part "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Which Pokemon are boys and which are girls is not a topic of special encyclopedic interest. Otto4711 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • alright, but looking at that, all the examples are for people. and indeed, whether an author is male or female rarely has any impact on their importance. however, the fact that a certain pokemon can only ever be male or female (or genderless) is an important factor in the game on par with type, thereby having a specific relation to the topic which is at the core of the statement, the topic of encyclopedic interest was in reference to the example. I'll jump the gun with you, and go right to the most relevant point, a simple statement that, "a gender... subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree." however even this falls a little flat as it's point to to avoid "ghettoizing" people. but pokemon aren't people, they don't have rights and feelings we should respect. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have certainly deleted sex-based categories for fictional characters in the past for example for female superheroes and supervillains and the like. If the reason that the sex of a Pokemon is important is because their sex determines their role in a game then the category strays into game guide territory, which Wikipedia is not. Otto4711 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This category was closed as delete against a consensus of 30:11 in favor of keeping. The closing admin in his comments retained all of the arguments in favor of deletion (even though they had been contested by several editors) and none of the arguments in favor of keeping. Request DRV on the basis that this was closed in error with no visible consensus to delete and a probable rough consensus to keep Ramdrake 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin

I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of categories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that are neutral categories that can help the project. The comments in favor of keeping are addressed by the fact thhat "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can be used for the purpose raised in these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn closing admin's rationale makes no sense. "other similar categories deleted on same basis" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. This was a discussion for these categories and an overwhelming consensus to keep. You can't cite other consensus to override this consensus. -N 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn As a matter of procedure: the closing admin cites material which was not in the vote and discussion -- the so-called "similar" deletions -- and therefore not voted on and not discussed in this particular CFD. Similar deletions, if they apply, should be cited and simply become part of the open discussion and vote. In fact, the admin didn't contribute these "similar deletions" to the discussion. What's being suggested here is if an admin doesn't agree with the outcome of the vote and discussion, a "similar" deletions faux precedent can be applied in a totally arbitrary manner. How could this be "closed with delete" without reference to the vote and discussion which had just taken place? This wasn't a vote on the deletion of all editor self-identification categories, but a specific set of categories on which a specific discussion and vote took place. Let the vote and discussion of the deletion of all editor self-identification categories happen elsewhere if that's what this admin wants purged from the Wikipedia. patsw 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/remove from userboxes. There is obviously no consensus to delete outright. The idea that I think is the best and a most reasonable compromise based on the given arguments was the suggestion to simply remove these categories from userboxes. There is an encyclopedic use for them - finding people to write articles. If someone cares enough to add themselves to the category manually, chances are they are interested in helping to write an article. Getting them out of userboxes answers just about every objection other than the "religion=bad" objections, which, well, aren't very helpful. Banning userbox categories for anything other than babel boxes would actually solve a lot of life's woes - they serve no function other than to be annoying. When people add 50 userboxes to their userpage and that puts them in 50 categories, that doesn't do a thing in this world to help you find an editor on a topic of interest. But when you have to manually add your category, then user categories are actually helpful. --BigDT 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I just read WP:NOT, and I don't see why a few people at a small debate on a single issue should be able to ignore policy. I think it is great that whoever is in charge here can just go ahead and follow the rules despite the vote. Until(1 == 2) 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To establish a consensus you have to cite something specific in WP:NOT that applies to this specific UCFD. It is unpersuasive the wave your hands over WP:NOT and declare it applies to this specific UCFD but not also to all of the other editor self-identification categories. patsw 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild overturn - were half of the votes ILIKEITs, it'd still be a no consensus. I also have faith in the categories in that, unlike "Category:German Wikipedians who like to wear shower caps backwards on alternate Thursdays in months beginning with J", there is a chance for people to collaborate using these categories. A chance, mind, not a guarantee, but it does bond editors with a common encyclopedic interest together. While I know that most of this is more of a deletion debate keep, but it's still a valid point. Will (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear overturn at the least that was no consensus - I would have closed it as keep. There are several !ilikeit style votes, but this is user categories we are talking about, Ilikeit basically amounts to "I think it is useful" or "I dont think we are causing any harm" there were also several idontlikeit votes which amount to the opposite. in addition to that there was several Othercrapwasdeletedsothishsouldbetoo delete votes which are possibly the least useful of the lot as that its NOT the way wikipedia works. The results of a previous XfD on a similar subject do not nullify a newer one. That said, I don't think jossi made this call in bad faith, I just wish admins would stop imposing their will on closures - if you want to have a say, make an argument then damn well do it IN the debate itself. ViridaeTalk 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I never close AfDs or CfDs in which I participate in the discussion. That gives me the chance to review the comments and assess them on their merits. "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can fulfill the role that the "keep" comments want, so their concerns have been addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting you close it if you participate in it. I was suggesting that if you had an opinion you should participate, rather than force it on the community by way of your close. ViridaeTalk 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I did enforce is the overall view of the community as I assessed it to be, and not just the !votes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may have intended that and just been misreading a consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Wikipedians by political ideology.--T. Anthony 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS do not trump policy.Proabivouac 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While the MfD might not have consensus to delete, community consensus has been to delete user categories that are not directly related to one's editing of Wikipedia. As the closing admin pointed out, there are "interested in" categories that supplant this one and are far less divisive. This is a sticky issue, but I believe the closing admin followed proper process by dealing with the broader community consensus on policy, rather than the narrow consensus at the deletion debate. -- Kesh 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said it yourself, there was NO consensus to delete. It might be pointed out that consensus can change, and that is why we hold seperate xfds for seperate articles, cats etc (even if they are related in style) - otherwise, you are essentially suggesting that when one set of categories, articles gets deleted then everything related or similar should go with it - that is not the case and that should never be the case. ViridaeTalk 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - We should focus on writing articles, not on navel gazing, and this one invites discord and strife. Zero value to the project. Crum375 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We give our admins certain discretion because we trust their judgement. Discretion was appropriately used here, in keeping with policy. An utterly needless and potentially damaging category. Marskell 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or maybe relist. As I voted "keep" maybe I shouldn't speak, but I can accept a consensus that goes against me. I just don't quite see the consensus here. Discounting every one-line statement about keep, and ones simply saying "I like it", there doesn't seem to be a consensus for delete. Deletion seems to be partly based on "other stuff was deleted", granted there might be no article for that idea, which I'm not sure is considered a valid reason. Although if we remove all "identity" categories then this would have to go.--T. Anthony 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see. Are these categories in any way useful for building an encyclopedia? Probably not. Are they in any way harmful? No, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Is any of the content on most Wikipedians' pages useful for building an encyclopedia? Likewise, no. Unless we are willing to remove all personal content from user pages, undelete. (Not to mention that deletion was against a clear consensus to keep.) - Mike Rosoft 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Seems to have been properly closed. Admins are trusted to use discretion based on what's best for the project. ElinorD (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The only compelling arguments were on the "delete" side. The closer did an excellent job. Sean William ‹‹‹ 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Cyde and ElinorD, and particularly per all who reminded those here that Xfd is not a vote. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Anthongy. While the Puppy is correct that XfD is not a vote, 30/11 is a bit extreme and there were decent arguments in favor of keeping so it isn't like these were ILIKEIT keeps. JoshuaZ 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn. Here we go again: as with the political categories, this debate was closed without achieving anything remotely resembling a consensus to delete. Having taken an intermediate/compromise position in the discussion, I am appalled that Jossi's closing comments interpret "users can categorise themselves as Wikipedians interested in XXX" as endorsement or support for deletion. Those of us who argued in favour of "Interested in XXX" categories made clear that this was a proposal to rename the existing cats, not to delete them. There seems to be a misapprehension in the closing comments that "Interested in..." categories already exist for users to transfer themselves to. As far as I have ascertained, they generally don't. For a given religion, both "interested" and "identifier" userboxes will nearly always put you into the identifier category. Currently, only 3 interested cats exist (for Buddhists, Jews and Sikhs). As an enormous set of them will have to be created to replace the existing identifier cats, it makes sense to keep the latter and rename. This is an unfinished discussion, arbitrarily cut short. It seems to me that some people are treating deletion debates as a formality which can be ignored if the community doesn't reach the "right" conclusion. That's divisive and undermines the assumption of good faith. Gnostrat 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: sofixit. Nobody is stopping anyone from creating these "Wikipedians interested in" categories. If you did not know it, note the wiki software does not allow the renaming of categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: When a verdict of rename is reached at UCfD, usually the closing admins recommends such and care is taken to create the new, renamed categories to replace the old one, including transcluding the users therein; here, a straight deletion was recommended, and such was carried out summarily, before even the end of the DRV. What's more, this is a supercategory containing about 150 individual categories, and thousands of individual users. If Jossi suggests that he really had in mind that the categories should be renamed, he should take up the task of renaming and transcluding all relevant subcats and users, (which is an admin task), and not suggest a mere editor do it.--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can transclude categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as we're also speaking about around 150 cats encompassing several thousand users, I'm wondering if a mere UCFD delete is enough to settle the matter, or if it shouldn't have been brought to the Village Pump from the start?--Ramdrake 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Once again, we have an editor who has never been to UCFD unilaterally ignoring the wishes of the people registering their opinion there. This has to stop.--Mike Selinker 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not understand what an xfD is and what does it means to close it. Closing admins take into consideration not only !votes of the few people that commented, but the arguments presented, and overall established understanding of what user categories are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
!Votes of the "few people who commented" was 30:11 in favor of keeping. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping, which if repelled would set a precedent by which all user categories must cease to exist. How could the closing admin dismiss such a consensus and such arguments without even mentioning them in his closing?--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed hundreds of discussions at CFD and UCFD, thanks. You, on the other hand, have commented exactly once at CFD and once at UCFD in 2007, before closing this debate. So I'd prefer it if you didn't lecture me about what you presume I don't know.--Mike Selinker 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have closed CfDs, but have closed many xfDs. Your comment unilaterally ignoring the wishes of the people registering their opinion means that you have not understood the rationale for closing the way I did. People commenting in xfDs sometime does not represent established understanding and community consensus. In these cases a responsible sysop will do what I did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the people here understood the closing admin's rationale alright (at least most of them); they just don't agree with it.--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not !vote in xfDs or DRVs. We comment and bring forth our arguments to be evaluated on their merit. Counting !votes tripped you before, and is tripping you now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but I believe Wikipedia works by consensus. I would take a 30:11 expression of preference, without any indication of IPanon vote-stacking, or SPA activity, and no overarching reason to go against consensus (such as a copyright violation) as a pretty good consensus to keep. I'm not looking for an explanation to disregard the vote; I'm looking for an explanation to disregard the consensus.--Ramdrake 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said that I took the keep comments into account in my closing, and I believe the expression of preference for keep can be bridged by the "Wikipedians interested in" categories. So, I still believe that the closing was expressing consensus, and not dismissing it. Now, we should let the DRV continue without additional back and forth between us. I guess that we can only agree to disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Community supports these categorizations despite a few editors zealously interested in their removal. Owen 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Policy and common sense trumps WP:ILIKEIT. Close was clearly in the interests of the project. And salt them too, so that this crap doesn't come back. MER-C 09:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- voting is evil, and admins are empowered to ignore non-compelling arguments. Liking a category is not compelling. --Haemo 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Policy and common sense also trump WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is what MER-C's comment amounts to, and the same goes for a number of the Delete arguments in the CfD (as well as vacuous comments here like "zero value", "closing admin made the right call" and the like). The Keep arguments weren't all about "liking a category", this has already been adequately answered on more than enough occasions. Perhaps we could focus on the procedural issue, which is whether the CfD was improperly closed. Since WP:CDP places on closing admins the requirement of ensuring there is rough consensus for a Delete, which self-evidently there was not, then we default to Keep. Admins are entrusted with discretion, but this should "respect the judgment and feelings of...participants", see WP:DGFA. Only basic non-negotiable policy considerations justify overriding editor opinion and I can find no such policies that apply here. Gnostrat 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just noticed the closing admin for the original UCfD went and deleted the category while the DRV is still running (and should be left running for at least another 3 days, according to the 5-day guideline). Is this normal?--Ramdrake 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been odd for that not to have happened. He closed the debate as delete and deleted them. You contested the decision and brought it here. It won't be undeleted unless consensus here demands that. So the article deleted, as it is, is the default; there is no reason to undelete it before this discussion ends. Dmcdevit·t 10:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Overturn-It was very obviously a "keep", beyond any possible re-interpretation. Calling it otherwise, simply because he felt other categories have been previously deleted for similar reasons, in inexcusable. When clear and overwhelming consensus says to keep (or even "no consensus if one wants to take ludicrous liberties), then it is never excusable to pretend it's a delete, just because one personally disagrees with consensus. If you don't like the results, file another ucfd. Bladestorm 16:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It must be the summer sun (or for those in the southern hemisphere, the winter cool). There is just no way this could be closed as delete. Indeed, XfD is not a vote, but that's not a license to usurp an overwhelming consensus based on one's personal opinion. If you want to contribute your opinion, do so by commenting in the XfD debate. Admins are supposed to analyze consensus here, with some leeway to ignore far-out opinions, not force their personal opinion on the masses by claiming the delete votes (like "Let's get rid of this poisonous trash" and "consistency and fairness"?) were more compelling. I'm sure you meant well jossi, but closures like these give the impression that this deletion was unavoidable, that the category was just going to be deleted anyway and the five days of discussion was a waste of time. Frankly, that's an insult to the community (even if it was not intentional). -- tariqabjotu 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 50 people said "Lets keep a copyright violation", and 1 person said "No, that would be illegal", should "consensus" win? I would like to see the page that actually defines this strange usage of "consensus", so I can better understand the propriety of this closing. I think I am close to understanding it from seeing examples of it in use, but I am still a little confused. I hope it means that mob rule can be overruled when they use faulty rational. Until(1 == 2) 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could happen, if there was a clear violation of a non-negotiable policy, such as a copyright violation. There is no copyvio here, and no demonstrable, indisputable breach of a non-negotiable policy, and no demonstrated SPA or anon vote-stacking activity. Therefore, consensus should win. For a better definition of what should have happened, please refer to the category deletion policy.--Ramdrake 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion In the future, such categories must be speedied as clear violations of policy. Beit Or 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the only violation which might apply (although it has been strongly disputed here and in the original UCFD) is WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. If we find a violation here, despite the manifest use of these categories for encyclopaedia-building, then all user categories are in violation, as they can all be used for social networking.--Ramdrake 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I see no clear consensus to delete (and bear in mind "keep" is the default outcome). Reasonable arguments were presented on both sides, and the closing admin's interpretation was not necessarily reflected in the community's discussion. Hut 8.5 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn the entire UCFD process is out of control and doesn't reflect community concensus SchmuckyTheCat
  • Overturn How can you argue that there is a clear consensus to delete. --MichaelLinnear 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blessthefall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)Article was deleted and recreated four times according to the protected articles page for May 2007. I never saw the page when it was around, but the band is clearly notable; see Their Allmusic writeup and Arizona Star article noting nationwide Warped Tour appearance. I am willing to write the article and establish notability if it is unprotected. Chubbles 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was rather promotional in tone, and would have needed rewriting and better sourcing to survive an AfD. But it was deleted under A7 ("no assertion of significance or importance") while the article as last deleted included "blessthefall's debut album, His Last Walk, surfaced in April 2007". This might or might not be enough to pass WP:MUSIC, but IMO releasing any album at all (assuming this was a true release, not an Internet-only release, which i think it was, since a real label is mentioned) is enough of a "claim of notability" to avoid an A7 delete. I would overturn and list on AfD. But in any case, this should be unsalted as there is a good faith statement of intent to write a proper article on this group, which if possible should not be blocked merely because someone wrote a poor article in the past. DES (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a follow-up: that is indeed a true release, on Record Collection, which is a major-label subsidiary. Chubbles 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt The last version isn't worth undeleting. Support unsalting and recreation with sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Radio Monash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not proposing undeletion, but current contributors to the article seem to not have correctly understood the procedure for review. Coren 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am proposing undeletion. On a word per word basis, I noticed you had the most to day about deleting the article. Plus you were quite clearly flaming one of the contributors to the AfD page.130.194.13.101 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should not be deleted. It's relevant, if a little obscure. I also noticed it has been updated to show it's notability, which was one of Coren's main complaints about it. Although, since Coren hates to lose an argument, I'm sure he'll find something else to complain about.Manic4wiki 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was only placed on Deletion Review after I was told by an administrator that was the only way to argue against her closing of the original argument (which her decision was to merge, not delete). Please reopen this discussion. Cazza411 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Closing admin used WP:SNOW with two "votes" for this; eight similar Afd's also closed with SNOW after very little input or time elapsed. John Vandenberg 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:SNOW was not used as the main reason, it was used as a second incidental reason. I believe, I gave my reasoning for closing in all. IMO, the articles didnt stand a chance. Anyways, feel free to overturn and relist for discussion. --soum talk 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N is a guideline, and requires concensus for deletion, and five days is the time allocated to allow people to respond. Closing it after 12 hours is relying entirely on SNOW to do the close. All nine closes should be undone immediately to allow them to continue. John Vandenberg 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised at how quickly they were closed, but given the total lack of sources (most rely on myspace) I figured that WP:SNOW was as good a reason as any, I don't see the article being improved in the next four days. Darrenhusted 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, a speedy keep by the same admin has been reverted so the Afd continues. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamie Sheffield. The admin has a notice on the user page that they will be offline for the next two days. John Vandenberg 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing editor speedied 9 AFDs after 4 to 11 hours and with 2 to 4 delete !votes, then posted that he would be offline a couple of days. If so, it would have been better to let someone else close the debates so they could respond to questions about it, or to take a look at them after the 2 days off. WP:SNOW is not appropriate when, in some time zones, people were asleep and really had no opportunity to comment. Not enough time, and not enough persons participating, to justify a premature closing of debate and deletion of the subject. The AFDs which should be restored and relisted are: Tony Rumble (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes), Glen Osbourne (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Steve Madison (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) Ron Hutchinson (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Jake Milliman (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Rick Fuller (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Chet Jablonski (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes) , Steve Bradley (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes) , and Destine (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes). I see no benefit in deleting articles as soon as they are listed, thereby substituting the judgement of 2 to 4 editors for the many who check the listings each day. This is not to say they are great articles at all. Edison 15:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the closing admin has already reversed this set of deletions and re-opened the AfD discussions for each of them. This DRV can now be closed as no longer necessary. Arkyan • (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Didar Singh Bains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No claim of significance or importance). It seems to me that such statements in the article as "one of the richest Sikh farmers in North America" "a leading figure in the Sikh community for the last 20 years". "president of the World Sikh organization" and "founder chairman of the World Kabbadi federation" do constitute an assertion of significance. Obviously better sroucing would be needed for this to survive an AfD, but I think these claims ought to be enough to avoid an A7 speedy. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, but has not responsed, although he responded to two later requests to reconsider speedy deletions with "Please see WP:DRV." DES (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with the comment "Biographical article that does not assert significance" four times by the same admin. The admin was asked on his talk page to restore, and has not responded. The article says "Moore co-wrote the true-crime novel Deadly Medicine with ex-husband Dan Reed in the early 80s. The 295-page work went on to become a New York Times best-seller for seven weeks in 1988, and also a NBC TV movie-of-the-week." That is a very celar claim ot notability. I don't see how anyone can think this is an A7 speedy delete. On that basis alone I would be incined to a keep at an AfD, assuminmg that this claim was sourced. But even if some editors might reasonably opt for deletion at an afd, this isn't the kind of "clear-cut" case that speedy deletion is intended for. Overturn deletion. DES (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would not undelete this, as the article was clearly promotional in tone, but it may well be possible to write an article on the book (whicih has received significant non-trivial coverage) and a redirect to there would be unproblematic. There seems to be no claim to notability other than the single book. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't know if other claims to notability would arise as the article develops, or in an AfD, but IMO being the author of even a single book on the NYT bestseller list is enough of a claim to notability to avoid a speedy, and quite probably enough to avoid deletion at an AfD. If the article was somewhat promotional in tone (I would not call it "blatant spam") then it could be rewritten to accord with WP:NPOV easily enough. DES (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is an artificial construct. What matters is the sources, and whether the sources are predominantly about the book or the author. If they are about the book (and those cited were) then the article should be about the book. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a judgement call -- it can be discussed on the talk page of the restored article, or in an AfD. The article could be moved and rewritten to be about the book, or sources more directly about the author might be found. In any case, that is not the kind of decision that ought to be made by one or two editors, but by a more general consensus. DES (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as an invalid speedy We should follow process. (anyway, promotional tone is not an accepted reason for speedy.) The book was on the best seller's list, so writing it is unquestionably an assertion of significance (whether or not it may be sufficient) and does not qualify for Speedy. Doing it wong 4 times does not make it right. DGG 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - claim to notability is established; while there might be other reasons to delete it, this should had been AfD. Though a minor writer, the notability still exists. --Thespian 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I don't think this was blatant advertising... any more than any article about a published writer is inherently advertising. Yes some people might read the description and decide to read the author's work, but this article was just giving encyclopedic information and it did give a claim of notability. We really shouldn't speedy delete stuff like this. Replace this Amazon link with a "find in a library" link perhaps. --W.marsh 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list on AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/undelete per W.Marsh and no reason to AfD since the author of a NYT bestseller is clearly notable. Akradecki is correct about the need to remove the second paragraph in question. JoshuaZ 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list: co-writing a clearly-notable book is an assertion of notability, so this is not A7 fodder. It does not, however, demonstrate notability, since notability is not contagious, and it is quite possible that an author (and even more, a co-author) is not notable, despite one notable work. (I'm co-author, along with thousands of other people, of some very notable software projects, but that doesn't make me notable.) What we have here is questionable-but-possible notability, so AfD is the right way to resolve this. Xtifr tälk 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Needs clean-up (even "needs extensive clean-up" or "needs total overhaul") are not valid reasons to delete an article about a best-selling author, let alone speedy. Undelete this article; then improve it. --JayHenry 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spyware_Terminator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Rewriting the entire article based on other existing articles

Spyware Terminator's page was deleted for reasons of "blatant advertising". Upon comparing what was on the page previously, the information contained was no different from the information contained in Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spysweeper, or Windows Defender. I also rewrote the page following the layout and information of Ad-Aware and that was also deleted.

I do not mind rewriting the page from scratch, and working with people to make it look less like an advertisement, assuming it ever did look one. Cableguytk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last version of the article, in full, was: Spyware Terminator is a freeware software program from Crawler,LLC used to help remove various kinds of Spyware and Malware from Windows based computers. Spyware Terminator incorporates realtime protection, basic HIPS protection, and Clam AV integration to help protect computers from these threats. This was tagged with db-spam, but this is not sapm, it is no more spammy than most stub-class articels on software. The deletion log said "tagged as spam, deleted as nn software/freeware." But "non-notable software" is not a speedy deletetion reason, nor does WP:CSD#A7 apply to software of any sort, nor should it iMO. Overturn and list on AfD to determine by consensus discussion if this should be included or not. It may not be notable, but I can't tell, and that is not a judgement properly made by one admin. Yes admins are trusted, but one pair of eye is simply not enough.DES (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already afd'd here. Nomination amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Endorse and keep salted. —Cryptic 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I am not clear on where this discussion started or what. That AFD says I cant modify it, so what am I supposed to do? I was not aware of this AFD nomination previously. So I would like to start a 3rd nomination so that I may voice my opinion. Cableguytk 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Since this had previously been deleted via an AfD deletion discussion (twice in fact) it would have been helpful had the speedy reason been given as G4 (recreation of deleted content) with a link to the prior AfD (or in this case, AfDs). The AfDs cited two primary reasons for deletion: lack of notability, and advertising. IMO the latest version had already dealt with the advertising issue. If any editor wants there to be an article on this procuct, that editor should, IMO, 1) create a draft that clearly establishes notability by including references to non-trivial mentions in multiple independant reliable sources. 2) When and if such a draft is complete, bring it here for review. if it establishes notability, then and only then the article should be unsalted and the new version moved into article space. DES (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: Distinguish page Spyware Terminator from page Spyware terminator. Anthony Appleyard 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a draft and published it several times but it keeps being deleted. I believe it addresses the advertisement-look and the lack of resources.

Here is my draft which was so nicely deleted:

This layout: 1) does not appear to be advertising to me 2) follows a mesh of the layouts at Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Windows Defender (mostly focusing on Spybot) 3) has a good amount of sources. Unfortunately due to the age of this product (around 1.5yrs), the lack of a hosuehold name like "Ad-Aware", and continuous negative campaigns against the product, including here on Wikipedia, not many other sources are available outside of the ones provided.

Please review the entry and let me know your opinions. Cableguytk 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've g4d this again and salted the properly-capitalized title as well. The new and improved independent reliable sources cited in this version were spywareterminator.com-domain links (11 of them!), a single reprinted press release, and links to download sites, just like those that were in the version deleted at afd. How many times do we go through this before folks stop assuming good faith? —Cryptic 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the program is ONLY 1.5 years old. Combine that with the fact that it is not a household name, it is mistaken for many bad products (Spyware-Terminator 4.0), it was briefly listed on SpywareWarrior.com, and it is developed by a company which had PREVIOUS ties with an adware company which eventually changed its business practices. There is NOT much for me to work with here. How many different download sites can I link before it becomes too redundant? This isn't Ad-Aware or SpyBot where the product has been around for 10 years for people to test and award it. Cableguytk 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is really "NOT much ... to work with here" that rather sugests a lack of notability. Please understand that the question isn't whether this software in some sense "deserves" an article because it is good software, or because it has had bad breaks. Nor is wikipedia a place to publicze unknown software. We have articles only about notable subjects, and that generally means a significant amount of attention has been paid to the subject by someone other than its creator, If there has not been such attention, the article will have to wait until there is. If there has been, then an article needs to document it. DES (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "11" links to the Spyware Terminator domain were to cover me should anyone claim that any of it was independent research, since Im always beig flagged for this kind of stuff. I linked to Download.com (which Ad-Aware does), I linked to a couple domains which have awarded the program (Softpedia.com, and Xmaesto.com), and I linked a press release which was about Spyware Terminator's associated former parent company changes in business practices. Other than that, there really isnt much out there worth linking, unless you want me to link up to the plethora of download sites similar to Download.com and Softpedia.com that have reviewed and listed the program. In all, I have links to 4 different independent sources (websearch.com, softpedia, xmaesto, and download.com) By comparison:

  • Ad-Aware - 2 different independent links (2 links to google, 1 to download.com)
  • SpyBot - 0 different independent links
  • Windows Defender - 3 different independent link
  • Spyware Doctor - 5 different independent sources

Cableguytk 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See WP:INN, if you find articles which don't meet wikipedia requirements like verifiability please consider (a) fixing them or (b) nominating them for deletion if unfixable, but whatever you do don't see it as a green light for creating more of the same. --pgk 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion of those articles is not my objective, nor should it be. The only reason why the Spyware Terminator article is deleted and not those articles is because there are more people out there who want to run negative campaigns against the software, and less who want to for those listed programs. So there is more likely to be a person on Wikipedia who wants to do whatever they can to take down Spyware Terminator. Im sorry, but Im not going to flag those articles for being bad...I see them as being legitimate articles worthy of being listed, and if the admins see otherwise, let them handle it. My objective is to get the Spyware Terminator article relisted, and if the admins do not see a problem with those articles listed above UNLESS a user raises issue, then the Spyware Terminator article should not be discriminated against. Cableguytk 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admins are volunteers, admins do not spend all their time looking at every article and vetting it, so yes unless someone flags an issue with an article it may go unnoticed for a long time. That's the way it works. Admins are also not obliged to bring every article up to scratch just because someone points it out to them. Sorry you see this as some sort of grand conspiracy, it isn't and declaring it as such is unlikely to garner any sympathy. As for discrimination, yep wikipedia discriminates against all sorts of content based on our basic standards of verifiability, no original research etc. etc. If you want somewhere which is merely a "fair" free for all where any crap goes, wikipedia is not the place there are plenty of free web hosts out there. --pgk 08:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious endorse deletion. Article was canonical spam, author is pretty obviously promoting his own interests here. Nothing to see, move along please. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - As I read the draft article, I got the distinct feeling I was reading the software's box, complete with the systems requirements label. Sorry, but not only was the article not encyclopedic, there was nothing in the article that convinced me that this particular program was notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia. (And just for the record, between the two versions of the title, this article has been deleted a total of 9 times...enough already!) AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG: so you would rather me go around and nominate for deletion every article like Ad-Aware, SpyBot...anyone that I found to be a junky article, thus causing the future removal of articles which no one maintains, yet there is no desire to list an article which may be bad in some peoples eyes but has a good following of people who are willing to maintain it to make it look good? I just dont see how this helps Wikipedia.

Akradecki:Why dont you go check Ad-Aware or Spybot or Windows Defender while you are at it and tell me what you think of those articles?
Seeing as how the admins dont mind reading those other articles during this deletion review for comparison, why arent those up for deletion? Oh right, because no non-admin has voted them for deletion review.
As I have been indicating, just put the article back up and, as you see that I am willing to maintain the article, i will clean it up to the point where it doesnt look like ad advertisement. There is not much that can be done with the artcile if it is not available to me or anyone else. Oh yeah, I can attempt to edit it offline, but the incremental update history which Wikipedia provides helps admins see where changes have been made and where suggestions can be made.
If the Ad-Aware and Spybot articles were to get deletion review tags for spam/advertisements, editors would be able to edit the articles to make those changes before the article was to be deleted. That is how it worked with Softpedia and WIP (AM), both of which I am/was an active editor with. People had a problem, i edited the articles and resolved the problem. Cableguytk 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion fails to meet our standards, nominators insistance that it should be here because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS whilst not willing to nominate that other stuff for deletion suggests they just want to use wikipedia as a free webhost, something it is not --pgk 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spyware Terminator already has its own webhost (spywareterminator.com), there is no point to having wikipedia be a webhost. The intention here is to have an article which gives the user a one page rundown of the product without having to 1) download the product, 2) install the product, or 3) run the product. It is to inform the user of the product, its intent and a short history. I am not willing to nominate any of those articles for deletion because I personally dont feel like they need deletion. For simple windows software the layout of these pages, including Spyware Terminator's previously deleted one, is sufficient to inform the user of the program and its intents. Let me put it this way, if today was September 11, 2001 @9AM and you wanted to make an article, the article would be 100% made from original research. You saw the event, no papers have written anything yet, and all that exists is your word and the next guy's. Obviously this article is a major historical event that needs to be in Wikipedia, but you are going to tell me that it requires deletion because there are no sources available, or the article does not become valid until you find some independent sources like the NYTimes/CNN/etc. to write a story about it? And when someone complains that it was deleted because there are no published sources for 9/11 at 9AM, and the reply that entries for biblical events like Noah's Ark have no published resources and you going to say that this falls into the category os WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I doubt that. Every piece of history in the history books, even the BIBLE, has had some form of original research or content. Information about the most generic parts of an event dont require citations or the sort - 9/11 = 2 planes hit the WTC, 1 plane downed in PA, 1 plane into the pentagon - it is not until you start going into detail with claims that you need that kind of citation. In sum, every article has a good portion which is and requires original research, things that dont need citations to say that it happened or existed. If the Spyware Terminator article is made to be a stub which says "Spyware Terminator is a freeware application which removes and protects from spyware. It was developed by Crawler, blah blah" that is fine. In time, there will be some notable sources which will publish verifiable information. In 9/11's case it didnt take much more than an hour...in Spyware Terminator's case it might take a few weeks, but it certainly is no grounds for deleting the article. Cableguytk 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - do you realize that by saying "The intention here is to have an article which gives the user a one page rundown of the product without having to 1) download the product, 2) install the product, or 3) run the product. It is to inform the user of the product, its intent and a short history", you are essentially admitting that you are spamming? Your point is to provide information to the users/customers of this product, the very definition of spam. We are not a place to promote a product to potential users! I don't know how much clearer we can make this basic concept. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in my book. All the "spam" i receive insists I download or try the stuff Im informed about. Besides, what do you think the Ad-Aware, SpyBot, etc. articles are doing? In theory I could consider information about every article in here as spam if you define it that way. The sports articles introduce themselves, tell you where it can be found on TV, what is so great about the program, etc. That is not spam in your book? [McDonalds] article describes the store, its history, and its products. That is not spam in your book? It seems the only difference you make between a product article which is spam and which isnt spam is notable sources, but from my discussion above, sources dont make something notable or not. Again, in the first hour of 9/11, it is only seen by viewers eyes and the only people writing about it on are unrespected editors of the wikipedia community. It only becomes "notable" once there are articles in CNN or NYTimes apparently... Cableguytk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, exactly. Notability, as we define it here at Wikipedia (see WP:N), is conferred by the existence of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. What I was referring to by your admission of spamming is the intention of the article: you were aiming it to inform specifically users or potential users of the software. In other words, it's not a general article for a general audience of a documentedly notable subject, it's an article that you specifically wrote to promote the product to a specific audience, the potential users of the product. That's basic marketing, my friend, and Wikipedia simply isn't a venue for marketing. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didnt address what I said, and I dont care about OTHERCRAPEXISTS because this is a valid statement. What about McDonalds, Burger King, NFL, etc. These have nothing to do with software, but it relates directly to it. I can go as far to Windows, and Sports, and television programs. They are all the same thing, product placement. It is all spam the way you define "spam". They are all articles aptly placed on Wikipedia to raise product awareness, that is all they are there for. The difference between Spyware Terminator and these other products is two fold: 1) a decent following of people willing to defend and edit the article (as you can see I am pretty much the only one on the defense team for the Spyware Terminator article here), and 2) a storied history from 10 years up to 100 years long. Cableguytk 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • List at AfD All these articles list no independent RSs, except their forums. they could--some of them have been reviewed. It's been customary to cut corners for software people recognize as notable. The comments about differential treatment are in my opinion justified. To establish the standard of content in WP for a class of articles, comparisons are relevant, consistency is important, othercrapexists is over-used--it's only appropriate when the other stuff is crap. DGG 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete and keep salted, there is differential treatment between other software and this one because Spyware Terminator, unlike some others, is not notable. (Or, at least, notability cannot be established). The whole point of notability guidelines is differential treatment. Coren 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what leads you to believe it is not notable? Because there are no reviews by the industry-standard PC Magazine (which are in progress, mind you)? No content on TV about the product on G4TV? No recurring advertisments in major US magazines? I think you are clouded in your thought that the only notable security applications contains only 5 products (Adaware, spybot, Spysweeper, Windows Defender, CounterSpy). If you go over to Brazil or Czech Republic, you will find many more people who think Spyware Terminator is more notable than the aforementioned products. I guess Spyware Terminator should use some kind of aggressive advertising campaign like the aforementioned products or pay Download.com to be listed on the frontpeage when new updates arrive (like Ad-Aware) to become notable...however that would be seen as spam. Cableguytk 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have an even better idea. Why dont you point me in the direction of an article of a software title which you DO accept. Then I can model Spyware Terminator's after that one so we wont have this problem. I can point you in the direction of several articles which exist on Wikipedia for every type of software, security, chat, fun, etc., and most, while accepted by the masses, dont follow guidelines and seem just like a big spam advert. So I want you to find me one you think follows guidelines to a T. Cableguytk 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of the form, of what it is "modeled on". For any topic, software, or pop star or author, or firearm, there needs to be notability. The most usual means of establishing notability is to show that there are reliable sources, independant of the subject or its creator or proprietor, that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. Note that blogs and fansites are enerally not reliable sources, and the site of the product manufturer may not be considered reliable, and is never independant. If other software articels have reliabel sources and this one doesn't, this one will be delted and the others won't. if other software articles also lack reliable sources, then they too will probably be delted in time, but there is no all-or-nothing rule, we get to things as we get to them. Srop trying to compare with other articles, good or bad, and find some sources that indicate significant notability for this software. If none can be found, thre won't be an article until such sources come into existance. If a PC-mag review is in the works, try again after it has been published, for example. DES (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is does seem to be partially about a question of form as far as other admins seem to make mention of. As other admins have brought up, a version history apparently refers to spam, as does referring to the developer webpage 10+ times (which was done to cover my ass in the event that someone said my content was original research, which it was not), as does informing people what the program does. If I had compare the article to the established Yahoo! Messenger, it includes a version history, it also involves links to Yahoo! pages, and it also is an informative page about what it does, yet no one over there complains. There is obviously some standard for software that is engrained to all admins minds. On a second note, I did find notable sources - Download.com (#1 download site in the world), Softpedia.com (#3 download site in the world), websearch.com (another search engine, just as notable as the next search engine). Apparently there is some hidden standard of sources of what is notable and what is not, because apparently the ones I mentioned are not enough to satisfy. Do all the sites need to ranked in the top 10 of alexa rankings to be notable or something? Moreover, every attempt I made to recreate the article was subsequently deleted without discussion, just the standard G11-XXX spam message with no clarification. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Procedural note for the record - If the deletion is upheld, the draft article needs to be removed from the user's page, and put into a sandbox if he wants to keep working on it. Spam on a user's page is still spam. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the article was indeed pretty promotional in tone, right down to speculation on the next release and system requirements. There might be an article to be had on this software, there might not, but regardless, that one wasn't it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, I can find about 10 other articles that do the same. The admins go out of there way to keep a watchdog on the Spyware Terminator pages and make sure that no one edits them, so I dont see a problem with the admins going out of the way to delete these other pages by themselves. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Spyware Terminator is flagged as advertising than any individual product on WIKI should be deleted as advertising. As they are tooting their own horn. Either let them stay or delete them all. Categories could just be Spyware elimination programs, Virus elimination programs etc...This way everything sounds impartial. sleepm 26 June 2007
  • Endorse Deletion. I trudged through nearly a dozen pages of Google results without finding a single article in a notable source with this product as its primary subject--just loads of download links and a few user reviews. Ad-Aware and Spybot, on the other hand, have been discussed as the primary subject of articles that would satisfy WP:RS. With that said, the arguments in favour of restoring this article seem to amount to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and I don't see any problems with process being suggested here. Heather 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finding articles is one thing, having them linked on the wikipedia page is another, something which the Ad-aware and Spybot pages fail to do (they both have the same, or fewer, number of sources that my Spyware Terminator article had). If you spoke Czech, Im sure you would find a good number of notable sources since the company is based out of Czech Republic. Cableguytk 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ad-Aware and Spybot have been around alot longer than ST has. Is it being penalized for being too new? Either it is truly an Encyclopedia or it isn't. If it is just an Encyclopedia than no "products" should be allowed period. If it is not than it should be allowed. HAS ANY OF THE PEOPLE SHOOTING IT DOWN ACTUALLY TRIED THE PROGRAM? sleepm 26 June 2007
        • Wikipedia is not a place for promoting or endorsing or advertising any program or service. Therefore, not having an article on a particular program is not "penalizing" it. We don't care about whether a program is represented or not. We care about whether our standards are met. Just because there's an article on another product doesn't mean "they are tooting their own horn." In fact, they better not be...we take a dim view of marketing folks doing that. Yes, it happens, and you have to keep in mind that there are 1.8+million articles here, and only 1,200+ admins, but I think I can speak for just about every admin when I say that if we get wind of such a self-horn-tooting campaign, we take it seriously, and try to get the offender to politely stop, and if not, not only do we remove the spam, but we will block the spammer, if they aren't responsive to respecting our standards. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Whether those products are tooting their own horn is not my problem (obviously sleepm has a problem with it). My problem is that when I recreated the article, which was subsequently deleted, I followed a guideline which said that when recreating an article make sure to follow the layout of previously established articles. I went to all three articles, Ad-Aware, SpyBot and Windows Defender, and made a layout which was kind of a mesh of all three...I followed the layout, i followed the tone of voice, the number of resources...everything. YET the page was STILL deleted. It shows proof of preferential treatment. The admins are not letting me or anyone else recreate the article to even ATTEMPT to clean it up. As you can obviously see I am more than willing, along with a host of other people to clean the article, make it appealing and conform to standards, yet the admins have some personal vendetta against the progra or the article and wont let that happen. Cableguytk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Endorse deletion. That's pretty much the problem. Your product is newer, and therefore has not had the reliable sources to comment on it. Once it becomes well-known, is written about by those reliable sources, and gets some cachet, then come back. Corvus cornix 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So basically you are telling me that if some major historical event was to happen right now or soon, I couldnt have it added to Wikipedia until a credible resource wrote about it? So if Barry Bonds was to hit 7 homeruns tonight, effectively breaking Hank Aaron's record, I couldnt write about it until a credible resource like CNN, AP, NYTimes, etc. wrote about it even though millions of people know of the event? Or if we had a major nuclear attack on some country, I couldnt write about that until the AP or CNN reports it even though billions of people know about it? Im not sure you realize that most of what Comptons and Brittanica publish is conjecture and based on the experience of a single author or historian. Cableguytk 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yup. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (see WP:NOTNEWS). If you don't like the policies, you're free to go start a discussion about it on the appropriate policy or guideline page. Until they are changed, though, that's the standard. Not liking it, though, is not a reasonable justification for ignoring it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, then I must really be missing something...Main_Page has a whole section devoted to today's news. Cableguytk 02:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you look at the bottom of the news box, it has a link to Wikinews, which is for news, and is where the content of that box comes from. Thus your arguement is invalidated.Improbcat 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • So then what is to say i can't post news of a new release of Spyware Terminator there if a proper press release is provided? Cableguytk 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The fact Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]? As has been pointed out to you before and as I just confirmed by pointing out the flaw in your argument. At this point you are either being intentionally obtuse, or are fundamentally incapable of grasping the basic concepts of what wikipedia is and isn't.
If people tell you what wikipedia's policy on something is, and link to an explanation of said policy, then you need to stop arguing that that isn't the case. It has been shown to be the case, and any further claims to the contrary just appear that either you are not listening, or are trying to confuse the issue by arguing minutia that has already been deemed irrelevant. If you disagree with the policy, this is not the place to argue that. Argue it on the policy page, but the policy is not going to be changed because you said here you don't agree with it. Improbcat 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not refuting wikipedia's policies, Im arguing the point that Spyware Terminator is being held to preferential treatment. Some of the admins keep bringing up policies which I dont refute, but they are being held against the Spyware Terminator article and not against other articles.
Spyware Terminator has resources and it is deleted while SpyBot's article and a couple of my other articles have no sources, but they are left alone?
Spyware Terminator is accused of spamming/etc. yet articles written in the exact same form and language are left alone (SpyBot, Adaware, etc.)?
The resources I used in the Spyware Terminator article as sources were not valid even when they are used in other articles?
The policies instituted by Wikipedia are meant to bring about an all or none mentality. In other words, exceptions are not made. So if that is the case, then why are there still tons of articles which fall into the category of being an exception? In other words, "we make exception for Ad-Aware and SpyBot because, oh no one was DRV'ed it". Or, "we make exception for products like McDonalds and Burger King because they actually have a storied history". Or to take it one step further: "we wont delete XXX article because no one has DRV'ed it, but we will delete Spyware Terminator recreations without question or discussion". Cableguytk 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Look, this is the last time I am replying, because I have seen no sign that you are actually listening to anything anyone is saying. The reason the admins are paying any attention to spyware terminator is because an editor submitted it to DRV or speedied it. An editor with as much access and power as you. The admins aren't "singling you out", they are paying attention to the DRV or speedied items, which is there roles as admins.
If an editor, any editor, were to bring the other articles you keep talking about to their attention via DRV or speedies, they would pay attention to those. In fact, the main reason for deleting you article is lack of reliable sources, and the spybot article is tagged as having the same problem. So people aren't giving the spybot article a free pass, they are noting it has the same problem. And if someone were to DRV it, it would need to prove it's notability the same as your article. Yes, your article happened to have been DRVed and spybot wasn't but that wasn't "singling out", it is happenstance. There are over 1.8 MILLION articles on wikipedia, and as such there are many articles that have not been properly vetted, wikipedia is an ongoing process so sometimes it just takes longer to get to some articles than others.
Yes, at this point editors and admins are probably "singling out" the spyware terminator, but that is due to your repeated violations of the policies of wikipedia. And the fact that rather than making your article comply, you simply keep reposting it, and arguing loudly that it should stay, regardless of it's meeting of the rules or not. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease", or in this case "The article who's author repeatedly ignores AfD rulings, doesn't make their article meet the required guidelines, spams it to multiple other listings, and writes multi-paragraph arguments rather than providing any independent sources get DRVed first".
As for the MacDonalds and Burger King articles you bring up The both have multiple independent references and have been the subject of many stories, books, articles, etc. completely independent of the company. Thus they clearly and easily meet the relevant requirements for their inclusion.
Your article doesn't, plain and simple. Your multiple internal references are NOT valid as proof of notability. Why? Because they are not reliable independent references. Period. Everyone here is pretty much trying to tell you "These are the requirements for inclusion, meet these and your article qualifies to be here. Don't and it qualifies to be deleted." And rather than meeting those requirements, you are instead arguing with them and intentionally misunderstanding them or twisting them to try and find a reason why your article should be allowed to stay when it quite simply does not meet he requirements. The fact that other adware articles are simply at the "qualifies to be deleted" stage and haven't yet been deleted is completely irrelevant to this.
If you truly feel that your article should be on wikipedia, here is the only sure-fire way for that to happen. Shut up here. Read all of the various pages of rules and guidelines for inclusion that people have linked to here. Go out and find Reliable independent sources relevant to your article. Link to them in your copy of said article. Re-submit the article to Deletion Review, and ask if it qualifies, and if people say it doesn't find out why, then use that information to fix the article again. If you are unwilling to do that, no amount of arguments or comparisons to other articles is going to make a bit of difference. Improbcat 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So have you looked at Spybot's Wiki? Are they not "tooting their horn" by talking about awards they have won? Or using the words excellent and applauded? Isn't talking about its features like an ad for the product? And Ad-Aware lists system requirements, why? because they are trying to get people to use it. (ad material) Lets be fair for all or fair for none. sleepm 26 June 2007
  • If anyone is interested the previous afds are here:
  • Endorse deletion per above. Can someone nuke the userpage at the end of the debate, as it is blatant userspace spam?
  • Endorse Deletion Non-notable software that fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), complete lack of independent sources, multiple AfDs. And the author has stated repeatedly that the page is there to promote the software, which makes it spam by wikipedia's definition. Also is Cableguytk working for or otherwise connected to this company? Because that adds an extra layer of conflict of interest to the debate. Improbcat 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You all fail to answer. Is Spybot,Ad-Aware and AVg Antivirus promoting their products? Of course they are! Are they wrong also then? By your standards and definitions of course they are! So why are they allowed to get away with it? Where is the justice? sleepm 27 June 2007
      • Because the admins wont go out of their way to delete pages without someone requesting a proper Deletion review (DRV). Because I dont feel it is in my best interests, or wikipedia's, to go around DRV'ing articles and getting legitimate articles DELETED, Spyware Terminator will receive preferential treatment because there are tons of people out there willing to endorse its deletion because of their misguided views of its previous business ties. That about sums it up. What is worse, is that the article is not even allowed to exist as a stub, and every attempt to do so is deleted without discussion OR DRV NOMINATION, yet a couple of articles I have created that dont have a single source have not been touched because it refers to information which is apparently "notable". Cableguytk 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep saying Spybot, etc. are promoting their products on wikipedia. Except that they aren't. People have written articles about them, but the companies themselves did not put the articles up. In fact Wikipedia has pretty clear rules regarding conflict of interest. Furthermore it has been pointed out more than once in this discussion alone that you can not use one article's validity to support another article's validity. If you feel that Spybot, etc. are not valid articles, nominate them for deletion, otherwise shut up about them. Improbcat 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know the original article was written by http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Rajeshontheweb or whatever his name was (i unfortunately cant view any kind of history related to the page to say who originally started the article). And that was deleted. Im not accusing those articles of being written by the company, but I am saying that they use the exact same tone of voice, indicating intended product awareness. And no, im not going to DRV them for a couple reasons: 1) it is not in mine or wikipedia's best interest in deleting perfectly legitimate articles, 2) I dont have any interest in defending or pariticipating in a DRV discussion, and 3) I dont feel like getting the data necessary to put up a good fight for pages I care nothing about. I might not be able use that as an argument to prove Spyware Terminator's validity, but the argument is a valid one because while it may not give reason to restore the page, it does bring to light the fact that the page is being given preferential treatment (it is pretty clear that people here have a bit of a bias). Cableguytk 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to make one more attempt at trying to clearly annunciate for Cableguytk and Sleepm:

  1. One article existing is not justification for another article existing. Each is evaluated individually.
  2. Wikipedia's policies are not designed for "all or nothing" decisions as Sleepm asserts. Just the opposite. Our policies state that each individual article must stand or fall on its own by demonstrating compliance with policies and guidelines.
  3. The articles on the other software brands are not, as far as I can tell, promotions by their respective manufacturers. Neither is the McDonalds nor Burger King articles.
  4. The core issues here are threefold:
    1. The article, standing on its own merit, fails our notability test.
    2. The article, standing on its onw merit plus the clearly stated intent of the author is to directly promote the product to users and potential users, thereby qualifying as spam.
    3. The articles have already had judgement pronounced through mulitple AfDs.
  5. This is not a conspiracy by admins against a particular software brand.
  6. The above referenced users can now no longer claim someone hasn't addressed their questions.
  7. Cableguy is not quite correct: yes, the original Spyware terminator was created by someone else, but after its initial deletion for spam, he recreated it, and he was the original creator of Spyware Terminator.

Having said all this, and since I'm involved in the discussion so can't exercise admin tools here, with a current tally of 9:1 endorsing deletion, can someone please snow this thing? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The original writer of the article is a forum member of ST. Another forum member mentioned a Wiki article so he took it upon himself to do one. I never cared if there was a Wiki article until I saw other companies getting away with "advertising" while ST got deleted. Spyware Terminator does not need a Wiki article anyway. Word of mouth and effectiveness will take care of its reputation and increase it's following. Goodbye Wiki people!! sleepm 27 June 2007.
    • Oops...I am back. I happened to check Wiki for Smitfraud info and I noticed that "Spyhunter"

is advertised on that page and it even says it is recommended by Wiki-Security?http://smitfraud.wiki-security.comview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=ov_Parasite/Smitfraud/. This is a blatant ad. sleepm 28 June 2007.

  • If you bothered to visit the [http://smitfraud.wiki-security.comview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=About/ about page for wiki-security] you will see that it is run by Four Winds Marketing, LLC. Wikipedia is run by Wikimedia Foundation, a completely separate and unrelated entity. The wiki software, MediaWiki is available for anyone to use, and is used by many companies and organizations completely separate from the Wikimedia Foundation (see List of wikis for some examples). Just because something has "Wiki" in the title, doesn't mean it has any connection to wikipedia, aside from running the MediaWiki software (and possibly not even that).
Also, I checked the SmitFraud page on wikipedia, and see no mention of spyhunter on that page. Please check to make sure you are actually on wikipedia before making claims that something is violating wikipedia's rules. Improbcat 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why was Spyware Terminator not steered towards this site since you can advertise on it and it is computer security related? And why is Spysweeper, Ad-Aware and Spybot not placed in this area or another area. There should be no "products" in the encyclopedia that can be advertised.
If anything all these type of programs should just say they help remove spyware, adware etc. and that is it. About a 3 sentence Wiki.
  • Because until you posted it here, I had no idea that site existed. Nor, I'm guessing, did anyone else who has commented here. Once again it is not part of wikipedia, it is a completely separate website. Wikipedia can't "place" articles in that "area" because it isn't part of wikipedia. If you want to go over there and write articles, knock yourself out.
Regarding your continued comments on the other products, this has been addressed ad-nauseum by myself and other editors. Your continued failure to grasp the point (intentional or otherwise) does nothing but completely undermine your continued arguments.
Let me state it once again, for the last time. The Spyware Terminator article does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements. The only way to keep an article on wikipedia is to have it meet those requirements, as shown by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your continued arguments based on other articles is not an appropriate or valid argument to make regarding deletion. The very fact that there are 1.8+ million articles on wikipedia, and that all the editing work here is voluntary means that some articles will get attention before others. At some point some editor (possibly me as lately I've been working on spyware related articles, but possibly not depending on my free time) will turn their attention to those articles. But that doesn't affect the Spyware Terminator article at all, as each article has to stand or fall on its individual merits. 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • thanks for your reply.....:)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Jessica Michalik – revision history undeleted, do what you like with it. Merging the previously deleted content into Big Day Out or any other appropriate location, or reverting back to a stand-alone article are equally meritous options, and there was clearly no consensus to delete the revisions. – —freak(talk) 20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jessica Michalik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was closed as a delete on AfD despite only about one third of responders arguing for this option, based apparently only on the opinion of the closing admin. The excuse appears to have been on the grounds of WP:BLP, despite the fact that a) the person concerned is dead and b) if there any grounds that would affect living relatives, neither the closer nor anyone else has suggested what those might be. This was completely out of process. (Edit: Tony has since claimed on IRC that he interpreted this AfD as needing "consensus to keep", evidently due to the odd BLP argument. I've never seen a case like this.) Rebecca 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response of AfD closer: this was not a vote. There were very few editors in favor of keeping the article in its original form. Many wanted a merge. Others pointed out that the case was covered well in Big Day Out. There are living relatives and so BLP policy applies in the sense that we should cover the event, not the person (who in this case is notable only in death). Accordingly, my considered close was as follows:
    The event is encyclopedic, and is handled in an encyclopedic manner in Big Day Out. The person is not encyclopedic and since there are living relatives there are biographies of living persons (BLP) issues. In short, the policy tells us the biographies of people known only for one event needn't be written about in their own right.
    Uncle G's suggestion of a redirect to Big Day Out is well taken. This may be created.
  • I created the redirect after an administrator enacted the deletion. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ignored the well-considered arguments of a number of people familiar with this incident and the media coverage of it, who pointed out repeatedly that the ramifications of this went far beyond the Big Day Out, and had quite widespread effect. This, however, was ignored in favour of your personal desire to delete the article. Rebecca 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn.I looked at the AFD, I looked at the article, and many things were done as a result of her death. I didn't see a BLP violation at all (maybe the inclusion of the middle name, but that one word shouldn't be the cause for a deletion). Also, a major organization, the Australasian Performing Right Association, still runs a foundation in her name, then the issues surrounding her death had more ramifications than just a new set of barricades. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SNOW: I suggest that we overturn this now. This information did not come out in the deletion discussion, and Rebecca informs me that the Australian editors came to the debate late. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn citing BLP in the deletion reason is, quite frankly, ridiculous. 'Living relatives involved'? I rather doubt that a Wikipedia article is at the top of their list of emotional priorities - let's not give ourselves too much credit. The facts are (a) the deletion should not have been on these grounds, (b) the subject of the article is notable in her own right, the ramifications of her death were far-reaching and diverse, (c) the article should not have been given the clear by a non-Australian at all. As I said in the AfD - there's no way for the non-Australian to understand how this person's death affected the country. Not the 2001 Big Day Out. A girl dying, a real person, makes it personal. It's a small country, these things don't happen very often. Again, the article should not have been deleted, and certainly not for the reasons cited. Riana (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This deserved a full debate; those advocating keep had strong arguments, and these supposed BLP concerns seem too shaky for me to deserve an out-of-process rougey deletion. Krimpet 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion was fully and completely in process. It isn't a vote, and I sought the line of consensus and fully explained my policy reasons. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Completely out of process. There was no consensus to delete here, this was, in effect, as speedy deletion with teh so-called "closer" tagging an an admin deleting. BLB doe not apply to dead people, and even if it did, there is not question as the consensus on notability among those who joined the AfD discussion. DES (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Multiple government inquests clearly shows an impact that can be considered notable and Riana adequately explains why BLP is not an overriding issue here. --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first off the ArbCom appears to be utterly rejecting the claim that the "L" in "BLP" stands for "living" ([21]). Second, any article on a biography can be summarily deleted by an administrator using the "WP:BLP" as a reason [22]. Even so, overturn per Rebecca. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The outcome was reasonable as it is a bio about an otherwise unnotable person due to circumstances of her death. However, new information has been provided by Zscout370 that demonstrates the significance of her death. As I said on the Afd, I think it should be renamed to avoid the details of her life being included; something like Big Day Out crowd control controversy. John Vandenberg 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirection to Big Day Out. Tabloidish, hurtful to the family, why would we keep this? Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on earth is it either a) tabloidish, or b) hurtful to the family? It simply documents the widespread ramifications of one person's death, as with many other similar articles on the project. If it were actually hurtful to the family (or even could be), I'd be arguing to delete in a second, but there's no evidence whatsoever of that here. Rebecca 11:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as it appears in Big Day Out, Fred Durst is given more play than Michalik. There is actually a fair bit of coverage of her death as an individual event, and resulting changes, and even if the redirect is merited, it should have brought the full article over to Big Day Out, along with all the citations. However, I think that this is correctly its own article, to be mentioned from Big Day Out, instead.
  • Endorse The close was proper. Only 5 editors called for keeping the artifle, while 10 called for merging/redirecting to the "Big Day Out" article and 2 called for deleting. The arguments presented by the supermajority were that the non-notable minor was an unfortunate victim of "wrong place, wrong time" and that the death was better covered in context of the event. The arguments for keeping were based on news coverage. The merge/redirect or delete arguments were based on WP:NOT#NEWS and the corresponding WP:BLP section. Edison 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:BLP is undoubtedly an important policy, but it doesn't apply to dead people, nor can it be invoked in vague, non-specific terms to justify early closures of discussions. There are, certainly, circumstances where we should delete first and discuss later - such as libellous attack pages - but this is not one of them, IMO. Waltontalk 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, BLP clearly doesn't apply, the article contained very little material about any living person (a bit of incidental stuff about people in bands), and none which I can see any way could be called "potentially controversial". A merge and redirect seems to be a good option, but the history must be left intact for that, and merging doesn't require any type of deletion process, just a couple of edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs).
  • Overturn BLP for a dead person... This is another major red flag that we have an issue of people abusing BLP policy. -- Ned Scott
  • Merge per clear consensus on the AfD. - Chardish 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge per Chardish, Ned Scott and Seraphim. The notion that BLP applies because the person has living relatives has no basis in even the most overarching interpretations of BLP that I had yet seen. I'm also disturbed that a non-admin in fact closed this for deletion and then had someone else delete it. JoshuaZ 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongest possibly overturn. There is absoloutely no BLP problems here, that case is still cited by media (at least in the occasional television mention of BDO/crowd control) and considering that, and sources to show how well known the incident was (sydney morning herald writing about it 4 years later pretty much clinches it) and also that she is not exactly recently dead (six years is not what I would call recent - except in geological terms :P) there is absoloutely no BLP issues here, and as such it should not have been deleted. Merge and redirect is an editorial decision, one that can be decided upon without and afd, and assuming it is undeleted following this DRV then that discussion can take place then. I would also not be averse to changing the name to a more generic event style one and having her name as a redirect, but that is also an editorial decision - and not one that needed deletion for it to occur. When looking at the debate, I notice that only one person invoked BLP by name, and that was this guideline to writing about people only notable for one event in their lives. That is a suggestion, not policy. I must conclude therefore that the debate was closed by as a delete by a non-admin (a no no) who is heavily involved and has strong feelings on subject of BLPs which may not reflect community consensus (judging by all the back and forth on the policy page) in order to invoke said policy, upon which consensus was that it did not apply in this case. ViridaeTalk 07:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, arguments in favor of deletion were virtually non-existent. If anything, there should have been a merge, and there was no cause to delete the history. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Velvet D’Amour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was previously deleted as article was poorly written and contained no sources; today in process of rewriting and adding sources found article deleted within 5 minutes of post. Would like new article vetted for AfD at least before auto-delete. Would also like to know if there is some existing protocol for adding models and actresses to Wiki, as well as how to ensure that public access photographs don't keep being deleted due to not knowing the correct protocol for copyrighting the images via Wiki tags? AntiVanity 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, valid A7, unless being in a non-notable movie is an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn "known via the worldwide media coverage she received after her appearance in Jean-Paul Gaultier's 2007 Spring/Summer prèt-â-porter collection shown in Paris in October 2006." is a claim of notability. So is "D'Amour's appearance on a catwalk for a designer who does not currently produce plus-size clothing was widely categorized as a farcial..." (emphasis added). So is "D'Amour also featured in the title role of Avida, the 2006 French film directed by Gustave de Kervern and Benoît Delépine, which was selected for the 2006 Cannes and 2007 Tribeca Film Festivals." It may be that none of these claims would be judged suffficient for inclusion at an AfD, but that is a judgement call. Any plausible claim of notability, whether sourced or not, and whether it is enoug to clearly pass WP:BIO or not, is enough that an A7 speedy should not be used, but an AfD or a Prod, which allows the question of notability to be debated and settled by consensus. DES (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Even if we accept the unsupported hyperbole asserting notability, the article was an unambiguous G11 as spam. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Even if the previous article was deleted as spam, it wasn't salted because there is the opportunity to create a real page about this model/actress (who absolutely passes notability; a quick Google search shows a fair bit of coverage from newspapers). Deleting an article in under 5m simply because the article was deleted before seems very 'eye for an eye' to me; this admin could easily have given the re-creator a half hour to at least get her information organized. Expecting articles to spring forth from editors fully formed or risk deletion seems contrary the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --Thespian 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't why it was deleted. It was spam. As in: here's a link to her photographer, here's a link to her agent kind of spam. The type which doesn't seriously try to be anything other than an advert. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy, clearly fashion isn't your strong point or you would not mention the Wikilink to Nick Knight (photographer) ('her photographer') as spam. AntiVanity 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion log entry said, in full "(CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance) " Not a word about spam there. if this was delted as spam, I would expect a rather different log entry. DES (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is, of course, my *point*. Regardless of why it was deleted, it wasn't blocked forever; there's absolutely a chance that the new article might have been good, clear and precise (my quick poke showed current news stories and 10k refs on google; a reasonable amount to get a good, solid article from, even if they're 90% fashion blogs). So "Even if the previous article was deleted as spam" there is no reason to believe that, given more than 3 minutes to build a page, the new one wouldn't be better. There was no emergency that made the admin think they needed to take action, 90s after the page was created, to delete it. --Thespian 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor do I think that fairly describes the article as it was in the last version before it was deleted. It did list her agent, which i would remove from the restored article. It also discussed the alleged controversy surrouding her appearence as a model in a particular show, and allegations that the designer was merely using her to make a point about "the international model health debate". This is surely a subject that is not without general interest. DES (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 deletion, as there clearly was an assertion of notability. I wouldn't apply G11 to the latest draft. Strike the last sentence, and it would have no spam content, which means that the "fundamentally rewritten" test of G11 isn't met. However, blogs aren't exactly reliable sources, so better sourcing and an improved version are clearly to be desired. GRBerry 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, regardless of whether it should've been speedied or AfD'd, no good sources were provided, I can't find any, and none have been brought to light here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but my Google search found links to the Toronto Star, the Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment Tonight, her work on IMDB (the movie, working on Mo'Nique's Fat Chance, etc). It was speedied in under 5 minutes from creation, and seems to have been entirely based on 'we deleted this before'. It could have easily been deleted in an hour if it was obviously going down the same garden path. Many articles about people who could well be notable, verifiable, and more are deleted because of things that have nothing to do with the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia, but instead being deleted because the article isn't suitable. These are good rules, that we need, but they should not be used to prevent the information from ever being available on wikipedia, if someone is willing to do a better, more complete job. --Thespian 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find any of those with a search for "velvet d'amour". I do find a lot of blogs, and a lot of articles which name-drop her and are substantially about something else. That's why I didn't say I found "no sources", I said I found "no good sources". If you can provide links to your findings, I'd certainly be willing to look at them and reconsider my position if appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask how you're searching? I'm hitting google with "Velvet D’Amour", just like that (with quotes), and the first non-video hit is to a column about the appearance in Gautier's show in the Sydney Morning Herald (the second is to an SMH blog by the author of the column, and I'm wondering if you just assumed they were both blogs). Other stuff is further down; there *are* a lot of blogs, certainly, but it's there. --Thespian 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same search, I'm guessing you're referring to this one? [23]. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, it's not a substantial source about her, it just mentions her in a photo caption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no, the first 5 paraghraphs are about her appearance in Gautier's show, with quotes from her and such. (ok, technically, the 3rd paragraph is explaining someone else was there so that D'Amour's reaction to her could be in the fourth). It will take some digging to do a good job with this, but the sources are there. While I don't expect you to do deep on this (I will likely help if overturned, which is why I went further to see what was available), I'm unsure how you missed that. --Thespian 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss some there, but that doesn't substantially change my opinion of that one. A few paragraphs about someone in an article which is mainly about something else (the fashion show as a whole) does not make sufficient material for an article. (An article on the show, that mentions her, certainly might work, if there are more sources available about it, and an article about her might work if more material on her over time is available that's more than a quick blurb "X appeared at Y show (brief description and maybe quickie quote)."). Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 ~ As the editor who wrote the article I can assure you that I have no personal interest in promoting D'Amour's career or creating spam; the rewrite was simply to allow individual model entries to the article plus-size model remain as brief as possible, with elaboration to be provided separately under the individual's own article, with AfD to be undergone at that level. Principally though, the resumption of work on the D'Amour article was due to continued vanity edits under her name on the plus-size model article which have been difficult to curb. This article was actually the most neutral, least vanity-stricken posted to date. If I am a little zealous with Wiki- and URL- linking associated names and sources it is only because I've been through a few AfD's and the discussions have indicated that over-citing references gets you further along in the game. AntiVanity 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. An encyclopedia is not a repository of every tiny irrelevant blip in pop culture. This individual has not achieved notable recognition. 209.247.5.138 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

24 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
William and Mary High School Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WMHSMUN is a major conference on the East Coast of the United States; how is it not "notable"? Also this page has existed for several years and has been updated a number of times; it has repeatedly been contested and revised. I don't understand why it was suddenly deleted (apparently with no discussion since those of us who have been writing it and keeping it up-to-date didn't know it was up for deletion until it was already gone).

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

Section added yesterday was deleted for no given reason Larryj53 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • R. Weldon Smith – Result was deletion endorsed. However, a substantially improved version (although still needing quite a bit of work) exists in userspace, so I am undeleting this and performing a history merge for GFDL compliance. – IronGargoyle 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
R. Weldon Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No reason given: just poof! Gone ! A full week of gathering info, testing publication, award winning search engine results, edits, code, everything gone. Who will ever know the full extent of the wasted effort. Two administrators took it upon themselves to delete an unfinished work, in the middle of creation. Picaroon9288 will be getting a message from StationNT5Bmedia, but the User_talk at that address specifically says "unavailable" until July. see Picaroon9288 Wafulz deleted another unfinished version of the page. Citing no substantial reason, the User at that desktop began the dictatorial process of sequestoring new knowledge. A message will be soon arriving at that URL also. For more info write User_talk:Wafulz

  • Both deletions were under WP:CSD#A7, which means that both admins felt that the article "did not assert the significance or importance of the subject". IMO that is incorrect, at least for the second deletion. The claims might not be enough to pass an AfD, and might well need better sources, adn there does appear to be a possible Conflict-of-interest issue, but IMO this should have been proded or taken to WP:AFD, not speedy deleted. Overturn and List on AfD to get consensus on notability and other issues. DES (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I deleted this, I won't bother endorsing it. The subject is "Owner/author/editor of StationNT5Bmedia" and the article was created by User:StationNT5Bmedia, which brings up issues related to self-promotion, and the best assertions of notability were reviews by a community newspaper and local radio shows.-Wafulz 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DES. Although at the time of the original construction of the article, few references, if any had been included at that point, perhaps the article was not ready to "go live". However, with the accumulation of the work in progress, now it is plainly becoming visible that this is not the work of a single individual, but a collection of many years of creditable & verifiable references. If the article were published by another volunteer, and the article code referred to the proper search engine find ie. "R. Weldon Smith", then perhaps a larger audience would be willing to endorse it as a Wikified encyclopedic article. I would hate to think that all volunteers and contributions are so quickly discarded without discussion. 72.73.136.108 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to improve the notability of the article can be found at the following: R. Weldon Smith 72.73.136.108 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While in correspondence about this having several other creditable articles that are candidates for encyclopedic content, other than the scientific articles contributed on aspheric lens, non-synchronous transmissions, Immigration Reform, and the PTDA, Wikification for "R. Weldon Smith", the pen name & other folks having made literary contributions should be considered. Before the community reaches a verdict, realize that if the article being constructed is of value to Wikipedia, it's code can be copied from User:StationNT5Bmedia/Sandbox, and re-integrated to it's page.StationNT5Bmedia 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pucho & His Latin Soul Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No discussion, side-stepped all protocols. This never even should have qualified as a speedy deletion, and was deleted anyway by someone who obviously did not check their facts.No explanation. Nothing.(Mind meal 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Very strong undelete and don't AfD I'm really surprised this was deleted. Not even close to a speedy cadidate! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I disagree - this is a clear speedy candidate because the article doesn't assert notability. The article does pass WP:MUSIC because a band member went on to be famous but that'd for the article to assert not for the deleting admin to guess. That said, this is clearly a valid article so we may as well undelete to preserve the history. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the contrary, User:Spartaz, this article asserted notability from the start by stating it was the band of Henry "Pucho" Brown, who is a notable musician. The lack of an article on him certainly does not mean that his leadership of the band does not demonstrate notability. Also, Chick Corea having been a member equally demonstrated and asserted notability. The article is a stub, and I never claimed it to be perfect. But notability was, in fact, established. Also, no discussion was had prior to the deletion; that is despite myself and User:Lior having contested it on the article talk page. The notability was asserted, despite claims to the contrary. (Mind meal 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Er why are you arguing with me when I agree that the article should be undeleted? The point is that the article needs to unambiguously assert notability and I can understand why the deleting admin saw no evidence of this. I have never heard of Mr Brown so his name means nothing to me. You are clearly going to get your article back - just be patient. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AFD It's clear from the discussion that notability is just this side of borderline. That's why God created the AFD process. :) YechielMan 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have 25 albums, notable members, loads of mainstream press attention, a 50-YEAR career, and Pucho is one of only 2 black people in the International Latin Music Hall of Fame (along with Dizzy Gillespie)! This is not even close to borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Starblind. AFD on someone in a music Hall of Fame and with a large number of published albums is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the admin who made the deletion, and as it stood there was absolutely no assertion of notability. It just said it was the band of some Mr. Brown and Mr. Corea. And since notability is not inherited from association, this does not qualify as assertion of notability, which made it a valid speedy candidate. But since notability has been asserted here, it can be overturned. --soum talk 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we seem agreed on this, does anyone object if I just go ahead and undelete this bearing in mind that I commened on the discussion? Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)@[reply]
  • Comment: If the article was so sparse that it was deleted as A7, is it actually worth undeleting? Or might it be better to recreate from scratch? I can't see the undeleted article, so I can't judge. But an A7 is no bar to creating an article that does assert notability. And if there were a good new article, that would make the debate academic. Xtifr tälk 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the content is essentially going to be a recreation of what was there before the GFDL more or less requires a history undelete so we may as well go the whole hog. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

I'm having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States -N 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who deleted it. Yeah, I thought that the images was (barely) acceptable in the article it was in. However, it looked to me like the consensus was against me and N, and the most knowledgeable policy-wonks thought the image violated NFCC#2 and possibly #8 as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for this to be relisted for consensus to be obtained (unless you want to go on the two people who have already commented, one of whom is the deleting administrator who believes it was fair use). -N 02:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Good article (edit | [[Talk:Template:Good article|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD|DRV#1|DRV#2| DRV#3|DRV#4)

The GA process has been improved since it was discussed during the template deletion discussion in March 2006. As for some editors who oppose having metadata templates in Wikipedia, it is already widely used and accepted such as Template:Cleanup, Template:Administrator, and many others. I think it's time to reconsider the deletion of this template. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Links to previous DRVs added. This is not just metadata. Templates which use absolute-placement code to add icons to the upper right corner in article space are routinely deleted at TfD, such as S60C and Page subtitle. Gimmetrow 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gimmetrow makes a strong argument. I'd err on the side of maintaining status quo. YechielMan 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments provide no reasoning to why this template should be deleted. Yes, we don't need a symbol to show that the article is part of Wikipedia's coverage on a television show and text shouldn't be up there either. Are our readers going to be shocked and disturbed by a green symbol at the top? No. Provide some arguments on why this specific template is a bad idea. Psychless 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I didn't intend to provide any specific reasoning, I intended to provide information the opener omitted. The original TfD and the first two DRVs contain plenty of specific arguments. The third and fourth DRVs were basically speedy closes based on the first two DRVs. Also, please note that template "Page subtitle" was being used mostly to put a GA icon in the corner. Gimmetrow 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me ask something... is the policy always keep until proven delete or always delete until proven to be kept? The most important point is that people disagree on the GA assessment system because it was faulty when this template was deleted. But now it is improved, so this template deserves a chance to be undeleted. This was the main point of discussion in DRV 1 and 2. If metadata templates should be removed, why delete a small icon on the top right corner when there're ones that are right inside the articles? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I still think the GA process is badly flawed, and there is no comparison between GA and FA status so no compelling reason to restore this mainspace template. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Simply we don't need little signs to indicate good articles. Its just clutter - anyone interested can find the information on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are wrong there. I have discussed Wikipedia with a number of fairly casual users who are not editors, and one complaint that several made is that they have no way to tell much about the quality of an article without following reference links and in effect verifing its content for themselves, which is not what tbey expect of a reference work. The use of the talk page is not at all celar to many casual users of Wikipedia, and having this kind of metadata on the article iteelf is IMO a very positive thing. The precise design of the template might will be subject to change, but I think that having it on the article proper would be an improvement. DES (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you are "in the know" its just an image. I guess that most people should be able to tell whether the article is any good or not based on how much it sucks rather than needing someone else to tell them. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may not do the job then, but soemthing should. I find that quite a number of people I describe/demonstrat wikipedia to want some assurence that an article has been double-checked by someone. Not a guarentee that everyhtign there is perfect, but that there has been some validation, that it isn't a piece of subtle vandalism, or soemoen who doesn't really know the subject blowing smoke that looks like a plausible article, but is in fact wildly incorrect. And you know as well as I that we do get those kinds of things. Not long ago i reverted a change to SOS which had inserted an urban legend origin story in place of the correct origin of the distress signal. The vandalism ahd been there for weeks, and it looked reasoanble, unless you knew the answer or did research to verify sources. I already knew the answer and it took me quite a while to restore the article to proper shape -- and it would have taken longer had I not known how to use the history tab or if the correct info had not been in an earlier version. Maybe nothing but "stable versions" will really answer this need, but the need, or at least the desire, on the part of users, is there. DES (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it at least checks for prose, NPOV, and image copyrights so they are in fact, checking the articles if it obeys MoS guideline and copyright policy. If you think GA is not informal yet, take it to the project page, and not using this template as a punching bag. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I respect the right of admins to delete (and to protect) their own user pages and even talk-page archives, the deletion and protection of his talk page makes it tough to communicate information to the user in case there is an emergency, or in case he goofed, especially since he is still showing signs of being an active sysop. That is the reason why I'm questioning the deletion and protection of his primary talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 07:59, 23 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson"
  2. 16:47, 5 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) protected User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ([edit=sysop:move=sysop])
Comment: I wonder how ethical cascading protection is, anyhow. It's probably fine if it is being done for artistic purposes with no harm done to communications, but when it shanghais communication... — Rickyrab | Talk 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I am unhappy with the restoring and unprotection of a page without discussing it with the deleting/protecting admin (especially in a non-urgent case such as this) there doesn't appear to be any way to get in touch with Jeffrey for discussion. He has disabled the "E-mail this user feature" and is not as far as I can see to be found on IRC. Jeffrey has continued to carry out admin functions so it does not appear he has left.... WjBscribe 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GearHead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus for deletion on AfD, nomination improperly extended (should've been closed as keep after 5 days passed).  Grue  12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pardon me, because I don't do a lot of DRV, but I really don't get it. Basicpally you're suggesting that the three last votes to delete should be discounted on procedural grounds because they were ineligible - the admins already had enough information to close as "no consensus." Am I the only person who is thoroughly baffled by this reasoning? Endorse. YechielMan 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last three votes don't matter. They were after the deadline, and still hasn't changed consensus in any way. There is equal number of keep and delete !votes. Also, keep !votes thoroughly debunk every argument for deletion that was provided. Deletes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is obvious that the closing admin did a mistake.  Grue  07:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (Keep Deleted) per YechielMan. Correct procedure that the nominator thinks was wrong? Baffling indeed. --tennisman 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad endorse Sad because I have very fond memories of this great game, but the AfD was handled correctly. Each of the early keep votes was convincingly rebutted, so extending the debate was the correct thing to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse can't see anything wrong with the close and if there are no sources the information can't be verified. Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the AfD discussion? Because there were several reliable sources mentioned.  Grue  06:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Melissa Scott (televangelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

improper procedure for deletion jmcw 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted under criterion A1 and/or A3 for WP:CSD. This article had both content and context. Thanks, Navou 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from the deleting admin I might have been a bit trigger happy on this one but I still think it had very little content or context. It was an orphan and really did not seem to provide much information beyond a short definition of the term. I have no problem with the recreation of the article though as I'm sure interesting things could be said on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 03:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you undelete it, I'll close this DRV and add to the article, as I have more sources now. Navou 03:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deal. Please also make sure to link to and from other articles and to properly characterize the stub so that it gets some attention. Pascal.Tesson 03:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


23 June 2007

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

personal attack RMc 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone explain this to me. I create an article about The Wyoming Incident, a minor but interesting internet hoax. Several people add to the article; they seem to like it. Then some petulant child named User:Thunderbunny decided he wants to delete it (using such sage reasoning as "it sucks"), gets a few of his buddies to agree with him, and WHAM! it's gone. Huh? Is this the way things work around here...throw a tantrum and you get what you want? I mean, what the hell? RMc 19:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{{

WikiProject Munich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|RfD)

The claims by the nominator says that my redirect among other redirects aren't "useful or helpful." Others have said that there is "No plausible use." I know for this redirect here, it's the complete opposite of what the nominator claims. This was a very convenient way of writing the project in messages, templates and so on. Kingjeff 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

well-known, influential, and privately held company that clearly satisfies the notability requirement, documentable sources 867xx5209 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google or yahoo search on the key words: CLSA and "Hong Kong" (to distinguish it from potential other uses of the initials C,L,S,A) and you get approximately 100,000 entries. How is that neither significant or notable? Do a similar keyword search on most other Wiki entries and see how many instances you retrieve by comparison.
202.82.31.75 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who deleted this without discussion needs to explain the reasoning.
Chance in HK 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-Argument Fine, but do a little RESEARCH of google hits to investigate the web-based articles themselves and decide whether a subject is notable or not. Isn't that what an encyclopedia requires: research? Or is that too much bother?867xx5209 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the Comment Admin should look into this user's obsessive activities with regard to the aforementioned Ulrich article. In Wikipedia nomenclature, the user is a classic TROLL in the repeated and persistent misuse of Wikipedia's processes. This 72, who seems to change IP addresses every week, (why? to avoid yet another Admin block?) ought to find better, more constructive use of what s/he alleges on own talk page to be a Mensa-level intelligence. Perhaps 72 could contribute content, edit articles, or add links rather than looking for ways to vandalize, er - speedily delete legitimate entries. 867xx5209 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-Argument The one who requested the CSD, 72, "believes" puppets are involved. You're basing your argument on alleged beliefs, not facts. If we apply this line of reasoning, we would ignore your argument in tallying the level of "consensus". Why? because how do we know you're not a puppet of Spartaz?867xx5209 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-Counter - If I was a sock of Spartaz, I would not say "per Spartaz"> I would just repeat his comment, which is what all of the inclusionist DRV requesters here are doing. --tennisman 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overthrow as an incorrect use of speedy, without any comment on actual notability. The speedy reason given is "not assert significance". The first sentence of the article is: "CLSA is an award-winning brokerage house covering the Asia-Pacific Markets from a headquarters in Hong Kong. " That is a clear assertion of significance. If speedy is overused, it puts the trustworthiness of the procedure at risk. We shouldn't cut corners in deletion. DGG 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn. i agree with DGG. "award-winning brokerage house" is a claim of notability. So is "...its reputation among clients - largely worldwide fund managers - for independence in its brokerage research". So is "Over the years, CLSA's analysts and research teams have won numerous awards. Perennial winners in the past decade were..." It might not have survived an AfD -- at a minimum substantiation of those claims by reliable sources would be needed. But the bar for A7 is supposed to be considerably lower than at an AfD. Any "assert[ion] the importance or significance of its subject" is enough that an A7 is improper. Can anyone really say that an article that says its subject is an award-winning firm, has a positive reputation among world-wide fund managers, and has multiple employees who are perennial award winners over a decade has failed to assert the importance and significance of the subject? I am seeing far to many cases where an A7 delete is being made on the grounds that there weren't enough sources, implicitly setting the A7 rule to "I don't think it would pas an AfD in its current state. Part of the point of an AfD, after all, is that objections can be answered, often by improving the article. The same is true of WP:PROD. I think editors, and particularly deleting admins, need to be reminded of just what the standard for A7 is supposed to be. See WT:CSD#A7 Scope again for a longer discussion of the general issue. DES (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To DGG and DES: I placed a {{Warn-article}} on the talk page for CLSA at the same time that I flagged Gary Coull (see talk page), and that one was declined; the admin who closed this one apparently did not want to give the author more time to respond or add WP:Attribution to support the assertion ... this is exactly the kind of Too Hasty deletion that I have been trying to address for the six weeks with my draft protocols and warning templates, so I'll take some of the heat for having used a CSD instead of a PROD; quite simply, I was distracted at the time by matters outside of Wikipedia, I exercised poor judgment in my choice of alternatives, and I did not wait long enough between posting the warnings and actually tagging the article, so I violated my own protocol, and here we are at DrV ... OTOH, User:867xx5209's continued personal attacks against me on this page (and others outside of user space), coupled with their failure to respond to any of the messages that I have posted on numerous article and user talk pages, have left me no recourse but to file this report of their activities on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets ... and if this article is restored and taken to AfD, then it will also reopen the WP:COI/N case of User:Pulrich from a month ago (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 13), since it was recreated primarily to support his agenda of promoting his wife, Jing Ulrich ... BTW, my IP changed (again) a few hours ago, and I'm trying to update sandboxes and other pages to reflect the new ID, but have been interrupted by having to address this very upsetting matter ASAP. —72.75.85.234 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from this that you are agreeing with and extending what I said, not arguing against it?DGG 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I might have been a little trigger-happy with deleting the article. I was initially hesitant but deleted it because I thought it was just a recreation of a unopposed deletion; I should have checked the previous deleted version and noticed that it had a different creator. I agree with taking this to AfD. —Anas talk? 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative ... my stressed evil twin did the CSD, whereas under normal circumstances, I would have done a PROD ... the warning placed on the talk page before tagging it asked the admins to to leave a message on the author's talk page (and perhaps I should modify the template to suggest changing a CSD to a PROD as an alternative to keep/delete "on sight"), so blame this one on an overzealous deletionist admin ... but given the circumstances, I believe that even you can see why it was hard for me to assume good faith regarding this particular editor, who apparently has never heard of the official policy regarding No personal attacks and its consequences. (Do you think that I have been acting like a TROLL in this matter, as alleged by this sockpuppet User:867xx5209?)
By all means, I endorse restoration and immediately taking it to AfD for Consensus and to allow more time for improvement by adding Attribution to Verify the assertion ... after all, that kind of research is the responsibility of the author, even though some WikiGnomes are willing to invest the resources in finding reliable sources for unsubstantiated claims of notability ... but it's obviously "too much bother" (to use their own words) for this particular author to do it themselves. :-)
As for the above comment by User:Anas, the jury is still out on whether or not "different" creators are involved, since I cannot access the edit history of either incarnation to confirm meatpuppet activity by multiple editors residing in Hong Kong. —72.75.85.234 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD per DES. I am concerned that the lines DES cited might make the article look a bit promotional, but if the awards are true or significant, there is a clear assertion at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Overturn to Allow Time for Introduction of References and Citations
Rationale: Notabiity for Feed Article to CLSA Demonstrated: I recently established notability for Gary Coull, CLSA's co-founder, through links to three detailed, online obituaries in London's Financial Times and The Times newspapers as well as in FinanceAsia magazine. (Thanks to those who subsequently formatted the additions properly.) If a company's co-founder is notable, it is easy enough to do the same for the company, which continues after his death and has even more online references than he had.867xx5209 07:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, User:867xx5209, "those who subsequently formatted the additions properly" in Gary Coull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are in fact the self-same TROLL that you accused on the article's talk page as having "not much useful in the way of content or language skills to contribute to Wikipedia" and "getting admins in cohoots to delete the article" ... you're welcome, BTW. —72.75.85.234 11:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

22 June 2007

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

The admin closing the discussion failed to realise the article is nonsense Gibnews 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn the article describes an airline that was never licenced, had no aircraft, and no longer owns the company name 'fly Gibraltar' quite what the point of its inclusion is in wikipedia escapes me and most people voted for its deletion giving sound reasons. --Gibnews 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid AfD closure, no cogent argument made for DRV. If nominator disagrees with the AfD perhaps he should start another one. -N 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion outcome. Which part of the article is nonsense? John Vandenberg 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The user had contacted me via e-mail, and I replied with the following: "It's not a vote, and it doesn't matter if something exists or not- it depends if there are proper sources documenting it. In my view, both sides presented valid arguments, and the discussion had been up for days without any other administrator closing it, so I felt no consensus could be reached. If you feel that I've incorrectly interpreted the debate, you can list it for review"--Wafulz 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse What's the big deal. Its sourced and there was no clear consensus to delete this. Why not try again later on? Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I voted to delete based on weak notability, but I have no complaint with the process. The article is not nonsense; if it were it would be WP:CSD eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse closure. Article does pass the important policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, although I would argue that it fails in basic notability for corporations (a corporation which never got started.) But to delete based solely on notability grounds requires consensus, and it was reasonably clear that my opinion did not have that support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, done appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - If there was no consensus, and the article is correctly sourced, passes WP:NOR, keep it. Why not? --tennisman 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two issues here, firstly whether the AfD was properly closed, given the number who say it was, then I cease to protest.
As regards 'the article'
  • there is no airline
  • there was no airline
  • there won't be an airline
and that WHY there should not be a page about it. It describes a non event of no importance. --Gibnews 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV isn't AFD2. If the AFD was closed properly then that is it. There is nothing to stop you relisting the article at a later date to see whether a consensus to delete has emerged in the meantime. Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, I see no clear consensus either way, and both the keep and delete sides had some well-reasoned arguments. It can always be discussed again in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse closure: saying "there is no airline" misses the point. This isn't an article about an airline; it's an article about a proposal that fell through after generating a fair amount of press. There was a proposal, and it's well documented, and the people at AfD took note of that documentation when arguing to keep the article. I'm not sure I agree with them, nor am I sure I would have closed the same way if I had to power to close, but I think the close was within the bounds of reasonable discretion (although "no consensus" might have been even better). Xtifr tälk 10:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn (edit | [[Talk:User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/PalReturn|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn. This was a userbox in user space and not a template. User ^demon claims that this userbox is a template under CSD T1 but does not substantiate the claim. Where is the discussion where users consensed on the idea that templates are the same thing or subject to the same rules as userboxes in user space? Current UBX policy states that "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive." The UBX in question conformed to that criterion. User Sefringle takes exceptions to the 'implications' s/he finds in the UBX; however, it is hard not to wonder if her/his support for deleting the UBX is nothing more than simple agenda-pushing since s/he is a self-declared "strong supporter of Zionism" who displays a UBX to that effect in her/his user space. Finally, for what it's worth, I, the author of the userbox in question was not notified that it was being debated for speedy deletion and only two users participated in the "debate" --DieWeisseRose 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I agree with DieWeisseRose. I had the userbox on my user page, and did not know that it was proposed for deletion until a bot removed it. The whole process, from nomination to delete, lasted just six hours, during which many editors will have been asleep. It looks to me as though only the nominating editor actually took part in the discussion before the discussion was closed and the box deleted. This s6trikes me as an unnecessarily hasty process.

The box itself was appropriate; when editing an article, it is often helpful to know whether an editor has a strong political or philosophical inclination to any side in related discussions. This does not imply uncritical support for those who share my own bias, or opposition to those who do not; but it does mean that editors can understand where another editor is coming from, and what they are trying to say. Of course such boxes should not be obligatory; but if someone feels strongly enough about an issue to declare this on their user page, this is an indication that they recognise their own possible partiality and are making this known publicly. I think the userbox should be restored. --RolandR 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If endorsing the Palestinian right to return is perceived as insulting to a country or entire population, then the problem is the perception, not the right. Palestinian return is an international legal right, and was an explicit condition for Israel's admission to the United Nations. Of course this can be debated, discussed, ebven denied. But to present it as an insult is in itself an insult to our intelligence. --RolandR 09:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I grasp why this movement is more insulting to Israelis than Zionism is to Palestinians. Addhoc 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not really about who is insulting whom. If you want to express opinion, use your userpage, hard code userboxes on your page (If they are very inflammatory, your userpage might be wiped clean, mind you). Don't templatise them so as to entice others to use them. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I'm still of the opinion that deletions of this nature should include userboxes covering opposing views, in order to avoid controversy. Addhoc 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

restore Thomaslear 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) --> Hello, user Quadell deleted "Image:Pucci and Michelle.jpg" - can I ask why please? the log says (replaceable fair use (CSD I7)) however this is a non-copyrighted image, it is publicly available on Pucci's myspace page and I am not sure of the reason for deletion.[reply]

I am not re-uploading in case it is in breach of some rule, however the one given in the delete seems to be strange

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Comment If it's not too late, I'd like to include Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in this DRV. It is a similar page that was deleted for the same reasons. It included templates like: "This user is interested in environmentalism", which is hardly T1 speedy-able. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics could be temporarily undeleted and the contents migrated into the categories under User:UBX/Userboxes#Politics_and_beliefs, as suggested by WP:UM, to avoid any possible thought of (Wikipedia namespace == official repository). 84.145.203.216 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedily deleted by Cyde with the reasoning "No official repository for non-template space T1 templates." Whether this is or is not a "official" repository is subject to debate, as well whether the templates within are "T1 templates" (does this imply they can and will be deleted any time citing T1?). For this reason the deletion should be overturned. 84.145.231.10 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qy and what is wrong with that? If one is a Buddhist, why not provide an easy and standard way for other Buddhists to say the same? DGG 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ans. And why not expunge this propaganda business and hard code templates into userspace? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The actions of the radical antiuserboxen are starting to increasingly appear ridiculous to me. Speedy deleting (i)a userspace page (ii)that was merely a repository for existing userboxes (God knows what 'official' is supposed to mean) (iii)most of which did not fall under T1 at all: where are we headed? This crusade by the likes of Cyde Ways and Tony Sideway is starting to take on tinges of desperation. Why can't we focus our energies towards more constructive work? I'm sure that Wikipedia will be a far better place if all editors tried to write articles instead of wasting time like this. Not only do we have experienced administrators, presumably among our most valuable contributors, spending their time trodding through userspace looking for obscure pages to speedy delete (seems deletion by community consensus no longer suits them), we also have the owners and users of those userboxes diverting their attention from articles to these pages, and the community at large spending their time sebating countless policy propositions seeking to resolve the matter one way or the other. Why don't we just live and let live? I appeal to all concerned to put an end to this madness. Loom91 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn completely out-of-process deletion, and from the history of the deleting admin, this smells of needless disrutpion. — xaosflux Talk 02:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn nonsensical deletion, overturn it. WooyiTalk to me? 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also support migrating Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics to userspace as part of this deletion review. --DieWeisseRose 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to anyone using the template. —Ashley Y 07:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - per Sjakkalle. How anyone expressing their religion can be "divisive and inflammatory" is beyond me. Completely out of process. It's already userfied, for goodness sake. JRG 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The page has existed since last fall without controversy. There is no speedy criteria to justify this action. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:UBX/Communist (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/Communist|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The userbox is question was deleted by Cyde citing "T1". I fail to see what is so divisive and inflammatory in a userbox that says "This user is a Communist" that it warrants speedy deletion. The pratice continues that the XfD process is conveniently ignored by users who have "the bit", circumventing community consensus finding, even or especially if they know that their actions are quite controversial. 84.145.231.10 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that of the 1200 admins, any single one of them can do a speedy, and the only place to review it is here. For any question, out of 1200 people, all experienced and well-meaning, a few will misunderstand. DGG 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:East Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This concerns Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 11#Category:East Jerusalem. I already tried to get the closing admin to change his mind. From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Categories for Discussion page: "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the category is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion." I count 8 keeps and 19 deletes from non-anonymous users. The "oppose" is a keep vote, and I counted it in the 8 keeps. Most of the deletes were from users who did not enter into discussion. I see no consensus, and not even rough consensus, to delete this category, and that is the main reason I am asking for this deletion review. And I thought closing admins took less notice of "post-and-run" deletion votes who don't discuss anything. I would like the category to be kept, or at the very least relisted for discussion. I also believe there is new info. The main reason given by those who wanted deletion was discovered late into discussion to be incorrectly applied, and there was little opportunity to discuss the new info. Some people wrote "Listify and Delete", or just cited Tewfik as their reason. Tewfik's reason was guideline 8 at Wikipedia:Categorization# Some general guidelines. But late into discussion it was discovered that when one reads guideline 8 one finds that it actually could be applied to keeping the category. How? Because the use of Tewfik's very specific and non-controversial subcategories in his list page, List of East Jerusalem locations, means that "it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs" in those subcategories. So the subcategories of Tewfik's highly-praised list page can be used as the uncontroversial subcategories of a category page, Category:East Jerusalem. Another delete vote said to go ahead and create those subcategories, but still to delete the overall category! Eventually, someone will create those subcategories anyway, and then put them in a new version of Category:East Jerusalem. I can live with that, but I still think the original closing admin decision to delete was faulty, and would like other opinions. Timeshifter 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Relist if compromise needed. I wondered about the justification of this closure at the time it happenned. I think the political nature of the debate about this and other categorisations concerning Jerusalem and the surrounding territories should be considered. Counting votes or even how many argue on each side, just reflects the relative power of pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian lobbies within the English-language Wikipedia. The closure should be based on the coherence of the arguments on each side, not just on the numbers of votes. No consensus should have been the decision.--Peter cohen 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Vote now clarified Peter cohen 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go out on a limb here and endorse deletion. The closing admin has already said he doesn't count votes. Also, there was over a full day between the last comment and the closure, plenty of time to discuss the merits of any new info. Oh, and just for clarification, the closing admin doesn't count votes. --Kbdank71 10:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining your case as the closing admin in question. I still think there was no consensus with several people on each side of the debate putting arguments.--Peter cohen 11:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it you are voting "overturn"? --Timeshifter 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kbdank71. One day is not enough to discuss new info. Many people check wikipedia every day or two, and may not have seen the new info before the CFD was closed. Many people just post and run, and never come back. If you don't count votes, then how do you decide? And why isn't "no consensus" a good enough closing admin statement for this? --Timeshifter 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-read what you describe as "new info". I think you are mistaken. The guideline that Tewfik mentions refers to the populating of the East Jerusalem category, not to whatever categories the list happened to be in. Besides, you introduced your "new info" two days before I closed the discussion. It was discussed for one day, with three people adding to the discussion, all wanting to delete. Then a full day went by with no discussion at all. Then I closed it. If one day isn't enough, is two? Do you think anything different would have happened if I left it open any longer? --Kbdank71 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There seemed to be a continuous 2 to 1 ratio of deletes to keeps until the last few deletes piled on, and you closed the discussion. Most of the deletes throughout the first 8 days were using Tewfik's reasoning. Tewfik did not leave a link to the guideline page he was quoting. So people were mostly following along with what he said. I actually had to hunt down the guideline page by searching all over, and then I posted my new info when I saw that the guideline could be interpreted differently than how Tewfik was doing. Now that Category:East Jerusalem has been deleted in spite of the fact that there was no consensus in the comments, there is now an attempt to delete categories with "Palestinian territories" in the name. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#Geography of the Palestinian territories. In both cases, geographical category names have been distorted into political names, and the wikipedia category discussions have deteriorated into political forums. Just note the political nature of many of the comments. I think rational discussion went out the window early on. Tewfik tried for months to depopulate and speedy-delete map categories that had "Palestinian territories" in the name. So I predict that will be the next target. --Timeshifter 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this creeping deletion is a severe threat to WP:NPOV. The category system should reflect the rival perspectives. The way articles are linked is part of the subtext of wikipedia and a neutral point of view must be reflected at this level just as much as in the words of articles themselves for it to be objectivvely maintained.--Peter cohen 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - well within the discretion of the closing admin and seems well supported by the comments at the discussion. --After Midnight 0001 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn we should try to avoid creeping bias. Catchpole 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion per After Midnight. JoshuaZ 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn this is not a subject for vote counting. Among the arguments for deletion accepted in the closing was that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category. That's not a valid argument. DGG 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Debolded as the user has commented to "relist" below. TewfikTalk 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per Midnight - the closing administrator (Kbdank71) has repeatedly stated that he doesn't count votes, so I'm not sure why anyone would think that. Also, the argument was Categorisation guideline 8, not "that some inappropriate items had been placed in the category". Where the allegation of "creeping bias" comes from is beyond me, but DRV is meant to decide whether the discussion was closed per policy, and not the place for either discussing content, or for broad implications of bad faith. TewfikTalk 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, there was no concensus. A few well stated reasons for deletion were given, but most were disputed. None of the reasons for deletion were clear policy issues, so I dont see why an admin needed to push ahead and make a call on this issue. My concern is that will Category:Cities in Israel and other similar cats for the geography of the region also be deleted because they may contain dubious entries? John Vandenberg 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The fundamental argument in the CfD was that the category name has no precise meaning. Timeshifter proposed using two subcategories to disambiguate the meaning. Tewfik disagreed with this suggestion because he felt it would lead to the creation of four or more very small overlapping categories with little potential for growth. I also disagreed with Timeshifter because I preferred a more precise name and since I felt his suggestion would turn the category into a meaningless empty shell. All those who opposed deletion said either 1)the name was inherently vague or 2)agreed with Tewfik or 3) agreed with my reasoning. Timeshifter claims in this nom that his observation on the 18th added important new information which was not sufficiently discussed by the closing on the 20th. This observation was merely that the subcategories idea he proposed on the 12th would eliminate any ambiguity and thus (in his opinion) obviate the item 8 concern in WP:CAT. However, by that time, everyone should have been fully aware of Timeshifter's suggestion and its objective. It is patently false that those who cited Tewfik for deletion votes were citing outdated information; rather, they were citing Tewfik's rebuttals of Timeshifter's proposal and were expressing their opinion that—notwithstanding his proposal—having an "East Jerusalem" category would necessarily invite edit warring. If people closely follow the progression of the CfD, I think they will also agree that Kbdank71 correctly closed the discussion based on rough consensus and the strength of the arguments. To Timeshifter: as before, I invite you to create a more precisely named replacement category. nadav (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [NOTE: This is not my original post; I revised it per the discussion below. To see my original post, see the diff 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    • Nadav. You are misrepresenting what I said and I don't appreciate it. Subcategories and the guideline are 2 different things. My comment on the CFD page about the mistakenly-interpreted guideline was made on June 18, and part of it was emphasized with bold text. So you can't miss it. See this diff. --Timeshifter 06:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. I misinterpreted what you wrote. Please forgive me and disregard that portion of my comment while I revise it. nadav (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've now revised my comment. nadav (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you are still misrepresenting the discussion. It sounds like you are reading people's minds from mostly one-sentence, post-and-run delete votes. Please strike-out old info instead of changing your comments after people have replied. It is way too confusing otherwise, and a little unfair, too. Here is the diff of what you originally wrote here. --Timeshifter 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it is you who is mind reading. I take the invocation "per [name]" to mean "per the arguments [name] has been making throughout this discussion." I see no reason to believe it would refer only to Tewfik's early mention of item 8 but without any of the later extensive discussion. In fact, I invite you to ask those people on their talk pages to post here about whether they still stand by their votes. About the crossing out: I usually use it, but in this case I think it would make my comment hard to read. I added a note at the end about the revision. BTW, in hindsight I think the reason I thought you were talking about the sept 12 proposal is because I don't see what the sept. 18 post substantially added to the CfD. At the time, I saw the post as just repeating your reasoning of why the subcategories would solve the contentiousness problem (and I agreed with this reasoning, but I believed it was not a useful solution) nadav (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus. 'nuff said Delad 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per SV's rationale on the discussion page. Admin well within policy to delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn. Consensus to delete is not evident. The correct step to take would have been to extend the discussion. I suggest relisting. Loom91 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist , following Loom91's reasoning. There was clearly no consensus. I doubt there will ever be any real consensus on this, and the thing to do is to come to some compromise about where the category can and cannot be used. DGG 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus for deletion, well within admin's prerogative. This is just an attempt to get another kick at the can. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - this is about as much of a consensus as anything I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no "new" information. --Leifern 10:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per above. 6SJ7 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per After Midnight. gidonb 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion improper cat, properly deleted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

21 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TerrorStorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2|3)

1.000.000 plus views - notable? Dear Fellow Editors,

I would like to propose that we now restore the page, since the film has been shown on video google 1.027.655 times (1500 views a day). I believe that makes it notable enough to be included on wikipedia.

— Xiutwel (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Verification isn't negotiable. Right now the article is only going to say Terrorstorm has over a million views. That's not enough. There have to be indepedant multiple reliable sources. If they don't exist neither can the article. I'm willing to review this if the sources later emerge - nudge me on my talk if I don't notice. Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse page hits alone do not establish notability. If Wikipedia were to say a million hits made it notable that would be self-synthesis, ie original research. Unless you can point to a published source of this information deletion was correct. -N 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on the evidence offered Notability for Wikipedia purposes is about the availablility of reliable sources from which to write an article. Views don't help. Got anything along the lines of independent reviews published in traditional (at the very least, non-blog, non-wiki, non-user submitted) media? GRBerry 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn It has the notability if the evidence you say is true.Yamaka122 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources that discuss, analyze or comment on this movie as far as I can find. I just did a LexisNexis search, and in the last two years there was a brief description in a college newspaper, and a number of showtimes listing, but no critical commentary, reviews or analysis. I suppose you could write a stub using the credits from the DVD box and IMDB to say "This movie exists and here are the cast/crew credits" but you can't report on the director's motives, or critcal reaction, or analysis of claims, or debunking, because there isn't any. (I would love to do it but that would be original research.) Stubs are supposed to be expandable, at least in principle, so until there is some followup to this--i.e. someone takes it seriously enough to write about it--there doesn't seem to be much we can do. Thatcher131 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Popularity != notability as many are fond of saying. If we have no sources to go on then no notability is established and the article fails inclusion criteria. For us, as wikipedia editors, to say "X number of views is rather unique and thus notable" is quite against the spirit of reliable sourcing and avoiding OR - we have to wait until someone else writes about it first. Arkyan • (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion see also WP:BIGNUMBER. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Reliable sources discussing the video are lacking. --Aude (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is briefly mentioned in two scholar.google articles. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=terrorstorm About reviewers: "TerrorStorm review" has almost as many hits as "Yentl review". — Xiutwel (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC) / See also: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Let.27s_give_our_power_away.3F Isn't it a bit too much too ask, for our establishment to discuss an anti-establishment video in order to assert notability so we can write an article about it? --X[reply]
  • Comment
With "Terror Storm" written on his T-shirt, singer Matthew Bellamy 
took to a white piano at one point. Afterwards he said they were
getting a vibe from the crowd, and in the words of their own song
they really seemed invincible.
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ISUCF"V"MB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This band recorded the theme song for a TV, they are also the band for a division I-A football program. I feel no good reason was given for deletion, but nobody noticed that it was up for deletion other than a few people who knew nothing of the subject. It could use more sources, but I will gladly work to improve it. Bassgoonist 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Independent source regarding band's recording of the Coach theme song: [26]
  • Independent source telling story of band's re-naming in 1978 (written by a non band member): [27]

Etphonehome 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Endorse for a school band to get an article of its own, it would have to be pretty darn special. Supposedly doing the theme song to "Coach" (a marching-band tune) isn't even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That is indeed correct, but far from the whole story. What it says right after that is "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply But many of the marching bands that ARE being kept don't meet a single one of those criteria, they have their own unique reasons for being notable, as does the Iowa State Marching Band, and there's also recording the theme for a TV show. I believe the reason for the note on that criteria is for a band that records a theme for a tv show, and then does nothing else of note. Seeing as this is not the case, we can certainly keep the article around, it just needs some TLC.
  • Comment - Looking around Wikipedia for about 15 minutes, I found the following articles about individual college marching bands. This is by no means an exhaustive list, it's just meant to show that marching band articles do exist. Marching bands, in and of themselves, are notable in certain circles, and many of the bands in this list have not "done" much of anything special other than march and play music during football games to entertain fans. Please note that the entire Big Ten conference is represented on here, as well as many schools from the other major conferences (please note that more band articles than this almost certainly exist, I was just trying to get a good sample). Also, please note that most of the following articles cite few (if any) sources outside of the individual university's domain. If the Iowa State University band is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please also delete the articles on the list below. Thank you. Etphonehome 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List hidden to make discussion more readable
Expand this box to see discussions
  • Comment We're not talking about a few loosely scattered pages here. There are a significant number of those pages that may have no apparently notability to many people, but the entire community of people that edit and maintain marching band pages have always shown up to vote against the deletion of any marching band page. If you read the reasons given for voting for deletion, they are very weak reasons, that really warrant a clean up, not a delete. "Clubs are not notable" is one, so not a single club is notable? And its not a 'club' really either. "Oh, dear. This article could have, and should have, attracted a db-club tag; please make it go away" Well that's just an all around wonderful reason. Bassgoonist 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is a list of university marching bands, this one belongs on it. The article just needed a lot of junk removed, and left with real encyclopedic material. Bassgoonist 04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Spartaz, regarding your suggestion that similar articles also be nominated for deletion, it seems that Bassgoonist has done just that, with two separate bands (Cavalier Marching Band and Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band). In both cases, the nominations for deletion were swiftly and unanimously rejected. What I think many of us are looking for here is an explanation of what makes ISU's band so non-notable that it can be speedily deleted, while two similar marching band articles are given the enthusiastic endorsement of the Wikipedia community. I don't think the ISUCF"V"MB article was perfect by any means, but neither were those two. The people responding to the nomination said as much. But they also said that it was better to give the article a chance to find more sources and improve itself rather than simply deleting it. Some consistency would be greatly appreciated. When two college marching band articles are speedily kept and one is speedily deleted when they seem to have roughly equivalent merit, I think an explanation is in order. Etphonehome 05:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't even know how you can consider an article on Iowa State's marching band for deletion. It's the largest, most public, and most popular performance band on a major Division 1 university with an endowment of half a billion dollars. The band performs in front of hundreds of thousands annually at games and festivals, appears on national television during rivalry games and bowl games (five/seven years) (plus associated pep band performances for basketball games and tournaments), records and sells albums locally and even nationally to alumni and those interested in marching bands, and is always a present part of the culture of Iowa State's enrollment (28k) and alumni. Iowa State's marching band has a greater membership than Kansas State's band, yet they have an article, and is larger than the Hawkeye marching band--though they have an article (and probably the rest of the Big 10 too). ISU's newspaper has a page, VEISHEA has a page, the Cyclones athletic teams have a page, what makes any of these any more important than the athletic bands? Takes as much time and effort. TheMuad'Dib 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)TheMuad'Dib[reply]
  • I'm sorry, this was my last edit before going to be bed and it didn't come out quite right. My point was that if the anon felt that the other articles were equally unacceptable it was down to them to list them rather then expecting others to do so. That said, I did look at a couple of the articles listed and they were both shy of references and citations. If there is original research in the articles it needs to come out and the information needs to be sourced. Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that Iowa State University Cyclone Marching Band would be a more appropriate name. The director of the group has suggested this to me, and I strong agree this is more appropriate. The longer name I really consider more of a nickname than the groups official name. Moreover, it would be easier to find without football and "varsity" in the title. We would of course have the full name at the start of the article, with a full explanation in the body. Bassgoonist 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree. The official web site for the band ([28]) is titled with the full name, and the full name is what is used when introducing the band at football games. If "ISUCF'V'MB" is only a nickname, the band does a pretty good job of hiding it. Etphonehome 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Yeah, a better name would be nice, but noting the similarity of deletion cases that Bassgoonist brought up, I don't see how this article should be under attack for deletion. I don't really see it as a private club either, it has hundreds of members and hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsements and plays VERY publicly. Fephisto 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The Iowa State Cyclone Football "Varsity" Marching Band is a notable organization and the deletion of its article is unwarranted. The organization is question is by no means a private club, and it has multiple performances each year. It also has received airtime on National TV, and recorded the theme song for a TV show. Davidmarkman 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, AfD clearly misunderstood the notability of this organization, but the article as deleted was not very good. I think we'd be better off writing a new one from scratch, under a proper title. I'd support the creation of a decent new article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what happened is a lot of people in the group saw the article, and not being experienced contributors started adding all manner of non-notable material to it. Bassgoonist 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I think a speedy overturn might be of use here. The original article wasn't a total loss, there is still some useful material there, does any admin agree? Bassgoonist 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Even out of my usual subject, it is clear that the AfD ignored the nature of the article and the nature of the band. DGG 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn To make a comparison to another section (the athletic guidelines) of Wikipedia, Div-I bands are about as high as you can go marching band wise. Very few other marching bands that involve older people perform in front of the crowds that they do. The only really higher level in my mind would be Drum Corps, which could be counted as the "pros" of the area. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Plastic Surgery Slumber Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Album and song by Jeffree Star milk the cows (Talk) 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the logs, this was protected while the artist was also deemed unincludable. We've now changed our opinion on the artist (DRV). Other versions were also deleted at Plastic Surgery Slumber Party EP. Is there any independent, reliable coverage to demonstrate some notability? GRBerry 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

song by Jeffree Star milk the cows (Talk) 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the logs, this was protected while the artist was also deemed unincludable. We've now changed our opinion on the artist (DRV). Is there any independent, reliable coverage to demonstrate some notability? GRBerry 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Avocent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted without review or debate. For the record, I am not affiliated with either this company or any of it's competitiors. From what I remember, the article was stubby but still a valid article about a notable technology corporation. There was probably some POV text that should have been marked as such (or cleaned up) instead of deleted. I request undeletion on the grounds that the subject is notable and any POV in the article can easily be neutralized by myself or other editors. Austin Murphy 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overthrow A fundamentally straight-forward article that should not have been speedied.DGG 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deleting the "Products and services" section would have addressed the issue of "spam". I do not think the article otherwise qualifies as a CSD G11 (blatant advertising). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Based on the Google cache, the article has a little too much technical and marketing jargon, but the company is certainly notable (Apex and Cybex were both around for years before the merger). 33 current Google News results, 3500 Google News Archive results (for a company that didn't exist in 1999). Notability is there, notability is asserted in the intro, and the jargon used is understandable in context. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 is only for articles where there is no salvageable content and this does not seem to be the case. DGG 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are some wikipedia admins being too free in their use of speedy deletion? IMO they should only be used for deletions that are uncontroversial and unlikely to be contested by any significant no of editors. Speedy deletions based on the admin's personal judgement is against the whole spirit of adminship, janitorwork. Perhaps it's time we had a large-scale discussion to re-evaluate the community's attitude towards speedy deletion? Loom91 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is presently a discussion at WT:CSD and additional voices are welcome.DGG 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Monarchist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

debate was closed as delete all, but vote count was one terse non-vote ("Bilge.Delete"), 4 "delete all", 2 "keep all", and 2 to keep the Category:Monarchist Wikipedians but delete the subcats. On a vote-count the result was therefore either "no consensus" or "delete the sub-categories but keep Category:Monarchist Wikipedians"; assessing the arguments we have the deleters claim that he categories are divisive versus DGG's argument that as with the political ideology categories (see DRV below), these categories "puts the user into context". Neither arguments seems overwhelming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either Overturn and restore main category or relist as no consensus, whichever is appropriate under the circumstances (if someone would be kind enough to point it out for me).--Ramdrake 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin. I did not count votes to decide. The policy concerns raised by Dmcdevit when he deleted the categories were mirrored by three others (MER-C, After Midnight, Black Falcon). The first three keep rationales do not address these concerns at all. The one remaining keep rationale is, I believe, outweighed by the strong arguments of the deletion rationales. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unlike the other split nominations, when I split these from the "political ideology" UCFD nom (which is now under discussion below), it was only due to there being several related subcats. Now, the discussion was nearly unanimous that the sub-cats should be (should have been) deleted. Perhaps the best path for the parent cat (Monarchist) is to have it fall under whatever happens in the discussion below. - jc37 14:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close No grounds to overturn the closing admin's judgment about the discussion. FloNight 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, good job, Carl. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn these are NOT divisive. They let people pigeonhole themselves as they see fit. -N 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Good call. Should have been straightforward T1 speedies. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of parent and children - This isn't just counting numbers, but I will take issue with BHG's analysis... 6 Delete (Black Falcon, Picaroon, Tony (I think his comment is quite clear - not a non-vote), MER-C, Dmcdevit (who as the reversed deleter counts as nominator on this one) and me (AM)), 2 Keep (Mike S. and DGG), 2 split (Haggawaga - Oegawagga and Brain40), so 6-4 on the parent and 7-2-1 on the children. Add to this that the delete arguments are based in official policy of WP:NOT and the keeps are basically WP:ILIKEIT and I think that we have a well reasoned decision. --After Midnight 0001 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, though I disagree with Tony that these are T1 speedies. First, XfD is not a vote, so the numbers are not that important. The deletion arguments consisted not only of claims that the categories are divisive, but also that they violate the letter and spirit of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a political forum. Political opinions are fine in userspace, but they shouldn't spill over into the category namespace. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per mo comment on the religious categories, undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by political ideology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Debate was closed contrary to a rough 2:1 (11:5) consensus to keep, and the points the closing admin says were not addressed in favor of deletion were in fact addressed. Thus, I can only conclude the "Delete All" verdict is in this case in error Ramdrake 13:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore, as a mistaken closure. There was a clear consensus that the categories should stay, and the claim that they are divisive was clearly addressed (if anything, they reveal an editor's biases). Many of the "delete" arguments were trivial and should have been discarded in assessing the debate, such as the terse "Bilge. Delete." (why???)
    The closing admin cited WP:ENC as the argument unaddressed, but while WP:ENC sounds impressive, it is not a policy or a guideline or even an essay: it is merely a set of links, mostly to WP:NOT. The editor who cited it seemed to regard a link to logout as a helpful argument (it seems to me to be a non-argument), and suggested that "categorization should only be used to the extent that it aids in writing an encyclopedia". Galloglass's response addressed that "aids in writing" point very clearly: he said "there is nothing messianic or even proselytizing about any of these cats, just a simple statement of where the user is coming from". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore, as per BrownHairedGirl's points, which sum up the debate much better than I could.--Ramdrake 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by closing admin. The keep/delete ratio is not the determining factor here, in my opinion. I thought that all the participants engaged in the discussion in good faith, but my assessment of the debate is that the rationales for keeping the categories don't outweigh the arguments in favor of deletion.
    • Several of the rationales didn't raise or refute policy concerns (BMF81, Tony Sidaway, Sefringle). Some of the keep rationales implicity agreed with the assessment that these categories could be divisive (Geoglass, Michaellinear, Arthur Rubin, tariqabjotu). BrownHairedGirl also implicitly accepts this in her opinion above on this page. Mike Selinker and Sefringle stated an opinion to keep but didn't address the deletion rationales at all. I also considered Dmcdevit's original deletion log entry as an argument for deletion, since it was listed by BrownHairedGirl with her procedural listing of the categories.
    • Picaroon's deletion rationale – that, per WP:NOT, this is not a social networking site, and categories must contribute to the encyclopedia – is a fundamental policy concern, mirrored by Dmcdevit's deletion log entry. Only BrownHairedGirl and Haemo spoke directly in favor of the categories as a tool for collaboration. DGG agreed with BrownHairedGirl but went on to say that, for this purpose, the categories could be replaced by watching a person's edits. That argument, that other methods would be sufficient, was not addressed by any deletion rationale. A suggestion to rename, rather than delete, seems not to have consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know... I think I would interpret several of those differently, tariqabjotu in particular. And there were several comments reaffirming the latitude that we tend to give userspace, as well, which wasn't addressed in the closure (since one could presume that such comments are in opposition to the supposition that WP:NOT applies.) - jc37 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories are not in user space, as Black Falcon stated higher in the debate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but I believe that the commenters' meaning could easily be inferred, in this case. Especially since it's been made clear that all Wikipedian categories must be sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians and must show that in their naming. So we could easily suggest that such subcats are being treated as we treat pages in userspace. - jc37 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the distinction between permissible user boxes and permissible user categories illustrates that user categories do not have the broad latitude given to user space. I agree that the idea behind that particular rationale is that these categories should be protected because they are related to personal expression, but I don't believe personal expression is a primary goal of user categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, what I was talking about above was an attempt to possibly discern what those who commented were attempting to convey. I just am wondering if possibly at least one aspect of the discussion was ignored or at least deemed as "irrelevant", even if it seemed that it might be a pervading POV. - jc37
  • Comment: I would like to point out that the same arguments (divisiness, non-encyclopeadicity) were also brought up for "Category:Wikipedians by language" and "Category:Wikipedians by religion", and that both these categories were kept. I don't think the "divisiveness" rationale holds any more for this category than it does for either of the two aforementioned ones: stating one's political grounds should simply be seen as a statement of where one is coming from, and seen in that light, self-labeling by political ideology (we're talking voluntary self-labeling here, let's be clear: no one is forced to use these categories against their wish) can indeed be encyclopaedically useful to achieve NPOV on politically charged issues. I also think that not addressing a point raised by someone else should not be automatically construed as "implicitly accepting the point"; there are a variety of other possible interpretations.--Ramdrake 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By "implicitly accept" I mean comments such as "This is hardly divisive anyways", "However I have to break the news to you, we don't live in a POV free world and every one of us has a POV.", "My point is, people claim these are divisive, that's politics!", "Who actually has a problem with these types of categories because they themselves find them polemic?". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carl, the point you miss here is that just about any user category could be divisive; there was no evidence that these ones are more divisive than (for example) user categories by religion or nationality or sports club or taste in music, and several arguments that they do make a useful contribution to the encyclopedia by helping editors to declare any bias. The arguments on both sides might usefully have been developed further, but the fundamental arguments for deletion (viz that the categories are divisive) are countered by Arthur Rubin's point that "stated bias is better than unstated bias". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS, it also seems quite perverse to take MichaelLinnear's comment that "This is hardly divisive anyways" as an acceptance that these categs are divisive. "Hardly" can mean either "just a very little bit" or (in a commonly-used British, sarcastic sense) "absolutely not at all", as in "Vladimir Putin is hardly as big a rock star as Mick Jagger". Either way, it's not an acceptance of the claim of divisiveness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe that "one more" moderate keep rationale would have changed the outcome of the debate. Several more keep rationales that addressed the policy concerns would have changed it. The situation is different with the closed debate on Wikipedians by religion, where I believe quite a few of the keep rationales address the policy concerns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is, the outcome of the debate was a clear consensus to "Keep". And since the Wikipedians by religion debate was on the same page, it is entirely possible that people avoided repeating themselves in this debate, as they saw the same points in need of being addressed. Politics, religion, language, ethnicity are all matters of identity, and yes we are all different. I don't see how one can find any of these categories "divisive", unless one also finds the fundamental act of affirming one's identity "divisive" (for crying out loud, we're not all robots!).--Ramdrake 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Wikipedians by religion debate, which I looked through in some detail, appeared to me to have no consensus, and the arguments there appeared stronger than in the political ideologies debate. It is also possible that people felt more strongly about the religious categories, and not as strongly about the politics categories – we can't answer hypothetical questions about why editors didn't give their opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Wikipedians by religion debate has a 24:7 consensus to keep. Not sure how you could read that it reached "no consensus", although admittedly some editors in favor of deletion were very argumentative (and took up a lot of space). In any case, in the specific case of the Wikipedians by political ideology, I don't see that there was a consensus to delete either (which is not to be mistaken with a no-consensus to restore).--Ramdrake 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Carl, the "policy concerns" were remarkably flimsy: an assertion that the categories were divisive, without (so far as I can see) any explanation of how they might be divisive. It hard for anyone to engage in detailed argument against bare assertions, but the counter-arguments were just as solid as the assertions. I am concerned that you appear to have approached this closure with a presumption that the deleters had found a policy which was relevant, and had indicated how it was relevant: it appears to me that neither your closure rationale nor your subsequent explanations here test that assumption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (←) Yes, I do believe that the delete rationales brought up relevant policy concerns; if they did not, the nomination would have been speedily closed as keep. There were two concerns, as I indicated in the closing statement: that the categories are unencyclopedic (WP:NOT), and that they are divisive (WP:NPOV). Note that WP:NPOV applies to "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content" (my emphasis). As I have said, not only several oppose rationales but several keep rationales implicitly accepted that the categories violate the NPOV policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carl, surely all user categories are unencyclopedic (editors are not themselves encyclopedic) and potentially divisive (by attributing to some wikipedians attributes not shared by others)? My point is that the nominators did not explain why these categories are more unencylopedic or more divisive than others: if those arguments are sufficient, why not just mass-delete all user categories? You appear to have inferred a case which the advocates of deletion did not actually make, but insisted in your closure that nothing positive should be inferrred from the keep votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carl, if the user categories are deemed to be "encyclopaedic content", then article talk pages are even more so to be encyclopaedic, which means no one has the right to discuss their opinions on Wikipedia (since opinions are by definition the expression of a POV and aren't NPOV). Surely, that can't be what you meant?--Ramdrake 16:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current consensus on WP is that not all user categories are unencyclopedic, and decisions must be made on a case by case basis. Presumably, this means that not all categories are considered by consensus to be divisive. The purpose of this UCFD debate was not to make a decision about all user categories, however, only the ones that were the subject of this debate. I fear BrownHairedGirl and Ramdrake are looking for consistency that does not exist. Ramdrake's concerns about freedom of expression are excessive for this debate; we are not considering free expression, user space, or article talk pages, only a few user categories. There is consensus, however, the opinions expressed on article talk pages must serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia, rather than merely advocating a particular position. The purpose of this debate was to discuss whether these user categories contribute to the encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be (I'd say 'wilfully', but I'd fail to WP:AGF) ignoring that there is a consensus of voices (11:5) to keep these user categories, and that an undefeated rationale has been presented to explain why these specific user categories are encyclopedic and serve to build the encyclopedia (as it gives a reference as to the political affiliations of some users, which can in turn be used on some politically-oriented articles which are prone to debate to buld a better NPOV for those articles). While it may not always do so, the contention that these categories are divisive has not been properly sustained: how are they divisive? Are there any concrete examples, or are some editors just stating they are potentially divisive (which is but one undemonstrated POV)? If there are 'any concrete examples, why haven't they been brought forward?--Ramdrake 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My closing decision did not rely on counting votes. You appear to feel the arguments in the keep direction were stronger than I do; perhaps we should allow others to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn mistaken closure, not the consensus. There were repeated requests during the discussion for those proposing deletion to show just how they have been or could be divisive--there was never any response. DGG 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only such query I see is from tariqabjotu, but in his second statement it's clear that he realizes that they can be considered divisive, although he feels they are not too divisive to be kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carl, didn't you just agree to let the other editors comment? Must you argue with each comment in turn?--Ramdrake 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides, tariqabjotu's second comment read: We need to draw the "divisive line" somewhere, but these categories are not across it. How can you interpret that as meaning that they can be considered divisive, although he (tariqajotu) feels they are not too divisive to be kept?--Ramdrake 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's correct, in the same manner that the concept of user pages can be considered divisive, but not too divisive to be deleted. That is, they're not divisive at all, but people were citing divisiveness just to beef up the delete rationale; there was no evidence that these categories have actually caused problems. I'm not sure how that reason was not good enough for you. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as this closure is well within the administrator's discretion, and he has given a solid reasoning for the close. And we have here yet another disrespectful listing here, against the recommendations at the top of this page, with no attempt at any prior discussion or resolution before it was listed here. Deletion review does not exist to refight the closures you dislike. These categories are all clearly of no value to the encyclopedia, are uselessly divisive by organizing users according to POV. Others seem to think this should have been decided on the basis of votecounting alone. Dmcdevit·t 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain fully how these categories are of no value to Wikipedia, in the light of the explanation around the beginning of this debate as to how they are useful to Wikipedia. Besides, WP:DRV states in point 2 that: Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. and the contention of this DRV is that this is precisely the case here.--Ramdrake 18:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Valid Cfd discussion and valid close. FloNight 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closing admin's analysis is incorrect, and the decision seems to misinterpret policy and guidelines. WP:NPOV only applies to the main namespace, per the second paragraph, and so does not apply. (It might apply to categories which apply to the main namespace, but not to userspace or even talkspace categories.) Being "divisive" is only part of speedy criterion T1, not to general or category deletion criteria. The categories not being encyclopedic (WP:NOT) is irrelevant, as they contribute to editing the encyclopedia, by making biases readily apparent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn people choose to add these categories to their pages. NPOV is for commenting on third parties, not oneself. Let people pigeonhole themselves as they wish. -N 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Should have been straightforward T1 speedies. It's an encyclopedia, folks. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Policy WP:NOT trumps WP:ILIKEIT. --After Midnight 0001 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT does WP:NOT entirely apply to userspace, as noted above and in WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With due respect to your opinion, my belief is that the category namespace is not user space, and WP:NOT covers the category namespace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But then, when WP:CFD and WP:UCFD were "divorced", didn't that in effect make "user category namespace" distinct from plain " main category namespace", just like "user space" is distinct from "main space"?--Ramdrake 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would say that anything in namespace 2 ("User") or 3 ("User talk") is in user space, and nothing else is. UCFD versus CFD is unrelated to namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The split between CFD and UCFD occurred not for any policy reasons. but simply because UCFDs tend to be an area of specialization which many CFD users care to not participate in. Also, CFDs and UCFDs together overwhelmed one page, so there was too much discussion to process through for some users. Finally, clean up of CFDs usually involves simple deletes and renames which are easily processed as opposed to UCFDs which require more editing of templates port-decision. --After Midnight 0001 12:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I recall prior discussions about these types of category. An example is Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2007#Wikipedians by Politics I (keep). That was not linked in the UCfD discussion. Nor were the three prior discussions for the (as then extant) entire group at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 18#Category:Wikipedians by politics (keep), Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 4#Category:Wikipedians by (subjective categorization) (no consensus), Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories (no consensus). Now, it has been a year, so consensus might have changed. Failure in this UCFD to address the keep arguments made in those discussions makes this discussion violate Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent", so we don't actually know if the consensus has changed. The closer has also shown no awareness of the prior discussions reasons for keeping. Overall, I therefore conclude that we have to overturn because no clear consensus for deletion has been established. GRBerry 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Like all things on Wikipedia, policy is interpreted through the lens of consensus. Whether or not these are divisive or unencyclopedic is an interpretation that should be made through discussion and consensus. The CFD does not demonstrate such a consensus and hence the closure is in error. Dragons flight 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. How in hell do 6 deletes, 6 keeps, 1 weak keep and 4 strong keeps amount to a decision to delete? I'm new to all this but surely the onus is on the party proposing change to prove their assertions that the categories are divisive or POV-pushing. Neither of these points was demonstrated in the debate, indeed the deletionists' comments seemed to add a fair amount of heat but little light. The fact that userpages and userboxes provide alternative ways of showing affiliation doesn't constitute an argument against categories doing this too. Some people prefer one method, some another, and if one is ok, all are. I raised this point and I don't think it was answered anywhere in the debate. Neither was the point that deleting categories isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if people are determined to seek out users of a particular persuasion for non-encyclopedic purposes. (Just follow "What links here" from the relevant userbox template!) This is clearly an unfinished debate. We establish our arguments through consensus, or what are these discussions for? Gnostrat 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I don't see a "rough consensus for deletion" here at all. — Omegatron 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per closing admin's comments. --Kbdank71 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Oh, for Pete's sake. Can't anyone in this just let a discussion go to the end, and then close it according to the will of those who voted? In this case, the discussion was clearly a no consensus, half the people making arguments for it and half against it. Carl, who as far as I can tell has never been UCFD before, just showed up and closed them all the way he wanted them done. As I said on ANI, consensus is a mandate, not a guideline. Overturn this, close it as no consensus, and sometime down the road, we'll have another debate about it, though with luck, it'll be one that actually pays attention to the people registering their opinions.--Mike Selinker 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Because this is not a vote. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, which is why adherring to a consensus based approach ought to require agreement above and beyond a simple majority. Lately it seems that "it's not a vote" is used to advocate for positions that fail to achieve even a mere majority when given widespread discussion. The expectation is that a consensus for deletion should be shown, and setting aside personal feelings and opinions about policy, I really have no idea how someone can honestly conclude such a consensus was demonstrated in this case. Dragons flight 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's not a vote. Which means you need more than just a majority to delete something. You need a rough consensus; general agreement among editors. "Not a vote" doesn't mean "ignore the discussion and close according to your own personal whims". Without consensus the AfD defaults to keep. "These processes are not decided through a head count ... If there is no consensus, the page is kept". "When in doubt, don't delete." — Omegatron 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not at all true that you need "more than just a majority" of expressed opinions to support the close. If that were the case, vote-stacking would be trivial. There is a global consensus in favor of policies such as WP:NOT, and it is that global consensus that I was considering when closing this CfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)^[reply]
        • The deletion guidelines allow closing admins to discount votes coming from an attempt at vote stacking, especially from anons and SPAs. I recognize nearly all the names here as being rather long-term contributors to Wikipedia. Please note that the deletion guidelines don't allow any other possible exception to ignore consensus, except if there are very strong reasons (such as a copyright violation) to act otherwise (and so far, nobody has claimed that, that I'm aware). I believe it is obvious that there was a rough consensus on the side of keep (in any case, there was no consensus to delete), and the closing admin closed this one in error.--Ramdrake 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It simply isn't a vote; the final count doesn't matter. My opinion remains that the global consensus on WP:NOT is what matters here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as per closing admin's rationale. Very valid. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. As such categories are expressly forbidden by policy, any attempts to change this ought be directed to the appropriate page.Proabivouac 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow (following Arthur Rubin) as decided without any basis in policy. DGG 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Radical usurptions of !vote counts should only occur when points by one side are completely amiss. That is not the case here. The keep side may not have linked to WP:NOT and WP:ENC as many times as the delete side, but that does not mean the keep side should automatically be discounted as ignoring points outright and not refuting the other side. Similarly, one should not automatically assume that because various policies were linked from the delete side, their statements hold more weight, especially enough to knock down the "keep" side (surely we all can point to a time when someone has pointed out some policy even when it didn't apply well). Unfortunately, Carl appears to have taken care to deconstruct the arguments from the keep side without doing the same for the opposing side. Thus, this decision does not represent consensus at all. If Carl feels some points regarding divisiveness and encyclopedic significance are less worthy than others, that's fine. However, the closing statement of a deletion request is not the place for him to say that. That instead belongs on a talk page, where more detailed conversation can occur. -- tariqabjotu 01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Closure took no accout of what had been said in the discussion. Closing admin merely imposed their own opinion without taking any note of the arguments in favour of retention, implying as they were of no note as they were not in agreement with their own. Galloglass 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are many WPedians in these categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. The thought that a dozen people here or a CDS can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. One ed. doesnt think it helps social function; hundreds think otherwise. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categories. I think it might be a good idea to ask the individual users here for comments--it affects them, it does not affect the deletors--or me. DGG 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — Certainly not helpful to the writing of the encyclopedia; if anything, it severely inflames tensions. The "I like it" "rationales" for overturning this deletion do not appeal to me. We need to be strict with the use of the category system; after all, it was created to categorize the encyclopedic content, and its misuse for categorizing users by political affiliation is nothing short of abuse. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Violates WP:NOT; Not encyclopedic; does not help the project. Good call by closing admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. No valid reason for deletion. Original decision was reached simply out of editor's taste. Owen 08:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Cyde. Policy and common sense trump WP:ILIKEIT, especially when this junk is contrary to the project's goals. MER-C 09:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I must point out that so far, nobody has shown (by diffs or other real-life Wikipedia examples) that this category is against the project's goal or in any way divisive, despite editors requesting proof of this repeatedly.--Ramdrake 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my comment on the religious categories, undelete. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • tkph – Undeleted, redirected to Tire for now. If anyone wants to pull content from this history behind the redirect and merge it into Tire, or specify a more direct redirect location, they are free to do so editorially. – Daniel 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tkph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I deleted this page as an uncontested prod, and I agree with the original prod reasoning that it had no references, and most of the article was some kind of essay instead of explaining what tkph is. I was later contacted by someone who gave some references:

  • Hi, you deleted an article about TKPH which is a term used in the mining industry for measuring tire wear on trucks and loaders. Could you please reconsider? Here are some references to the term:

However, personal essays are still unsuitable for Wikipedia. The article would then consist of a definition plus a list of references. JIP | Talk 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ben Going – speedy close as the improper forum for peer review. Calton is correct that "the article wasn't deleted" alone isn't a speedy close rationale, but it seems like a clear request for content and conduct dispute mediation that doesn't belong in DRV. – Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ben Going (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|DRV|AfD)

article on vlogger needs a clear review by peers. While the "consensus" for deletion was addressed, various users and contributors comments were censored and removed. Terms like sockpuppet and meatpuppet were used to dismiss contributors who clearly stated their opinion on the status of boh3m3(Ben_Going). This article lacks Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on several levels. I am asking for a review / expert attention on Ben_Going, as well as wikipedia peers user:Ichormosquito who is trying to vandalize this review, article and harass me personally regarding this topic/debate. Thank you. I do have further arguments, however wanted to keep this on review/topic and to the point. Sexyorge 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh what exactly is it that you want? This article was never deleted, so there's no need to bring it to deletion review. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reopened this: as the top of the DRV page says, Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions [emphasis mine] made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as appeals to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion [emphasis mine]. There may be valid grounds to close this early, but "the article wasn't deleted" ain't one of them. --Calton | Talk 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked above the prior DRV and the AFD. I also link here an AN/I discussion (now archived). I believe that in addition to the blocks given some new participants, a few of the established users should have been given behavior cautions. However, the other admins that looked at the situation didn't do so, which means I might be wrong about that. Looking at the AFD discussion, there clearly is not a consensus to delete there. I note that the opinions on June 20 are all from established editors, and that portion of the discussion has a clear keep consensus. My evaluation of the opinions of the established editors throughout the entire discussion comes down to a no consensus result as well. So I endorse closure. GRBerry 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin, I became aware of the AFD from the WP:ANI report that GRBerry (talk · contribs) made (and to be clear, I'd never heard of the subject before seeing the AFD). I closed the AFD with a rather detailed explanation of my reasoning, but in summation it appears there were several newly-minted single purpose accounts who's opinions I discounted and that lead to a clear no-consensus in regards to the opinions favoring deletion or retention. There were also arguments that this did not meet WP:BIO, but as I noted in my closing there seemed to be sufficient sourcing that indicated a possibility the subject meet the spirit of the guideline if not the letter (and WP:BIO is a guideline not a policy). That said, I'm fine with letting this DRV run course if someone wants to contend that my decision was somehow out of process.--Isotope23 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is this guy who started this DRV wants to keep the article but thinks this is a place where he can get a review of the article's quality itself (something that is provided at Wikipedia:Peer review, not here) and can complain about how keep voters in the AfD were treated. The close was correct because this is not the place where he can get what he's asking for. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus to keep, discounting the blocked puppets' votes. There is nothing for DRV to review. -N 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse closure, despite my speedy close being overturned, this should still be speedily closed. This DRV was nominated for a content dispute and a conduct dispute, which are sorta-kinda-maybe related to the AFD, but more than likely aren't, especially given this. --Coredesat 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse closure I didn't realize this was still here. Nice to see some editors' watching my back. I agree with User:N that the consensus was closer to keep; still, despite overwhelming press citations and YouTube stats, I never could find an article with his name in the title. Ichormosquito 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2007

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

I'm closing this: Richard Norton was assuming this article was about the child prodigy composer Alex Prior, but it was about some other Alex Prior that lives in Brisbane instead of London, and is seemingly a typical student. If anyone wants to create an article on the Alex Prior mentioned in the sources, go ahead. Mangojuicetalk 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Prior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

featured on BBC The World's Alex Gallafent has the story of 14-year-old prodigy Alex Prior who composed a ballet that's made it to the Russian stage. The work premiered this evening in Moscow. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Alex Prior was a redirect to Alexander Prior the content of that article was "Alexander Prior was born in Janurary 1993 and lives in Brisbane, Australia. He has recieved much credit from activities such as debating and music. He came second in the 2005 ASX Sharmarket challenge." --pgk 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm DRV'ing my own action here, because I'm sure some will consider it controversial. However, over the course of a couple of days aggressively trimming down the article it became clear that the only reason this article exists is to disparage its subject. Unlike some G10 speedies, though, this was sourced - some people have done some very deep research to find unflattering details about this person's life in tangential mentions of minor news media. Ingram is a private investigator who works for the church of Scientology (note to closer: please beware of vote-stacking here), a former cop who was fired amidst some minor controversy over 25 years ago. There are a couple of sources covering that but there are no other sources about him, but some that mention him in passing. There is no substance to the article, no indication why anyone would want to read an article on this person, but plenty of unflattering information. So I deleted it per WP:BLP. I tried AfD previously but it failed, but I don't view that as a critical precedent here. First, the AfD was closed within about 4 hours as an "early keep." Second, the keep comments never addressed the BLP concern, and indeed, no supporter of the article has been able to address it. Third, the debate was closed partly because this article was linked from the Main page via WP:DYK (a really backwards decision in my view: if there's a BLP issue on the Main page of Wikipedia, we should take it down immediately until those issues are resolved). For my part, obviously, endorse. Mangojuicetalk 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that Thatcher131 had a few days earlier BLP deleted and then self-reverted due to the AFD. However, I think this is a reasonable deletion under WP:CSD#G10, and the spirit of BLP certainly includes applying G10 even when an article is sourced, so I endorse the deletion. GRBerry 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I strongly disagree with using CSD#G10 to delete well sourced articles. At most, they should be blanked with an AfD so we can reach a consensus. That said, I have trouble seeing this as an article that will be or should be kept if we go through AfD. This is precisely the sort of article where a privacy consideration should matter. He is not a public figure, has not attempted to be a public figure and any notability is very borderline. (The fact that he appears to be a jackass and a good representation of the sort of people that the church of scientology hire isn't really relevant to his privacy as such). JoshuaZ 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think G10 has ever cared whether the article was sourced, just whether the only purpose of the article was to attack someone/something (not necessarily the article's subject). BLP, on the other hand, has traditionally only been valid for for unsourced content, but covers negative material that has at least one non-attack reason for existence. Which is why I endorsed the result under G10, to avoid a undesirable expansion of BLP. GRBerry
  • Overturn I think this is an example of the destructive nature of the BLP rules as they are evolving. He is a public figure with respect to scientology, and those with interest in the controversies regarding scientology would have reason to use the article. Opinion otherwise can be seen as an individual's feeling that oneself would not have occasion. This is an example of how those in denial of a particular factual situation can make use of BLP to censor WP. We are in danger of forgetting our roots when we prohibit sourced negative statements about people. About unsourced, we all agree, about even sourced ones irrelevant to the main thrust of an article we also agree. But about sourced ones in regard to the main activity of the person?DGG 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you figure he's a public figure with respect to Scientology? Moreover, apart from that he is in some sources, why should we have an article on him? And I think it's disputable that this is a case where the sources were relevant to the main thrust of the article. Mangojuicetalk 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think that we need to be very careful on creating BLPs where very little biographical detail is available and undue weight inevitably rules - especially on marginally notable figures. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this is a non-public person with no true notablity. We can never write a full biography on this person that is well balanced and follow our core content policies. FloNight 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given that this is a borderline case (according to the nominator himself), how's about undeleting the history so interested parties can actually see what's at issue? --Calton | Talk 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I wondered about this one myself but held back, I applaud Mangojuice's bold and IMO entirely correct action. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn BLP permits articles with sourced negative material if the material is relevant to the main thrust of the material, and it clearly is; this was a policeman, now private investigator, against whom a number of charges were brought; he was not convicted, but the material is based soundly on articles in major national sources, including several interviews granted by the subject himself--who apparently has no objection to the matter being widely discussed. In the absence of those interviews, it would have been different & BLP might have been relevant. BLP does not permit deletion of articles such as this, nor should it. BLP should be strict, but narrow. DGG 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second opinion, struck bolding. GRBerry 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. But we do seem to be going in circles this week. (smile) DGG 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I retract my suggestion that this could be borderline. Rap sheet disguised as a biography, and even some of the allegedly neutral material phrased in pejorative ways ("employed as a desk sergeant"?). --Calton | Talk 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Translations.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I’m writing in reference to your deletion of Translations.com. Although a company owned by TransPerfect I believe it has significant scope and international influence to be justified as an individual entry. I was editing today to improve the NPOV and to introduce external links, citations and wikilinks so that the article's merit would be demonstrated. This company works with virtually all the Fortune 1000 and independently of the parent company, making its removal questionable. The speed at which business is growing globally means that the technologies, terminologies and influence of Translations.com is of significant public interest and therefore relevant for Wikipedia. I ask that you restore the pages and allow me some time to improve the NPOV to your standards? 217.204.103.106 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC) --217.204.103.106 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list at AfD from the cache I can see this was not a valid G11. It might have been a bit POV but it was not blatant advertising. -N 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am now neutral. I think the article looks fine but the COI (including a IP who just deleted a big comment on this page) makes it look fishy. -N 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment now posted below, I had put it in the wrong place so deleted it. Like i said, Im still getting used to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.103.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse myself. This was part of a major coordinate promotion campaign by two clearly affiliated users. [39][40][41][42][43]. Theoretically speaking, Christie and Excelsior deserve indefblocks as spam-only accounts. Any op who reads these words may feel free to do so if s/he agrees. -- Y not? 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intention is not to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, it is a genuine belief that the thousands of people who require information on technologies, terminologies, market developments and influential companies in the globalization and localization industries should have that information available to them. This is a cutting edge industry and Translations.com works with virtually all the Fortune 1000 companies who require these services, making it an important inclusion on Wikipedia. My intention was to link all articles, external inks, citations that are available on the subject to these sites, making them genuinely neutral. This is an interesting subject matter to me, and many others. I am new to Wikipedia and if the activity of extending the article to include more links has raised concerns then please inform me or direct me to a better means of doing this. I ask again that Translations.com be reinstated. Thanks, C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.103.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse merge A redirect to an article which does not mention the subject is not a useful way of doing things; fortunately, that can be fixed by inserting a paragraph about this site in the article for the company that runs it. I think it's notable enough as article content. C, would this be acceptable? DGG 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no independent reliable sources have written a feature length focus piece on this website, so it isnt notable. All I can find in Google News Archives are press releases and invester bulletins. I have added a few snippets of information on TransPerfect in order that "Translations.com" is mentioned and the redirect is thus explained to the reader. I had to stoop to using PR to do this, because I couldnt find much else of note. John Vandenberg 23:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ALF (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)


There was no concensus to delete; the nomination search for sources was quickly shown to have been lacking, SlimVirgin's rationale for deletion was "I've read elsewhere that people have been having trouble finding third-party sources for this" and user BPMullins and Jquarry both claimed that the only sources were by the language creator, which was contested without response. The reason I contested it was the paper "Logic Programming Tools for Advanced Internet Programming" in Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 1997 International Symposium was written by Paul Tarau, who is not listed as an author of ALF. Besides a general Prolog article, the only other constraint logic programming languages with real implementations that have articles are CHIP, Curry, and MOZART. John Vandenberg 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn now, sources have been provided. Delete again if article is not cleaned up by DRV close. -N 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Disagree with delete again statement. Recommend instead to Stub the article and clean it up when possible, without artificial timetables. SqlPac 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn the deletion. The rationales for deletion were thoroughly refuted by several people who cited several Attributable and Verifiable sources (which ideally will be included in the updated version of the article.) Those who voted to delete did not bother responding to those who contested their statements. Some indicated that they did not even bother checking the sources supplied, and made their decision based on the title, which seems wholly insufficient to delete an article. Based on the sources and the number of published works, ALF appears to be notable. Citations provided include works by:
  • Prof. Simon Thompson, Director and Professor of Logic and Computation at Kent University
  • Harold Boley, Adjunct Professor, Computer Science, University of New Brunswick and Leader, Semantic Web Laboratory, Institute for Information Technology - e-Business, NRC; member of the W3C and co-author of the Semantic Web Rule Language spec.
  • Rolf Grütter, scientific project manager and lecturer, Institute for Media and Communications Management, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
  • Prof. Michael Wooldridge, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool
And several others who are not the original language creators. SqlPac 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - is this a joke? It's well known in academic circles. By the way, I remember it from my comparative languages class at Tech which is why I was so shocked to see it here. It's definitely an encyclopedic topic. --BigDT 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally closed this as delete, and then after a while I changed my interpertation to no consensus. I am reopening this to allow this DRV to run its full length to allow for addition comments regarding this closure of afd per request. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. The arguments for keep were cogent and those for delete were weak (and incorrect). Even if all statements were weighted equally, there was no consensus. Notability is established in the article and sources given. Clearly the article can be improved (by giving a non-technical introduction) but the article is not particularly weak. Thank you for undeleting temporarily (so I could see the article!) and I realise that it may be difficult to assess what is inevitably a technical article. Thincat 10:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The article is sourced to the creator of the language, 90% of the sources in the google scholar search results posted by editors in the AFD are either authored by Hanus (the creator), co-authored or edited by him. After filtering through the remaining ones, most references to ALF are 'an example of such' complete with a list or are written by the authors Hanus worked with on the project or on books about it in the past.
  • A single brief mention as an example of that type of language does not make a notable language. Also, to BigDT - why would it have been a joke? It had gone via AFD and there is a 66% majority in favour of deletion (which would be a supermajority, but not necessarily a consensus). As the keep comments, in my view don't actually manage to show notability, I would say it was a good decision to delete.-Localzuk(talk) 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 83% in favour of overturning deletion consistutes a superdupermajority. SqlPac 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a joke because of exactly what Tony said below - this is the kind of thing I would expect to be discussed in an encyclopedia. I learned about this language at Tech. Things that you learn about in school are kinda sorta the things you think would expect to find in a reference material that holds itself out as containing the sum of human knowledge. Garage bands from Singapore that have a MySpace page and got a write-up in their local newspaper once or twice we can do with out. But articles on academic subjects ought to be in here. --BigDT 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are missing the point - there was an AFD, so why would you talk about 'is this a joke'? Procedure was followed, so it isn't a joke. My point is that you should stick to your reasoning rather than making hyperbolic comments such as those - otherwise you are simply being offensive to those who disagree with your viewpoint.-Localzuk(talk) 13:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There seems to be enough sources to justify article. Loom91 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if it's the Alf discussed here: http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~mh/systems/ALF.html
    This is the kind of thing I'd expect to be discussed in an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's the same ALF currently under discussion. Pound for pound it seems you find less academic content and more stuff about state flags and celebs du jour around here. SqlPac 23:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And don't forget about plot summaries of every episode of every TV series ever made. --BigDT 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please keep the personal opinions about what should be generally here to yourselves, they are inappropriate. Also, you say 'yes this is the thing discussed here' - but that is because it is the site of the author! Hanus created the language...-Localzuk(talk) 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your personal opinion about the author of the site is irrelevant, please keep it to yourself. The poster asked if it was the same "ALF" described at another website. It is. That's that. Your opinion of that website has no bearing on anything in particular. SqlPac 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you miss the point - Hanus created the language, so citing him on anything to do with it in order to show notability is flawed and pointless. My opinion on the author of the site wasn't even mentioned - it is simply that he is the creator of ALF and as such not a suitable source to show notability. My other comment about the the inappropriate comments stand - they serve simply to do one thing, belittle the opinions of other editors. This is simply uncivil and is A Bad Thing.-Localzuk(talk) 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fortunately for me I did not cite "him on anything to with it in order to show notability". I also don't take much interest in peripheral side-arguments that miss the point of the main discussion entirely. There are already more than enough bureaucrats trying to WikiLawyer their opinions onto others. SqlPac 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, you didn't cite him - but you did respond to a DRV that is based on an AFD which called for the deletion of the article based on the fact that notability has not been proven, and then an editor based his comment on the creator's website - completely missing the entire notability argument. Also, I don't care about your perceptions of bureaucrats or wikilawyers and find the comment to be completely odd and irrelevant, a side argument if you will. None of my arguments have been side-arguments, all are related directly to endorsing the deletion of an article which fails to show notability.-Localzuk(talk) 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • One of the arguments for the AfD was that notability had not been proven. If you were actually concerned about disproving notability, then look up the published works provided above and then respond to the statement that these published works indicate notability. Everything else is an irrelevant side-argument, if you will. Including accusations that I cited "him on anything to do with it in order to show notability", which you called "flawed and pointless". Which, by your own admission, I did not do. As for the question at hand, it did not ask whether the item was "notable" based on the website given; it asked "are we discussing the same thing as what's on this website". And the answer remains an emphatic YES, and nothing you've provided so far in this thread changes that fact. Perhaps you have something to prove that the ALF in the article, and the one on the website are actually two different things? If not, then I believe this thread is finished. SqlPac 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is right to bear in mind the self-publishing caution at WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) but when someone creates a programming language it is not unreasonable to take the creator's papers as being reliable about the nature of the language itself. This in itself does not establish notability. If the creator and his colleagues are the only people to use ALF, the topic may well not be notable. So, seeing as the matter has been challenged, I have added to the article a reliable third party reference to the fact of the language's (notable) existence and use. The many citations of Hamus' publications about ALF also establish notability though I do not think it helps the article to quote these. Example applications using ALF, and a non-technical introduction, would help the article (in my view). Thincat 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If "notability" standards tell us that this language isn't to be included in the encyclopedia, the standards are unreliable in this case and should be ignored. Most likely they were compiled by people who have little experience with this subject. A bit of common sense goes a long way. As this is an academic programming language, asking for example applications is missing the point somewhat. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article did not have the delrev template posted on it and as such some people may not have known this discussion is occurring. I have posted it now. I'm posting this comment so that whoever closes the DRV can take this into account when considering how long it has ran/-Localzuk(talk) 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also for whoever closes this review: The AfD did not reach consensus, as pointed out by the person who deleted the article after AfD and Localzuk during this discussion. SqlPac 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Stephen Myron Schwebel.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Stephen Myron Schwebel.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image was deleted with reason: "Replaceable fair use to be decided after 6 June 2007". I'm motioning an overturn because although this photograph is courtesy Max Koot, it has been cleared for free publishing on the web. It took me about an hour to wade through all information available regarding upload instructions and licences, however did not know there was such a thing as DRV. I hope we can resolve this manner without too much bloodshed, since if you'd really want to play hardball, you'd have to consider removing a lot more honourable photographs than just this one. ExpendableAsset 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse replaceable image of living individual, request made by single purpose account, no argument for undeletion besides WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -N 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm the editor who deleted this image. The subject is important, and deserves an image on Wikipedia, but it will need to be a free image. Hopefully someone will provide one. By the way, I love hardball, and I remove as many non-free and replaceable photographs as I possibly can. I've deleted literally thousands, and there's still more work to do. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you focus your energy on providing replacements instead of deleting material that is technically replaceable but never gets replaced? - Mgm|(talk) 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I criticize you for the cleanup tasks you choose to do? A backlog exists, and I take care of it. Also, please note the thousands of free images I contribute. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the responsibility of the deleting admin to carry a camera around the world in hopes of catching a glimpse of every individual whose non-free image they delete. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide only images which meet Wikipedia's policies. Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we don't delete the replaceable images, they never will be replaced. If we are willing to use a promo photo that is unlicensed or which is given to us under a restrictive license, then nobody is ever going to give us a freely licensed one. Think about it - for an article on "Bob", Bob's company has a vested interest in having the article look as nice as possible. So they have an interest in giving us a photo under whatever terms we ask, but they certainly aren't going to give us a less restrictive photo if we are willing to take a restrictive one. Are we going to get one in every case? No, but we will get them in a lot of cases. --BigDT 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I really don't like the policy that images that might theoretically be replaceable with a free image must be deleted, but consensus is against me there, and this is definitely plausibly replacable. And sorry, but we have more restrictions on what can be considered a free image than just permission to freely publish on the Internet. -Amarkov moo! 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Wikipedia does not accept images of living people that are unlicensed or available only on a restrictive license. --BigDT 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The deletion was in accordance with policy and aims of Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As the subject of the picture is alive, and the only purpose of the image is to show what he looks like, standard WP practice is to presume that the image is reasonably replacable. Without an argument against that, I can't see challenging the deletion. ExpendableAsset: yes, there are probably lots more pictures that violate the policy, and they should all be deleted too, and we're working on it. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
.
Template:User against censorship (edit | [[Talk:Template:User against censorship|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache)

Template is not inflammitory or divisive, so does not meet T1 criteria for speedy deletion Willy turner 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, sound deletion on Cyde's part. I don't know what to say about the nominator's comment statement that this did not meet CSD T1, other than the fact that I disagree. Trying to paint your opponents, whoever they are, as nazis, is divisive and inflammatory. Picaroon (Talk) 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont know what to say about my statement then you shouldnt be commenting at all. Having a picture of book burning clearly does not paint anyone as a nazi. Willy turner 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC) The image is used on every page dealing with Censorship. Why havent you nominated it for deletion from the censorship series box if you feel so strongly. I can just about deal with admins censoring any userbox which is critical of any aspect of religion, but this is the last straw. If a userbox opposing censorship is censored (without any discussion), then we may as well delete all userboxes expressing an opinion. Willy turner 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slipping down a slope, are we, Cyde? When can I expect my view on cats to be deleted? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your view on cats is in user space. This template was in template space. There's a rather significant difference there. --BigDT 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Namespaces don't stop Cyde from deleting, as was demonstrated recently by the unfortunate demise of User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion. Moreover, the comment you're replying to was a digression from the debate, I said that in response to Cyde's "We should delete all Wikipedia userboxes, Muhahaha!" Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If being against censorship is inflammatory, then the EFF must be on fire, man. -N 22:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see how this possibly qualifies as "divisive and inflammatory. It is a prime candidate for the German userbox solution, however.--Chaser - T 23:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then be bold and create it in your userspace. It can't be in template space, but there's nothing stopping it from being in userspace or used on userpages in a subst'ed fashion. --BigDT 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn If this is "inflamatory and devisive" then so is any citaion of the section of WP:NOT that says "Wikipedia is not censored". I do not see how this can be considred a vaild T1 deeltion, and i think that T1 should be used with great caution, for all too often deletions under it are rather more devisive than the userboxes involved are ever likely to be. DES (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like how everyone is missing the point over the deletion. It has nothing to do with me being pro-censorship. --Cyde Weys 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I don't accuse Cyde of being pro-censorship (even if I weren't assuming good faith, very few people honestly think that censorship is good). I just don't see how this is inflammatory. -Amarkov moo! 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, here's another tack, if Kesh's take below doesn't convince you: do you really think it should be a template? --Cyde Weys 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For my part, I'd certainly think it probably to be properly situated in userspace, but I would observe that a discussion about that issue is better had at TfD; that something should not be a template is not a justification for its being speedily deleted. I suppose one might argue that since its been deleted we might as well decide that, even as T1 was inappropriate, we ought to userfy straightaway; such a proposition is, of course, though, inconsistent with the well-settled understanding of that which DRV is to do (and a TfD better involves the community in a discussion over whether GUSification is counseled in any case). Joe 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likewise, the decision to unilaterally delete an opinionated userbox might be seen as a pragmatic approach to a convoluted status quo. DRV deals with the method as well as the merits of deletion. My suggestion, and one I emphatically wish that Cyde takes to heart, is to subst all transclusions before deletion, so as not to annoy users and prevent future DRV timesinks. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Censorship is a term that gets flung around a lot, but the meaning isn't always clear. I've seen plenty of AfDs where people cry "censorship!" of their pet topic, and can see how this template may be used as a badge for those with a grudge against other editors. That's how it can be seen as inflammatory & divisive. -- Kesh 02:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would that apply to other policies that get misinterpeted? Would a template saying "This user supports the deletion of replaceable fair use images" or "This user supports the removal of unverifiable information" or "This user opposes personal attacks" be inflammatory and divisive as well? I don't see how this case is any different. Xtifr tälk 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per zee Germans, or subst and delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, clearly inflammatory. --Coredesat 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a social networking site, but was this template's creator too focused on social networking in his contributions? Was it his intent to create a divisive template? Is using a picture of the Nazi book burnings really that inflammatory (sans the awkward phrasing)? Maybe there is some disagreement over the answers to these questions, maybe TfD was a better way to go. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The old horse just refuses to die. I'm sure that by this time radical antiuserboxen like Cyde Ways have clearly realised that their free interpretation of speedy deletion criteria and view of community consensus as something optional has created far more division and trouble than any userbox ever could. The question then remains, why do they continue doing this? The answer I believe is that they consider doing otherwise to be conceding defeat to the pro-userbox forces of Evil. This is not a healthy mentality. If you believed that community consensus indeed favours the deletion of userboxes like this, you could have easily nominated it at TfD. But you knew that there was little chance of getting consensus that way, so the only way to get your will done was to use your special administrative abilities to simply delete it. Vague criteria like divisive and inflammatory can be easily interpreted to include anything. You are using your administrative powers in a creative manner, something you definitely should not be doing. Adminship was intended to be and should be janitor work, just carrying out community consensus. Attempts to wield that power to enforce personal opinions with disregard for the community can only be labeled with that much-abused cliche, admin abuse. This should be undeleted as a matter of process, CSD T1 was interpreted very loosely when CSD criteria should be interpreted very strictly. Loom91 07:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Yes, such templates tend to be used for soapboxing, and no, deleting them does not actually stop that soapboxing. >Radiant< 09:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn: I can understand when anti-Wikipedia-policy userboxes get deleted, but when pro-Wikipedia-policy userboxes get deleted, that's just silly! The whole argument about "calling your opponents Nazis" makes no sense to me. What opponents? This is a userbox; something people put on their user page, not something they use in edit wars. These hypothetical "opponents" are unlikely to see the image, much less imagine that it's directed at them. Heck, you could argue that it's more inflammatory to link to censorship in a debate, since the same image appears at the top of that article. In fact I just did. Is someone going to accuse me of calling Cyde a Nazi? Silly as that would be, it would at least make more sense to me than the deletion of this userbox. (Note that I have no objection to userfying this per the usual practice, but deleting it outright was outrageous and...well, I'll self-censor at this point, to avoid accusations of incivility.) Xtifr tälk 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Loom91s highly articulate take on the matter! DarkSaber2k 10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - this is a no brainer. It's the kind of thing we discourage in template space but allow in user space. Metamagician3000 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While it might technically be argued that it is not inflammatory or divisive, the word "censorship" is so rarely used in the corrcet sense, or in calm, rational debate, as to make the distinction impossible to draw in the real world. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn and userfy per Loom. The problem here is not userboxes, the same deal can be written down in text on a userpage and no one'd bat an eyebrow. If non-inflammatory userboxes, like this one, are used for edit warring or personal attacks or whatever, there are already policies in place to deal with them. Unilaterally deleting userboxes or userbox directories (like Cyde recenly did with User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion, which was in userspace) is only a circumvention of process and not in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - TFD is probably the appropriate venue for this, since there seems to be controversy over this, but the debate has started here. Kinda pointless userbox that doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, but I don't think its really inflammatory/disruptive. Wickethewok 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with The Raven's Apprentice that it should be in user space and if relisted I guess that would be the consensus. On the subject of the image - a less inflammatory photograph could be chosen, also I notice the current image doesn't at the moment have a fair use tag. Addhoc 10:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The real, big debate (for me at least), is whether indiscriminate application of fundamentally vaugue criteria like T1 to speedily delete hundreds of pages is an acceptable practice. I think it's time we had a large-scale centralised debate on the issue instead of rehashing the arguments in every such DRV debate.Loom91 18:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If you delete that, you'd need to delete every template for opinions that are relevant to how we edit Wikipedia. Doczilla 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and userfy I don't think it belongs in templatespace (per the narrow definiton of T1 applied by some admins) but I also think the outright deletion was unwarranted. We have deletion process for some reason, and if you know that deleting something is controversial, for heavens sake don't go "I know what is best for Wikipedia; WP:IAR" and delete it. This only forsters a culture (or at least the image of a culture) of "once you have the bit, do what you want, the common schmuck can't touch you". 84.145.231.10 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you overturn and userfy? If you want it in your user space, log in and create it there ... or if GFDL is an issue, ask an admin to restore it and move it there for you. The template was deleted from template space - there's no bar in Germanizing it.--BigDT 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a bar to "Germanizing" it. It was deleted as supposedly-inflammatory, and until we get the question resolved as to whether that was appropriate, a recreation, even in userspace, is likely to be deleted again. Which makes the "overturn and userfy" comment make perfect sense. Xtifr tälk 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Xcellery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

non-notable software Hi, I would like to request that Xcellery be opened for Undelete review. This is my first time writing an article versus just making small edits so I apologize in advance for getting the procedures wrong.

A temporary version may be found at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox I understand from CambridgeBayWeather that this particular article was deleted twice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery (second nomination) due to advertising content and insufficient notable sources.

Taking this into account, I have re-written the stub and at CBW's advice, I would like to submit it for review. According to WP:SOFTWARE a piece of software must be notable if it has multiple non-trivial independant mentions. At the time, Lifehacker and Salesforce were listed as the two references. Upon further review, it was noted that the Lifehacker reference did not live up to the WP:SOFTWARE standard since it appeared that the author of that blog article had not used the software...

Now that a few months has passed, I found the following references to Xcellery thanks to Google. Besides SalesForce AppExchange (which noone has disputed the legitimacy of), there is a reference on Buzzshout, Office 2.0 Database, and Webware. Of these, several are hands on evaluations of this software so they should count, right?

I'm not sure what the next step of this procedure is. Please advise. Regards, --Gsalelanonda 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote those blogs? Blogs are not automatically non-reliable. If it happens to be the blog of a software experts (say Bill Gates), I'd call it even more reliable than some other sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are almost always bad sources (even blogs of experts) since they are typically not peer reviewed. Exceptions exist, but I don't think this would be one of those situations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all the links are to stubs. One of the sources is to SalesForce AppExchange - an on-demand applications platform setup by a "real" CRM company. In the previous deletion discussions, noone disputed this link as a legitimate notable mention.--Gsalelanonda 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; the only reliable source on the proposed article is [44], a decent enough product review by Network World however that review says the product is still in beta, with 3000 beta testers and only five companies using it. As a result, I do not see why this product needs to be recorded in an encyclopedia, except as part of a marketing program. John Vandenberg 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reto Laemmler is, as is trivially verifiable, the founder and CEO of the company that provides this software, so conflict of interest plus lack of independent sources means I endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note as closing admin - Yeah... I kinda expected this to pop up here but I stand by my choice until multiple non-trivial sources exist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Curtis Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Both the nominator and one participant failed to provide any reasoning as to why they deemed this person not notable. One other relied on online sources. The paper archived their online content for a limited length of time, but information would still be available in dead tree format. The final participant in the discussion draw into question his single television appearance without even discussing the fact he had a leading role in a London West End musical and not only had a leading role in said TV show. I believe this article should be undeleted because the most important argument for his notability - his stage work - was completely ignored in the AFD and none of the comments took ALL his work in consideration. Mgm|(talk) 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the tv show Tony said: "I think being on one TV show run in the after-school slot once is a little bit weak for notability". That particular program was actually a mini-movie rather than a TV series and was repeated multiple times. And the fact it was about the London Underground bombings makes this particular program/movie notable in itself. - Mgm|(talk) 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Very strange article about pre-teen actor who appeared on one kids' TV show--once--and per IMDB was billed ninth. Not only is that way under any reasonable bar of notability for an actor, but frankly it seems to me that this level of coverage for a non-notable child--complete with where he lives(!), what family members he lives with (!!) and what their names are (!!!)--is rather, well, creepy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may find all these "creepy", but it's all in the sources and it's all basic biographical information. - 87.209.70.231 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The billing is totally irrelevant. In fact I believe he had more screen time than many of the other actors. If you take a good look at the credits you'll notice it's alphabetical and not based on any importance of the actor or character. - 87.209.70.231 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the billing is relevant. There is a notability threshold for biographical articles, and this person didn't cross it by a longshot. Most of the links given as references in the article were dead. Please read WP:BIO. --Spike Wilbury 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be relevant if it is based on something like star status, but it wasn't. You can't call someone non-notable because they happened to be billed ninth in an alphabetical list, that way someone with a last name starting with Z would always draw the short straw. What is relevant is the importance of the character, the number of lines they have and their screen time. - Mgm|(talk) 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like contributing as to if the character is notable, not that actor who those attributes are completely independant of. Generally notability is about what the rest of the world think, did the world at large think the actor was significant enough to give broad coverage to them (rather than their character). --pgk 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the character is notable, then why wouldn't the person playing them be notable? - Mgm|(talk) 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable roles are generally recurring roles or break a significant stereotype or are critically acclaimed. None of those apply here. Besides we can cover the role without being creepy and giving a complete bio of the kid. Macaulay Culkin this kid is not. -N 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse strongly I am usually against WP:BLP deletions but this was a near unanimous afd (besides the perennial inclusionist jeff) and this is just plain creepy. -N 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If the role is notable, then create an article on that, and maybe mention who plays the role. There is no need for a biography on the guy himself, especially since biographical information on him is not currently easily accessible. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Element TD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have posted this article twice, and both times it has been deleted by the same administrator. The article was previously posted by someone else, and there was a deletion discussion. The administrator who continues to delete it cites that discussion as his reason. However, that discussion was flawed. The reasons given for deleting the article are inappropriate. One reason was lack of verification of claims, yet links were provided in the article that backed them. Another reason was the questioning of the importance of the article. Element TD is a very popular game for Warcraft 3, and I say this as a person who has played Warcraft 3 for years. But don't take my word for it, the number of downloads it has received on numerous Warcraft 3 sites speak to this fact. It has not only been Spotlighted by Blizzard themselves as an outstanding map, but it also is featured in the map section of the prestigious WC3Campaigns.net. The final reason brought against the article is that custom maps for games do not deserve to be on Wikipedia. However, Defense of the Ancients (DotA) has TWO articles on Wikipedia (DotA and DotA Allstars). It should be noted that DotA is a custom map for Warcraft 3. If that reason is to be cited, Wikipedia should be consistent. I believe the handling of this article has been inappropriate. The article has not had a chance to grow in size and quality because it is immediately deleted. I can promise that many users will edit and improve the article, because Element TD has a large fan base. Please rectify this situation. Karawasa 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.battle.net/mod/mapvault_archive3.shtml - This is the link to Blizzard's Spotlight Maps. If you don't know, Blizzard is the company responsible for making Warcraft 3. Element TD being in this archive means that Blizzard has singled it out for being one of the better custom maps for Warcraft 3.

http://www.epicwar.com/maps/?mode=details&order=desc&sort=downloads&page=1 - This is a link that shows that Element TD has an outstanding number of downloads and ratings. See how it is above every map but two for this database in terms of downloads.

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2745/eletddv7.jpg - Link to picture taking of WC3Campaigns.net map database. Notice how Element TD is a part of the database. WC3Campaigns.net is essentially the largest and most respected site for Warcraft 3 maps and modding. Element TD being a part of this database was only possible with the approval of the administration of that site. Very few maps make it into the database, only the highest quality and most respected ones.

http://warcraft3.filefront.com/file/8_Element_TD;71609 - Link to another site for Warcraft 3 downloads. Notice the large number of downloads for this map. Feel free to compare the number of downloads with others from that site.

What other proof can I offer you? I also would like an answer to a question I have asked several times. Why is Defense of the Ancients article allowed to exist on Wikipedia (DotA). It has TWO articles (DotA and DotA Allstars). What proof have they offered to be allowed an article? If Element TD article cannot exist on Wikipedia, nor should this article. As administrators, you need to be consistent.

RHaworth, I thank you for actually taking the time to familiarize yourself with Warcraft 3. My conflict of interest is irrelevant here. It is not self-promotion, I do not mention myself at all in the article.

--Karawasa 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:V. -- Kesh 03:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request If those are not reliable sources, then I request that both "DotA," and "DotA Allstars," articles be deleted. Those two articles are also about a Warcraft 3 custom map, which apparently is something that doesn't deserve to exist on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to maintain any sort of credibility, then the administrators must be consistent in their actions. --Karawasa 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, notability not demonstrated on the Afd, and the only calls for "keep" had a COI with the article. John Vandenberg 07:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, AfD discussion properly closed as a deletion due to lack of reliable sources; deletion review provides nothing to indicate the contrary, nor does it provide any reliable sources to warrant undeletion at this time. --Kinu t/c 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 June 2007

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

This is important information and needs to be restored. You can't understand baseball without this information. It's the middle of the season. The information cannot be found on the dictionary site. Please restore this important encyclopedic article.

I can't see where any proper discussion concluded that this page or its subsets should, in fact, be deleted. bd2412 T 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in the habit of using these pages in wiki-linking terms frequently used in baseball player articles. It was useful for finding existing articles about some terms and where a full article did not exist, I could link to the appropriate baseball jargon page so the reader has something to refer to if they come across a term they don't know. Now that these pages have been relocated, there are red links in some of the articles I've edited over the past few months. Also, in their new location, the pages now have a ton of red links because they link to articles in the main space. I'd like to see these pages returned to their original location. --Sanfranman59 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was speedied because its contents were transwikied to Wiktionary. --Coredesat 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was BADLY transwikied, losing both the internal cross links and quite a number of citations and notes. That was done in a mindless way, not a thoughtful way.35.9.6.175 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't that require an AFD though, to decide if something that's been transwiki'd should be deleted from this project? In the time being I'm creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary as whoever deleted this was lazy and there are a lot of incoming article links still. --W.marsh 01:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was this even transwiki'd to? Doesn't seem to be at Wiktionary. Perhaps this was transwiki'd under the rug with a broom... --W.marsh 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a glance, it looks like maybe 1/3 at best of these actually made it to Wiktionary. So undelete the list until people can be bothered to A) actually transwiki the content and B) have a proper deletion discussion. --W.marsh 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why pages must be deleted after contents are transwikied. Some overlap may be a good thing. What harm is there in having the duplication? The Wikipedia list will have links to Wikipedia articles, the Wiktionary list will have links to Wiktionary definitions. Both lists can link to each other. The only problem I see is that there is more maintenance involved, but certainly that wouldn't be a problem for a subject that is widely covered. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Overturn --☑ SamuelWantman 06:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just the "parent" List of baseball jargon that was moved. There were pages for terms that begin with each letter of the alphabet. The L page is here (note all the now red links). User:Fram is the one who removed the pages from the main WP space. They did so citing WP:CSD 5. But that item says that the articles should have been discussed at AFD. To my knowledge, they weren't. I had some back and forth with this user on their talk page, but I didn't quite follow how he/she proposed that we fix all of the now broken links. --Sanfranman59 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As someone who invested many hours over the past year or so helping to expand and also to rationalize tha List of Baseball Jargon, I was shocked to discover that it had been eliminated without any discussion. The transwiki process was flawed and not a substitute for the complete list with its documentation and links. This is a valuable glossary, it seems to me, and to remove it abruptly without a full discussion is extremely discouraging, to say the least.--Mack2 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram was just the admin who did the appropriate thing with the articles tagged {{Db-transwiki}}. No blame belongs there.
The articles can be found by searching the transwiki namespace at:
http://en.wiktionary.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Special:Search?ns0=1&ns108=1&search=List+of+baseball+jargon&fulltext=Search
I can see 2 AfDs that both ended with "keep". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baseball jargon (see also Talk:Baseball Slang's 2 afds)
This is a good example of the problem with moving the glossaries to wiktionary. There has been quite a bit of prior debate about whether glossaries belong within Wikipedia or Wiktionary (see Category talk:Glossaries, Talk:List of glossaries, and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not for a start), with many editors believing glossaries play an integral part in a topic's coverage and need to be here to be accessible, and others believing they don't belong here at all (arguing strict WP:NOT#DICT), still others believing they will help give Wiktionary much needed traffic/editors, and probably more perspectives that I don't recall. It's really quite a mess, see more examples such as wikt:Transwiki:Topology glossary, wikt:Appendix:Architectural glossary and wikt:Transwiki:Architectural glossary, or search "glossary" for many more. Neither the appendix or transwiki namespaces are searched by default, which makes everything harder. (I'm personally pro-some-glossaries-at-wikipedia, but I don't really know much about Wiktionary, just that it's not OmegaWiki/Wikidata yet...). That's all the background I can think of offhand (yikes!). :) --Quiddity 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few points:
    • as Quidddity points out, all the pages have been transwikied, not just some, but they are indeed not that easy to find on Wiktionary if you don't know where to look.
    • A CSD G5 does not need a prior AfD, as you can see from the second point ("alternately") it contains.
    • Many (indeed, most) of the terms in the glossary were not used in any article (e.g., from the more than 70 dicdefs under the S, only one was linked twice from article space, all the others were unlinked). The transwikying has created many redlinks in the glossary articles because these articles were close to a walled garden, very often linking from one to another: however, very few redlinks have been created on Wikipedia: this indicates to me that while these articles may be worthwhile on their own, they are not necessary for the rest of Wikipedia, which means that as dicdefs, they can be just as well on Wiktionary. As e.g. this AfD shows[45], opinions vary wildly about what to do with such articles, and while they shouldn't just be deleted obviously, many people seem to agree that transwikying is perhaps the better option. The articles were transwikied in February already (except two, the V and the Z, which I let be transwikied for consistency), and very little activity had happened on these articles since.
    • If the consensus turns out that they need to be on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, I'll have no problem with that, but it is my belief that these are clear dicdefs, and that a list of dicdefs should be treated the same way as an individual dicdef, per WP:NOT. Fram 05:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, jargon does belong on Wiktionary rather than on Wikipedia. If some content was lost in the transwiki, the solution is to add it to wiktionary as well. >Radiant< 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should be done by the people who swept it under the rug, then. It's not my job to clean up after people who deleted content and were lazy. It's still in transwiki limbo apparently and not easy to find on Wiktionary, and poorly organized here. Even if this did qualify under A5 (it doesn't) at least they could have done it cleanly. But there were 2 AFDs that resulted in a keep... consensus really is dead on Wikipedia if stuff like this gets endorsed. --W.marsh 12:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, consensus is dead allright, check out the BLP Arbcom case. But anyway, why didn't A5 not apply? "Alternately, any article that consists of only a dictionary definition, where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." The transwikification was done like any transwikification towards Wiktionary. If this isn't the correct way, then please complain or stop to wiktionarybot, as it is then doing a bad job. As for the AfD's and consensus: policy trumps consensus, and this violates WP:NOT. If we don't transwiki this to Wiktionary, then why do we even have Wiktionary and the transwiki process? Don't forget the very similar and simultaneous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball slang, which resulted in no consensus (perhaps merge or move to wiktionary), or similar unrelated but more recnt AfD's like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surfing terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatre terms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of quality management, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-learning glossary or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local history glossary which show that consensus then was and now is that such articles belong on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. So there is clear precedent for a consensus that such articles do not belong on Wikipedia, there is a policy that says so, there is a speedy deletion criterion for it; what more do you want? Fram 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This did not consist of "only a dictionary definition"... it was 27 pages that organized content throughout our baseball articles. Maybe this is a language thing but "a dictionary definition" means one dictionary definition. You didn't even bother checking "what links here" apparently... this was just lazy and nakedly anti-content... as evidenced by the "it's wiktionary's problem now" attitude. --W.marsh 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you check the "what links here"? I did, for every article in there. I've given the exmaple before, I'll do it again: apart from links between the different baseball jargon articles, the article List of baseball jargon (S) was linked by two articles, Adam Melhuse and Gene Larkin, who both linked to "single". The other 95 entries, from "sabermetrics" to "switch hitter", had no incoming links at all. Pleae, check it out carefully: these pages stood on their won and had very little interaction with the main baseball articles. And the bad thing is that the one term that had incoming links, "single", has its own article, Single (baseball), which means that the two remaining incoming links can be easily changed to better, more precise ones. Similarly, for the "T" page, there was only one incoming link, for Texas leaguer, from Gene Larkin. Surprise: the term is explained in Texas League. The other 24 entries, from "tabelsetter" to "toe the slab", had no incoming entries. The "P" page, sixty dicdefs, no incoming links. In fact, apart from a few examples like the ones above, all other incoming links were from the "see also" type, like here [46], here[47], or here[48]. I have no idea how I was able to remove these pages if I didn't check the "hat links here", but apparently I did. Anyway, as you can see here: Category:Baseball terminology, we still have plenty of articles on Baseball jargon left. Fram 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So uh, you checked what linked there but didn't do anything? The pages you mention still link to the jargon list, e.g. Adam Melhuse and there are lots of incoming article links to the top-level page still. --W.marsh 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I didn't change those links, although I changed some others. I didn't change those pointing to the main article becaue sthey were "lazy links" anyway: you want to explain a word, and you don't check if there is a specific article for it, you don't check if there is a specific entry for it in the jargon pages, no you just link to the main jargon page, and let the interested reader search further. I wonder why all these people who are now debating this deletion because of the many hours of work they put into it didn't make it more useful and didn't check all thes links before, instead of leaving that to the one deleting it. If it wasn't useful at first, it isn't my job to clean up that mess afterwards. Lazy links are now redlinks, so what? Take PFP, where "Pitchers' fielding practice" links to the main baseball jargon article. In the "P" article, I have an explanation of pitcher (which, again, also has it's own article). There is no entry for the full term though, nor for practice or (in the "F" article) for "fielder's practice". There is an entry for fielder, and there are separate articles for six types of fielders (rough count, I haven't checked them thoroughly). So, how would you suggest that I should have changed this bad link after having turned it into a redirect? Fram 14:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the right thing seems to have been done, and pretty much in the right way. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn reinstate article pending an actual discussion on how best to present this information. Catchpole 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, wiktionary is for individual definitions, not an encyclopedic list. Yes, lists can be encyclopedic. -N 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um The L page listed above seems to have a lot of entries but not many references or citations. Is there a basis for the information in this or was it all original research? Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be shocked if there was an original definition or two in there, but by and large they look accurate and could be sourced to books and other sources if needed. At any rate the solution to a few bad items on a list isn't to delete the whole thing. --W.marsh 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as JzG: the right thing seems to have been done. Eusebeus 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, there was no discussion, the transwikiing was done poorly, and there are a lot of red links left. All of the deleted pages should be restored until this has gone through a proper discussion. Corvus cornix 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bits and pieces: These glossaries are often "edge-case" issues, by nature subjective. But so are the Lists of basic topics or pages like List of timelines.
There is no obvious/consensus way to deal with these glossaries, but a handful of editors/admins are slowly shunting them piecemeal to Wiktionary. It'd be nice if it were simple, but it's not, and this current solution seems a little lot like sweeping-under-the-rug.
A very rough proposal was to move "word-lists" across (e.g. List of French words of Arabic origin), but leave "glossaries" here (e.g. Glossary of Water polo or List of medieval land terms). There was never a firm reply to this idea though.
It was in policy from March 2004 till October 2006. It had survived two initial discussions (1 and 2), and even this large discussion which is what led to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, but was then removed by dmcdevit despite numerous objections (though with support from at least 3 other admins).
The whole topic kinda needs a broader discussion and think-through. Maybe WP:CENT or VP or something. --Quiddity 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Corvus is wrong when he says that there was no discussion: there were two AfDs, both of which had consensus to keep, showing that these articles must be more than mere dicdefs. Consensus may not trump policy (but see also WP:IAR), but it sure as hell trumps one person's interpretation of policy. David Mestel(Talk) 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no concensus to delete; default is keep. There is a project that can work on moving these words to Wiktionary, and they will no doubt signal when this list is no longer valuable and should be deleted. John Vandenberg 07:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no consensus to delete, useful list, transwiki improperly performed. Deiz talk 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is not whether these entries should exist in the encyclopedia. The point is whether their deletion was out of process. They certainly do belong in Wiktionary, but any process of relocation should insure that no redlinks are left behind, and the best way to insure this is to link those terms to the Wiktionary entries as they are made, and not to delete the Wikipedia entries before that. bd2412 T 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Such a deletion should be brought to afd. It does not meet any speedy criteria, and it is obviously controversial. --- RockMFR 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is controversial (obviously, seeing the above responses :-) ), but it does meet the speedy criterion for transwikied articles. However, a contested speedy can of course be brought to AfD. Fram 07:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, clearly does not meet CSD #A5. There was no AfD with consensus to transwiki (and in fact two with consensus to keep); this was not "only a dictionary defintion" but a glossary of terms of specialized use, which is an appopriate encyclopedic article; and the transwikification was not properly performed. DHowell 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Caretaker Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AFD2)

Article deleted via AFD and salted due to repeated recreation. The publisher attempted a deletion review nomination back in February, but it was quite malformed. I worked on a redraft at User:Garycdunn/The Caretaker Gazette, but never got around to nominating it for review here. The new version is sourced, and I believe it is notable. It also was written by someone without a conflict of interest, but that may not be true of the maintainers. Is it worth including? GRBerry 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thing is, at least a couple of those look like they originate with press releases, and none of them is actually a proper treatment of this journal in a mainstream source. We have coverage of its subject matter, coverage of setting up a msall press, but nothing much really about the journal. It's a mom-and-pop outfit, from the website, and it's really hard to find anyone other than the publisher who gives a damn about the article. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I think warnings and bans are the best way to deal with COI editors who repeatedly recreate articles without community input. Salting an article should only be used as a last resort. If the new article is not POV and notability is unclear, it should be dealt with through the AfD process. Antonrojo 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh! The originator is the owner, and the current userspace draft is also the owner - who has, in the traditional way, no other contributions to the rpoject other than an article on his magazine and arguing about it. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zelda Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was closed after an AfD discussion on the grounds of lack of notability. I agree that the original author poorly cited secondary sources, but assert that these sources do exist; see below. In short, I do not believe the participants in the AfD discussion made a good-faith effort to find secondary sources with which to improve the article, and would like unprotection or undeletion of the article so that the article can be revamped to include these sources, and thereby satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirement.

Here are some sources that would be included to establish notability:
TechTV (the TV clip, not just the web summary) http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3637/Rick_Thorne_5MP_Digital_Cams_WiFi_Dog_Backpack.html
Gaming Today http://news.filefront.com/zelda-classic-free-tribute-to-the-classic-game/
Slashdot http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/146238
Electronic Gaming Monthly: "It's a Secret to Everybody". Electronic Gaming Monthly. June 2005.
Acid-Play: http://www.acid-play.com/download/zelda-classic/
The Elderly Gamer: http://xboxmeagain.blogspot.com/2006/08/zelda-classic-8-bit-download-heaven.html

These sources appear to satisfy the notability guideline:
Significant coverage - All of the above sources except Electronics Gaming Monthly describe and review Zelda Classic. EGM's coverage is less lengthy - it is part of a larger article on Zelda 2005 - but includes a description and a screenshot.
Sources - The number of sources listed above seems consistent with the sources in other related Wikipedia articles; see below.
Reliable - EGM and Tech TV in particular are very reputable sources in the TV and print media, respectively. Both are themselves notable and have a Wikipedia page.
Independent of the subject - None of the above sources are affiliated with the Zelda Classic developers or its community.

Below are some similar Wikipedia pages with similar content and with equivalent levels of secondary source coverage:
http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Stepmania
http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Doom_source_port
http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Skulltag
http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Ultima_V:_Lazarus


I was not aware of the AfD discussion during its voting period, but now that a notability concern has been raised, I wish to improve the article to satisfy Wikipedia requirements, which I believe is possible given the evidence above.
As a final note, I do not have any prior edits. A previous Deletion Review request by a different author was summarily closed because the requester also did not have prior edits. I do not see the possible relevance of such factors. Evouga 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: while your request is not unreasonable, the best (and most often successful) approach in cases like this is to go ahead and create the article as a subpage in your userspace (I suggest User:Evouga/Zelda Classic), and then bring the result here for review. I think this is a particularly good idea in this case, to help allay any possible concerns about your lack of experience. If you want, I'm fairly sure an admin would be happy to undelete the article to that location to help get you started. Xtifr tälk 01:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds entirely reasonable. Could someone please do that for me? Evouga 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jenny Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initial criteria for deletion and redirect was that much of the article was also covered by the plot description for the film Forrest Gump. Since the plot section has been greatly condensed, this is no longer true and most of Jenny's life is not addressed in the Gump article. --T smitts 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then you should be taking up the matter of the reduced breadth of the plot description on Talk:Forrest Gump. If you want to discuss modifications to the content of that article, its talk page is where you need to be. Indeed, a quick look reveals that there's a section of that talk page where editors have been discussing the plot section since May. This is not a matter for Deletion review. Uncle G 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vorlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Featured in Portal:Constructed Languages. Prod was deleted. If the Notability of the article is contested, it should be discussed in this Portal talk and/or proposed to merge it into a paragraph of Philosophical language or Engineered language and set a redirect. Deleting it even after Prod was contested and it is featured in the portal looks like admin abuse or bullying; if the community thinks that individual ConLangs do not belong into the wikipedia, this should be voiced in other ways than deletion instead of a contested Prod. A "mergefrom"-Tag was set to Philosophical language and Engineered language; please undelete the article to set a redir and/or preserve the history. 85.181.39.131 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, listed at afd, which resulted in an unanimous delete. Adding links to an article does not in any way confer notability, or change the venue of deletion discussions. - Bobet 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, denizens of a particular Portal's talk page do not trump AfD. No new arguments presented here, the AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AfD consensus was quite clear. There is an inherent problem with doing such discussions within a project/portal - The members/regular editors are not in any way impartial. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Baza (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Featured in Portal:Constructed Languages, Template:Esperanto and Portal:Esperanto. Prod was deleted. If the Notability of the article is contested, it should be discussed in this Portal talk and/or proposed to merge it into a paragraph of Esperantido and set a redirect. Deleting it even after Prod was contested and it is featured in the portal looks like admin abuse or bullying; if the community thinks that individual Esperantidos do not belong into the wikipedia, this should be voiced in other ways than deletion instead of a contested Prod. A "mergefrom"-Tag was set to Esperanto; please undelete the article to set a redir and/or preserve the history. 85.181.39.131 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, listed at afd, which resulted in an unanimous delete. Adding links to an article does not in any way confer notability, or change the venue of deletion discussions. - Bobet 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, WikiProjects and Portals do not trump Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The AfD was run properly and was unanimous. No new arguments presented here. Corvus cornix 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gallery of flags with stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(1) It was pointed out, but apparently ignored, that this article was part of a system of articles rooted as Gallery of flags by design: When that page grew successively long, its editors decided to factor it into a number of subpages; "Stars" is one of the subpages, not an "indiscriminate collection of information" (unless you think the entire "flags by design" system is "indiscriminate", but then one wonders what "indiscriminate" means here). A decision to delete this article, but to ignore the larger system it is apart of, does not make sense.
(2) Flag galleries are not "mere repositories of links, images, or media files" -- they are carefully structured, illustrated lists that index the copious vexillological information available on Wikipedia. If the objection is somehow to the name of the page ("Gallery of ...), then propose renaming the page. If it's to the use of the gallery tag instead of a one-flag-per-row table, then let's debate how best to graphically display this information. (Though I will note that many distinguished print encyclopedias include flag charts in exactly this format.) If the objection to the article is purely formal, deleting the article rather than reformatting/renaming it seems rather draconian.
(3) Gallery of city flags was recently deleted, but there the question appeared to turn on fair use issues and whether, given that many city flags designs are not in the public domain, such an article could ever be complete. This was referred to as precedence in the deletion of the "Stars" page. But it's not relevant precedence, unless a similar argument about a dearth of usable image files could be made, but just the opposite appears to be the case regarding flags with stars.
(4) Deletion of this page appears to be part of a strategy, endorsed by User:Zscout370, to delete all flag galleries "one at a time". If the deletion of this page is going to be used as establishing precedence for future deletions, and in effect to implement this strategy, this larger strategy should be debated as such, not disguised as individual ad hoc objections to individual articles. ScottMainwaring 05:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 June 2007

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

This article was deleted after a very short period of discussion and with very little discussion. As for the issue of notability, it is worth noting that other Green candidates with similiar electoral results are still listed in wikipedia. (Also in the interest of fairness, I need to admit that I am James M. Branum, so you will be aware of the COI.) I am requesting an overturn and undelete. --Jmbranum 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion. Nothing out of the ordinary here. AfD ran six days, only keep !vote was contrary to WP:BIO. Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that's hardly a reason to overturn a perfectly good AfD. It's been almost a month and apparently nobody else has complained. But for one COI editor, we're not even having this conversation. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Personally, if I had been closing the AfD, I would have relisted, the debate was very thin. However, given that Mr. Branum's actual political achievements don't include being a real contender in any race, I have to say that the result was correct. Mangojuicetalk 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There is no quorum at AfD and the weight of arguments is taken into account. When that is realized, the closure was clearly correct. Eluchil404 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Sorry Mr. Branum, but the Afd was done properly and I think deleting admin made a good read of the sitution based on the weight of the points made in the discussion. FloNight 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion per Mangojuice and Eluchic. JoshuaZ 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist except for the nom and the closer, there were only two people there, one each way.Theresult would probably have been delete, but we cant know what would have been said if more people had come--other discussions of Green politicians have usually had more people, and sometime been keep. We need a firm rule that a minimum number of people express an opinion before closing. DGG 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that AfD is not a vote. The only contesting vote was from an account created entirely for this purpose, and was based on patently false premises. As far as I can see there was nothing wrong with considering the nomination uncontested. EldKatt (Talk) 10:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, if... the AfD discussion period was not close to 5 days as mentioned in WP:DELETE. Antonrojo 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the history, it was opened 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC) and closed 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC). (I checked the history instead of relying on the signatures just to be sure.) Looks like six days, two hours and twenty-eight minutes to me. :) Xtifr tälk 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse vote was thin, but article has no chance of retention anyway. Eusebeus 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DKP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After a very short period of time from the second AfD, and without notice to anyone who had participated in previous AfD discussions on the article, the DKP article was deleted. I won't rehash the AfD discussion itself here, as that can wait for the next time around. I don't feel it is appropriate for an editor to constantly relist the same article for deletion until they get a "win" simply because they don't personally feel the subject's category (gaming) is of interest to Wikipedia. After the second AfD, the article was improved considerably and yet an AfD was created in less than a month's time. Furthermore, there was no clear consensus, and the majority of deletion-voters merely stated non-arguments such as an opinion that it was "not notable" without any reason or context.

I am requesting an overturn and undelete. If the DRV consensus is that the article is questionable, then by all means: relist the AfD and at least allow those who worked on it the last time around to actually participate. Tarinth 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the deletion I too am concerned about AfD venue shopping by those opposing articles. Perhaps what we need is a standard of one AfD per topic per year, unless a panel can be convinced otherwise. --Kevin Murray 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close. First, this debate was not listed by Arkyan, who had listed the previous two debates. Second, there is no requirement to notify previous participants. Third, the keep arguments were amazingly weak, even agreeing that it may be impossible to find significant information on this subject in independent sources. As I looked over the previous debates, it was clear this was a problem there too. I strongly reject Kevin's idea that previous debates make a new debate inappropriate: note that the 2nd AfD was a "no consensus" and the 1st was mainly populated with SPAs. In any case, the delete argument was very strong and not refuted at all. I would agree there isn't consensus on whether this type of topic is appropriate for Wikipedia, but there is unquestionable consensus that sourcing is required, and if this topic can't meet that burden, it can't be covered. Mangojuicetalk 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was a perfectly valid AfD with a reasonable decision by the closing admin that took the previous no-consensus AfDs into account. Frequency of re-nomination is irrelevant; consensus can change, and making the bad-faith assumption that gaming the system and "venue shopping" is going on is inappropriate. All past proposals to time-limit AfDs have crashed and burned with good reason. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Venue shopping? Bollocks. A perfectly normal AfD in the usual place. Whether or not this is resurrected the current dab article belongs at DKP, but there did not look to be anything wrong with the AfD, and its conclusion - that this is essentially GameGuides stuff - is reasonable. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how a subject of economics and game design that has received scholarly attention from researchers qualified as "GameGuide stuff," and I believe this simply implies either (a) systemic bias or (b) the inadequacy of the third AfD. Tarinth 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. As Mangojuice pointed out, I was the one who nominated it previously but not this time around, so arguments that one editor is continually renominating the article isn't quite true. Anyway, I'm a little torn on this one, as I mentioned in the most recent AfD there was little in the way of consensus, one way or another. I made a real effort to clean up and improve the article per the discussion on the second AfD. In spite of my best effort to do so, the arguments that it is still game-guide material and still lacking in proper sourcing to establish notability are still strong. While I concede that in the long run there exists no clear consensus to delete, I must also agree with the closer that in the long run, the arguments to delete were stronger, based on policy, and consistent, and can't really oppose the closure. Arkyan • (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The !votes were balanced, and each side had support in policy. Thats a noconsensus. There certainly ought to be a rule that previous participants be notified, and usually they are. I'd think anyone who wants a discussion rather than to kill an article regardless would notify. DGG 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When there is no argument countering the concern that the sources are insufficient, and several people agree (including some non-delete !votes), I think we can take there to be consensus about that, which is sufficient reason for deletion. Mangojuicetalk 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your assertion that they are insufficient, and I'd have argued for this in the AfD had I become aware that it was listed for AfD again by the editor who argued most vehemently for its deletion last time around (User:Phony Saint). 72.93.86.47 10:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, articles must be adequately sourceable, end of story. AfD is not a vote, if sourcing concerns are not addressed, as they were not here, the article must be deleted regardless of head count. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the precise problem here. In the previous AfD, people argued strongly that the sources were proper (a scholarly source and at least a couple journalistic ones). Continuing that line here would probably result in a rehash of AfD #2, so I'd suggest avoiding it--instead, I'd point out that there simply wasn't adequate discussion in AfD #3 to address this issue. Tarinth
  • Endorse deletion. Articles can be improved (or re-created) so they satisfy WP:V at any time (to the extent there are sources), so why shouldn't they be subject to deletion at any time if they don't satisfy WP:V? The determination at AfD, as I understand it, is that the article fails WP:N, not the subject. Thus, if someone can write an article on this subject that asserts WP:N, he or she is free to do so. Looking at the AfD itself, it appears to have been properly closed. One keep !voter's position was supported by the statement that it is a challenge to find independent sources on the subject. To me, that indicates that the subject may not satisfy WP:N. Another who suggested 'weak keep' did so because the current version of the article was better than a prior version that was not deleted (res judicata?) but also agreed with the WP:N concern. Another keep !voter did so because the subject is 'ubiquitous'. None of these justifications for keep satisfy WP:N or WP:V, so they were properly afforded little weight in the AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No new arguments were presented in favor of deletion in AfD #3; the only difference from #2 is that because less people became aware of it, the arguments made in favor of keeping were less knowledgeable. That alone shouldn't be adequate for deletion. As with AfD #2, I'd have argued that WP:N and WP:V were both satisfied, yet I didn't even learn about it until after AdD #3 had already passed. (Silly me, I didn't think to check that another AfD had been created by User:Phony Saint less than a month after AfD #2 ended...) Tarinth 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing out of process. Closed properly. Nuff said. Eusebeus 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Süleyman Başak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Nominator withdrew AfD for some reason. However, consensus was to delete and I would like to now renominate the article for deletion. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it reasonable to relist. I had commented "weak keep" meaning I thought on balance it should stay, but that I wouldn't strongly defend the article, for i thought the opposite view tenable. the nom. withdrew citing my advice, but I hadn't intended that--just a misunderstanding, and the discussion should in my opinion continue. I ask for a Speedy close and relist.DGG 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD If the only dissenting voice at AFD believes it should go back for further discussion, why not? Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mandrake of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 2nd)

nominated by Coldmachine, shown to be a sockpuppet of Emnx by checkuser, who also (non)voted as Arthana, biasing the AfD with various allegations asking that the AfD be suspended. Both users were blocked just as the AfD ended. The first AfD was started by the same blocked user and was voided when he was blocked. This AfD should also be voided based on the fact that all edits by a blocked user should be reverted. IPSOS (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overthrow and relist I see the close as premature. The !votes were 4-4, and if it had not been for sockpuppets the balance would have been unambiguously a keep. The AfD needs to be redone properly. DGG 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and relist per DGG --Kevin Murray 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm not quite sure how to "overthrow" a close, but I think overturning is clearly justified.  :) I also think relisting is clearly justified, due to what appear to be some strong concerns about the sourcing expressed by (among others) the closer. (Although I'm not sure I agree that the sole cited source is not independent.) Xtifr tälk 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was indeed a bit of an odd debate with sockpuppetry and possible COI issues, but thankfully Akhilleus was able to see through the sound and fury and realize that this article was trying to derive its notability from this self-published interview of an occult publisher by an occult bookstore, apparently relying on the fact that the interviewer has a PhD to establish reliability. There are no other even vaguely independent sources. The result was correct, and this issue was clearly at the heart of the debate, regardless of other possible irregularities. Mangojuicetalk 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG. John Vandenberg 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and relist per DGG --Jmbranum 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Though I think the result was correct, the process was clearly flawed by the socks because a decision turning on a single source is more of a judgment call than a cut-and-dry case. It deserves another AFD to render a clean decision.--Chaser - T 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The sockpuppetry clearly affected the outcome. Needs to be redone. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly notable figure for receiving substantial press coverage surrounding an issue of enormous public interest. Outrageous that this article was speedy deleted, at the very least it should have been AfD'd. Feshbach Fan 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete or userfy so some of these sources can be cited. The sources exist here... the article wasn't really citing them though, most of the links were to various webpages. To avoid drive-by BLP deletions this days you need inline citations to news sources, and even then... but this is one that at least can be properly sourced. --W.marsh 12:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the deletion review? The article was not salted. What was deleted by a pretty awful, dubiously referenced biography of a living person: the subject has complained about this article, both here on-wiki and on OTRS. Please just rewrite properly referencing reliable sources in an appropriate way. This person may well be notable, but what was deleted was not the way to write the article. Moreschi Talk 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hoo boy. Sorry to see that this can of worms has been re-opened. Thought I could leave this one for dead. What exactly was posted? How did it compare to the article I edited last week? Groupthink 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your version looks a lot better than the version Moreschi deleted. At least the sourcing was better in that version. The version Moreschi deleted just had a bunch of URLs of various webpages, not news sources, that were at a glance questionable. --W.marsh 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the subject matter at hand, I was worried that axe-grinders were going to show up. Based on W.marsh's description, I'll support deletion, invoke the ostrich algorithm for now, and hope that this blows over. If it doesn't, depending upon what consensus dictates, I'll either support salting or revamp my version of the page (although I'll need an admin to provide me with the contents) and repost it myself. Groupthink 13:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree with Groupthink - this is a borderline notable individual, where the vast majority of sources relate to an error of judgement he committed several years ago. In these cases, I'm inclined to courtesy blank, especially considering the subject has requested. Addhoc 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hell, after reading some of the other comments here and seeing what's going on over there, I have no choice but to change my recommendation. It just doesn't sit right with me that the author of a book could be deemed trivial but his book could be deemed noteworthy. Seems to me like you can't have the one without the other, and yes, I am aware of WP:NOTINHERITED, but I still feel the same way. Overturn and restore to fairest version possible from prior versions. Groupthink 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow, rewrite, and probably list directly at Afd. Even borderline notable is not suitable for a speedy & A7 is not specified for BLP. But this isn't borderline notable, he's author of important books, the latest of which, Stopped at Stalingrad, has attracted a great deal of mainly critical attention.
This is where the interpretation of BLP at Brandt has led us to: a subject publishing a controversial book & who isn't satisfied with the editing, asking for it to be deleted. The version at [49] (June 17) needs some improvement, particularly the first sentence. Any statement violating true BLP concerns should be removed, not the article deleted. He has published a thesis used by holocaust deniers, and he would prefer not to have it known. But that is not part of his private life, this is his public work. He has then continued with a very notable book, almost as controversial and much more widely known. He intends to write controversial books, and he shouldn't be surprised that they generate controversy. DGG 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, possible recreate / rewrite. The deleted article was about the controversy stirred up by an inadequately supervised Masters' dissertation (not a book), some of which controversy is well-founded, some is not. The report into it is pretty comprehensive, and leaves little doubt that it was an error of judgement on several people's part. It seems that some people are intent on misusing this report, or misusing the controversy, for their own ends. Not good. Needless to say there was a complaint. The case raises complex issues which were handled grossly simplistically and with no proper context in the article, and frankly there is nothing much to say other than was said int he conclusions of the report from the university, which was a great deal more thoughtful than most revisions of this article were. If recreated it needs to be titled after the incident, and it also needs to point out that most of the dissertation was a very thorough analysis of the development of holocaust revisionism, but that the writer made the error of assuming that revisionism was a valid field of study, something which his supervisors should have corrected, and should also have prevented him from drawing conclusions beyond the evidence and his competence to weigh it. A paragraph or two in holocaust revisionism may well be justified. But an article on the man based on his masters' thesis of 14 years ago? WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait a second, isn't WP supposed to lay out the facts and let the reader decide whether or not the controversy was well-founded? The report to which you're referring is certainly an important primary source, but it doesn't provide the only say on the matter. There's plenty of other primary and secondary sources (and I'm NOT talking about the ones in the deleted version, I'm talking about the ones in revisions before the OTRS ticket was filed) which support the view that the inquiry was perfectly appropriate. I'm sorry, but your endorsement smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Groupthink 12:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it was improperly titled or improperly focused. The controversy will have to stain the article, as far as the author is concerned, but the article should be about the author, the controversy a part of it, expanded to a separate article if sufficiently worthy. However, the author himself merits an article that is about him, and he is actually about more than the master's thesis. KP Botany 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, whatever you do do, please do not recreate what I deleted. If you want to recreate something else, that's fine, but not what I deleted, which was not a good BLP in the slightest. Moreschi Talk 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An admin has kindly provided me with the last three major revisions of this article. I can assure you that I will most definitely not repost what was deleted. However, before I attempt to craft a compromise article, I'd like some assurances that I wouldn't be wasting my time. I was the last person to work on this article before it was whacked based on the OTRS ticket. I was willing to let it go, but apparently somebody (or somebodys) out there want it back. If I'm going to recreate the article, I don't want my work to fall prey to rampant deletionism. Now according to the logs, Moreschi, the article has been deleted a number of times, most recently by you, based on CSD A7. I want to know if that's the real justification. As DGG pointed out, there seems to be an unofficial, unelucidated top-down fiat creeping in that any BLP that draws complaints from its subject, even if that BLP conforms to WP policy, will be summarily eliminated. Is this the case? More to the point, is this policy no longer in effect? Groupthink 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored refers to the fact that we do not exclude sexually explicit content. It has no relevance to biographies of living persons, which is the policy that applies here. See also what Wikipedia is not, the section on tabloid journalism, and pay particular attention to the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. If there is not much to say about this person beyond the controversy stirred up by his dissertation, then I would say a redirect to a paragraph in holocaust revisionism is the way to go. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, then why does "Wikipedia is not censored" link to "Wikipedia:Content disclaimer" which states "Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics"? Wouldn't that pertain to blp's in the vein of Fred Phelps, Anton LaVey or Hugo Chávez? Groupthink 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it refers to the fact that you might well see a picture of a penis in penis. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stick to his publishing career and you're probably okay. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. I would sooner see "Joel Hayward" salted than exclude relevant material that contributes significantly to his notability quotient. If any article mentioning the Holocaust denial aspects of his biography will automatically get deleted, then I will have no part of that article, and I will have to seriously consider having no part of Wikipedia as well. Groupthink 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The trick with BLPs is balance (easy for me to say since I usually write about 18th-century opera singers). This person may well be notable, but we need to write a balanced article about him, one that mentions this Holocaust stuff but also mentions other stuff that he's notable for and is fair to him in general. Incidentally, I don't think what he complained about was what I deleted - what I deleted was worse. But I'm quite happy to start off the article with "Joel Hayward is a person", and then you can work from there. There's no particular reason for some of the nasty stuff in the history that he (and then I) disliked to be available to the world and his wife. If we can't write a sourced, balanced biography of him, then the information should probably not be in a biographical format. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, like I said, I have no problem with attempting a balanced blp -- I just don't want to be confined to writing something that's one-sided in favor of NOT mentioning details that reflect unfavorably, even if said details are encyclopedic. As for "stuff he doesn't like being available to the world and his wife", hasn't that ship sailed, that cat been unbagged, those worms been uncanned, and that horse been unbarned? Every version of the article I've read has cited material on the web. Now, that is not to say that every version cited reliable material in a balanced fashion and wasn't original synthesis, but the fact is there's plenty o' unfavorable and embarrassing stuff out there sluicing through the tubes of the Internets. So here's what I'm a-gonna do: I will make one and only one stab at a blp. If it's speedy deleted, then I'm moving on. Groupthink 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we can find enough verifiable biographical detail to make an article at least three or four times the size of the section on the Masters' controversy (and to be honest I could find very little indeed beyond that), I would suggest that a section in holocaust revisionism would be a much better solution. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - in fact, redelete this damn page after someone created it. It was originally deleted after this guy, who used multiple sock accounts to create vanity articles, threatened to sue wikipedia if we didn't take it off - essentially because people included unflattering information about him. Ridiculous. The Evil Spartan 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to close we now have a much better sourced, better written article that doesn't give the incident with the thesis much weight. Since this DRV is about a version which is now very obsolete I suggest we close it. JoshuaZ 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur (but it should be noted that I did the rewrite). Groupthink 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Peanuts in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was mostly blanked. It seems that while it was under nomination for AfD, the article was blanked and replaced with this single sentence: "The long-running comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz has been the subject of many references, homages, parodies, etc. Here are some of them:" - The page should at least be restored (and possibly relisted), with the actual article shown. "Hiding" the article during an AfD discussion means that those who may have commented, who merely saw the blanked version, may not have bothered to comment. Note that one commenter suggested that the information was in the Peanuts article, but that rather obviously refers only to subsequent edits of the article after the change to the single sentence). - jc37 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - the bulk of the comments to the AFD were made within a couple of hours of the nomination. Unless it can be proved that the article was altered before those comments were made then the AFD should stand. "People might have wanted to comment" is not a valid reason for overturning the AFD. People are certainly not shy about speaking up with comments like "keep because it can be improved," especially in AFDs for "in popular culture" articles. Otto4711 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the blanking occurred after all but the last comment was given in the debate, so it didn't have an effect. In any case, someone looking at an effectively blanked article would most likely know to check the history. I don't think that act made any difference, and I can't see anything wrong with the debate. Mangojuicetalk 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in popular culture. The way to deal with bloated "in popular culture" sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into separate articles consisting of nothing but trivia. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't this be merged with Peanuts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaDrought3 (talk • contribs).
    Heck no. Peanuts already covers pop-culture aspects well enough, and doesn't need a bunch of unsourced, irrelevant cruft. Mangojuicetalk 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since I can't seem to view what was deleted, I'll have to agree. What I meant to propose earlier was merging any new and useful information into the Peanuts article.--DaDrought3 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Peanuts already covers this, then why isn't this a redirect? - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't cover this. Would anyone have any issue with copying the last version to a sub-page somewhere? - jc37 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the article does cover the influence of Peanuts, but it does so appropriately, and doesn't (and shouldn't) contain a list of trivia references to Peanuts. Part of the point of the deletion here was to get rid of the material and avoid merging it back, so yeah, I wouldn't approve of that... and having it on a subpage would be just like undeleting it. Mangojuicetalk 14:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood. I was suggesting that it be restored in some way so that those commenting here may see how it actually looked, since that's one of the concerns of this nom - that it wasn't "visible" during the full length of the AfD (and now the DRV - I'm reading editors comments that suggest that they are "guessing in the dark"). The article had quite a few sources, and was more than the typical "chaff" of pop-culture. Especially considering that it listed the yearly tributes by other cartoon artists to Schulz and Peanuts. - jc37 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tom Rockney (male model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as there are reliable sources that prove he meets Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BIO. He was in:

  • Southport Visiter at some point in July 2006
  • Chat magazine, UK woman's magazine, doing photoshoot in January 2005, and later on in April 2006
  • Interview with him in the Daily Star about his failed attempt to get into Big Brother (last year in June)
  • That's Life magazine, in March 2006, August 2006
  • Liverpool Echo, at some point in April 2006

These are all reliable sources, and the article should be relisted at articles for deletion. He is clearly notable, per the above sources. No BLP issues or controversy here. This article was deleted out-of-process. As it were, the sources mentioned were not listed in the ORIGINAL article, but now they're here, the article should be relisted at AFD. --Paltriss 09:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Are these sources articles or photoshoots? Not having seen the Daily Star, was the article about Tom or was he interviewed in connection to the subject of the article? Spartaz Humbug! 10:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to the question: the Southport Visiter one was an article about him, with an interview. As regards the Daily Star article, well, that was a full interview with him about his failed attempts to get on Big Brother - it was an article, full-length, non-trivial coverage of him, it was also about his lifestyle and life in general too. So yes, it was an article about Tom. Regarding the Chat magazine one, that was a photoshoot with an interview, and the That's Life one was a small real-life story about his notoriety on Merseyside, The Wirral and Greater Manchester. I also forgot to mention Love it! magazine, which did an interview with him at some point last year about his multiple failed attempts to get into Big Brother. All sources are non-trivial coverage, about Mr. Rockney, and should be considered. The article should be allowed to be rewritten and then relisted at AFD, per my research above and what I've mentioned here. He meets the notability and biography standards. --Paltriss 10:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have copies of any of these articles or on-line links? Its very difficult to verify information without access to the sources. This is a concern because the AFD did have concerns raised about whether or not the article was a hoax. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have these sources, as it is I regularly buy those magazines a lot. The sources aren't online, but it doesn't mean an article is a hoax. They are verifiable sources, and the AFD can be re-listed due to these new sources. --Paltriss 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry If I'm being unclear but it would help everyone if you could make the sources available to other users. Do you have links, editions and page numbers or even better: can you scan and e-mail the sources? Sorry to press this but personally I'd like to actually see the sources before commenting given the strength of the AFD discussion. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and relist --Jmbranum 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original article was a tiny stub and didn't contain a whole lot of info. If you were to write a new version we could put that live and undelete the history afterwards. (make sure you have issue numbers and dates for the magazines). - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - a clear decision based on the debate. Without predjudice for the creation of a fully sourced version but it needs to be better sourced than, for example, the Southport Visitor, a very local paper. Bridgeplayer 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gstaad Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was improperly closed as "delete" by the admin when the !votes clearly point to no consensus, i.e. keep. The articel was changed every time at there is a good change that the articel will be soon 100 % wiki suitableUser:Puppy milehnort 11:11, 17 June 2007 (GMT)

  • Endorse I see five votes to delete, 3 to keep (2 accepting sourcing problems) on this article and the closer clearly indicates that the decision to delete was closely connected to our policy on verification and sourcing of article contents. The deletion clearly falls within the closing admin's discretion. If you were able to come up with better sourcing, it might be worthwhile to see whether some kind admin might recreate the article in your user space for further work. Spartaz Humbug! 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been userified at User:Puppy_milehnort/Gstaad. DGG 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to User:Milehnort/Gstaad. No idea where the puppy came from. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As closing admin I looked at the article... A Location paragraph on Gstaad that read like something out of a tourist brochure, an unreferenced History bulleted list of non-notable events, and a Trivia section. The consensus was clear. --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as written. The only acceptable source is the Guardian review, the rest are trivial mentions or virtually non-existant ones, and the two that are listed as references, not further reading, are pathetic. And there needs to be proof of the contention that it was prominently featured in two movies. If the objections can be overcome, then I have no problem with a rewrite, I suggest doing that where the article is now then coming back here once valid sources are provided. Corvus cornix 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kari Schull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article essentially identical to the now-deleted Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, and Sommer Isdale below, but closed as an unexplained and unambiguous "Keep" by User:Y. Since User:PageantUpdater is holding up this closing as a rationale for undeleting the other three, it seems only fair to judge its "keep" by the same standards. At the very least, closing it as an unambiguous "Keep" is flatly wrong and out-of-process.

  • Overturn keep. Same flaws as the other three articles, so it should receive the same treatment -- which, for me, is "delete". Calton | Talk 06:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, to my mind the issue should be whether the subject meets WP:BIO. Are there multiple independant, third party sources that can be used to verify any information on this person? It is entirely possible that different contestants will have different levels of independant sourcing so it is possible to have different outcomes Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keep Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” Kari has won the 2007 Miss South Dakota Teen USA pageant which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid for inclusion if it meets the requirements of BIO. --Kevin Murray 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few problems with that:
  • The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
  • It has no third-party references other than individual references to .
  • It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
  • The list has 25 members, only one of which has an article -- one just as thin as the article under consideration here.
  • We have guidelines to be followed. If someone receives a notable award, then she is notable per BIO. This is a special case guideline which supercedes WP:N's requirement for third party references. We are not looking for the pageant to transfer notability; we are evaluating whether she won a significant award. If the rules don't work, change the rules. I would support the removal of all special case notability criteria, and rely on WP:N, but until then we need to be consistent in our application, or else it is just WP:ILIKEIT. (Kevin Murray)
  • We have guidelines to be followed. If someone receives a notable award, then she is notable per BIO. As I've already pointed out, you're begging the question, since you haven't in the least justified the claim that a Miss Teen USA "state title" is in any way, shape, or form notable in the first place, let alone whether the individual members acquire the allegedly inherent notability of the overall title. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the usual interpretation. The special cases deal with some cases where notability can be presumed, but it remain rebuttable. And a State Anything award is not notable enough to reasonably come under any automatic guideline. DGG 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many US states are larger than most countries (ND excepted); thus how can we arbitrarilly say that statewide awards are not notable? --Kevin Murray 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never made that claim, and you've gotten it precisely backwards: YOU have arbitrarily said that all statewide awards are notable. So, how's about some backing for that assertion instead of more question-begging? --Calton | Talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Calton. Agree completely. Eusebeus 14:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - it was a mistake for two different admins to close the four AFDs for these articles. Clearly all four should have the same result as the same arguments apply to each. In future AFDs like this should be mandatorily combined into a single AFD and if that doesn't happen then a single admin should handle all of them. Otto4711 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I do not think that In future AFDs like this should be mandatorily combined into a single AFD, because it will often be the case that one will have some distinctive feature of notability or better sourcing. But we should arrange that they be closed in agreement otherwise. A system where any one of 1200 admins can come forward and close any AfD at all, and decide based on personal judgement, is chaos. As for the merits, since there presently is local notability only, a keep based on a 2% chance that a person would become notable is not reasonable. Closings have to be based on policy. DGG 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that in a case where the nominator is stating flat out that he's nominating the articles as a representative sample to gauge consensus on the lot then there should be a single AFD, especially when people within the AFD are calling for it. However, that's really neither here nor there. Otto4711 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Otto makes a good point; however, I also like having more than one mind at work in determining the result of a broad based AfD. Could a mutliple article AfD's require consensus among multiple admins? This result points out the ILIKEIT aspects of AfD even when it comes to admins, who can not be purely objective in applying our overly confusing notability rule-sets. --Kevin Murray 20:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Calton, the criteria I used to close the other three. — OcatecirT 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the Keep and Delete the article Not even I can make a case for keeping this one. Didn't think it stood a snowball's chance in Hades of being kept, so a surprising keep, or effective promotion of a beauty pageant candidate that may backfire in the long run--all these discussions become part of the record of the article. Let her actually win even an almost major pageant. Wikipedia is not the place to put your efforts in promoting her. KP Botany 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The only thing that makes this seem notable is the numerous articles PageantUpdater (talk · contribs) created about the same subject.--Svetovid 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete: concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every Jeopardy! contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Closer seems to have given too much weight to strength of feeling (which should never be a factor at XfD). Xtifr tälk 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The arguments for deletion are not compelling and DRV is not AFD again. "This article should be deleted because others were deleted" does not make sense. What's next, DRVing every other article linked in Template:Miss_Teen_USA_2007_delegates saying they were improperly not nominated for deletion and should be deleted? Each article can either stand or fall on its own. Wikipedia does not and will not fall apart because it is inconsistent. No valid argument has been made that the closing of this AFD is 'wrong' or 'out of process' other than "well, this one over here is different!" Kotepho 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, IMO, Miss Teen USA candidates should be all deleted.--Svetovid 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should the winners of the state contests for Miss America and Miss USA be deleted (e.g., Miss Califonia or Miss New York USA)? Are these less notable than Playboy playmates etc. as allowed by the pornography guideline? --Kevin Murray 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, the other candidates may have additional claims to fame. I don't know if the Miss California 2003 is more or less notable than Miss November 2002 (assuming neither rose to their grandest moment, either Miss America 2003 or Playmate of the Year 2002). It doesn't sound worth weighing. Both are more notable than a potential candidate in future low level beauty contest. KP Botany 23:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I phrased the question poorly. Independent of other claims to notabiltiy (not fame), (1) Playmates of the month are specifically considered notable per WP guidelines. Are they more notable than Miss(any state) Teen USA. (2) Are Miss America or Miss USA pageant state winners inherently notable, for example Miss California or Miss New York USA? --Kevin Murray 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1) yes, absolutely, being one of the main features of one of the most popular mens magazines in the world confers more notability than winning an obscure regional competion that rarely gets any non-local coverage. 2) I would tend to say no, though I do think those pageants are slightly more notable overall. But I would still say it's primarily of local interest only. Xtifr tälk 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, okay. 1) No, playmates of the month get more coverage in a few limited venues than state Miss America winners (the state winners, not the national contest winners). Miss State (of the America) contest winners get broader coverage from more sources in their states. Miss California gets a lot of coverage, so does Miss Utah, that year, in all state newspapers for all of her appearances and on all the state news channels--it's a lot of coverage for Miss America state pageant winners. Playmates of the month get extensive coverage in the magazine, and may appear on Hugh Hefner's shows or other venues related to Playboy or covering Playboy. In this case the coverage of the state beauty pageant winner (for Miss America alone) is m ore extensive and covers the winner, whereas the playmate is covered generally during the coverage of other things, unless some scandal ensues. 2) Not Miss USA pageant winners so much as Miss America pageant winners. KP Botany 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We are talking about candidates here, not winners. But many of those local winners are still not notable anyway.--Svetovid 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, as far as I'm concerned, the mere title of "Miss [NOUN]" -- absent any other criteria -- is an utterly insufficient threshold for inclusion, whether it be Miss April 1997, Miss New York 1977, Miss Rhode Island Teen USA 2007, Miss Iowa Pork Queen 1956, or Miss Chippewa County Beet Queen 1984. If and when they actually go on to achieve something later, like Miss New York 1945 or Miss California 1955, sure, but not until then. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute what you say, but this should be made clear at BIO. Your assertion/opinion of "as far as I'm concerned" is the definition of WP:ILIKEIT. This is not the forum to change the rule, it is the forum to apply the rule. --Kevin Murray 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of my use of "for the record" immediately following a discussion of the general principles of cheesecake notability did you misunderstand? Hint: no part of said general opinion was a part of my original AFD nomination of Kari Schull nor of my listing Kari Schull here at DRV. Try sticking to the reasons, logic, guidelines, and applications of policies I've actually stated regarding Kari Schull rather than making up new reasons, logic, guidelines, and applications of policies for me out of whole cloth.
  • ...it is the forum to apply the rule. Which, your wikilawyering aside, I'm trying to do. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Calton. All the articles are identical and should have received the same treatment. --Coredesat 03:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete If winning a Miss Teen USA state competition makes her notable, this means that all finalists of national teen beauty pageants would be notable, which in turn means over 100 girls from the US (Miss USA and Miss Teen USA). Given that Wikipedia has a worldwide scope and other countries have similar competition rules, e.g. Germany (16 finalists), France (49) etc. (have a quick look at Category:Beauty_pageants for some perspective), this means we could have thousands of articles per year for people whose sole claim to notability is once winning a regional competition. All of these articles are bound to be either a massive pile of gossip and trivia or a short stub that says nothing more than a table in the Miss Whereever article could say. Malc82 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete per above. This is almost an A7. >Radiant< 11:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, all, except for winners and particular examples of people who actually achieved something notable, articles at Category:Miss Teen USA delegates should be deleted as well.--Svetovid 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating 49 at once was unwieldy and likely -- with good reason -- to be rejected out of hand as too broad. Nominating one was too few to set a precedence. So I went with a sampling. If this article's AFD is overturned and the other three upheld, then the rest can be PROD tagged or grouped in a mass AFD. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that this is the best course for our project, but whatever is done it should be consistent. I suggest that this be refelcted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. There has also been a proposal to include some guidance on awards at BIO, rather than have a separate guideline called awards as proposed here: Wikipedia:Notability (awards). --Kevin Murray 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calton's attitude has pretty much brought me to leave Wikipedia. He makes me so incensed and furious that I just want to scream. As have most of the comments here... you people are so FUCKING IGNORANT. You call a state Miss Teen USA pageant "some regional contest" and compare it to someones brief soiree in Playboy but you don't bother to consider the fact that these girls reign for an ENTIRE YEAR and are highly visible in their community during that period and afterwards, not to mention the fact that they appear on a NATIONALLY TELEVISED show with MILLIONS of viewers. YOU IMBECILES even talk about A7-ing them. ARE YOU KIDDING? It's discussions like this that show why Wikipedia has gone down the toilet. PageantUpdater 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My anger gets int he way of my message: you people are showing intense prejudice. Just because beauty pageants are not something you know much about or are interested in, doesn't mean they are irrelevant. There are many things on Wikipedia that I know nothing about and are not interested in, but at least I would show some courtesy and look into the subject before suggesting it be deleted willy-nilly. PageantUpdater 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage you strongly to leave Wikipedia, at least for a while, until you learn to develop some critical distance and perhaps deal with your sense of ownership. To specifically address your point about television coverage, I am willing to lay odds that a single episode of Survivor is viewed by more people than any nationally televised Miss Teen USA pageant, and Survivor contestants get way more mentions in national press in a week than any Miss Teen USA gets during her entire reign assuming no scandal, yet every Survivor contestant doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That's because not every reality show contestant in notable, just like not everyone who wins a state-level pageant is notable. Otto4711 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete. We really can't have articles on which there are no reliable sources. Here, there are none. My google news search even turned up empty, which goes to show that these pagaent winners, while apparently very important to you, aren't important enough to even local media for them to report on. This is not true with all these articles; for instance Jaymie Stokes has a source or two... but even there, the coverage in reliable sources is piddling. We really shouldn't have individual articles on these people if they are of this level of interest. We have to watch out when we have individual articles on living people of minimal notability: no reason to take the risk here. Mangojuicetalk 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny (edit | [[Talk:User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

More people wanted it kept than deleted. The deletion discussion lasted only one day. I the creator wasnt informed of the deletion discussion. It has not been established that the userbox is against any wikipedia policy,guideline, or rule. Reasons given for deletion were based on subjective, incorrect inferences of what the userbox meant. The userbox does not imply that all muslims are misogenists, or that islam is inherently misogenistic. The intended meaning of the userbox is that the user is oposed to misogeny or lack of equal rights and human rights for women that is justified by islamic scripture Willy turner 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has explained why they think it is inflammitory, apart from saying "Suggests misogyny to be Islamic and Islam to be misogynist". I believe above i have shown there is at least reasonable doubt to the truth of this statement. The admins statement that "Anything that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group has no place on Wikipedia", is definately incorrect, as there is a substantial amount of material on wikipedia that might be considered offensive by a member of a religious group. Willy turner 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside article-space, i.e. Soap-boxing is not permitted on the encyclopedia in userspace. We are not a free web-host or blog service provider. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse :The negative wording is inflammatory, as would be a user box saying ...opposes Christian or Jewish misogyny. DGG 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Inflammatory and mis-spelled. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The appropriateness of a userbox stating that one opposes mysogyny in general is, I think, defensible. However, one that condemns only Islamic mysogyny is inflammatory as it seems to imply either that mysogyny is a characteristic of Islam only or that the user is fine with non-Islamic mysogyny. In either case, such a message is probably divisive enough to override the traditional leeway that is given to content in userspace. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or at least let the mfd terminate. The general consensus of the vote seems to have been keep.--SefringleTalk 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn and keep. MfD was mostly keep !votes, sole reason for deletion was "inflammatory", and this is censorship, plain and simple. WP:NOTCENSORED. Moreover, you have to make assumptions about the intent of the creator / user in order to even get to the point where it becomes offensive, and it's not right for you to impose your interpretation on the creator / user and then decide that that interpretation makes it inappropriate here. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
====
Algiers Coffee House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was improperly closed as "delete" by the admin when the !votes clearly point to no consensus, i.e. keep. Puppy Mill 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • AfD *is* a vote and no ridiculous rationalization is going to make it otherwise. Also, lack of WP:V is not a valid reason to delete the article. It *is* a valid reason to add an "unreferenced", "sources", or "fact" tag to the article, but not delete it. Puppy Mill 02:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If sources can't be found even when requested, that's a reason to delete an article. The 5 days of AFD is a reasonable amount of time to wait for references. Verifiability isn't optional, or postponable indefinitely... precedent supports this. --W.marsh 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have placed a copy of the article at User:TerriersFan/Algiers for non-admin users. Puppy Mill has twice put speedy tags on that page to try to prevent the article being read. Plainly, this drv is pursuant to some form of issue. TerriersFan 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Please point out anywhere where User:Puppy Mill has ever put a speedy tag on that article. Retract your lie, Admin, or I'll take your fitness to continue to be an admin all the way up to Jimbo if necessary. Puppy Mill 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appologise - It was an IP. TerriersFan 02:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There were relative few comments, even after an extra 5 days (during which all the additional !votes were for delete.) I can't see any other reasonable inevitable close.DGG 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The closure was perfectly valid on the basis of the arguments. AfD is not a vote, although the article would also have been deleted if the closure followed a pure vote-count. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close on the basis of the arguments. AFD isn't a vote, and the nominator is strongly urged to remain civil and not make accusations. --Coredesat 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, even if this were a straight vote I see only one person arguing to keep. That being said, it isn't a vote, and we can't have articles that we can't source. That concern wasn't addressed, so the delete close was correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Beniamino Borciani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improperly closed as "delete" by the admin. The !votes were 2 to 1 in favor of keeping, and furthermore the closing admin in his/her closing comments stated that the decision to delete was based solely on nobody getting around to adding sources, which is not in itself a reason to delete given that numerous sources were noted in the !votes. Overturn and keep Puppy Mill 01:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure as within process, and I also agree with the underlying conclusion. In any event, the initiator of this DRV seems to have some sort of personal issue with the closing admin. See [54] [55] [56] and [57]. (This is after a 6 month absence.) --Butseriouslyfolks 02:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is on the appropriateness of whether or not this deletion was proper, not any other issue. Please refrain from bringing other issues into this discussion, per WP:COATRACK. I have accordingly struck out your comments at inappropriate to this discussion. Puppy Mill 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever dude. And we're the geeks? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're the geeks. And you were being parodied above. Puppy Mill 04:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I don't recall ever invoking WP:COATRACK or striking out another editor's comments. I s'pose we just have different senses of humor. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no, that was BigDT, not you, but you saw fit to revert my edit back to BigDT's version which makes you and him in league together in my book. Puppy Mill 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what WP:COATRACK means. (It's also someone's personal essay, AFAICT.) Please don't strike out other people's comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. There were very few comments, and discussion should have been continued. Delete from the nom and the closer and one other !vote, 2 !votes for keep. That's not consensus. DGG 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and source. I was the lone delete vote but I note that the closing admin said he would be happy to userfy. That would allow you to add the sources that were never supplied. JodyB talk 11:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure admins have the right to exercise their good judgment, even against the "prevailing" (if such it could be termed here) view. As it is, TF has made a good case for how the debate was closed; I agree with the argument. Eusebeus 12:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Puppy Mill, and relist. Certainly no consensus to delete. --Maxamegalon2000 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Closing admin gave well thought out reason for the close. Being part of a famous choir does not make a person notable per Wikipedia guidelines and BLP and deletion polcy. FloNight 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow and keep --Jmbranum 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, without prejudice to recreation and with an offer to userfy, (as closing admin) for the reasons I gave "Completely unsourced, with no references, this article fails WP:V. During the AfD minor sources were mentioned but no editor was prepared to add them to the article. Fewer than 15 Google hits, and some of those are duplicates, with none unequivocally demonstrating the meeting of WP:N. Being a member of a notable choir does not convey personal notability. I will happily userfy if anyone wants to source up the page in which case I have no objection to its recreation." Again, this is not a vote. The way forward, in my view, is for me to userfy this to anyone who wants to work up a sourced article and I am happy for it to be recreated without predjudice. I see no real point in relisting for further views unless someone is prepared to source the article up to meet WP:N and WP:V which it currently fails. TerriersFan 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure The voting for or against the a delete in an AFD does not actually decide what the admin will do, as three people could come along and put deletes with no reason, but one person could come and vote keep with a well thought out and understandable argument. Therefore, the 2 to 1 ratio of votes is irrelevant to this discussion. As a side note, striking out comments other than your own seems to be, if not in violation of, not in accordance with WP:Civil. Down to the business: let's take a nice, long look at WP:DRV, and see how things look. Puppy Mill, did you courteously invite TerriersFan to take a second look at his decision? None of the other criteria seem to be relevant, so I think we can forgo the rest of them. The article which was deleted due to a lack of verifiability (that a word?) and a lack of notability. The lack of sources is most certainly a major problem, and the supposed reason for notability seems to be only inherited, if any. When looking at the Amazon link put up by Aecis here, one must wonder why there is no article for any of the other members. We don't pick out one member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and create an article on them, do we? And finally, I can't find any article on what group he's in, so this seems like creating an article on anon-notable song without making one for the album.Ben
  • Endorse deletion, but allow recreation. Eventualism is deprecated in WP:BLP cases, and in this one, the article was basically an ad that referred to publications without citing them. Mangojuicetalk 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are BLP issues when privacy and reputation are at stake. I can't see that here. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... eventualism should also be deprecated for spam. And anyway, WP:BLP covers all biographies of living people, not only controversial ones. But like I said, allow recreation. I'm just not going to approve of undeleting an ad. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer deleted based on the fact that no one added the sources. That shows either that the editors lacked time or that eventualism occured but without discussion of the sources, there's no way he can determine if the sources weren't added due to their quality. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; without predjudice to the recreation of a sourced version. This article went through the AfD and emerged unsourced. The sources mentioned in the discussion were all tangential. There seems no dispute that there is a failure of WP:V and no case has been made for notability. Finally, though someone might have asked privately, no-one in this debate has offered to have the article userfied so that it can be worked up. Bridgeplayer 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

16 June 2007

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

The majority of voters on the talk page were in favour of keeping the article, yet it was merged. The article clearly demonstrates the subjects importance and notablility. The Victoria Cross is very important in the UK and this may not be obvious to American users. Lummis's research into it was historically very important and therefore notable. The article should be restored. The majority consensus was to keep Jack1956 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging is an editorial decision... there's technically nothing for DRV to review here. AFD just decides if an article is to be deleted or not, the decision here was to not delete it. --W.marsh 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is consensus to unmerge, unmerge. No need to bring it here. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since there is no formal way of obtaining consensus for an unmerge, this would appear to be simply the creation of a new article with the content, as for any other breaking out of a section; I will mention it on the article talk page first. Based on what's just been said, the new article would not be susceptible to G4 as recreation of content after deletion at an AfD, as there was no deletion. DGG 03:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talmey Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After two votes for merge, an admin speedily deleted and closed the AfD. Dhaluza 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and merge/redirect or renominate. NN School articles should be merged and redirected to the school district article. Dhaluza 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. G4 does not apply in this situation. --- RockMFR 21:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete history but quite possibly keep as a redirect. --W.marsh 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review isn't required to recreate this as a merge to the school district. The article content can probably be sent to anyone wanting to do this. --Tony Sidaway 21:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was practically empty. "R. C. Talmey Elementary is a public elementary school in Richmond, British Columbia part of School District 38 Richmond." The rest of the article was blank, minus some PDFs from the school's website.--Wafulz 22:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly empty, but there was data in the info box. It was originally deleted, then later re-created as a redirect (but without the history). This is more of a procedural review, because it was part of a group of AfD articles speedily deleted together by the same admin, all of which should be restored and merged (or relisted). Dhaluza 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist on AfD. This was deleted as a G4 (recreation) but the only previous deletion was a speedy, so G4 does not apply. A speedy while an AfD is in progress and there have been keep votes is usually a bad idea (except perhaps for a newlky discovered copyvio or the like) and in this case was clearly not in line with the developing consensus. Restart the AfD and allow a peroper consensus to develop. DES (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural reviews are unnecessary. We're not a bureaucracy. Since the content was basically nil except for the name of the school district, we can close this now and pop the name of the school into the school district article, should it exist. If not I suggest that we waste no more ,time on it. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I requested the deleting admin to do this, but he refused unless overturned at Drv. So in this case, it shouldn't be necessary, but it is. I only brought one of many here. The admin can reverse his actions, and save us all a lot of trouble (and can do the merge as penance, IMHO). Dhaluza 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No you didn't. You "suggested" I relist at Afd. merge was never mentioned. You must have hallucinated the bit where you asked for the principal's name to be "merged". KillerChihuahua?!? 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "hallucinated" an appropriate comment for an admin to make? And it's not correct either.[58]. You are apparently missing the point of this discussion. You jumped into an AfD in progress, and closed it early, against the developing consensus, and without proper grounds. And when this misstep was brought to your attention as a polite "suggestion" you called it "nonsense" and asked for a Drv.[59] And now you are questioning others common sense? Dhaluza 10:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I requested the deleting admin to do this" - and you link to the Afd? That's not a request you made of me. Totally correct and accurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist - g4 didn't apply, speedy close was highly inappropriate. The Evil Spartan 01:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to follow process, though the result will be just the same. DGG 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It wasn't a "group" it was two. Sorry about the G4 bit; I was under the impression a recreated A7 which still has no content was covered; my error - which, btw, no one bothered to helpfully mention to me. Principal name; school number, same links as all the other Richmond elementary schools. This is worth relisting for PROCESS reasons? Do any of you ever apply common sense? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it isn't just a matter of "process". It is partly a matter of preserving the history, which should normaly be done in the case of a merge. It is also because some people might well want to argue for retaining the article un mreged -- there is often someone who makes such arguemtns in the case of school articles, sometimes succssfully, sometimes not. While it would have been better had soemone pointed out the limits of G4 to you sooner, an admin who uses a speedy criterion to delete things is IMO expected to know it, and if someone questions the deletion, it might be a good idea to re-check the speedy criterion involved just in case. The {{db-repost}} template includes a clear mention of this limit of G4, and had you used a "tag & bag" approach (which IMO is normally good practice) of not speedy deleting un less someone else had already tagged, but instead tagging for another admin to double check, you would have seen that mention of this limitation on G4. DES (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a non-trivial article, I agree that the history should be preserved. In this case the solution is to put the name of the school into the school district article and create a redirect in place of the deleted articles. Wasting days discussing this, including the inevitable metadiscussions justifying the timewasting, is pointless. Just do it. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Although you may think the content of the article is trivial, the effort to format it as an article with an infobox is not completely trivial. Preserving the edit history is important, because if the original author or someone else does find evidence of notability, they will not need to start from scratch to undo the merge. They can simply revert, expand and clean-up. And the original contributors will be credited in the edit history, as they should be. It may seem a minor point, but it is an important one. And it is not that hard to do it right, so why argue that doing it wrong is just as good? Dhaluza 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, KillerChihuahua seems to have been correct that only two articles were involved here, at least the only other one I see is Westwind Elementary School and its talk page. DES (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although many related articles were brought to AfD as a group, only two were closed this way, and I only brought this one to Drv. Dhaluza 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Annilie Hastey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with no explanation. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:After Midnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete Sources already seem to exist [61]. Not sure why no one managed to point this out in the AFD. --W.marsh 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete All 3 articles were sourced. As to why this may not have been adequatley pointed out? I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs and about a dozen PRODs. The PRODs were all spared and the 1st of 4 identical AFDs was closed keep, but that closing admin must not have noticed the 3 others (or declined to clode them) and they were then deleted by this closing admin the next day. There is no "crystal ballery" as the sourced already exist and no one is predicting the future here, despite what appear to be the claims of the closing admin and the AFD nominator. These should have all been nominated as a group (and then had a joint decision of keep), despite the nominator's refusal to do so when asked. --After Midnight 0001 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs - Two of those were completely unsourced at the time, and, more to the point, the sources were explicitly addressed both in the original deletion request AND in rebuttal, namely in pointing out their low quality ("only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant").
  • I also don't have the faintest idea how PROD tags placed on other articles and removed are supposed to have had the slightest effect on this discussion, or how the verb "spared" is the least bit applicable, since a) the tags can be removed by ANYONE for ANY reason, and b) they were removed by the articles' creator, not by some authority figure that the use of the verb "spared" seems intent on portraying. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It is straight-out false to say it was closed without explanation: the explanation said" crystal ballery: "sources will increase as pageant draws near." " It is misleading to say that the article was sourced: the only two sources in the article is the state and national websites; the additional ones presented now are from one of the florida newspapers. It's misleading to describe her as a Miss Teen USA contestant. She is actually "Miss Florida Teen USA, who is eligible to compete along with the other 50 or so state winners, in the next as-yet-unannounced location in august 20-07". This is local notability--and very temporary notability unless she succeeds against her 1:50 odds at winning the title. This is furthermore Miss Teen, not the adult division, and it is furthermore Miss USA, not Miss America. The second-level competition in the field, only a state winner, and only the junior division. When we don't accept title holding pole-vaulters in the junior division, & where it's the highest level of such competition, we shouldn't accept her or any of the others, except the 2% of them that win the National title. Ditto for them all. And similarly for all the other state delegates in the template Category: Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates, for all years. The close for those that were kept was an error against policy, because the limited state publicity is not sufficient. Of course, if this is kept, then there's good reason to look at junior division title-holders in sports more generally. All contests should be treated similarly. We do not have a template and articles for high school football, though we do have a list of winners. That might be the solution. As it wasn't mentioned in the previous AfD, it can be suggested if this is sent back, or at a later Afd. DGG 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure how much it matters to the argument, but as the Miss America pageant has been failing in recent years and the Muss USA pageant is the entry into Miss Universe, it could be well argues that Miss USA is now more notable than Miss America. --After Midnight 0001 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per DGG. As the closing admin I found the delete arguments more persuasive than the keeps. The crystal ballery comes from keep arguments like these: "Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc." and "it also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?)." — OcatecirT 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As per DGG. Part of an essentially identical series of 49 assembly-line "biographies" of teen beauty-pageant semi-finalists for a single year, with the article shortcomings outlined in the original nomination and explicitly considered by the closer, so I'm not seeing the process shortcomings here. As for He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable" - well, that's not substance, that's a declaration of faith, but this isn't "AFD part deux", though DGG's impressively detailed rationale covers that.
  • As for None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin, let's roll the tape:
  • Thre should be [emphasis mine] numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up -- Edison
  • Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. -- After Midnight
  • It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase [emphasis mine] around the time of the pageant -- PageantUpdater
  • Endorse deletion. Valid close, arguments for keep not compelling, lack of proper sources not addressed. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keep Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” She has won the 2007 Miss Florida Teen USA which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid for inclusion if it meets the requirements of BIO. --Kevin Murray 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few problems with that:
  • The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
  • It has no third-party references other than hometown news sources announcing "local girl wins state pageant".
  • It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
  • The list has 25 members, only one of which has an article -- one just as thin as the article under consideration here.
In response: just because most of the contestants don't have articles don't mean the rest are not notable: they are, but I just havn't got around to writing them yet. The content of an article, or the lack of content as in the case of Miss Florida Teen USA, doesn't relate to the subject's notability. PageantUpdater 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as for nothing other than hometown news sources, something you have brought up on numerous occasions, I don't see WP:BIO mentioning anything about these being of less importance or irrelevant. PageantUpdater 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - valid close within process. The aberration of one article of four not being deleted does not warrant overturning this one but instead speaks to the importance of bundling these sorts of nominations. Otto4711 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC:
  • Count that as one to one, considering the same admin closed all three for the same dubious reasons. PageantUpdater 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every Jeopardy! contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Close was a good reading, quite reasonable, and well within process. Xtifr tälk 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use your brain, AM was not suggesting that the girls are athletes, but using it as a metaphor. Try re-reading it. I could do more to fight this (convincingly) but I'm on holiday in Paris and don't have the time right now. PageantUpdater 06:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using my brain (and it's fairly uncivil to suggest I wasn't). I understood the metaphor, but found it unconvincing, and offered one of my own as counterpoint. But more to the point, we have notability criteria for models, so it's silly to suggest that we should use the criteria for athletes (or Jeopardy! contestants) for these young models. Xtifr tälk 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sommer Isdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with an unfounded explanation. Decision was marginal at best, and I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:After Midnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. See also my discussion at the deletion review for Holly Shively PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete All 3 articles were sourced. As to why this may not have been adequatley pointed out? I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs and about a dozen PRODs. The PRODs were all spared and the 1st of 4 identical AFDs was closed keep, but that closing admin must not have noticed the 3 others (or declined to clode them) and they were then deleted by this closing admin the next day. There is no "crystal ballery" as the sourced already exist and no one is predicting the future here, despite what appear to be the claims of the closing admin and the AFD nominator. These should have all been nominated as a group (and then had a joint decision of keep), despite the nominator's refusal to do so when asked. --After Midnight 0001 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs - Two of those were completely unsourced at the time, and, more to the point, the sources were explicitly addressed both in the original deletion request AND in rebuttal, namely in pointing out their low quality ("only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant").
  • I also don't have the faintest idea how PROD tags placed on other articles and removed are supposed to have had the slightest effect on this discussion, or how the verb "spared" is the least bit applicable, since a) the tags can be removed by ANYONE for ANY reason, and b) they were removed by the articles' creator, not by some authority figure that the use of the verb "spared" seems intent on portraying. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted or listify, as suggested for the article above. DGG 19:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per DGG. As the closing admin I found the delete arguments more persuasive than the keeps. The crystal ballery comes from keep arguments like these: "Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc." and "it also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase around the time of the pageant (so why not hold off until then?)." — OcatecirT 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As per DGG. Part of an essentially identical series of 49 assembly-line "biographies" of teen beauty-pageant semi-finalists for a single year, with the article shortcomings outlined in the original nomination and explicitly considered by the closer, so I'm not seeing the process shortcomings here. As for He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable" - well, that's not substance, that's a declaration of faith, but this isn't "AFD part deux", though DGG's impressively detailed rationale covers that.
  • As for None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin, let's roll the tape:
  • Thre should be [emphasis mine] numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up -- Edison
  • Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. -- After Midnight
  • It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase [emphasis mine] around the time of the pageant -- PageantUpdater
  • ‘’’Support keep’’ Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” She has won the 2007 Miss Texas Teen USA [pageant which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid if it meets the requirements of BIO. --Kevin Murray 12:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few problems with that:
  • The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
  • It has no third-party references other than hometown news sources announcing "local girl wins state pageant".
  • It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
  • The list has 25 members, only six of which have articles -- just as thin as the article under consideration here, even counting the two who wound up doing an American realty-TV show.
  • Endorse deletion - valid close within process. The aberration of one article of four not being deleted does not warrant overturning this one but instead speaks to the importance of bundling these sorts of nominations. Otto4711 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every Jeopardy! contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Close was a good reading, quite reasonable, and well within process. Xtifr tälk 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid close. No violation of process. Deletion review is not AfD by other means. Eusebeus 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Holly Shively (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article describing a Miss Teen USA 2007 contestant, deleted by User:Ocatecir with no explanation. Decision was marginal at best, I admit I acted poorly in the debate but I feel that some relevant and strong arguments were overlooked, particularly that of User:After Midnight. Furthermore, a similar article (with fewer refs) involved in a similar debate was kept. I tried asking the closing admin for an explanation of this and two other decisions, but was impolitely rebuffed, although he did leave a message on my talk page suggesting that any keep votes relied on crystal ballism. He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable", "Miss Teen USA state level winners are pretty notable", "As contestants in a nationally televised pageant, these are obviously notable", "nationally televised event is notable, and so are winners in the event ", "state winners would be notable because they complete in the national pageant", "the sources are there". None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin. PageantUpdater 17:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete All 3 articles were sourced. As to why this may not have been adequatley pointed out? I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs and about a dozen PRODs. The PRODs were all spared and the 1st of 4 identical AFDs was closed keep, but that closing admin must not have noticed the 3 others (or declined to clode them) and they were then deleted by this closing admin the next day. There is no "crystal ballery" as the sourced already exist and no one is predicting the future here, despite what appear to be the claims of the closing admin and the AFD nominator. These should have all been nominated as a group (and then had a joint decision of keep), despite the nominator's refusal to do so when asked. --After Midnight 0001 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it was probably overlooked in the path of 4 identical AFDs - Two of those were completely unsourced at the time, and, more to the point, the sources were explicitly addressed both in the original deletion request AND in rebuttal, namely in pointing out their low quality ("only hometown news sources announcing that a local girl has won the state pageant").
  • I also don't have the faintest idea how PROD tags placed on other articles and removed are supposed to have had the slightest effect on this discussion, or how the verb "spared" is the least bit applicable, since a) the tags can be removed by ANYONE for ANY reason, and b) they were removed by the articles' creator, not by some authority figure that the use of the verb "spared" seems intent on portraying. --Calton | Talk 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted or listify, as suggested for the articles above. And it was reasonable to keep separately, as it is possible they had different degrees of sourcing, & for some it was suggested that additional prior even less important awards added to the notability DGG 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted My closing statement did not mention crystal ballery, the delete votes were simply more in line with policy (failing WP:BIO and WP:N) as I saw it. Pageant updater did not ask for an explanation, instead wanted "to let [me] know that when you have had a chance to respond I am taking this to Deletion Review because I think these deletions were unfair," indicating that he wasn't interested in how I arrived at that decision, instead was taking to drv regardless because he didn't like my decision. — OcatecirT 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Part of an essentially identical series of 49 assembly-line "biographies" of teen beauty-pageant semi-finalists for a single year, with the article shortcomings outlined in the original nomination and explicitly considered by the closer, so I'm not seeing the process shortcomings here. As for He has clearly ignored the substance of each keep vote here: "Winning a statewide beauty contest is notable" - well, that's not substance, that's a declaration of faith, but this isn't "AFD part deux", not worth going into much detail over.
  • As for None of the keep comments rely on crystal ballism as claimed by the admin, let's roll the tape:
  • Thre should be [emphasis mine] numerous TV and newspaper references if someone would dig them up -- Edison
  • Many of these people also become more notable after the pageants as they move on to acting roles, etc. -- After Midnight
  • It also must be considered that the press coverage of these girls will certainly increase [emphasis mine] around the time of the pageant -- PageantUpdater
  • Support keep Per BIO, “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.” She has won the 2007 Miss Delaware Teen USA [pageant which is an award deemed significant enough for inclusion at WP as an article. Surprisingly there are few credible resources supplying information about her, but the topic is valid if it meets the requirements of BIO. --Kevin Murray 12:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few problems with that:
  • The existence of a subject doesn't automatically transfer any notability to its members.
  • It has no third-party references other than individual references to .
  • It has no assertions of any kind of notability.
  • The list has 25 members, only one of which has an article -- one just as thin as the article under consideration here.
  • Endorse deletion - valid close within process. The aberration of one article of four not being deleted does not warrant overturning this one but instead speaks to the importance of bundling these sorts of nominations. Otto4711 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: concerns about the sparseness, triviality and locality of the coverage were not adequately rebutted. If one national television appearance were enough to confer notability, we'd need an article on every Jeopardy! contestant. AfterMidnight's suggestion that these people should be considered athletes rather than models makes no sense whatsoever. Close was a good reading, quite reasonable, and well within process. Xtifr tälk 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Valid close, fully in process. Eusebeus 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Seth Finkelstein – Endorse Deletion per multiple reasons raised below. First and foremost, after reading the discussion below and the original AfD, the AfD was closed entirely properly; the closing admin did not merely count votes, but gave proper weight to each side of the argument. Also, in cases such as this when an individual is on the fringe of notability, we should take into consideration the subject's wishes in regards to an article about themselves. Finally, I urge the community to remember that Deletion Review does not exist as AFD2, in an attempt to overturn a deletion you disagree with. Unless policy was violated in the close, the discussion should be left as-is, until and unless conditions surrounding the subject change (ie: a change in their level of notability. – ^demon[omg plz] 18:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Seth Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Close did not follow the consensus of the Afd Discussion. On weight of numbers, 22 deletes to 19 keeps is a long way from any sort of consensus to delete. On weight of arguments, those who favored keep pointed out more than sufficient mainstream media coverage and significant acts to pass WP:BIO and WP:N. Those who favored deletion disagreed on notability, largely on "IDon'tLikeit" and "I never heard of him" (both of which are irrelevant) and on arguments over whether his actions and media mentions were "important enough" for an article, with little policy basis. And they urged that Seth Finkelstein does not want an article, as he himself urged at some length. His main argument was that the article was a "troll magnet", but the history showed that in fact it has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last 7 months, a pretty good ratio. Even the current version of BLP says only that the closer can consider the subject's desires in a close case, but this wasn't anywhere near being close to a consensus to delete, and BLP does NOT say that the subject's desire is in and of itself a reason to delete, nor should it, IMO. The closer has been asked by multiple editors to overturn his own close, has discussed it, and clearly declines to do so. Closers have a degree of flexibility, but they are not supposed to find a consensus to delete where none exists. Overturn and close as "No Consensus, defaulting to keep". DES (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the closer, I'd like to refute the statement that "multiple editors" asked me to overturn my close. DESiegel is the only one who asked me to revert my closure, and I declined. See the relevant thread on my talk page. Sean William @ 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the words "Please revert your close" weren't used, I think that the comments of User:JamesMLane, and particularly "If someone else DRV's it, I'll vote or non-vote or whatever to overturn." are a fairly clear indication that he wanted the close changed. He surely questioned the close. But let this stand on my nomination here, and whatever discussion follows. DES (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expressed my disagreement, but I also told Sean William that I wouldn't start a DRV because I was too lazy. Therefore, I'll be a wuss and say that you're both right. JamesMLane t c 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer quite properly decided what weight he would put on the subject's wishes. As it turns out, that weight was decisive. There's no problem with this close. The thread cited gives no reasons to rethink the close. --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As an award-winning leader in his field [62]and Guardian columnist[63], Mr. Finkelstein is highly notable. Unlike a high school athlete thrust into the spotlight against her will, Mr. Finkelstein's notability is based on a lifetime of achievement, deliberate public stands on issues directly affecting society and active advocacy in the press. This is a position that Mr. Finkelstein has himself supported for others [64], [65]. This means that, under the current wording of WP:BLP, there were no grounds to delete his article in the face of the non-consensus shown during the discussion. It took a long time for wikipedia to establish notability guidelines. The goal was to eliminate subjectivity from the analysis. Vocal opposition to having an article - particularly in the absence of any proof of harm - can not erase the fact that the subject of this article easily qualifies for inclusion based on WP:BIO and thus can not be considered "semi-notable" (which, at present, is an undefined concept). --JJay 11:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that a living person's wishes should weigh heavily in such a decision, pro or con. I'm not a strict inclusionist or deletionist. In the cases you reference above, both people indicated they wanted the biography. So there's no contradiction. Regarding harm, it's one thing to give every dog one bite, another to go down the road that the bitten bears the burden of proving against the unwilling "owner" that another bite will happen, that it will break the skin, that there will be infection, and rabies is rare anyway, etc. etc. One bite should be more than sufficient to establish the reasonableness of not wanting that dog around. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your beliefs are not the current policy standard at wikipedia for highly notable individuals such as yourself. Furthermore, regarding potential harm, the exact same argument could be made about the potential dangers to others from your Guardian colums - where you consistently name names - or your anti-censorware civil-libertarian activism. Work, I might note, where you do not seem to take into consideration the "wishes" of the targets of your investigations.JJay 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a "highly notable individual", in the sense that very few people have ever heard of me, and more importantly, are likely to have _substantially_ heard of me before looking in something like Wikipedia. Again, that's a rough estimate of "do no harm". My _Guardian_ columns are subject to the strict British laws on libel and defamation, are reviewed both by an editor and if there is anything at all problematic, a staff lawyer (this came up, for example, when I wrote about the AACS encryption key controversy). Further, I have let people opt-out, beyond the legal standard. My activism was done under constant threat of a lawsuit, and I was driven to abandon decryption research in part because of the risk of being sued. Organizationally, Wikipedia displays almost the exact opposite behavior, amplifying libels of the most malicious attackers, and placing all burden on the target to do after-the-fact reaction. The difference should be very clear. You seem determined to pronounce a contradiction no matter what the evidence. -- Seth Finkelstein 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Tony. Valid AfD, reasonable close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No consensus, and the subject's wishes are only relevant when the subject is on the fringe of notability. Finklestien is clearly notable, therefore his wishes are irrelevant and the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus". Js farrar 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer seemed to use the subject's wishes as the final determination. Since the debate on Finkelstein's notoriety ended with no consensus (which even the closer admits), using his wishes for deletion weren't appropriate. Jhall1468 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow you here. No consensus plus the subject's wishes sways the decision. Sean William @ 17:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject's wishes only apply when subject is not clearly notable, as I've already said; hence subject's wishes should not have been taken into account here. Js farrar 19:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Arguments have already been explained in the AFD. We do not need another AFD. AFD was valid. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per subject not wanting the article being the decisive factor that justified the deletion, therefore in process, well done closing admin Sean, SqueakBox 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is a notable career as shown by notable awards and press coverage in major national sources. Every statement in the article is sourced. No sensitive information is disclosed (at least as seen in the final version, which I will email on request. The subject's view at the AfD was " even though the article is non defamatory now, who knows what it will be tomorrow, or the next day? " Every subject of every biography is WP can say as much, and we will continue on the trend, starting from where we let people with bios they find unsatisfactory to remove their articles, to anyone at all at whim. As far as I can tell, the motivation is the subject's desire to hide his conflict "with Michael Sims, which splintered the opposition to "censorware. " ". DGG 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. Note - here's another example of why I don't want a wikipedia biography. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. You can say many things about my "conflict with Michael Sims", but hidden is not one of them. My desire is much more that I don't want him to have yet another attack-platform against me. Having such an attractive nuisance for trolls, and then having to justify dealing with them, seems to me proof enough of harm. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: despite what nom says, this was obviously a close case, and arguments about whether subject is "important enough" are very relevant to a bio where subject wants the article deleted. Meeting WP:BIO is a minimum for articles, and articles that are near that minimum are very definitely on "the fringe of notability". (Anything below that minimum is beyond the fringe, else the guideline would be redundant.) I think closer did a fine job of teading a difficult debate. Not sure I would argue if it were closed as no-consensus either, but the choice was clearly within the bounds of closer discretion. Xtifr tälk 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. In response to Xtifr's comment above, a distinction needs to be drawn between two questions.
(1) Is Finkelstein notable? I consider him notable, but reasonable Wikipedians could disagree with me.
(2) Did the AfD show a consensus that he is not notable? I think it did not show such a consensus, and, frankly, I don't see any reasonable basis for disagreeing with my conclusion on that score.
The recent change in WP:BLP upon which the closer relied doesn't spell out how the bio subject's wishes are to be considered in the context of an overall process that is clearly supposed to be consensus-based. I suggest that an appropriate reading would be as follows:
Where there is clearly a consensus on notability, the consensus must be honored, regardless of the subject's wishes. Where there is clearly no consensus on notability, the usual rule that "no consensus defaults to 'keep'" must be honored, regardless of the subject's wishes. Where, however, it is not clear whether there is consensus -- where reasonable people could differ as to whether the comments show a consensus -- then the closing admin may choose to give some weight to the subject's wishes.
I don't fault Sean William's good faith in the slightest, as he was trying to apply a new policy that wasn't well thought out, isn't clearly worded, and doesn't have a useful history of application that he could consult. Nevertheless, given the importance of consensus in Wikipedia decision-making, I don't think this recent expression of concern for living bio subjects can be read as working a substantial change in what has long been our rule: "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'." (Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure) The change in treatment of living subjects was apparently never even mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion. Repeals by implication are disfavored. :) The way to harmonize these different considerations is to say that the subject's wishes are considered only where there is reasonable disagreement about whether consensus has been reached. JamesMLane t c 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it reads "When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. " and the argument is that he was notable, not semi notable. A NYT profile is enough to make any privacy aspect absurd, & is enough for notability. if everything were based upon web sources, then it could reasonably have been called semi-notable. DGG 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability standards are the bare minimum for inclusion (and you really don't have to be very notable at all to meet them). An article that doesn't meet the most basic notability requirements would be deleted in any case. So it seems pretty obvious to me that "semi-notable" in this context would have to refer to someone who is notable enough for inclusion, but not much more than that. I agree that it could be expressed more clearly, but the intent should still be fairly obvious. Someone who is known, but not well-known would be semi-notable. And if the best we can scrape up for this guy is one obscure award and one newspaper article, I'd say that's semi-notable. Xtifr tälk 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, a definition that consists of someone who is notable enough for inclusion, but not much more than that or someone who is known, but not well-known is hopelessly vague. --JJay 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vague, yes. Hopelessly? I don't think so. It is, like so much else in Wikipedia, a judgment call. For "well-known", WP:BLP says: "there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources". Absent that multitude, I think it's hard to justify calling someone well-known. And it also says, "there is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin." With a close debate, no apparent "multitude" of reliable sources, and "keepers" only arguing that he met WP:BIO, I see no procedural problems here at all. Xtifr tälk 20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This review request misrepresents the reasoning for supporting closure. I nominated the article based upon the subject's wishes and a recent change in WP:BLP. These claims about notability, verifiability, etc. are red herrings: I certainly wouldn't have nominated this page for deletion if I believed they were overriding issues. Wikipedia has a longstanding custom of courtesy deletions for biography articles that do satisfy those standards but whose subjects don't want their lives to be researched or dissected on this site. The crux of the matter is how far we extend that courtesy: I've proposed doing it for living persons who wouldn't be covered in any traditional paper and ink encyclopedia. That's a consistent and durable limit - and the failure of this review nomination to acknowledge or address that issue is characteristic of the keep side in this discussion. DurovaCharge! 18:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Durova, I'm not sure of the process by which living people were given any kind of power to censor Wikipedia's coverage of them. What I am sure of is that your personal belief on this score -- that we should reduce one of our significant advantages over traditional paper encyclopedias by sometimes limiting our coverage to theirs -- was not adopted as policy or guideline or anything else. Given that, as you acknowledge, it's only your personal proposal, you have no basis for an insinuation about the "keep" voters just because none of us addressed it here. Above, I suggested what I considered an "appropriate reading" of the new BLP language, and no one on your side has addressed it, nor are they required to. BTW, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination), users Itub, Seraphimblade and I stated our criticisms of your proposal. JamesMLane t c 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First I'd like to clarify that I am a longstanding and vocal opponent of censorship. Then, you're right, the place where I'd like to set the bar for courtesy deletions is not endorsed in policy. WP:BLP recently changed to allow the wishes of an article subject to figure in deletion closures, but current policy does not have a good definition for how far we carry that idea. That's why I'm proposing this standard as a moderate expansion of existing practice: it's measurable and makes a pretty good dividing line. I hope the community accepts it. DurovaCharge! 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough call. This case demonstrates how poorly thought out that paragraph at WP:BLP is. Here, about 80% to 90% of the delete opiners were using the subject's desire for deletion of the article as the primary, if not the only, reason for deleting the article. That paragraph applies only to the closing admin's actions, and as written says that if they find 1) ambiguous notability and 2) the subject wanting deletion, then 3) they can do whatever they want, knowing that there is no wider consensus to direct them. As to the subject wanting deletion, there is no reasonable doubt about that. So, we should look at the arguments in the AFD (and the prior AFD) about notability. And the first failure in the AFD is that so many of the delete opiners didn't clearly address notability, or used standards ("I've never heard of him.") that are clearly rejected by the community. That failure almost required this review. Fortunately, here we have the first AFD that was primarily about notability (although the subject's wishes clearly influenced the majority of the delete opinions in that AFD) to look at. The second AFD was almost entirely about the subject's wishes rather than notability. (As a policy prescription, I think we need to communicate that opiners referencing the subject's wishes as a reason for delete must first evaluate notability on the usual standards and explain their evaluation on those standards.) I believe the clear consensus, from both AFDs, of those who opined on the notability of the subject was a decision that the subject is notable. If the subject is notable, then the deletion was not in accordance with WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards, because that only applies to subjects of ambiguous notability. Despite that being my opinion, it is not unreasonable to say that the folks who were willing to opine based on the subjects wishes had decided that the subject was of marginal notability. (Too many didn't say so, however.) In which case, the community's decision as to notability is ambiguous. So I think we need to endorse the deletion, but also to direct those opining based on the subject's wishes to make their evaluation of notability (and the reason for that evaluation) unambiguous. GRBerry 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you to the extent of saying that your suggestion is the logical consequence of one interpretation of the recent change. Instead of "notable" or "non-notable", there are now three gradations: "notable" (enough to have an article whether s/he likes it or not), "borderline notable" or "semi-notable" (article depends on subject's wishes), and "non-notable" (no article whether s/he likes it or not). The closing admin, to assess consensus, would need to know which of these three categories each person thinks is applicable. Of course, as a practical matter, there's no way that the majority of AfD participants are going to parse their responses that finely. Absent such information, a great deal will depend on which admin happens to pick up the AfD to close it -- another bad effect of the recent change. JamesMLane t c 02:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The AFD is a farce. The change in BLP suggests that we should let the AFD arguments play out in full and then if appropriate consider the wishes of the subject. However, many of the delete arguments do not even look at whether the subject is notable or not, and instead just comment "Delete - Subject doesn't want it". These are not arguments that should be made in an AFD, the AFD should concentrate on whether or not the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (given his EFF Pioneer Award and media mentions, I think he is). Only after the initial AFD has ended in no consensus should the subjects views be applied, and yet even given the invalid "Delete - Subject doesn't want it" type arguments, it still ended up with no consensus, I feel the deletion should be overturned. Editors in AFD discussions should not be concerned with the whims of the subject, but on whether the subject is notable/encyclopedic. - hahnchen 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I think the subject is clearly notable. --Jmbranum 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If mr. Finkelstein would have wanted to keep out of the limelight, he should not have started a highly visible project, or written articles in widely read newspapers. Tinus 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia didn't exist back then for most of it. "Grandfather" me. In the future, maybe I'll have to consider as a disincentive to do anything more, that it might result in being in Wikipedia. That seems an unintended consquence, maybe you should reconsider. As a rule of thumb, I believe a living person should only have a biography over their objections if they are so notable that it's not significant compared to other media coverage of their life - e.g. Bill Gates won't be affected by his Wikipedia entry. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Jjay, DGG and the nom among other reasons. While there is some limited amount of leeway that the new clause in BLP gives to closing admins this is well over the level that is at all appropriate. I'm sorry for Finkelstein, for whom I have the highest respect but he isn't a borderline notable person that this sort of policy was designed for but is highly notable. The notion that the BLP clause could apply in his case is simply not credible especially when the person has taken steps to put himself in the public eye. That, together with the lack of consensus (especially when the nature of many of the delete votes is taken into account) this should be overturned. JoshuaZ 15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn subject is sufficiently notable. Should not have been removed via BLP. Eusebeus 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The AfD nomination says it all; this is a request to expand BLP yet further which failed to find consensus. Should not have been deleted. (I cannot judge whether any actual BLP offenses were contained in the article, since I cannot see it; but I don't see any argument to that effect, In any case, they should be removed, possibly with oversight, not deleted.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BLP argument is based upon the subject's desire for article deletion rather than on the specific content of the article. So that proposed solution isn't really feasible, but a complex merge similar to Daniel Brandt would satisfy me. Would that be acceptable to you also? DurovaCharge! 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even many of the people who endorsed the Brandt close agreed that the merge was suboptimal. If there isn't a consensus to remove information we shouldn't go out of our way to split it up in a difficult fashion. Obscurity is not a good solution to these situations. JoshuaZ 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the Signpost article is correct, the deletion review on that article turned up 2/3 support for the merge closure, which was significantly greater support than the deletion nomination received. DurovaCharge! 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of which agreed that it was suboptimal or endorsed simply becuase they were sick of the matter. I suggest you read the DRV. JoshuaZ 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please comment on the merits of the matter without making insinuations. As the editor who initiated both deletion nominations, I'm surprised and dismayed that you imply I haven't followed the discussion adequately. My own approach is to avoid pile-on situations unless I can bring something significant to the table that hasn't been discussed before. You may disagree with my reasoning, but please do so respectfully. DurovaCharge! 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry if you took my comment as not civil, but it is quite clear from the DRV that the merge in that circumstance was considered suboptimal by many. Indeed, it is hard to read that DRV and get the impression that anything more than a slim majority (if that at all) thought that was optimal. Most who endorsed were simply happy that it might make it go away or were sick of the matter. JoshuaZ 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's been extraordinarily difficult to achieve any consensus at that topic, yet the closure review gained more backing than my nomination. AMIB received several barnstars for it. While a significant minority disagreed vehemently, my point here is how that solution garnered more overall support than anything else. I'm proposing a flexible solution here because I'd be equally satisfied with a deletion endorsement or a similar complex merge. DurovaCharge! 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion to satisfy BLP concerns. There's no point in creating articles about semi-notable people who don't want their privacy invaded. We should give the benefit of the doubt to the article subject. This person is of no real public interest. Jehochman Talk 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems pretty close to endorse deletion becuase the person's notability isn't in an area you care about. Apparently both the New York Times and the [[EFF think that Finkelstein is very much of public interest. Indeed, to argue otherwise is almost an insult to the man's achievements. JoshuaZ 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know exactly who he is and have corresponded with him on at least one online forum. In reading the article, there was very little biography. Most of the facts were related to his organization. Perhaps that organization should be the subject of the article, and Seth will be mentioned. What many fail to understand is that a Wikipedia page about a person will rank first in Google for that person's name. When somebody gets a Wikipedia article because of their activism, this can have a profound effect on his employability. We don't want minor half-page articles, not very well researched or written, to impact somebody's life. Jehochman Talk 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly right. There's plenty of mentions of me in other Wikipedia pages. I haven't objected. I just don't want a "weapon of asymmetrical warfare" aimed at me personally -- 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, first point taken. As to the second point, I don't see any issues here with the article being "not very well researched or written". JoshuaZ 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The deletion was against current policy; the subject is clearly notable, so his request to have the article deleted is not supposed to be considered. Personally I'm sympathetic to changing the policy to give such requests more weight, but given the current policy, this deletion was not valid. -- Avenue 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion With respect to DES' differing opinion, the original AfD looks like a valid closure to me. The closer evaluated the opinions presented, and explained his decision fairly well. Plus, I'd say I agree with the evaluation of notability to BLP concerns. --InkSplotch 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, "subject doesn't want it" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, and given the number of deletion arguments based on that alone or simple statements along the lines of "I don't think he's notable" there was no consensus for deletion and the debate should have been closed as such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This deletion, along with the fiasco of the recent Daniel Brandt AfD/DRV, shows why the change in BLP policy was a bad idea. Even at that, the policy (which says that a closer can take into consideration a subject's wishes, it doesn't require it) is being stretched here to cover a notable person. Fringe or borderline notablity is Brian Peppers (and I wouldn't go to the mat if it was invoked for Angela Beesley), not Seth Finkelstein. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I fail to see how someone with "about" 220,000 google hits on his name, discussed in reliable sources too numerous to list here (some random examples: [66][67][68]) and winner of an EFF Pioneer award could be considered "borderline notable". He's a leader in his field. JulesH 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been on the Internet for around 25 years (really - I had one of the early accounts from being at MIT). My saying about that Google count is that it only proves I've wasted entirely too much time in my life. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I note that WP:BIGNUMBER is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, while agreeing with JulesH that Seth is a leader in his field, and continuing to hold the opinion I stated above. GRBerry 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • BIGNUMBER seems to be much more reasonable to invoke when we are dealing not just whether the person is notable but how notable the person is. The normal problem with BIGNUMBER arguments is that they don't address the presence or absence of sources. However, since everyone agrees that we have more than enough sources to have an article BIGNUMBER is valid evidence against claims that Finkelstein is marginally notable. JoshuaZ 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The flaw is that the BIGNUMBER represents chatter, not notability. You also have to normalize for the unusually high number of years I've spent in contexts where that chatter is recorded. Look at it this way - I do not put on any resume that a Google-search for my name brings up a lot of hits. -- Seth Finkelstein 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, in this case a large part of the hits are not indicative of notability. I was making the more general point that BIGNUMBERs are in general more relevant when discussing possible claims of borderline notability of people who meet WP:N. JoshuaZ 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Per Durova's explanation -- Seth Finkelstein 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This has been a wrenching decision as I have the greatest respect for Mr. Finkelstein, but clearly his notability -- even if a type of domain notability -- is more than sufficient for our purposes. In the absence of actionable libel, I am loath to endorse veto power over articles by article subjects, as I feel this is a slippery slope that erodes principles of free speech. I don't feel that the mere risk of libel is sufficient to say that an article should not exist. Obviously policy now supports an interpretation that could in this case be more restrictive. I would hope that the "do no harm" provisions apply in common sense and that merely having an article about a subject is not itself harm. Obviously again policy could support more restrictive interpretations. I am willing to make those considerations important in cases of WP:BLP1E for a variety of reasons. But in this case, I don't think the notability is marginal, it's simply narrow. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really should write a FAQ on this (I hope I don't have to!). It's not about free speech, as that usually isn't taken to include libel and defamation. If someone could guarantee me that Wikipedia's policies of sensitivity and encyclopedic standards WOULD be followed, then I wouldn't have any objection. But that anyone who wishes me ill - and several people do - gets to use Wikipedia to try to reputation-wash their attacks is, in my view, an unreasonable "cost-shifting". -- Seth Finkelstein 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an argument to delete pretty much all BLPs not to delete your BLP. In any event, I, and I think many other users here are more than happy to guarantee to keep track of your article to the best of their ability. I strongly doubt there will be any serious issues. And again, this would be more doable as a request if you were less of a notable, public figure. JoshuaZ 13:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that a living person's wishes should be respected if at all possible (i.e. not a major public figure). Remember, as a price of my activism (it never goes unpunished), there are people who generally have sought to do as much reputational damage to me as they can manage to inflict. I'm hardly notable at the level I'd need to be for that to be insignificant. -- Seth Finkelstein 13:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • On that we have some disagreement. You are a well-known, notable individual(see the comments above about many secondary sources about you and awards you've won) and given how much attention this matter has gotten we can guarantee that the Wikipedia article will remain very clean. JoshuaZ 14:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, I'm not well-know or notable in any major public sense. In my view, there needs to be a balancing, where the incremental utility of the page has to be weighed against its potential to be used as a tool of harassment. This is always going to be a judgment call. But there should be more than "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". Note you are not giving a guarantee - nothing will happen to you if you are wrong :-( -- Seth Finkelstein 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that I did say "in the absence of actionable libel", and as for Wikipedia's policies, they should be followed at all times and any violations may be reverted by any editor in keeping with WP:BLP. Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia will not back off from its open posting/editing principles, and with that there will always come certain risks of abuse or inaccuracy, but it is always the responsibility of all editors on the site to ensure that our boundaries are respected. --Dhartung | Talk 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Folks, my view is that in terms of reasonableness, Wikipedia has already gotten it's "one bite" in terms of the article being used to smear me, and then policy being more honored in the breach than the observance. As was said by The Great And Powerful Wales himself "A Wikipedian in good standing, with thousands of edits, reads this obvious personal attack, and instead of *removing* it, chooses instead to put a fact template around it. Ouch.". That's enough. That's a reasonable basis on which to answer the speculation objection. It's been addressed. Asked and answered. I think I know who did that vandalism too, and if I'm right, it wasn't a random kiddie, but I'd have a difficult time proving it in court. I didn't come to my position lightly. Nobody who does anything from accusing me of censorship, to counselling stoic forbearance in the face of adversity, to saying it won't happen again, has any risk if what they say is wrong. And that makes all the difference in weighing the arguments. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, the incident occured well before the current BLP policy was enforced nearly as much and second the article is much better watched now. So your worries don't have much validity. JoshuaZ 00:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I call that a "second bite" argument. I wish there would be some acknowledgment that I've made some sort of threshold showing of evidence. I've gone through this many a time in various contexts - even if I produced a signed affidavit from an potential employer that they were going to hire me but changed their mind after reading some false charge, there's people who would sneeringly dismiss it as that meant they wouldn't be good employers anyway. There has to be a decision-point between what-if versus no, never in a thousand years, no matter what, no evidence will be accepted. I think one bite is more than enough, especially combined with the ongoing complaints which prove the problem hasn't been fixed (e.g. Fuzzy Zoeller's libel case). I'm fully aware that to admit the problem is to say Wikipedia's systems are flawed. But overall, I think Wikipedia should be able to live with that admission, rather than to deny it, and therefore inflict much unhappiness on people who want to opt-out -- Seth Finkelstein 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously yes the system is imperfect and yes obviously it will remain so indefinitely and yes I fully understand and agree that certain people should have the ability to as you put it "opt-out"(although I think that makes a heck a lot more sense for privacy concerns than vandalism concerns since privacy concerns go to the heart of having an article at all) but that must be balanced against how notable the person is. For example, I doubt we'd let a US Senator or an MP in Great Britain have there article deleted. While you aren't as notable as many people in those positions you are still much too notable to not have an article, and again you seem to be ignoring the point that your article will be much more closely watched than others. JoshuaZ 02:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am honestly baffled by a phrase like "you are still much too notable to not have an article". I am nowhere near the status of a US Senator or an MP in Great Britain. I cannot imagine anyone evaluating an encyclopedia saying "I looked for coverage of *Seth Finkelstein*, and he wasn't there - that's a shocking omission.". In the sum of human knowledge, I'm not even a rounding error. I'm not ignoring the point about the article being more closely watched - as I've said, repeatedly, there's no downside for someone to assert that. They have no risk to take into account. Nothing will happen to them if they are wrong. From my perspective, the people who seek to harass me have already won a great victory by being able to use Wikipedia for anonymous reputation-laundered attacks, and then put me in a bind of having to worry and guard about future vandalism, or go through very wearing procedures. It can only get worse. -- Seth Finkelstein 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The foregoing discussion between JoshuaZ and Seth Finkelstein is interesting but it's really out of place in a DRV. Those arguments were addressed in the AfD, which was the place for Wikipedians to assess the merits of each side's position. The issue for the closing admin was whether there was consensus to delete the article. The nearly even split of opinion makes it clear that there was no consensus. Therefore, under our policies, the deletion must be overturned. JamesMLane t c 03:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The deletion was perfectly legitimate, it had a majority favor and it was in keeping with stated policies.--Oakhouse 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion per Durova, and urge the closing administrator to a) ignore the "he's notable arguments", DRV is not AfD II; and b) endorse this deletion as no consensus has formed to overturn it. Daniel 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment While in general DRV is about process we currently have what amount to what are essentially two process issues: 1) whether people calling for deletion in an AfD solely because the subject of an article wants their article deleted is acceptable (the BLP addition merely says that admins can weigh this matter, not that it is an acceptable reason to call for deletion by itself) and 2) whether the weight given by the closer in this case exceeded the weight that can be reasonably given per the new clause in BLP (I think everyone agrees that there is a limit to that clause. The obvious extreme example would be something like George W. Bush or Tony Blair). This second issue is very much interelated to the notability concerns. So notability is wrapped up in process here. Thus, we have two serious process issues. JoshuaZ 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

meets criteria for WP:BAND:
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (see [69] which is published in a street press called drum media and [70] and [71])
and
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources (toured Australia with Jamie T and toured Australia with The View) --Sam765 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • despite the sources only being blogs, it still meets the criteria for a band as they have done a national concert tour in a large country (criteria for a band)--Sparkelman 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean if that is true it may meet the guideline standards for notability (Of course to know if it's true we need that verified from reliable sources, the articles content must also be verifiable from reliable sources. No reliable sources == no verifiability == no article. --pgk 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Smashboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted after recreation per AfD even after it was rewritten so it wouldn't be deleted. Deletion Quality 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, the rewrite didn't do anything to address the concerns of the AFD, which were mainly to do with notability. The last version didn't contain a reasonable assertion. --Coredesat 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If you're going to re-create an article after a consensus to delete in an AfD, at a bare minimum you should address the reasons it was deleted for. In this case, we need a claim of notability and some reliable sources, neither of which were present in either the old article or new. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, rewritten article still did not address the concerns raised at AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.