Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 1-15

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Went through AFD and was deleted apparently on the basis that it was felt to be a minor research project / just someone's PhD thesis. Based on 15+ years familiarity with the Computer Architecture literature, there aren't that many similar forwards looking major CA research projects in progress at any given time. Within the field, it's notable. Vote counting should not overrule field specific notability. The AFD close as delete was incorrect; the article should be restored or be allowed to be recreated. Georgewilliamherbert 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with deletion Justification in the AfD was "A PhD project that worked" Individual projects like this are NN--just like individual papers . Here's the link to the project web site. DGG 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait---so if someone writes a thesis about a topic, that's proof that it's NN? As both victim and perpetrator of Stanford's thesis process, I find this logic to be somewhat backward!?Su-steve 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So, umm, where is the coverage by independent sources? If there is field specific notability, such sources will exist. If they can be shown, there is a case here. Otherwise, I have to say that the right decision was reached in the AFD. GRBerry 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can put it in context, at least. FAST was one of the low level components of Stanford's Smart Memories and Hydra projects; the 4 authors on the 2005 ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News paper were John D. Davis, Stephen E. Richardson, Charis Charitsis, and Kunle Olukotun. See Sun’s Big Splash, IEEE Spectrum Jan 2005 for why Olukotun is significant - that's Sun's (originally Afara's) UltraSPARC T1 "Niagra" CPU that they're talking about there, which Olukotun did a major part of the design of. That commercial project in many ways conceptually came out of the Stanford Hydra parent project, which FAST is a component of for future research. Sun's releasing the second generation Niagra soon, and the third is being tipped. Does that make sense and help? Georgewilliamherbert 01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like any content can go into the above pages somewhere.DGG 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do not delete. FAST is part of a bigger spectrum of work looking at ways of developing fast, accurate and credible computer architecture research. Processor design is at a point where validating designs cannt be done with any credibility using software simulators. The recent past and current FPGAs makes it possible to develop research and industrial prototypes that run at hardware speeds. This makes application development possible, not to mention credibility. This is one of many (sucessfl) projects that use hard in computer architecture, both from industry (Mentor Graphics, Ikos, Tharas, etc.) and academia (RPM, FAST, BEE, BEE2, RAMP, etc.) The main issue with this article seemed to be the copyright problems with the pictures. I used one of the CC specified on wikipedia and stated, as I have seen on other pages that the pictures, if used show reference me and the source. The picture copyright is a minor issue that can be resolved. FAST is the first chip multiprocessor prototyping platform specifically designed to investigate novel memory systems that can be used to prototype multiple systems, amoritizing the cost and reusing the infrasturcture. RPM was a project in the mid 1990's that tried to monitor multiprocessor systems. Recently, the Berkeley Emulation Engine (version 1 and 2) focused on DSP architecture and later some general conputer architecutres. This work is notable and is explored in other forums: WARFP 2005, WARFP 2006, WARP 2007, as well as using reconfigurable HW for CA research at ISCA. There is also the large RAMP project that is the successor to FAST and pursues FAST's main motivation. Finally, the other thing to note is that FAST is the also suitable for building transactional memory systems like TCC or other hardware or hybrid transactional memory systems. This work started a new hot topic in CA. FAST was the predecessor to the ATLAS work done to realize a real implementation of TCC in hardware. ATLAS is not precise enough to replicate the TM hardware due to its memory hierarchy design and can only be used for software development, not architecture evaluation. FAST can be used for both software development and architecture evaluation of transactional memory systems like TCC because of its flexibility and design. Su johnd 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This work was also a part of a dasCMP 2005. This is a peer-reviewed/refereed workshop dealing with the design, architecture and simuluation of Chip Multiprocessors. This fits within the rules of what can be placed on Wikipedia with respect to published work.Su johnd 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reading the deletion log, the copyright appeared to be the issue and not the content of the article. The copyright was set so that the pictures could be used if the source was referenced. A CC option presented on Wikipedia was used for the images. Please advise as to why this was a problem. This issue is easily resolved.Su johnd 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. I have a PhD in Computer Architecture and have been working in the field for over 20 years, having contributed both to academic projects (MIPS at Stanford) and several industrial designs (SPARC, MIPS and PowerPC). I have also taught graduate-level computer architecture at Stanford University. I originally encouraged John to write the FAST Wikipedia article as part of a larger effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the field of Computer Architecture, which seems to be somewhat chaotic but slowly improving...Su-steve 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. FAST is the first among several projects marking a much larger trend emerging in computer architecture, the trend whereby FPGA's can mimic or even replace cutting-edge processors, in this case a CMP. FAST provides a crucial historical context for talking about these projects, and Wikipedia is the place where people want to go to learn about this context. FAST, and its parent project Hydra, easily take their place among other seminal architecture efforts that began in Universities, notably Hennessy's MIPS (Stanford), which went on to become one of the world's most prevalent embedded processors; Patterson's RISC (Berkeley), which went on to become the basis for Sun Microsystems' SPARC architecture, Bill Dally's J-Machine (MIT), and so forth.Su-steve 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Who are Su-steve and Su johnd, why do they have similar usernames and edit the same articles, and why are they "voting" more than once here?? wikipediatrix 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that they get the discussion protocols here; it's sort of odd but not going to hurt the discussion. I will discuss on their talk pages later... Georgewilliamherbert 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion No flaws in process; close was within discretion. Little evidence from independent sources of notability, and a very spammy, unencyclopedic tone, so deletion also justified from a pure examination of the merits. A major rewriting, with reliable sources is always welcome. Xoloz 16:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Wears Prada (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I feel that this band has been to quickly deleted as a "non-notable" band simple because the administrators who have closed the deletion reviews have not heard of the band and do not know or care to search for notablity, I am not a fan of this band and I'm not showing bias but even when you do a google search for the band you would understandably find everything about the book or movie on the first page but instead there are two links for the band, and if you put in "the devil wears prada band" in google search you will find over 560,000 pages about the band. The band is ranked first on the charts on Purevolume.com link here and 8th on the Metal and Hardcore charts metal charts link here, Hardcore charts link here. Now if you want to set aside the Purevolume charts, on myspace the band has well nearly 6 million plays and they are ranked 3rd among christian artists. Also I feel that this page would be much better if it is restored to be restored to the original page (not the article that was most recently deleted) Joebengo 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow re-creation. Upon searching I find that a reasonable case for notability can be made. The AfD from last year had minimal participation and some of the comments have been overtaken by later events. We should have an article on this topic. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. This is a circus subjective deletion. I believe the article is notable enough to withstand the scrutiny of Wikipedia.--WaltCip 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. Per what I stated above, I forgot to vote.--Joebengo 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is the Rise Records they're signed to the Rise Records we have an article on? If so, it's not a vanity label, like the AfD says. They have an entry at allmusic, and the exact same entry at artistdirect. Allow recreation. Corvus cornix 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is signed with Rise Records, in my mind a very notable record company.--Joebengo 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

deleting admin inaccurately believes wikipedia entry for a 140 y.o. martial art system is an advertorial/COI, would not offer constructive advice for alternatives after two polite emails (can be provided upon request); instead admin reacted by adding article to the protected titles list. Fujowpai 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC) — Fujowpai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• List at AfD. I don't know if this was the article that was the original copyvio, but a) a martial arts system doesn't qualify for A7, b) reading only what I can see here, I don't know how spammy it was (not that it's easy to spam a 19th-century martial arts program, and c) COI is no reason for speedy deletion. A history undeletion would be helpful here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted once as copyvio, deleted second time as G11 (note username is same as subject) and A7 (no evidence of significance, no independent sources). Classic vanispamcruftisement is how it looked to me. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist: Proposed content to replace copyvio is still visible in talk/temp; username matches article name to differentiate between my personal edits/comments vs those done on behalf of the organization. Regarding process: would be happy to have admins or other editors recommend changes to a live article, the disatisfaction is with speedy delete. Fujowpai 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (J Scribner)[reply]
• List at AFD The editor with the username of the related organization is not the one that originated the copyright violation. I can't be at all upset when someone whose copyright has been violated actually helps create a replacement article. I don't see problems bad enough in the replacement to prevent a run at AFD. GRBerry 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. It was not unquestionably non-notable or impossible to be made into an article apart from the . copyvio that has been removed. DGG 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 8 GHits for 虎爪派 ("Fu Jow Pai" in Chinese).[1] One of those might constitute a non-trivial mention in a reliable, independent source [2]. cab 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I don't care how unencyclopedic you think it is, and there is new evidence that asserts notability and verifiability.
It was mentioned in Company magazine, January 2007, Love it! magazine, at some point in November 2006, and also March 2007, plus it will be in a new issue soon (but that would be crystal balling to mention it!) as a full article. The game was also mentioned on John Moores University and Liverpool University's website plus Motor Trend's website as a joke piece, and in other sources, notably More magazine (where Danielle Lloyd has admitted she is a celebrity player/follower of this game!) These are all non-trivial reliable sources that prove its notability and verifiability, and the article should be undeleted so we can discuss this again. And don't go speedy closing this deletion review like you've done before... discussion is important. Do we have to keep speedy closing this?? People can discuss The Game (game) if they wish to. --Axflower 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. At this point, I think it's probably most proper, seeing as we have three new sources being presented since the final deleting AfD over a year ago, to relist this to see if this consensus still exists. With a renewed focus on verifiability, it'll have some hurdles, but we may as well relegitimize this for our own sake. In a completely worthless personal experience anecdote, I hadn't really heard of it before the deleting AfD, and I hear about it a lot more now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This trolling is getting old. Corvus cornix 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I cannot fault Mailer Diablo's counting of the !votes, I think the reason for deletion (that the subject is a Japanese phrase) weak. I pointed out (after the initial pile-ons) that there is no reason for the English Wikipedia not to have an article on a Japanese phrase, and seem to have turned the tide - later !votes agreed. (Moving to an English translation, like Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, is another question; the problem is that part of the interest of the phrase is its ambiguity.) Relist for further consideration Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any sources to demonstrate some notability of this particular phrase? Absent that, I believe that the consensus in the AFD is clearly for a delete. After Septentrionalis's opinion there was one keep opinion, and one unusual opionion of delete, create a new article on a different topic (via translation from ja.wikipedia), then merge this into the new article. I recall looking at this AFD last night, and refraining from opining delete because the consensus was clear, so if someone is so inclined they can count me as a delete opinion subsequent to the keep opinions. Accordingly, endorse delete closure. GRBerry 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (Clarifying if needed, I have no objection to userfication. GRBerry 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Endorse The deleted article had no sources. The afd asked for evidence of notability, since we can't just document every phrase we find interesting with zero sources. While "this is the ENGLISH wikipedia" is a bad reason for deletion, the legitimate reasons to delete were never addressed. If you can find a source talking about the phrase, I'd have no objection to bringing it back. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse In the AfD PM asked to have this userfied in case it gets deleted. So let's do that rather than try to find procedural errors that aren't there. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nomination statement was bad, but the other arguments still apply. Such as the lack of sources. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — If you're only worried about notability, it's guaranteed to be notable as a "Japanese tongue-twister" (Hayakuchi kotoba). See this list of Japanese tongue-twisters. Two variations from our deleted article (#22 & #30) show up on this short list (containing only 31 entries).--Endroit 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • we need someone to write about it, not just repeat it verbatim. A list of blonde jokes isn't an encyclopedia article about them, and a list of tongue twisters isn't a sufficient source to write a proper article about one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it help if I translated the Japanese Wikipedia's Tongue-twister (ja:早口言葉) article, although most of it reads like a list? It covers mostly Japanese tongue-twisters, so I'll make it exclusively about Japanese tongue-twisters (and call it that). Since userification has already been done at User:Pmanderson/Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru, I can merge the two articles after translation.--Endroit 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that article doesn't cite any secondary sources about the tongue twisters, it won't be any better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It cites 2 sources:
          1. http://www.uebersetzung.at/twister/ This one is essentially the same as this one I mentioned above.
          2. http://www.nobi.or.jp/i/kotoba/hayakuchi/index.html This one is in Japanese, and lists various Japanese tongue-twisters.

        --Endroit 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • Also, I found this nice wiki site in French (not related to Wikipedia), which we can use as well.--Endroit 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Alves Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Opinions had changed from delete & keep to merge. Closing as delete prevents a merge from occurring. John Vandenberg 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. A tough choice, but the dicussion was a valid AfD (seems to on consensus, over 5 days). Of course, I can userfy if you wish. Sr13 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge. Consensus to delete was not present. No consensus and merge would have been more reasonable conclusions than delete. Arguments to delete did not consider options to merge, and references to WP:N ignored its applicable section on merging. --SmokeyJoe 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion looks like a reasonable interpretation of the debate. --pgk 06:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Part of a mass of arburthnotcruft - mostly with circular referencing or to the creator's own site. The merge target may be dubious as well, so I suggest we let the deletion stand.--Doc^g 07:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify, in Kittybrewster's space if he wants it. A redirect does not require DRV, and I recall the data here as limited. Kittybrewster's documents are mostly online. (I see several deletes after merge was suggested.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Notable enough. Don't go calling it arbuthnotcruft - WTF?? --Axflower 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor account has been blocked indefinitely as a troll (see Axflower (talk · contribs)). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why do we need to overturn to permit the rewriting of the small amount of usable content within a Arbuthnot family article? DGG 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there has been a spat of Afds of Kittybrewer's contributions. I would prefer to see the history of this article underneath the "John Alves Arbuthnot" redirect rather than a redirect without a history; that way the content is accessible after all of these Afds have finished. Note that Arbuthnot family is also up for deletion, so its hard to know where to merge this content at the moment. John Vandenberg 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, but userify if wanted. The discussion was wide-ranging and polarised, but at the end there was a clear swing towards delete which makes that the best interpretation of the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, agree with BrownHairedGirl's reading of the debate. Eusebeus 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hadouken! (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Band that's been deleted for non-notability too many times to count. 39 Google News hits over the last month, more in the archives, and some crazy buzz seem to indicate that this needs a proper look. No clue what was behind the most recent deletion, however - certainly some of the A7s were worthy, but I think this needs a proper hearing. badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak undelete and AfD. Seem to be getting some buzz in reliable sources, most natable NME. I'd feel a bit stronger about undeleting if they had more than just one single released though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, as I'm undecided. The last version (among others) was of the variety of Hadouken! is a British independent punk rock band. They release their singles on their MySpace page. with links to Myspace, Blogger, Youtube, and the sort, and might reasonably have met A7. While I can't say if the band would pass WP:MUSIC, if someone can create an adequate version, then it is much less likely to be speedied; alternatively, while using AfD as cleanup might not be proper, perhaps listing the "least-A7ish" version there will one way or another settle this once and for all. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete (basically just allow recreation since the article is currently protected, using whatever content from the deleted versions is useful). But the deleted versions looked to be referenced to official site, MySpace and a Youtube video... if that's not improved the article is AFD bait still. --W.marsh 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore for sourced expansion - GNews hits seem compelling, I think this one deserves a look. As per Kinu, it needs more than "a British band which releases on MySpace" though. FCYTravis 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - for the record, I do not mind taking the lead on this one if it ends up being restored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unprotected for recreation - do you want the deleted revisions, or just start from scratch? FCYTravis 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A deleted history could work, as long as it's understood that I won't be getting to it for a few hours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I didn't expect you to drop everything ;) FCYTravis 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Clearly they're the next King of the Slums. ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Somehow this article was deleted. Will an administrator please restore it? Thanks.—Who123 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, and never has been, deleted. Petros471 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Since last I was there, the infobox on the right displaces the words so far down that I thought the article was gone. Can this be fixed? Thanks.—Who123 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All set. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Lost on Jeopardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I Lost On Jeopardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also recreated/speedied at this location)

Noteworthy, charting single by Weird Al Yankovic. Chart information was included, yet still inappropriately speedied. Keep in mind as well, A7 does not allow for the speedying of songs. badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore instantly. No basis of any kind for deletion. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Undelete Even if CSD covered songs, that a single charted is a certainly a reasonable claim of importance. Anyway precedent is that we redirect songs by notable artists to the album if nothing else, but this is a relatively well known song with a claim of importance... nothing wrong with a standalone article here, unless you think we need to save a few kilobytes on the server (which we don't need to do). --W.marsh 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The fact that this single charted, and is by a very notable person means that there was no basis to delete this, I really doubt we need to run it through AfD either. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Charted hit by notable artist, but as I can't see whether the original article made any claims of notability, I can't judge whether the article should be undeleted or not, but I do support its existence. Corvus cornix 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this, I'm changing my comments to overturn, but it needs considerable cleanup. Corvus cornix 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no basis for speedy deletion. Article provided adequate information for a stub, indicated the chart position, etc. Tag with a cleanup or expand if needed to bring up to the level of all of the other Weird Al singles. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored speedily per WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a clearly notable meme, and has been mentioned in the following sources:

• Daily Record
• Daily Star (in October 2005, December 2005, March 2006, July 2006, September 2006
• Leicester Sound's website - a full mention of The Game (Game) written by Naomi Kent.

This should not have been deleted. Blastwacher 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Bandaids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is notable, having been covered in the Southport Visiter back in April this year, a full article, and it was a non-trivial mention. it meets your web criteria. Drassan33 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The Southport Visiter is a local paper, and even if we ignored that it still takes multiple sources for it to have a snowball's chance at AfD. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, original AfD closed properly (consensus citing WP:WEB vs. one keep !vote which did not provide much substance). As for the recreation, the entire content was: "Avril Bandaids is the worlds biggest Avril Lavigne fan site." Indeed, speedy was justifiable as either a G4 and/or A7 for lacking assertion of notability, as it contained less than the originally deleted article. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The deleted articles really weren't much, as has been said above. If this site does have reliable coverage, feel free to create a new article mentioning that. --W.marsh 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nothing worth keeping DGG 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One mention in one newspaper isn't enough to satisfy WP:WEB, so I can't see much point to reopening the discussion. Endorse deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, a single source isn't enough to sustain a full Wikipedia article. It may be worth noting that nominator is a single-purpose-account with only one edit (this nomination). I have some serious questions about the motivation behind this nomination. Xtifr _tälk 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to delete. The consensus was to clean up. 84.70.25.207 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's probably worth taking a look at "Deletion - Pub Standards" on my talk page. I also note that I should have made a more detailed comment about being willing to userfy on the afd, as I was thinking at the time of closure this may well be the best solution. As I've since done this, and I don't believe the article should have been kept in its state at time of deletion, I stand by my closure of delete (of course if an improved article is produced, that should be considered separately). Petros471 10:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the article has no cited sources that would meet our notability criteria. Since its been moved to user space the author is free to work on it until it meets the notability criteria, at which time it could be moved back to Pub standards. Gwernol 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's own guidelines: Notability is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. *However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.* 84.70.25.207 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't just notability. Notability is more a side issue of verifiability, which is a core policy on Wikipedia. Petros471 10:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. WP:V on one side, WP:ILIKEIT on the other. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, consensus was not to cleanup. The keep !voters provided WP:ILIKEIT votes and a few out-of-context block quotes of policies and guidelines without backing them up with WP:RS. The deleting admin was correct to discount those in favor of those who cited WP:V (i.e., the nominator and Scientizzle). The DRV nominator has not provided any indication that these sources are available, and there is no evidence that this AfD was closed in bad faith, or due to lack of such information. At any rate, it exists in userfied form, WP:SOFIXIT there and we'll go from there. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, but allow recreation iff reliable sources are provided. Corvus cornix 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse If it is notable, there will be sources & then it can be re-created. DGG 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a new article if reliable sources are provided. There were unsubstantiated claims at the AfD that reliable sources existed, but no examples were provided, neither there nor here. As it is, closer correctly based deletion on a lack of verifiability, which completely trumps any "I Like It" opinions. (I prefer the clear-and-simple "opinions" to the obscure and possibly-misleading "!votes".) Opening a deletion review without bringing us any of these purported sources to consider is simply a waste of everyone's time. Xtifr _tälk 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As soon as the "numerous secondary sources" mentioned in the AfD materialize, the article can be recreated quite easily. Until then, I don't see that there's anything more to talk about. Endorse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Slava 7.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Slava 7.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted as not having a source. But I remember that I traced source of a slava-related image (though I am not sure if this was the one) and in any way I think I can trace the source of this one. Could the image be undeleted so that I could see what it is and add the source? Nikola 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This image has been deleted too long ago for being restorable. The upload summary is however still available, and says: "Slavski Kolach, Koljivo (Zito) & Slava Candle. From a Serbian Orthodox Slava." Tizio 11:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is the one. In other words, a perfectly valid image deleted with no good reason :( Nikola 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse without prejudice against a re-upload with proper tagging (since undeletion is apparently no longer possible). According to the logs, this was deleted for the lack of source and/or copyright information. That is a good reason for deletion: a very good reason. We cannot allow images to sit around indefinitely, hoping that someone will eventually clarify their status, and since so many copyvios are uploaded on a daily basis, the presumption has to be copyvio unless a clear statement to the contrary is made. If you can provide a clear statement showing that this is not a copyvio and not a replaceable fair-use image, then you can probably upload a replacement, but without such a statement, it will simply be deleted again. Note: if this really can't be undeleted, there's probably not much point in keeping this review open any longer. Xtifr _tälk 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Magichar 06:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Originally entered article as "HarrisonGreenbaum" - reentered it as "Harrison_Greenbaum" when I realized that you need "_" for the title to have a space in it (first time ever writing an article!). Both got deleted because it was viewed as spam attempt. I should also emphasize that the subject is clearly notable; article's description of subject's accomplishments indicated why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magichar (talk • contribs) — Magichar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Endorse deletion. No, the subject is not "clearly notable", the article makes clear he's still at college and the only references are his own website and MySpace. Magichar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly the subject, and it would be pretty astonishing if ComedyFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not turn out to be the same person. Valid WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11, also fails WP:AUTO / [{WP:COI]]. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Looking at the deleted version, I would have speedied it too: it was pretty clear A&/G11, unencyclopedic tone, no reliable sources, etc... basically a textbook example of a speediable vanity article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/endorse my deletion: this was a classic CSD A7, the only references provided were to Myspace/Youtube, and there was no claim of notability other than "local comic" etc. The author-nominator's claim of "clearly notable" is trumped by lack of WP:RS, suspicion of WP:SPA/WP:COI, and using an admitted sockpuppet account to avoid additional warnings. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse yea a link to a myspace should make it clear. Bulldog123 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So far the comments used to argue for deletion have been flawed: most entries about stand-up comics include links to MySpace pages, Bulldog, and the comic is notable (as evidence by the awards he has won). Also, the article was modeled on several comics; its tone clearly reflects the tone of other Wikipedia articles about comics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magichar (talk • contribs).
  • The Myspace link makes little difference one way or another (although it is a bit of a "red flag", perhaps). What does matter is that the article did not assert notability of its subject and presented no reliable sources. The closest the article came to assering notability was a vague "numerous magic awards" claim... if we do a little digging, we can find why it's so vague: this page claims the "awards" in question are Senior Stage finalist, Camper of the Year 2005 (!) from "Tannen's Magic Camp", which it turns out is a magic summer camp for kids and teens (!!). Come on, now. Please read WP:BIO, and it should be obvious why this page was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sonshi did a one-to-one interview with the author, authorized by the author, and yet the link was deleted. Other similar links were also deleted today and the reason given was "spam" even though those links were SPECIFIC to the author articles and they link to SPECIFIC and AUTHENTIC interviews with the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs) -->

I removed linkspam, I didn't delete this article. This doesn't belong on deletion review. Should anyone care to see the link I removed, please see the above editor's contributions (filled with spamming that website into articles) as well as the deletion logs for Sonshi which the editor created five times. It was an article about the website he/she was spamming into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links deleted weren't spam. They were legitimate links to REAL interviews with the authors. This is content. Your reason for it being spam because they were "numerous." Sorry but Sonshi.com had numerous UNIQUE interviews. Anyone who just look at the links you deleted can see it is content, not some promotional page. See page http://www.sonshi.com/wilson.html link that IrishGuy deleted. Is this spam? I don't think so. Since you brought it up, I created the Sonshi profile 5 times because I had no idea you were deleting them. Sonshi is a real group in Atlanta area like the other organizations in wiki listed now.

I did this deletion review because you suggested it. See our discussion on your talk page.

It just seems to me you only saw "numerous" edits and assumed they were spam but they're NOT. Next time I would suggest you check the links before you deleted all of the links added to the SPECIFIC authors' articles, authors who authorized Sonshi to do an interview with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

As noted repeatedly on my talk page (and another editor agreed) you were mass adding links to a single website to numerous articles. That is spam. I gave you a warning on your talk page every single time I deleted that article. You even replied to me. Don't pretend you didn't know I was deleting them. You were using Wikipedia to advertise that website. Deletion review is to review the deletion of articles, not the removal of links in an article. All of this has already been explained to you. IrishGuy ^talk 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I'm "advertising" the site is unfounded. I'm not associated with the site other than participate in their message boards. The links from each author's article you deleted goes to an interview on Sonshi.com done with the author themselves, like Wilson's here http://www.sonshi.com/wilson.html . Wiki users would want to know more about Wilson by this interview. But you are saying it's spam. Are you saying because there were many of them, you broadbrush it and say they are spam? Why are real human beings needed here? You might as well get robots to delete anyone who adds more than 3 links in the same day. But that wouldn't make any sense as your case right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

Again, this is not what deletion review is for. I have already pointed out the guidelines at WP:SPAM and we have had a long conversation on my talk page...where another editor agreed you were spamming. This is not the place for this. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me where I can get a review of you deleting the links!

Can people here please tell me that http://www.sonshi.com/wilson.html is considered spam? Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think I am. I found the interview to be very good and learned alot about the author. So I added the link on wiki. Sorry if you think I'm spamming wiki but really I'm not. I would request my prior deletions be added back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaah (talk • contribs)

I've wasted 2 hours of my time dealing with this and the resolution process is cumbersome at best. I'm not wasting any more time here. You guys can do whatever. Wiki is not what it's cracked up to be that's for sure. IrishGuy, I know you mean well and I have nothing against you personally (I love the Irish because I'm one myself!) but I would strongly suggest next time you start deleting you check the links. If you think that Wilson author interview page is spam then your definition is much different from mine. Good luck to you.

List of Muslims involved in a crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This list was created so people like Osama Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta could be grouped together. When we have List of Muslim writers and poets, I dont see why there's a problem with List of Muslims involved in a crime. Some people suggested a rename to List of Islamist terrorists. This is a useful research tool for people researching on Islamist terrorism. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by deleting admin: I speedied this (pretermitting an AfD debate, which I would normally not do, but this situation seemed clear to me) on the ground that a list of this nature is inherently divisive and offensive. Wikipedia should not contain List of Muslims involved in a crime, nor List of Jews involved in a crime, List of Roman Catholics involved in a crime, List of Episcopalians involved in a crime, List of Mennonites involved in a crime, List of Hindus involved in a crime, List of atheists involved in a crime, List of agnostics involved in a crime, List of pagans involved in a crime, and so on. I am normally about as "inclusionist" an administrator as one is likely to find, but creating lists of this nature is an open-ended invitation to constant edit-warring and the expression of hatred. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, how about a List of Islamist terrorists then? My aim isnt to create divisions or hatred, it is to group together all these people who were motivated Islamically (as is explained in Islamist terrorism). Is there any way to do this? Here's my main point: Is it too much to ask for a page where Osama Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta can be listed together? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A List of Islamist terrorists, provided it's well-sourced and composed of only those people who have been convicted of acts of terrorism motivated by Islamist ideologies, would be an entirely different page than a list of every Muslim who has ever committed a crime. I suggest creating such a page and seeing what happens. FCYTravis 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll think about that.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further clarification: I would support the existence of a well-sourced and policed List of Islamist terrorists. That is a list which can be complete, verified and bears a properly defined and rational relationship to a topic of encyclopedic interest; to wit, Islamist terrorism. FCYTravis 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the caveat that such a list would probably inspire (a) an article called List of Christian terrorists, and look at the edit war that is Christian terrorism, and (b) an article called List of Jewish terrorists and we can all predict what's going to happen with that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Not really a POV fork, and an unfortunate consequence of current American attitude in a lot of ways. If it should be deleted, it should be deleted based on the consensus of editors, not of one. I understand Brad's action in this, and while I'm sympathetic, it was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy - To allow this article to stand would set a really really really bad precedent that would invite and probably demand creation of all of the above lists. FCYTravis 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if a consensus of editors decided that this was a precedent worth having, then we really couldn't complain. That's not a discussion for here, though. What speedy criteria did this meet, since you're endorsing this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speedy criteria that says listing a pile of disparate people together who have nothing more in common than the fact that they A. committed a crime and B. believe in <God/Allah/Bob/Buddha/goldfish/Darwin/nothing> is the height of insanity. A List of Islamist terrorists is an entirely different (and defensible) matter. FCYTravis 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So there's no legitimate defense. Gotcha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • G10, possibly? Incidentally, CSD T1 is for "Divisive or inflammatory" templates - there should be a G-category equivalent, I reckon, as G10 isn't quite the same. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • G10? No, it doesn't attack anyone. T1 is for templates for good reason, and should never be expanded past that due to its inherent subjectivity (t1 suffers in the same way). Here's an idea - how about actually overturning bad speedy deletions as opposed to attempting to retrofit an existing criterion on to make us feel better? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, trying to shoehorn a patently irrelevant criterion would be pretty pointless, but I do think the article, furthering as it does a POV agenda against a group of people, is debatably in G10 territory. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and delete not speedy, but would be a bad article to keep. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An article of this type is not suitable for Wikipedia. There are literally millions of people of any given religion involved in crimes. If recreated it will be deleted. For the record I strongly object to those who take this utterly fatuous, trollish listing for review seriously. Wake up! --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy, because no AfD could fail to delete. That we're even arguing about this speaks volumes. What's next, List of articles that aren't encyclopedic but don't fit a specific deletion criteria, so keep because we haven't self-flagellated enough this week? Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to clean the trolls out of the temple, perhaps? --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't be the only one who doesn't think this has a strong chance of being a worthwhile article. This is not some bizarre, worthless concept. Pathetic and disturbing, yes, but not worthless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if we create a parallel list for Christians. I've got the police blotter from today's paper in front of me. I've got some drunk drivers, probation violators, meth lab operators, etc. Pretty usual stuff for this part of the country. From their last names they're probably all Christians. Whether they're all notable I leave up to you. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Christian crime is a topic that has play, then we absolutely should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, pray tell, is Christian crime? What defines "Christian crime" as opposed to "a crime committed by a Christian?" FCYTravis 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Damned if I know, I fail to see how that's relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, being NPOV, shouldn't we add Muslims convicted of offences under sharia law too? This is patently absurd - why are we discussing this. Stop it!--Doc^g 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Go for it! And why are we discussing this? Because we never got the opportunity the first time. And this isn't the forum to discuss what you're bringing up anyway, that's for the AfD that should have occurred. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy This is not a suitable article for Wikipedia. Whether or not it has the potential to be a worthwhile article, what it would actually become is a battleground for edit-warring and POV-pushing. As an example, given the fuss that this far less contentious article produced, I believe the administrator made the right choice here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - closing admin does not state a legitimate speedy deletion rationale. "Offensive" is not a speedy criterion and neither is "divisive." While this article should definitely be deleted on a number of grounds, it does not qualify for speedy deletion and the admin went far out of process here. Otto4711 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a game. We do not do things merely to say that we did everything exactly according to the rules. What you are arguing is process for process' sake, and that is a concept which has been thoroughly rejected time and time again. FCYTravis 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't suggest following process for the sake of process. Allowing this speedy deletion to stand serves as precedent for giving admins a license to speedily delete anything they don't like under the guise of "protecting" us from the "offensive" and "divisive." I would prefer that admins not have such a license. Otto4711 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not anarchy, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Otto's point would have greater merit if the community (1) did not trust me and other administrators to use good judgment and delete on this type of basis only in clear situations, and (2) did not trust itself to reverse any unwarranted deletions that might occur. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, but this must have its scope restricted to people who use Islam as their justification for crimes. -Amarkov moo! 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy of this inherently unencyclopedic article. Nandesuka 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy, at least under this title. Does the author expect us to include every Muslim shoplifter, jaywalker, or money launderer? That would be highly unencyclopedic material. Biruitorul 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy, totally unencyclopedic, basically worthless information, offensive concept. A list of Islamist terrorists is one thing, but a list of "Muslims involved in a crime" is, forgive my bluntness, stupid. K. Lásztocska 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of this indiscriminate list under CSD G10: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity." This was just an attack page against Muslims, and, contrary to Matt57's claims that it was designed to discuss Islamic-motivated terrorism, it contained people like Mike Tyson whose crimes had nothing at all to do with that. Furthermore, as noted above, allowing this would set the precedent for dozens of other mischeivous lists. *** Crotalus *** 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as G10 (or WP:SNOW if nothing else will do.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gah, keep deleted.--Doc^g 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. WP:SNOW undoubtedly applies: WP:OR, gross failure of WP:NPOV, clearly exists solely in order to promote an agenda, chronic WP:BLP problems, indiscriminate (Involved? To what extent? Crime? Of what severity? Muslims? Why not Methylated Wesletarians?). There is no encyclopaedic topic "muslims involved in crime", so a list to support such a topic is by definition problematic. As the debate above implies, this is a perfect example of something we just don't need. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting 7 statements which are either patently untrue, or entirely debatable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I counted far more than that, and that was in the deleted version which FCYTravis had already purged of quite a few blatantly unsourced ones. Oh, wait, you mean you're accusing me of lying, right? Well screw you. I saw the deleted content, and it was shit. Pure, unmitigated, unrelieved, venomous, worthless, POV-pushing shit. Pick a group against whom you have an irrational hatred, collect together the names of some people you heard somewhere belong to that group, scan the list for anything that looks less than squeaky-clean, Bob's your uncle, one article. You know something? Sometimes you give inclusionists a bad name. Why the fuck would we want to undelete this festering heap of faeces and then debate it for five days before doing the inevitable (just as we have with other similar articles in the past? What good does that do? Do you genuinely think the encyclopaedia is well-served by putting Mike Tyson and Osama Bin Laden ina list just to show how evil Islam is? I despair, Jeff, I really do. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this thingy on my watchlist? There has to be a rational explanation. At any rate, the edit summary certainly cuaght my attention. JzG, I don't know what's going on, but deep breath, please! Aim at a more diplomatic delivery. Thanks in advance. El_C 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa whoa whoa. I'm not accusing you of lying at all, you don't have a history of lying. I am saying that I think you're entirely misled on a number of issues concerning this situation. Be frustrated with me if you want, but inclusionists can't have a good name around here anyway, considering the hostility. I don't think this is an inevitable deletion, sorry, and I certainly don't think a) you're a liar, or b) that you're correct on this. C'mon man, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I am probably about as strong an "inclusionist" as there is in the administrator corps. I have said before and will say again that I think we spend far too much institutional time policing the borderlines of notability and eliminating viable, if non-critical, content about local bands and high schools and webcomics. But obsessive absolutism here, as in anything else in life, is no virtue. By going down in flames in another Brian Peppers-like debacle, you do the cause of expansive inclusion no favors. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, these are exactly the articles we have to defend if we have any chance of making this into what it can be. Maybe a true consensus will actually form that this isn't useful, but your deletion has precluded any chance of us coming to one here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff - no. These are precisely the sorts of articles you should not touch with a ten foot pole, because your defence of this article discredits inclusionists. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I haven't decided how I stand on this article, like E_C, this was on my watchlist and I was amazed by the edit summary comment. JzG/Guy, that kind of foul language does nothing to support your case and only emphasizes your incivility as opposed to supporting your position. --Oakshade 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it demonstrates my lack of tolerance of trolling. Jeff has apologised: that was very mature. But he is still, I think, defending this content, which is indefensible. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff is not a troll and no matter how much you dislike someone's position is, it in no way justifies incivility or an edit like you did here. If it's "indefensible," demonstrate you are above it than below it.--Oakshade 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, blatantly unacceptable. What does 'involved' even mean? Do victims count? Christopher Parham (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted totally unsuitable article. -- Nick ^t 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; totally unmaintainable, and WP:IAR speedy in this case was correct. Tizio 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully endorse speedy deletion - I realize the wikipedia is huge, but I'm continuously amazed at how such obviously racist-motivated lists such as this manage to exist for so long in the first place. Tarc 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. Actually, this list was created yesterday and deleted yesterday, so while your concern may be well-placed in the general case, in this instance I think we did okay. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh, sorry. Most of the AfD's for contentious articles seem to be over ones that have been around for awhile, it seems. Congrats on nipping one in the bud early. Tarc 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion of badly drawn article.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I shouldn't be assuming anything here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, this is about the strongest endorsement of a Snowball clause deletion I've ever seen. Time to snow-close this one, perhaps. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm strongly opposed to this, especially considering the deletion was entirely improper, and the endorsers have yet to address that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The many endorsers have addressed it by endorsing the deletion. It follows that the deletion was not improper. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A mob of editors are not able to overturn long-standing and widely-accepted speedy-deletion policy. Your logic doesn't follow. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is a longer standing policy even than of the CSD. An IAR deletion homolegated by evident consensus is perfectly in line with policy and process. You seem to be dreaming of another wikipedia - 'Planet Jeffopedia' (to locate it - try the second fork on the left)--Doc^g 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by IAR, I can just restore it, right? Who's gonna stop me if I'm improving the encyclopedia, right? IAR doesn't take precedence over consensus, and IAR was never intended to be a "screw everyone else" measure. I'm not being rude with you, I would very much appreciate the same in return. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Newyorkbrad used IAR because he believed that sane people would support a deletion - evidently, he was right - consensus is endorsing his act. To restore this by IAR would be bad faith - as it is evident that consensus is against undeletion.--Doc^g 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll unfortunately never see a consensus at this page. DRV has no actual mission at the moment, and people aren't going to run the AfD here. A restoration would be in as good faith as the deletion was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. And you know it.--Doc^g 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't think so. No clue on the contents of this article, but I definitely see this as an encyclopedic topic, as disgusting as the idea is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleeeeeeeeease give me some hope, Jeff, and tell me that you don't actually believe creating lists for every religion of its adherents who have committed any crime, from vandalism to mass murder, is a valid encyclopedic pursuit. FCYTravis 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that no action is going to take place here, it's not clear what speedy closure would accomplish. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would provide a conclusive and expeditious end to a debate in which the participants have already made up their minds. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So you'll be helping to restore this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be making sure that anyone who attempts to restore it will be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'll be making sure that anyone who stands in the way of a recreation is stopped. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  On Encyclopedia Dramatica, perhaps. But trolling stops here. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This probably isn't funny enough for them, but I have no clue why you'd bring that up, nor can I see anyone who's trolling here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Per all the relevant arguments above. --Folantin 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume what everyone is really discussing is List of notable Muslims involved in a crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not the redirect at this title? Right? Endorsing deletion of the redirect while the target is deleted is a slam dunk under WP:CSD. The actual article isn't a slam dunk under any of the CSD, but it is obvious that the article title was wrong. So make one or more of the encyclopedic variants (list of convicted islamist terrorists, etc...), and if the history of this would be helpful, give it a content review. In the final version, the only unsourced folks are the 9/11 hijackers that were aboard one of the planes, and it seems pretty obvious to me that that list is sourcable with trivial effort. We also have the list/category debate to consider, which I normally try hard to avoid. Suffice it to say, I believe Wikipedia is better off without an article at this title, although the content may be useful for a more reasonable title. Seek consensus on what that title ought to be, but don't restore at this title. GRBerry 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, exactly. A List of Islamist terrorists could be sourced and verified based on convictions and admissions of guilt, and would be an entirely different matter - of course it will still open the door for edit-war city at List of Jewish terrorists, List of Christian terrorists, et al., but those are at least potentially coherent and workable lists. FCYTravis 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was delete both List of notable Muslims involved in a crime and the redirect from List of Muslims involved in a crime. The AfD was at the latter title, but by the time I deleted, the article was at the former. I deleted both. Newyorkbrad 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:BEANS. Heather 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist' for the full time. Though it seems obvious that it will be deleted, the best way of handling this is to go all the way through in the conventional way--interrupting for a speedy--as seen--just adds to the length of he debate. DGG 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Allowing this to exist for five days would just add to the length of the edit war over who could be listed on a page titled List of notable Muslims involved in crime. FCYTravis 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion unless the list is heavily sourced with reliable third-party sites. It must also be acceptable under th terms of the WP:BLP. Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion my voice is at this point redundant, but I add it anyway. There is no logical link at all between the intersecting categories.Proabivouac 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilderspin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject clearly notable; article made it clear. Reliable and independent reviews/sources. Non- amateur organist. Does a lot in the area so is notable. Was only nominated in the first place in conjunction with a page (Ian Venables) which was subsequently kept. Page not a stub, spam or offensive. Good quality with pictures etc. Edited by multiple users. Had links to and from the page. Had already survived one debate. Dewarw 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. Appropriately notable; no real rationale for deletion. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, do not relist. I think the undue focus on the mud-slinging regarding possible "single purpose accounts" and "conflicts of interest" clouded the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep - Properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. FCYTravis 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh? Am I missing something? Perhaps the AfD should have been let run, but there's nothing encyclopedic here and no reason to undelete.--Doc^g 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  My read of the AFD is that he may be notable to WP:BIO standards (due to available sourcing), but my read of the article history is that the article didn't bother to demonstrate that. Which means that I have a hard time figuring out what the right thing to do with this one, so I'm sitting on the fence. GRBerry 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah I'm not seeing that he meets WP:BIO. The closest thing to a non trivial source [3], seems to focus almost entirely on the music program in the church. All of the other mentions of him in print are also trivial when you get down to it, basically they just mention he'll be playing or accompanying organ somewhere and that's it. Great if we were creating a directory of this guy's performances, but that's not an encyclopedia article. I am leaning towards saying it was a good close. --W.marsh 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Dewarw attends the same school at which this man works (he has admitted this to me here), and has been extremely zealous in his support for both this article and that of Ian Venables, a composer of very little notability. The latter article survived its AFD because Dewarw used both his account and an anonymous IP address to spam the debate with positive arguments: a tactic he used again with the Wilderspin debate (as you can see in its records). I won't go over the arguments again (they are in the AFD debate which was decided as a delete) but this man is clearly not notable in any sense. He is just using this as a substitute for an AFD which did not go the way he wanted, and the original decision should stand. If you can source the fact that any musician has performed somewhere, then we would have practically every musician who has played an instrument on wikipedia: that is clearly not what the notability criteria are about; it must be more than just using some local newspapers to prove that he has played an instrument. I wonder why Dewarw spends so much effort on this: he clearly cares very much about these articles, which would suggest more of a personal attachment to the people involved than something objective or encyclopedic. By the way, in the first (group) debate, he was hardly mentioned and it was a 'no consensus'. Clavecin 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mud-slinging. Look closely at Dewarw's behaviour (and that of the IPs on the debate):

Special:Contributions/81.158.2.82

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=84.68.170.87&namespace=

The former IP address started out when I proposed Ian Venables for speedy deletion, then posted overwhelming positive comments in all the AFDs (Venables, Wilderspin). The latter IP address has only been used to edit the debate about John Wilderspin and something about Ian Venables, with similar positive comments - additionally, he claimed:

Keep: John Wilderspin is very famous. I'm a vicar from Florida and i've heard of his organ playing. It's on a CD i recorded at home. How can you delete such a good musician? 84.68.170.87 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) - when, if you do a search on the IP address, it is located in England:

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?domain=84.68.170.87

So this user is lying to try and win the argument. And he left multiple keep opinions, a few unsigned, the other using different IPs and his username, something he did in the earlier 'Ian Venables' debate. This is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. This was just fairly pointed out by me and another user. Clavecin 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am afraid that I must comment on Calvecin's comments. I completely deny the fact that I have been spamming the debate. Just because there are a few single purpose accounts/ IP addresses, you cannot assume that they are mine. A far as I am concerned they could have easily been made up by other people to make me look like a spammer. Obviously none of this can be proved- so I would like to request that this "mud slinging" is stopped by Calvecin and others, and that we continue with the content of the article, which at the end of the day is the most important thing to concentrate on! i reject to being accused in this pathetic way! As for the article, as above! Dewarw 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• About the "vicar" comment. Although I still deny putting it on Wiki, it could still be true! The vicar could have been in the UK at the time- people do travel. For this reason, and others as above, I would like to ask that all these pathetic arguments are ignored, along with all the so called "spam comments" if you wish to. My "legitimate" comments provide enough reasons why this page should be un-deleted! Dewarw 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Regarding the vicar's comment: firstly, Americans do not usually call themselves 'vicar': it is a British English word; Americans generally use 'pastor' or 'priest'. Secondly, the IP this came from (in England) is completely single-use with regards to Wikipedia. The uses have been only to contribute to the Wilderspin debate and to edit Dewarw's article on Ian Venables. Really, what are the chances? Clavecin 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Detailed Reply: Regarding this IP address: 81.158.2.82: up to the time it contributed to the Wilderspin debate, it had been single-use on Wikipedia: to contribute to Dewarw's Ian Venables article and the deletion debates related to his articles, and to Dewarw's school's article. And look here, three minutes after Dewarw comments, this IP comments, in the same debate [4] and then about ten minutes later, Dewarw again. Similarly here, Dewarw is followed by the IP after four minutes [5] and one minute later Dewarw edits again. And then the other IP address which I mentioned above, the 'vicar' comment, 84.68.170.87, removes the 'unsigned' tags I put on some of Dewarw's contributions before Dewarw replaces them with his own signed tags three minutes later (as he realises he has to sign in to do that): [6] The same minute, the IP adress returns to sign the 'vicar from Florida' comment with that IP address: [7] He even tries to make himself look like an established user by adding the name 'vicar 220', but this does not work, so Dewarw deletes it a minute later: [8]One of the comments added turns out to be another single-use account: Special:Contributions/W.j.matthews editing Dewarw's articles only and whose first edit was on the Wilderspin deletion debate: he is similarly closely connected with Dewarw's edits: [9] and [10]. Yes, technically this may all be coincidence, but really, what are the chances? The evidence is there for all to see. Just go step-by-step through the edit history on the Wilderspin debate: These accusations are well founded. The reason I am focussing on spamming of the debate is because everyone else in the debate was in favour of deletion, apart from Dewarw and these IPs. This is why the page was deleted, and we have already had that discussion on AFD, plus I went over the main points again above. If the IPs and Dewarw are all the same person, then this review must be closed and the page deleted. If anyone reading agrees with my assessment and evidence above, it is clear that Dewarw's behaviour here has been unacceptable and goes against the principles on which this encyclopedia and community operates. Clavecin 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Firstly, this is not AfD, round two. The AfD, after SPAs were properly discounted (I'm not saying they had anything to do with the article's subject, I can't possibly know that, but whether they did or did not they should have been discounted) clearly reached consensus to delete. As for sources in the article, only the first one has any substance, and that one pretty much looks like human-interest type filler. The rest (including the long PDF) are just name-drops. There isn't sufficient sourcing for an article here. (However, I do advise Clavecin to watch the personal attacks. Misconduct by an editor, even if it does exist here, is never reason to delete an article anyway. At most it can be reason to invalidate an AfD and run it again.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Keep deleted/kill with stick, come on, clearly notable? This guy is basically a high school teacher cum local organist. This guy is no John Scott, or even John Bertalot, lord love him, a notorious self-promoter. He went on a choir tour and played at some big cathedrals - this is not a good assertion of notability. The sources are very local and the mentions not significant. Add to that that significant hunks of the article seem to be copyvio from at least one of the sources, it seems to be written by people with a strong connection to him, single purpose accounts, and I'd say it should also procedurally be a keep deleted. And killed. With a stick. Mak (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted He's a high school teacher who clearly - clearly! - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted on April 20 by Betacommand with the edit summary Deleting candidate for speedy deletion per CSD. This seemed odd to me because the article had been in existence since July (as confirmed by Image:Motherload game.JPG), and been of moderate length and detail. Established articles are usually not acceptable candidates for CSD, and it would seem more in process to prod or AfD the article. I asked Betacommand what CSD tag had been applied and why he chose to delete it, but he did not reply. Dar-Ape 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: this article was subsequently recreated and deleted several times: I suspect this is because people noticed it was missing, but the recreated versions did not establish notability as the original one did, and were thus speedily deleted. Dar-Ape 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw nomination in light of the opinions here expressed. Dar-Ape 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - Not sure where you get the idea that an article which has been around a while can't be a CSD, if it meets the criteria it meets the criteria. In this instance it was tagged as {{db-web}}, i.e. CSD A7. Looking through the article I can't see any assertion of notability. Just a description of the game and information that I can obtain it as a download or as a CD through the mail. --pgk 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I had a look at several different versions of the article and in none of the ones I looked at could I find any trace of notability or reliable sources. It's not by accident that this was deleted 4 times by 3 different admins: it's a pretty clear A7/nn-web-content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Not a single assertion of notability in the article. Not sure where the idea for a "it's been around for a while so no CSD" clause comes from. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Speedy in 'candidate for speedy deletion' means 'without discussion', not 'right after the article is created'. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: I checked out multiple versions of the article and all are of the ilk "MotherLoad is a game" followed by "here is a collection of indiscriminate information about the game." It says what it is, but has nothing that asserts notability, so a valid A7. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Foreign School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This 4th rank article as assessed by WikiProject Korea covered a fairly important content area. I do not understand why it was deleted (due to the fact that I was taking a short Wiki-Break) while similar articles such as Seoul International School or Korea International School were left untouched. Reason for deletion was: 'Does not assert notability, no independent source cited.' However I would like to point out that the rival schools, Seoul International School cites its yearbook, not a very verifiable source, while Korea International School has no sources at all. If this was the case, I truly apologize for taking such a long Wiki-Break. I should be able to give some sources, as necessitated by the proposal for deletion. Jason, (a message?) 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored it as a contested WP:PROD. It does need sourcing from reliable sources, the fact that other stuff exists in a similar poor state does not excuse it, this is a large project and perhaps no one has got around to fixing/deleting those yet. --pgk 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

was deleted at time we suspected spam so didn't change the text. Now I know you considered it blatant advertising, the text will be replaced but please unlock the page so reinstating it isn't prevented. the content will be written by someone else who didn't write the original and I will make sure it is certainly non-advetorial Seital 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Write it under userspace first, when your happy with it bring it back for review or ask an admin to do so and move it into place. --pgk 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You have a hill to climb here. It's been deleted eight times so far, every single version has been crap. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am worried that User:Seital seems to have a conflict of interest here. Corvus cornix 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (edit | [[Talk:User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Debate was wrongly closed as "delete", while no consensus existed and the majority of people who participated at the debate were against deletion (6 persons at last debate). This was the second nomination for deletion, the first was made by sockpuppeteer Mauco who cheated in the first debate (voted also through his sockpuppet Pernambuco who claimed to have "a neutral look"), however he was not succesfull in his attempt. After Mauco's sockpuppetry was discovered a person who participated at the first debate nominated it again for deletion, but he received no support and again the debate was closed without deletion. Then, the deletion nominator insisted for the relisting of the debate [11] explaining to the closing admin that this is "a sensible decision" for him and obtained the relisting of the debate. I wonder why a sandbox is so "sensible" for the deletion nominator, my guess is that this is part of a harrasment campaign against me linked with the arbitration case where I and the first deletion nominator sockpuppeteer Mauco are both involved and where the second deletion nominator is involved also through presenting "evidence" against me. Part of this harassment campaign against me is to label all those who share similar views with me as being my "political allies" (see the deletion nominator first comment) whose opinions are not worthy to be taken in consideration (in both debates the majority was against deletion however the result was "delete"). I mention also that I've used part of my sandbox in 4 different Wikipedia articles, I worked in the sandbox recently - in months April and May -, the claims that the sandbox is a copy of a deleted article are untrue, there were many sentences with their source which are usefull for my future edits in Wikipedia. Arguments for deletion are not based on Wikipedia policies, as even if some parts of my sandbox can be considered OR or don't follow NPOV (while this is debatable), those policies don't apply to userspaces. A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right for each wikipedian. Based on WP:USER, this sandbox was "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working" and it also contained some "opinions about Wikipedia". An other argument for deletion (brought by an other user involved in the arbitration case) was that the sandbox appear first in google searches for "transnistria propaganda" and "for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article". While this is only partially true (google.ro is not showing it in the first hits [12], in other languages it appear in the first hits [13], other search engines like altavista, yahoo, lycos, rambler, msn, are ignoring the sandbox), anyhow, this is not an argument based on Wikipedia policy to delete. Sandbox had also an userpage template, it doesn't look like an encyclopedic article. According to the deletion nominator I am a "single-purpose POV warrior and propagandist on Wikipedia" which should not be tolerated [14] but he already expressed this opinion at the above mentioned arbitration case and we should let the arbcom to decide if people like me will be tolerated in Wikipedia, not to claim an inexistent consensus against me (while the opposite is true, the majority was for keeping the sandbox). The closing admin is also a person with whom I had disputes, he is upset for the fact that I questioned his integrity before. I hope that in Wikipedia harassment campaigns will not be tolerated and all decisions will be taken based only on Wikipedia policy, in this case, mainly on WP:USER. MariusM 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user attempts to disrupt Wikipedia by turning it into a battlefieled and tries his best to tendenciously (and almost always longwindedly) push away uninvolved admins who try to keep the peace in the Transnitrian series of articles. It is, in part, the mode of discourse he has been acustomed to that there is an ongoing arbitration case. The user also seems to be under the mistaken impression that xfD is a vote, and looking below, it appears he isn't the only one (I try to correct him here and here). As for the page in question, it appears to be a simple replication of User:Dc76/Sandbox —which is at least structured like a workpage— with some recycled jokes and soapboxing commentary added in support (well, at least that appears to be the intent, although it's possible it's in opposition; I havne't looked close enough at it and I don't recall which side of Transnistrian dispute he's affiliated with, if at all — sorry, I've only been monitoring this dispute for a few weeks and am not entirely oriented as to all the actors, although MauriusM instantly & crudely labled me as being against his because I do not tolerate incivility and tendencious conduct which has the effect of perpetuating rather than diffusing a dispute). El_C 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, closing admin called this correctly: WP:SOAP. Wikipedia does not exist to host divisive and inflammatory personal content, and this was exactly that. It stood no chance of finding a place in the encyclopaedia, as a blatant POV fork. Please find another host for your soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn clearly no consensus. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reviewed the article and commend the closing admin for a bold and imho correct closure. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - there's plenty of free web hosts for this kind of thing. Endorse. --kingboyk 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP does not have full jurisdiction over userspace, as all userboxes can be seen as soapbox. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? applies, however. Corvus cornix 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid call on the basis of what was policy-based consensus. And WP:SOAP does have full jurisdiction, over elements in userspace that pose as articles, are allegedly meant to become articles, and previously were articles; as WP:USER very clearly states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question was neither a page poses as an article, nor a preparation for an article. It's a userpage essay. Essays are all soapboxes, and are allowed under WP:ESSAY, so WP:SOAP is excluded from jurisdiction over essays. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plain wrong. The user did claim he meant this to be a sandbox for a future article. And Userspace "Essays" are for essays about Wikipedia. WP:USER explicitly states you can't have political soapboxing essays on non-Wikipedia-related issues. Read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the purported "sandbox for future article" claim. Where is it? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had {{Workpage}} on top of it, and Marius kept calling it his "sandbox" and arguing about its value as material for incorporation in articles, in about a dozen places during the two weeks of debates here. In fact, he's saying that in his very nomination statement just above. Did you read it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has a Workpage template on top. One of the arguments for deletion used in the debate was that "for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article". The workpage template is exactly to answer this particular concern, making this argument for deletion invalid. To be mentioned that the template was already added when this particular concern was raised, I don't understand why was raised this concern, I know only that the person who raised it is also involved in the arbitration case.--MariusM 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? Try MauriusM's opening statement on the MfD. A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right ... [etc.] Hope that helps, Wooyi. El_C 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for being over-questioning, then I think the page may violate WP:USER. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and sorry for sounding curt on my side. I suppose it's just because this has been drawn out so ridiculously long, for such a trivial issue... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Deletion of userspace copies of deleted material that is not significantly being worked on is uncontroversial. I've done it myself recently under WP:CSD#G6. Reviewing the version deleted from article space in September and the recent user space versions, there has not been any significant work done in 8 months. As pointed out in the MfD this falls afoul of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, which is a policy based reason for deletion. GRBerry 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The sandbox is not 8 months old, check its history. We are not talking about 8 months of activity, but only about 2 months after the first debate. I explained why I didn't work so much at the sandbox, but in fact I had many edits on it in April and May. Unfortunately, the history of the sandbox is not visible anymore (at least for me, I don't know if admins can see it).--MariusM 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male bikini-wearing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 12#Men in skirts, this issue should be discussed too. It is clearly a notable thing, especially in the LGBT and gay communities (especially in the United Kingdom, Europe, North America and Australia). There are new sources that prove its notability. Kudos to Bards for discussing Men in skirts yesterday. This subject should be undeleted in its entirety for people to see. Previous discussion has been quelled as "trolling", but this isn't: it's a genuine attempt at discussion. DenmarkEuroB11 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The nomination and the "delete" votes were based on a faulty premise and the closing admin should have disregarded those !votes which misunderstood the nomination. The objection to the article was largely that the content of the allegations were "tabloid fodder." However, the content of the allegations is not a question that should be considered. The question that should be considered is whether there are reliable sources for the fact that the allegations were made, and there are. That people don't like the sources or the allegations is irrelevant to the sources themselves, and the sources that attest to the fact that the allegations were made are solid. WP:BLP concerns are irrelevant. The article was not asserting the truth of the allegations, simply the existence of them. That the allegations were made is undeniable and well sourced. The deletionists want the information purged completely from Wikipedia, including from Clay Aiken's article, because they find the allegations unsavory. I agree that the allegations are unsavory. That doesn't make them unfit for Wikipedia. The article passed every relevant policy and guideline and no reasonable deletion criterion was advanced. The admin should have discounted the invalid deletion rationales and kept the article. Otto4711 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The opinion that the sources are bad is certainly relevant to deletion, especially since BLP mandates removal of material which is poorly sourced. Allegations from unreliable sources can and should be deleted. -Amarkov moo! 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that if the article were asserting the truth of the allegations then the existing sourcing would be inadequate. But again, the truth of the allegations is not what is in question here. The existence of the allegations is. A recording of Paulus making the allegations exists (episode 3), so how can the existence of the allegations be in question? If the article had said, based on the existing sources, "Paulus had sex with Aiken" then I'd be the first guy there calling for its removal. The article is saying "Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken" and as verification of the fact that Paulus made the claim, the sources are solid. Otto4711 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not the way Wikipedia works - we are not a scandal sheet for living people, and we do not serve as a sounding board and amplifier for sleazy and salacious rumors or allegations not otherwise reported on or supported by other evidence. FCYTravis 07:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is not supposed to make value judgments about what is reported. Wanting an article deleted because its topic is "sleazy" or "salacious" is censorship and Wikipedia is not censored for good taste. Or at least it's not supposed to be. Otto4711 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - There is nothing to suggest that this is not simply another scandalous assertion made by some nobody looking to attach himself to someone famous. The sources are dubious in the extreme, and the matter is beyond trivial (whether or not Clay Aiken had sex with this guy is of absolutely no consequence to history.) Absent some evidence that this person isn't making it all up to get 15 minutes of fame in the tabloids, this has no place in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion I can't retrieve many of the original sources, but the NY Times one frequently refers to the National Enquirer as a source and uses the term "Alleged". I notice for the others they have been referred to as "Gossip Columns". Questions of reliability seem legitimate so closed properly. Also note WP:BLP "When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?" - hence the gossip columns and words like "Alleged". --pgk 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in--not the NY Times, the NY Post. -Jmh123 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have no understanding of standard journalistic practices. News outlets use the word "alleged" when talking about pretty much anything relating to living people that isn't legally fact. People on trial are "alleged" criminals prior to conviction, and so on. As for the reliability of the Enquirer as a source, it certainly seemed reliable enough to get Gary Hart out of the presidential race when it ran the Monkey Business photo, when it broke the story of Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child, its reportage of OJ Simpson's spousal abuse or of Rush Limbaugh's drug usage, and the Star was certainly reliable enough when it broke the Gennifer Flowers story and the Dick Morris story. Otto4711 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for telling me about my lack of knowledge. Being common practice makes it no less weasly, and in this case the whole thing is just that we're not willing to commit ourselves on this, it is gossip. Again WP:BLP we aren't a rumour mill or gossip column. --pgk 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Always glad to help dispel the ignorance of my fellow man, even when it obviously doesn't take the first time. The idea that the word "alleged" in a journalistic context is a "weasel word" is absurd and would come as news to every professor of journalism and journalistic ethics in the country. And one more time, we are not talking about an article discussing the truth of the allegations but the existence of them. What the problem is with taking that step back is I have no idea because it really doesn;t seem to be that complicated. It is uncontrovertable that the allegations exist and were reported on in reliable sources and all this turning up of one's nose at the notion of reporting on the existence of the allegations in the face of the amount of gossip that gets bandied about the articles here reeks of WP:BIAS. And for all the pointing at WP:BLP I have to wonder if those pointing to it have actually read it, as it says in relevant part If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Otto4711 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But these allegations aren't documented by reliable sources; you're making a bunch of arguments as to why it doesn't matter that there are no reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have yet to see something that indicates that a source which prints 100% accurate information is not a reliable source for that information. Otto4711 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a sarcastic response, not genuine thanks. I'm perfectly aware of journalistic practice, you seem to be confused between a word such as alleged being able to be used legitimately in some contexts and illegitimately (i.e. as a weasel word) in others, it isn't a one size fits all situation. This was a gossip column, the use of the word alleged was clearly a weasel term meaning we have absolutely zero confirmation only the story from a down market tabloid. If you can't see the difference between reporting on someone currently being charged with murder as an alleged murderer and that, then I give up now. Consider other situations of the word, a reporter for a reputable magazine does an interview with someone at which point an allegation comes out, the may report that as alleged as in they have a reasonable background to the allegation, here the source is not an interview it is a unreliable source, this is not a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes, as pointed out numerous times now this was written in "gossip columns", WP:BLP is quite clear on the standard of reliability, gossip doesn't cut it. --pgk 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please copy and paste the exact portion of WP:BLP or any other policy that says that gossip columns categorically can't be reliable sources. "Paulus alleged that he had sex with Aiken." That's an acceptable non-weasel use of the word "alleged" under any non-insane standard. How exactly would you suggest that a reporter report on an allegation without using the word "alleged"? And no, I don't see the completely phony distinction you're trying to draw between a report in a so-called "low-end gossip column" and a report elsewhere in the paper. What you're suggesting is that if the New York Times had a story on the front page and one on the gossip page both calling someone an alleged murderer the story on the front page is reliable and the story on the gossip page isn't. That's stupid. Sorry if that's uncivil or whatever, but that's just rock-freakin'-stupid. And I've already posted a link to an interview in which Paulus goes into great and specific detail about his allegations. If your standard is that the allegations have to be in the form of an interview, there they are. Otto4711 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The arguments of the delete votes ignored our guidelines. Being written about in the New York Post, People Magazine, MSNBC and the New York Daily News demonstrates notablity, whether it's "tabloid" news or not. If they're written about by very highly circulated publications, they're notable. The nature of their notabilty, like this person gleaming for attention with slanderous allagations, doesn't suddenly eraticate the media coverage this person has recieved. --Oakshade 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As the closer of the AfD, I believe that the discussion was closed per consensus and was not based on faulty premise and thus was an adequate close. The reports and rumors are all allegations, in which nothing can be proved from. Sr13 09:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, the truth of the allegations is not in question because the article did not assert the truth of them. The article discussed the existence of them. The question is not "are the allegations true." The question is "were the allegations made and are there reliable sources to that effect." The answer to that question is yes and any AFD nomination or !vote made on the basis of whether the allegations are true should be discounted. Otto4711 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Valid AfD with overwhelming consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per FCYTravis. AFD was completely valid and closed properly. --Coredesat 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON

The page was deleted because of a personal attack by your editors/users. The site has been on wikipedia for an extemely long time and only now is being deleted because:

How does a page go from being in wikipedia for years, to being speedy delete Is that really how wikipedia is run?

• Comment - I have removed personal attacks from this deletion review request. I have no opinion on the issue in question. FCYTravis 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infoboxneeded (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infoboxneeded|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't know if this template is a good idea for articles - I can see both sides of the argument - but I don't see the issue with putting it on talk pages. Even if Cyde knows it's irreparably bad, he shouldn't delete it; he should take it to templates for deletion. NE2 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Obviously an improper deletion that has now caused a broken template link on over 500 articles at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: the very assumption of the template is wrong. We don't need infoboxes. Danny 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So rename it. *shrug* Besides, that's simply your opinion, it certainly isn't the consensus of the project, not that a discussion has been had on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn this sort of deletion causes massive broken template links and makes a havoc, thus should not be done summarily. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn no reason this couldn't have gone to TFD... longstanding template that clearly didn't fall under any CSD. I disagreed with it being added to articles too (as opposed to talkpages, which was where it used to go) but that's not a reason to delete it. --W.marsh 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I speedily restored this, as it's used in literally thousands of pages. Now at TfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A quick glance at Google News suggests that enough reliable sources ([15] [16] [17]) exist to establish this future television channel's encyclopedicity. The project has been in gestation/vaporware forever, which I think only adds to the encyclopedic interest - is this the Duke Nukem Forever of TV channels? FCYTravis 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Was at The Baseball Channel until today, in fact. Should have never remained deleted anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn The AfD should have been continued, as the discussion there was being outdated by events. DGG 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted The sources only mention that carriage of such a channel is a stipulation of the current MLB Extra Innings deal. There has been no official announcement about the launch of such a network, or any management for it. One of the cited items was from 2004, about a previous plan for an MLB network which was shelved when MLB and Fox attempted to launch a sports network [18]. Those plans were abandoned when the two failed to get the NFL cable package that went to NFL Network. Only when there's more info about the network, that does not have to do with Extra Innings should an article be created. Milchama 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That no "official announcement exists" is not reason to ignore the reliable sources which discuss the potential network and the fact that it has been discussed and abandoned at least once before. As I noted, its long "vaporware" status arguably makes it more encyclopedic. FCYTravis 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn since it seems clear there are sufficient sourcesDGG 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was on AfD. The discussion was closed early by User:Daniel.Bryant. After discussion on his talk page here, he reversed himself, saying "I have overturned my closure and relisted on the basis of substantial new information and arguments. Fellow administrators, please let this run at least another five days from today (see my sig for date) before closing, to let the debate which was shut down too early by myself complete itself, before making a decision." However, User:Drini nevertheless closed only a few hours later, with the edit summery "don't be a dick". I was on the point of adding a comment to the AfD when Drini closed, and I asked him twice on his talk page to reverse himself. he refuesed, explicitly citing WP:IAR as his justification. (See this exchange) As I was composing a post to Deletion Reveiw, User:Matt Crypto reverted Drini's close. Perhaps I should have brought the matter here at once. Insted I added my comment to the re-opened AfD, as did several other editors. Then Daniel Bryant, objecting quite reasonably to Matt Crypto's revert, reveted to Drini's close, thus removing my comments and those of four other editors, made in good faith. He also altered his own earlier request to let the AfD run, significantly reducing its strength to a "suggestion" and removing the mention of the full five days. There are several process problems here, IMO. There was no consensus to delete at the time of Drini's close (and not a clear one at the time of the earlier undone clsoe), but he closed it as a delete. Matt Crypto should not have simply reverted Drini's close (although if IAR aupports one out-of-process action, perhaps it supports a revert of it). Daniel Bryant in undoing Matt Crypto's action, should not have reveerted the commetns of five other editors. Drini's close was based on his judgement of the notability issues, but it was not supported by a consensus, and early closes (particularly when undoing a prior decison to relist) should have a clear consensus, IMO. Some editors had raised WP:BLP issues, but argumets i find persuasive said that these do not apply: the informatiuon is well sourced, is not particularly negative or controversial, and the Qian Zhijun himself has created a website on which he publicizes the facts involved, so he must not find them overly embarrasing or harmful. I request that the early closes be Overturned, and that the articel be Relisted, with all prior commets included, and that we all be more wary of a rush to judgemetn in future. DES ^(talk) 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted the process is a mess - so let's stick to the 'facts': this is a WP:BLP article about a fat teenager who was made fun of on the internet, and got his unfortunate 15 min of fame in some newspapers that were used to wrap chips the next day. We don't need this. Whilst it might merit a mention on Sick things people have done on the internet, the child victim certainly does not merit a perpetual wikipedia biography. Let's not be dicks.--Doc^g 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't belive that is an accurate assessment of the situation. We usually consider continuing coverage in major newspapers worthy of note. I made that argument more fully in My AfD comment, which is the place for it. I am asking here that a proper discussion of you views and those who hold quite different views be allowed to complete on AfD. Note that at the time Drini closed, i count 6 dels and 5 keeps, with significant argumetns each way -- hardly consensus to delete. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not worth debating - and certainly not vote counting over. Get a grip. We are better than this.--Doc^g 01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh for heaven's sake what a ridiculous reason for coming to deletion review. It's bollocks and it must die. Fuck process before it fucks this kid's life even worse than it has been already. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If he felt that his life was "fucked" by this, he would not be acting as he is -- continuing to publicize the matter himself. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That he participates in his own degradation does not excuse us from our obligations to him as a human being. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument doesn't make sense. In building an encyclopedia, we should not pick and choose which topics to cover based on whether we feel sorry for them or not. Under this argument, we should not cover unfortunate details of anyone's life. The only obligation we really have to him as a human being is to cover the topic neutrally and from secondary sources. Mangojuice^talk 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Drini's close (and that of Daniel.Bryant before) is entirely valid and should never have been overruled. Daniel.Bryant was right to restore it and to remove comments made after a valid close. The weight of WP:BLP concerns and our basic responsibility to act responsibly in providing encyclopedic content clearly trump the weak appeal to WP:NOT#CENSORED made in the discussion. We do not keep negative pages about people of borderline notability. The closer's reading of the debate was in my opinion correct. WjBscribe 01:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I commented on the original AfD I was asked to come here. My response will be the same as it always is, then; what I have to say in the original AfD stands as is, and everyone commenting on the DRV or determining the correct outcome should be reading the AfD anyway. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure -There is no evidence that this person's life has any lasting encyclopedicity, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of recording for posterity anyone who ever had their picture photoshopped. Whether or not the fact that his picture was photoshopped is encyclopedic, the person himself most certainly is not. FCYTravis 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) - I'm reconsidering this one, mainly because of the evidence that he's become a willing participant in his own fame by starting a Web site for it, etc. FCYTravis 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not "recording for posterity anyone who ever had their picture photoshopped"; only the ones who've had extensive media coverage in The Times, China Daily, and the BBC, and who therefore meet our notability requirements. --DeLarge 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Drini's close is a terrible reading of the debate (if you can even call it that - I believe he's simply advancing a completely new argument in the closure) and there was not consensus. Furthermore, the BLP concerns are bollocks here - there is nothing negative in the article that I can find, and even if there was, everything in there is backed up in reliable sources. I'd rather there weren't a bunch of admin reversions in this, but Drini's closure effectively took the result completely out of the hands of the community, and given that (1) there is no complaint here from the subject, (2) I would think we might have learned our lesson after Daniel Brandt, and (3) the argument on which this is deleted is not supported even in the BLP policy. Relist because in a BLP case consensus ought to be found, not given up on. But, if anything, the keep arguments were stronger here. Mangojuice^talk 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I am now informed that the inital closure was not early, and I have struck that word above. I was misled by the words "premature" and "too early" which was used in the relisting comment. Instead it was reopened for "new information" DES ^(talk) 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn, and don't relist. When you have multiple reliable sources referring to him as one of the most famous faces in China, it's a done deal. Period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close it was a mess, and I !voted keep there. But now in light of the BLP concerns it is appropriate to put it under Intermet meme article instead a biography. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• R.I.P. - seems like the AfD and the DRV here turned into a huge mess (which I have no intention to delve into) and, from the procedural point of view, the whole process should be scrapped and restarted. BUT, quite surprisingly, the AfD ended in a correct decision to delete an article on a person of borderline notability, and I believe the AfD was started as a part of more major action of pruning Wikipedia from awful articles like that. In the end, WP:UCS (which is a part of one of the most important WP policies) should be applied when all else fails, and common sense tells us this article is even less encyclopedic, needed or having any serious point than one on a Pokemon. I hereby declare I am willing to endorse deletion of this article in any further AfDs or DRVs, if this one will not be successful, no matter how many it will take to get rid of it. With Wikipedia growing in quantity and not quality every day, pruning it of weed is one of the most important tasks not to let this wonderful work of so many people deteriorate into irrelevance. PrinceGloria 02:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this remotely borderline? Seriously, I can't see how one can look at the sources and call it borderline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I can't see how one can look at the number of actual articles that link to it and not consider it redundant. PrinceGloria 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see why that's relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is relevant in that it shows the article is irrelevant - I mean, without any proper Wikilinks TO it, the article is unlikely to be ever accessed. This article solely exists by the merit that there are some sources for it, but it doesn't mean that we should keep it - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just a collection of all info one can find. This is an article on a guy whose face was featured in an Internet meme, itself a phenomenon of questionable notability, it would be like having lenghty bios of people whose photos were taken from the stock to adorn some billboards (that said, I am almost sure some of those linger somewhere on WP, sadly). I doubt it anybody would be really searching for this guy on Wikipedia, and if somebody was really really really that interested, they can do the same google search people did to cobble together the sources for the article. We've had repeated requests for Infiniti G20 paint codes here (and I am being dead serious here), and still we don't provide them. Why should we carry an article nobody asked for? PrinceGloria 11:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If someone created it, it's apparent someone is asking for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn - 1. The AfD was closed improperly - it should've been keep by the consensus (I see even a delete vote was just a vote) with well supported arguments and the closing admin cited their own arbitrary AfD reasoning of "internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not" to close it rather than being an independent un-biased judge of the AfD consensus. 2. Clearly multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources primarily about the topic. --Oakshade 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Viewing in procedural terms, there is no convinceing argument that the article should be deleted. Bad taste is not an argument. Until I read the pruning policy, I'll work to improve wiki by improving it. DDB 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for starters, obviously, and relisting is probably the best procedural call. Endorsing deletion when the process has been so contentious seems like incredibly poor judgement, while overturning and not relisting would undoubtedly upset those who support deletion (although God knows I can't see a policy which remotely supports them). My more expansive comments at User talk:Daniel.Bryant#Deletion of Qian Zhijun are to do with content, not process. I'd also support the comments of User:Mangojuice, who seems to be one of the few people here actually citing WP:BLP accurately; even for private figures (I reckon Qian Zhijun is semi-public thanks to his subsequent participation in perpetuating his own infamy) the recommendation is to "include only material relevant to their notability...When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." That's "pare back", not "delete entirely". Since the content met WP:ATT and WP:NPOV as well as WP:BIO, I really don't see the problem here. Don't think internet phenomena are encyclopedic? Then get a policy which supports you on that, don't misuse existing ones which say no such thing. --DeLarge 09:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addended comment regarding User:Drini's first reason for deletion: "the internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not". In fact, the original article was entitled "Little Fatty" after the phenomenon's more common name. However, user:Matt Crypto redirected it to Qian Zhijun, which I viewed as correct since "Little Fatty" was more likely to be a BLP violation despite WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. --DeLarge 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, valid closure by both Daniel Bryant and Drini (and the fact that Daniel was having second thoughts but then supported Drini's decision only supports this). Correct decision, as per PrinceGloria, Kat Walsh and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, just let it die at this point. The whole thing has been mismanaged, just let it go and, if people really feel that it is such a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, maybe somebody can try again in a few months, in a more sensitive manner. Bahamut0013 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't come back in a few months because recreation of deleted material is a criteria for speedy deletion. An alternative might be to ask why you can't "let it die" and come back in a few months to see if it's become any less notable? Multiple AfDs are, by contrast, quite routine. --DeLarge 11:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Because it is established policy that we err on the side of caution when dealing with biographies of living persons. Simple as that. FCYTravis 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's entirely cautious to write from the sources, which had been done. BLP is not designed to whack articles like this, and the use of it as a tool to remove information like this is exactly the kind of slippery slope many of us predicted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted - I can only echo the sentiments of Kat, Tony, Doc Glasgow and PrinceGloria. -- Nick ^t 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted as above. I agree with the close. Eusebeus 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and Keep Deleted. Seems a reasonable closure per the above. As an aside, if the kid does become a target for the Chinese authorities in the future, I'm sure it can be mentioned in a relevant article; in the meantime this article is merely trivia. --kingboyk 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, strongly. We've matured a great deal since the bad old days when wikipedia was dumping ground for every random forum meme and teh-funny-lol photoshop picture. Valid AfD, valid close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we can call this maturity. Have you actually read the sources? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I do not appreciate closings out of process. I do not see this as a BLP issue, since the subject of the article has appeared in publicity events to capitalize on it. It is not a "15 minutes of fame" issue, since it has lasted FOUR YEARS! There is sufficient independent substantial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:A. Edison 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Fuck process. This will die. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason to kill it - it meets every reasonable standard we have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Embrace process. But what is much more improtant in this case, embrace a well-sourced articel that is supported by all relevant policies, and contravenes none. This should live. DES ^(talk) 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion - The subject passes the notability test, and as long as there's sources to back it up, then this article should exist. I realize that "because X exists, so should Y" is generally not a stong argument, but if the Star Wars kid is noteworthy enough for inclusion, then so is the fatty IMO. Tarc 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Well-written and well-sourced article about a notable subject. The keep arguments were far more convincing and the closure by Drini was more like another opinion than a reading of the discussion. Prolog 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Daniel Bryant reversed himself, which was legitimate. He did it within 1.5 hours, so relisting the existing debate was not a significant procedural error that we need concern ourselves with. However, Drini's close is not an attempt to reflect the consensus of the discussion, it is a new argument. He should have made that argument and not closed the debate. As such, I find that close invalid. With no valid close, this needs to be overturned. Additionally, the number of keep comments the discussion received after Drini's invalid close are evidence that there was not any consensus for deletion. This absolutely needs to be overturned, my only question is whether to relist or just plain overturn. I think relisting is better, but since I find none of the delete arguments persuasive, I wouldn't object to a straight overturn. GRBerry 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. There was no consensus for delete in the debate, it seems that the closing admin ignored all rules and considered his personal opinions as the opinion of the Wikipedia comunity.--MariusM 07:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I'm getting the sense here that something about the article got under people's skin, and even though it's sourced and fully compliant with our policies, people who just didn't like it were very insistent like Tony Sidaway up there that "this must die," quality sourcing and embrace of the publicity by the kid himself be damned. If Brian Peppers put up a website of his own and embraced the internet publicity by interviewing for newspapers, would we still have to worry about if we're giving him undesired publicity? There's nothing wrong with covering internet phenomena, even ones that show people in a negative light. We just featured Bus Uncle on the main page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If Brian Peppers put up a website of his own and embraced the internet publicity by interviewing for newspapers, would we still have to worry about if we're giving him undesired publicity? - Yes - we're not an advertising site for media whores. -- Nick ^t 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Cough cough.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Category:Big Brother contestants and Category:American Idol participants. I thought the whole point of WP:NOTE (or WP:IDONTLIKEIT for that matter) was to prevent arbitrary and subjective definitions of what constituted encyclopedic subject matter. --DeLarge 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill it dead - are we an encyclopedia or are we fark.com? If we're fark.com, then by all means, let's have threads articles on the meme of the day. --BigDT 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this isn't afd. The question is whether the deletion was legitimate, not if you like the article or not. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men in skirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

1. The reason given for speedy deletion - "recreation of deleted material" is not true. The deleting admin had assumed this, and has been proved wrong. As the author of this article, I was unaware of the previous, related article entitled Male Unbifurcated Garment, which was deleted about this time last year. My article has a different focus, being about the subculture rather than the garment, describing the issues involved and offering valuable resources and information about it.

2. The deleting admin, User:JzG, appears to be advancing a personal prejudice, as evidenced in the recent discussion on his talk page (archived here - PLEASE READ), and by his proclivity for deleting all related discussions, eg. on Talk:Men in skirts recently (which contained a valuable debate), again giving spurious reasons and offering no debate or warning prior to deletion; and by his inability to defend his position, offering up excuse after excuse and being defeated rationally on all of them.

3. The deleting admin's strong influence in deleting the related article last year adds more weight to the above. I and others have recently posited strong arguments for the undeletion of that article, which have also been ignored.

Bards 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stongly and absolutely endorse my deletion, obviously. This conept is already covered in skirt and dress#Male wear, also at kilt. The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums. We have deleted this or similar at Male Unbifurcated Garment and Men's fashion freedom, we've had endless problems with WP:UNDUE at skirt and dress and high-heeled shoe among others, and there has never been a credible argument that we need more than the section in skirt and dress. I'm also sick of being told that the removal of this content is due to my personal bias. A lot of people have looked at a lot of debates, and the result has been pretty consistent. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion - the article was utter bullshit. Even the title is complete unencyclopedic bullshit. -- Nick ^t 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title was originally capitalised as "Men In Skirts", aka MIS - a popular name for the movement. It was unilateraly changed to "Men in skirts", again without any debate or warning. I can't remember who changed it, and now I am unable to find out. It wouldn't have been one of these admins here, perchance - as part of the application of their godlike and therefore "correct" prejudice - surely not?! For The Truth will come out in the end, right? Bards 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For values of "popular" which amount to around 140 unique Google hits outside of Wikipedia, many of whihc turn out to be unrelated. Your definition of "popular" may need a little work. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could remind me who changed it (with zero debate or prior warning)? Bards 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to remind you that Google is not a reliable indicator of notability, according to Wiki policy at WP:GHITS. Bards 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion pretty much per Guy. WP:UNDUE applies here, as does WP:IWEARTHEM and WP:BEENTHROUGHTHISMANYTIMESBEFORE. – Steel 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/list at afd as the deleted article did not meet CSD G4. It's about the same topic but this speedily deleted article had much more content and many sources than the AFD'd ones, and the sources seemed credible at a glance. Not saying I'd vote to keep in an AFD, but this wasn't a clean speedy deletion, sorry. If the community deletes this version at AFD, yes I'd agree there's pretty clear consensus against giving an article to this topic. --W.marsh 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of it was also the work of a now-blocked disruptive sockpuppet, Man in a skirt (talk · contribs), formerly Mugaliens (talk · contribs), formerly Dr1819 (talk · contribs). Guy (Help!) 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which says nothing about the quality of the article or the validity of the deletion process, unless the editor was banned so that even valid contributions should be rejected. Note also that I don't see anything particualrly "disruptive" in this user's edits. DES ^(talk) 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The start of the debate I have linked to above, shows clearly that JzG assumed I was another sockpuppet of that user, and that was the basis of his speedy deletion. He was wrong, but is refusing to rectify his error - why not? Bards 23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Loaded question. – Steel 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems straightforward to me, although the answer may not be one you like. JzG's replies below clearly indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT, although he claims WP:UNDUE. Neither of them justifies speedy deletion, but I can see how his emotional reaction prompted him to be ruthless. Bards 00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore, then place on AfD The purpose of a deletion review is to determine, not if an article meets the criteria for deletion, but whether the process by which an article was deleted was in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. it is a review of the process that was used. User JzG misinterpreted criterion for deletion G4. This applies only if the article content is substantially identical to an article previously deleted. Bards states that he created 'Mens in skirts' from scratch, unaware of the earlier articles. There is no reason to doubt this, so it is reasonable to assume good faith and accept it. It is thus highly unlikely that 'Men in skirts' was substantially identical to any of the earlier deleted articles. I also think that the discussions JzG had with Bards indicate that JzG is not impartial, and in this frame of mind may not have made a proper judgement when he deleted 'Men in skirts'. It is also notable that JzG, in his comment here, fundamentally misunderstands the scope of English Wikipedia with the statement: "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums". English Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia about the world, but written in the English language. It is thus appropriate for English Wikipedia to properly reflect the wearing of unbifurcated garments by men throughout the world, not just the West. I don't know if the article meets the criteria for deletion, but I think that the wider community should decide this. Alan Pascoe 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I think I understand the scope of the English Wikipedia tolerably well. I have one or two contributions to my name and I have been an admin for a little while. Perhaps you could refrain from joining the hysterical accusations of bias? The article was a largely uncited essay about how awfully clever those few brave souls are who choose to wear skirts in defiance of fashion norms, and how terribly significant the movement is likely to become, and how afully downtrodden they are and... well, we've seen it all before. Textbook WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "hysterical bias" is showing again, JzG. If you wish to tell people what the article was like, in order to persuade them, restore the article and let them read it for themselves. Please do not even attempt to paraphrase the entire article in your own demeaning terms. Bards 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was indeed as JzG describes. Considering it was written by pro-skirt wearers, this shouldn't come as a surprise. – Steel 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good reason for speedy deletion. What's wrong with AfD? Bards 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOOO - endorse deletion and nuke this crap on sight. --Doc^g 22:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)(A proud kilt wearer)[reply]

• WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bards 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like violations of WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT either. – Steel 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think anything in the aticle is WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, you need to say what needs attribution, what is NPOV, and what and where it is NOT. For that discussion, we also need the article restored and put through AfD. Wagging your finger vaguely over the whole thing doesn't get us anywhere, and certainly doesn't justify a speedy deletion. Bards 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we please just put this on AfD and get it done and over with already? List. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD This is not substantially similar to the article deleted under the name of Male Unbifurcated Garment, it is simialr only in that it deals with a related topic. Therefore, this is not a G4 (recreatd content) speedy. Furhtermore it included multiple references to reliable sources, although more would be needed for the articlek to remain. Whether this article is to be merged, or deleted, or modified, should be the subject of a consensus discussion. It should not have been speedy deleted. Let matters be discussed in the usual way. If JzG is correct that Wikipedia does not want this article we will see so after 5 days of AfD. Note that we have pleanty of articles on the actions of small vocal groups, prexcisely because they are vocal and unusual, they are often notable, provide that the articel keeps a neutral PoV there is no problem with this. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at AFD. If the movement isn't notable enough for a full article, then at least we can salvage the best-referenced parts for merging into Skirt and dress. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. I do not see the reason for CSD G4. Perhaps AfD would have been fine, but not a speedy delete. I now doubt my decision to delete Million Skirted Men as WP:CSD#G4, so I'll restore it. --Ezeu 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The article as it exists is written in a stridently POV manner and lacks reliable sourcing. This is without prejudice to a sourced, encyclopedically-toned rewrite, provided such is possible. Try userspace. I will provide the content of the deleted page should it be requested to assist in that effort. FCYTravis 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It is true that the article did not fall strictly under the letter of CSD G4, as it was not a straight recreation of the material. However, it is still an article on the same topic, in the same improper tone, with the same problems with lack of sourcing and undue weight that were previously deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. Krimpet (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Based on the comment, "The male skirt-wearing movement in the West is restricted to a few small but very vociferous forums" it seems that the subject would certainly be notable. Small but vociferous groups are very often notable, because people notice them. The argument: I know its notable, but it still shouldn't be in WP can be translated as idontlikeit . DGG 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be true if someone had actually noticed them. Sources, please? FCYTravis 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want sources you should demand them, not speedily delete the article. Bards 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion article appeared to be one massive piece of original research. A it has existed in a different form but the same basic material and hasn't substantially addressed the issues of the original AFD the G4 deletion seems reasonable. --pgk 07:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"one massive piece of original research" is your personal oipinion, which others would dispute. It does not justify a speedy delete without discussion. Bards 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy, list at AfD Substantively different article. Whether this is OR, NN or POV falls in the purview of AfD, where everybody can look at, and possibly improve, the article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, list at AfD It doesn't look like this specific article was ever deleted at AFD, so it is not a recreation. Perhaps it has addressed the concerns of the similar AFDs, perhaps not. This isn't the sort of judgment a single person should make. --Samuel Wantman 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Movement for males being able to freely wear unbifurcated garment in Western society, (and male wear of unbifurcated garment in general) is ceirtanly notable and wikipedia should have one article about it. While it existed, Men in skirts was only such article and now, there is no such article. ---antiXt 10:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC) — Antixt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Whilt it existed, Male Unbifurcated Garment was an article about it. Deleted by consensus. Then, while it existed, Men's fashion freedom was an article about it. Deleted by consensus. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, and restore - IT'S NOTABLE, per se. (Gawd, what do you have to do on Wikipedia to keep an article these days??)Also, its related fetish/practice of Male bikini-wearing (which has been debated countless times, anyone know where the debates are?? I can remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male bikini-wearing (2nd nomination) but that's about it!) is notable too, so we should list that here. --DenmarkEuroB11 10:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC) — DenmarkEuroB11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why do I suspect that User:DenmarkEuroB11 is a sock-puppet? It just seems fishy that a new user goes directly to this page and makes these comments.—Gaff ^ταλκ 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been here before, ages ago.... I won't deny it. It was 2 years ago I last edited here (not that that's of any real importance!). --DenmarkEuroB11 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Speedy, list at AfD for the reasons above stated, article did not qualify for speedy delete. It is important to be fair. We should confine this discussion to whether it did or did not meet speedy deletion criteria. Bsherr 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) — Bsherr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Endorse deletion. Whatever you call it, MIS or MUG, it's the same topic, and this topic has already been decided as non-notable. It doesn't matter if you rewrite it with different words, if the topic is prima facie non-notable, it doesn't need to go through AfD every time. What's next? Skirts worn by men? Unbifurcated clothing worn by men? It's still a duck. Corvus cornix 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your inability to discriminate between related but essentially different articles only shows your prejudice and your ignorance. One was about the garment; mine was about the subculture. As a side note, I will direct you to Category:skirts, where (imo) an article titled ""Skirts for men" covering those sold, for instance, by Midas Clothing, would be a useful addition - as detailed, for instance, at Mindstation. Articles on notable companies such as Midas Clothing and Menintime would also fit well in Category:Clothing manufacturers. Your ignorance of the subject is a very good reason to add a whole range of articles about it to Wikipedia. It is not advocacy; it is information. If you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you can choose to not read it. If you WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I suggest you find out a few things before stating an opinion. Bards 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bards, it seems the world divides into two: those who support having this content, and those who are prejudiced and ignorant. The only problem is, per our many previous debates, that means only a tiny minority of the world is anything other than prejudiced and ignorant. This is, of course, quite likely true, but Wikipedia is not the place to fix the prejudice and ignorance of the rest of the world. And that is why you are having trouble here. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• JzG, you are wrong in your assessment of me. There are some arguments against me which seem reasonable, and some which do not. I am refuting the unreasonable ones. As I see it, there is a small minority of the world who are vociferously opposed to this article, with you amongst them. If it was the whole world, I would concede defeat. Probably. Bards 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Bards. Apparently only those who are prejudiced could possibly oppose this, apparently it's intuitively obviously notable, and only the ignorant and the prejudiced could not vote in lock step with you. Corvus cornix 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not accuse you of bad faith, Corvus. Ignorant is a descrptive word meaning lack of knowledge or understanding of a subject. I presume you are prejudiced, as I can't see other reasons for your unwillingness to study the subject before voicing an opinion on it. From what I can gather (not being able to read them), the previous articles appear to have been substantially different in both coverage and intent, and you lump them together, making no distinction. Bards 23:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said before, the subject has already had consensus as to not be notable. Whether you use different words or not, that doesn't change the fact that there's no there there. Corvus cornix 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore There exist similar articles on fashion in subcultures like Goth subculture, Heavy metal fashion, etc. Hardly a week goes by without a article about 'skirts for men' (eg. search 'kilt fashion' on news.google.com), so the topic is not unnoticeable and I gather many people who'd like more info about it, turn to Wikipedia. Jan — Jbruyndonckx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse per Guy and Steel. Bulldog123 18:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give any of your own argument for it? --antiXt 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list Clearly not a valid deletion under WP:CSD#G4, as this deleted article is several times longer than the prior versions at either Male Unbifurcated Garment or Men's fashion freedom, even several times longer than both of those combined. It also has nine citations to sources, while those two articles had a total of zero. (On the other hand, 9 source citations isn't even one per paragrpah, so I'm sure that sourcing could be better.) This is enough to prove that it is substantially different from the articles deleted via AFD. Since G4 does not apply, and a PROD would obviously be disagreeed with, listing at AFD is the correct next step. GRBerry 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list per GRBerry. If it's not the same text (even approximately), it's not G4. I will decide if it's deletable when I can read it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique A. Pollack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I recreated the article because I had found other articles to show his "notability" Such as the Cuban government mentioning him in a formal protest to the United Nations.. I believe that the new article that I created is sufficiently credited and refrenced to be included in Wilkipedia. I woul like to request to have it reinstalled and see if there are any more problems with it from others. Callelinea 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. There were two new sources: one didn't even talk about the guy (just mentioned him as a witness to something), and the other was something from the Cuban government that didn't really talk about him either. I think it should be undeleted for the purpose of review, though. -Amarkov moo! 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. In many articles there is a lack of sources. I have added new sources and and am looking for more sources. Mr. Pollack has been a host of a popular South Florida radio show and has appeared in numerious TV shows discussing the Cuban government. Just because there are no specific published works on him does not mean he should be deleated. Plus it is not often that a government mention an individual to the United Nations by name. The problem with his original article is that it was written by the subject himself and was filled with POV.. The new article as I have presented it, takes away POV and states just facts.Callelinea 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, if there are "no specific published works on him", how can we verify the facts asserted in the article? Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. Perhaps he is a widely-noted activist and popular radio host, but without reliable sources to verify that, how do we really know? --MCB 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Duplicate "restore" struck out. The nomination itself is considered an argument to restore. --Coredesat 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore WP:DP says an article can be recreated after deletion without review if the editor wants to improve the article. Callelinea asked for me to review his work after he recreated the article and to offer suggestions. By the time I looked, it was already gone. I have no idea what was added so I can't comment further. I was one who voted for delete during the Afd discussion but I am certainly willing to take another look. I guess this was speedied but in the spirit of DP can it be reinstated pending some review of the work? Please note, this is not a request to restore the version that went through Afd, just the recreated one. JodyB _talk 01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored for review. This is a procedural matter and not an expression of opinion. FCYTravis 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find only the originally deleted article, not the revised one.DGG 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, try a permalink? -Amarkov moo! 04:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional references on Mr. Pollack to help show his notability..

• http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1114101-125240/unrestricted/Cobas_thesis.pdf
• Miami New Times, May 13, 2007
• The Miami Herald (by Jennifer Miller) July 25, 2001
• http://www.fiu.edu/~lacgsa/cafe.htm

I really must admit I am a little baffled by excess of proof required to prove that he is personality that merits an article.. Universities have had him debate on Cuba issues, the Cuban government has mentioned him by name in a written protest to the United Nations, He has an AM radio show heard throuout South Florida and parts of the carrebean. Callelinea 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The subject's notability is more than sufficient for an encyclopedia article. — Athaenara 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (see below) Endorse deletion for now. I'm afraid the new sources, which I had requested in the original AfD (when the article was called Henry Pollack, not sure of the reason for the move) just seem weird and obscure. If this guy is notable as an activist and major radio host, why is there hardly anything on him in normal, verifiable, mainstream media? Resorting to things like "being mentioned by the Cuban government", being interviewed as a bystander in a news article about something else, a single (not easily verifiable) newspaper article from 2001, and some obscure web pages (a brief mention in an unpublished Masters' thesis and a 1-line mention in a page about a minor educational forum) all all up to... well, very little. These sources do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, excepting possibly the Miami Herald and Miami New Times -- neither articles are linked online, titles are not given and they are thus hard to verify). Notable people are easy to identify; you don't have to go digging through obscure and semi-relevant sources for 1-line mentions of them. Perhaps Mr. Pollack will become more notable in the future, but for now he seems like a very minor figure. --MCB 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps I am new to this but to me an online encyclopedia should be very inclusive and not exclusive. Mr. Pollack's radio show has a large following both in South Florida and in Cuba where it is heard also. He has been on the air for over 10 years. He has a political web site that has been online for almost 10 years also. Besides that he has appeared in many local South Florida programs, has been interviewed many times by local papers ( yes maybe only a line or two) because he is a well-known local personality. And he caused enough of a ruckus during the Human Rights discussion by the UN in Geneva that the Cuban government felt it was necessary to mention him by name and explain his actions in a formal protest to United Nations. I a not going to get petty but I looked over an article that you mentioned in your list of articles mentioned JTV and the only reference that is given for that small local cable TV station is a link to its own web site. I feel that this article merits inclusion much more than that article but I also believe that both articles have a place here. Callelinea 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Alright here are some more articles. The first one is actually all about Mr. Pollack and the rest he shows up prominantly in them.. I searched them in a newspaper web search engine ( http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives) he was easy to find. These show the name of the newspaper, the date of the article, and the title of the article.
      • El Nuevo Herald - May 19, 2000 - HENRY POLLACK: VEHEMENCIA ALTERNATIVA
      • The Miami Herald - July 25, 2001 - E-MAIL VIRUS ARRIVES IN MESSAGE PURPORTEDLY FROM CUBA
      • The Miami Herald - August 25, 1998 - CUBAN MUSICIANS FACE PROTEST
      • El Nuevo Herald - October 18, 1996 - RADIO REBELDE Y EMISORA DEL EXILIO UNEN FUERZAS PARA EMERGENCIA DE CICLON
      • El Nuevo Herald - September 23, 1996 - RADIO DE CUBA REHUSA DEBATE RADIAL CON MIAMI
      • The Miami Herald - August 22, 1995 - REACHING CUBA WITH ROCK 'N' ROLL
      • El Nuevo Herald - August 22, 1995 - HAVANA ROCK: NUEVAS ONDAS DE LIBERTAD RADIAL A CUBA

Does this help in changing the minds of those of you who do not believe he is notable or that he does not have enough references?Callelinea 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and keep, including the new sources above. These are exactly the kind of things that Wikipedia needs as sources -- that is, multiple independent reliable sources as to the notability of the subject and the facts asserted in the article. I'm confident that any notable contemporary figure will have references like these, and it is not necessary to rely on obscure and oblique references. Excellent work by Callelinea, and especial thanks for acquainting me with NewsBank. --MCB 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Knowledge Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Sources are Reliable and Reason for Delete was Frivolous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs) I would like the page "24 Hour Knowledge Factory" to be reopened. The reasons for its deletion were nothing more than a handful of wikipedians marking it as spam, 'akin to a Dilbert cartoon', or 'created by a pair of single-use accounts'. Below is a copy of the deletion 'conversation':

This is blatant spam created by a pair of single purpose accounts ConfuciusOrnis 07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - without prejudice to recreation. Spammy article that sounds like it comes from a Dilbert cartoon Part Deux 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as it's spam. Acalamari 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. Lemonsawdust 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment - this isn't anything to spam. At best it's a concept that's written like a business paper, and it mgiht actually be worthy of inclusion, but I have to do more research first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Noted. Can you hit my talk page if you find something? I'll change my mind if you can. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to "offshoring" - although it would be a shame to lose an article that's had so much written on it, it boils down to saying "people in different time zones are awake at different times" in 10000 words - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Part Deux. obvious spam. ffm ✎talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reviewers have stated that there is nothing to spam, with another agreeing if anything else could be found. Another has said that it boils down to saying ""people in different time zones are awake at different times" in 10000 words", attesting to their and others' lack of reading the sources and understanding the concept behind this article. Does this mean that just because a few contributors do not 'get' the article, that it can be deleted at their leisure?

One reviewer posted twice that it is spam, and others have said so with what looks like no review at all. Does garnishing extra support by one's buddies to label something as spam without any review whatsoever really allow for deletion?

It took me a substantial amount of time to write this article, and the entire thing was done in good faith, with extremely reliable sources, that apparantly people have not taken the time to read. The bias is easily seen in the comments above: the idea is being made fun of, and others are professing their criterion for deletion to be based on what they think is laughable about the article. This is completely unprofessional and a waste of this author's time. I would sincerely appreciate that the views of those who are 'single purpose users' are looked at with the same amount of respect as those who are constantly using wikipedia, as I feel as though I have been blindsided just because I am not a consistent user.

I understand that it was already deleted, but being a novice, I did not create a back-up of the page, and would enjoy to have my information returned. Additionally, I do not understand where the contention of 'unreliable sources' comes from, as 100% of the work comes from academic papers published by scientists. What is unreliable? Has anyone read any of the papers and/or sources? If these are unreliable, what is reliable? They are posted on SSRN, one of the world's leading sources of academic papers. And, the information provided in the link above is documented by a well respected news source. What is unreliable?

I implore you to please check the Social Science Research Network for this global work paradigm and read over some of the many papers that deal with this new framework. Many companies including IBM have adopted and are in the trial stages of testing the efficacy of this paradigm. A link to one of the most recent research grants given to [Dr. Amar Gupta], the creator of this paradigm, is here:

http://www.eller.arizona.edu/news/2007/01/09_IBM_honors_MIS_and_Entrepreneurship_professor_Amar_Gupta.aspx

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion, every edit seems... problematic. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? How can you endorse a deletion without giving any substantive reason for doing so other than "...problematic"? Please give some constructive criticism, or, if something is so problematic, then be a wikipedian and edit it yourself! But don't endorse someone's hard work for reasons that you cannot put into words! --Yuu.david 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, I am unable to find any versions which are compliant with policy and guidelines. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Not spam, but this has been through AfD already, and I've added the proper link above. I tried to rescue this when I found it on CSD and couldn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have just said that it is not spam, so the reason for it initially being deleted - that it was spam - is essentially refuted by your statements here. How can it be that my article is deleted for being spam, but then cannot be brought back even though you state now that it is 'not spam'? You are endorsing this for deletion on the fact that it is administratively unjust to bring back an article that has already been deleted through AfD? Then what is the point of this deletion review? Please explain this to me. --Yuu.david 04:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, DRV nomination does not provide new reasons to refute consensus at the AfD. Corvus cornix 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, however my above contention is that the so-called 'consensus' is nonsense, as no substantial reasons were given in the first place. The article is not spam, and this was the only reason given! How can this be endorsed as delete-able on the grounds for deletion that it is spam when it is not spam at all?! I would sincerely appreciate at least one person explaining to me why this post that I spent hours creating is considered spam. Please, someone contribute to this page and let me know why, because this does not seem fair at all. --Yuu.david 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctantly endorse deletion I can userfy if someone wants to add independent sources to the article and make it more encyclopedic. Research by endowed chair faculty at top universities should get a bit more consideration than the commenters in the AfD have provided, but in the end it's the editors burden to provide evidence that the article matches our guidelines and provides evidence that the research has created an echo in the academic or business community. All sources I checked link back to Gupta himself, so they don't count as independent. ~ trialsanderrors 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As the paradigm is an idea-in-testing, and as it i being developed solely by GUpta and his team, other sources do not exist at this point. Is there any way that I could create a nwe article similar to the Globally Integrated Enterprise article, limiting the references to Gupta's work to one single link to his comprehensive website, and providing as many articles in the news referencing his idea? --Yuu.david 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case it probably won't survive an AfD. It seems to me an article Gupta himself is the better way to go, as long as he's better known than your average prof, and the article itself is not too spammy. ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion I second Trialanderrors request to userify for the sake of a work template. Sleep On It 08:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Tea Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Content Review Ssignature 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I request that you reopen the review into the page "Sweet Tea Queens", first of all, as the primary author, I was never notifed that the article was even under review. As to the lack of verifiable links, here is one: http://search.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020317/NEWS/203170368&SearchID=73280748848788 , a link to the full page article that appeared in the Spartanburg Herald Journal. Here is another from the Hendersonville, NC Times News. http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/EXTRAS07/608310318&SearchID=73280750027663 Belle Magazine does not keep online archives, nor does the Asheville Citizen, but here is a link to the scanned page that appears on the Sweet Tea Queens' website: http://www.sweetteaqueens.com/events/Belle/index.htm[reply]

South Carolina Magazine, does not have archives either, but, again, here is a scan of the actual article: http://www.sweetteaqueens.com/events/scmag/scmag.htm

For any other proof of media coverage that you would like, please contact me. The Sweet Tea Queens, while a chapter of the Sweet Potato Queens, are the most active chapter, in terms of media events and appearances and are something of local celebrities. Thanks for your consideration- user Ssignature

• Relist with these references per the closing statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• relist Only 3 opinions expressed and there was some ambivilance if the sources could be linked to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. New information provided. --Wafulz 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above, these seem to work. --Coredesat 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have temporarily restored and protected the page to facilitate the DRV discussion. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist though I think I will not support the article even as improved, we should discuss it there. DGG 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to contest permanent deletion of the Hollywood Undead entry on Wikipedia for the following reasons: Hollywood Undead is a viral phenomenon, and achieved media attention due to their cult-like following. They have been the focus of several articles and were named one of the top 5 "Bands You Discovered on MySpace" by AP music magazine. They broke several traffic records on MySpace and as a result were the first band signed to the newly created Interscope/MySpace Records label and were included in a MySpace Records compliation, titled "MySpace Records: Vol 1" http://www.amazon.com/Myspace-Records-Vol-Various-Artists/dp/B000BLI406

and http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Myspace_records

Their new record (Interscope/MySpace Records) is slated for release in the first/second quarter of 2007

Notable media attention: New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/fashion/sundaystyles/28MYSPACE.html?ex=1178942400&en=979d84b9df1414e4&ei=5070 (see second page of article)

USA TODAY: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-02-12-myspace-usat_x.htm

Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/coldplay/articles/story/8748875/foos_weezer_try_myspace

BusinessWire magazine: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-11153801.html

Slate Magazine: http://alacarte.lexisnexis.com/partners/int/google/landingpage.asp?id=12892177&mtid=1&ws=9j0hDk1UboE=&ws_pub=Slate%20Magazine&ws_date=April%2011,%202006&ws_len=1228&ws_lni=4JPB-MKK0-TX6T-R1TD-00000-00&ws_title=Tila%20Tequila%20for%20President&ws_refer=http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22hollywood+undead%22

Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/31/business/teensite.php

The Guardian (UK): http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,16373,1639138,00.html

San Jose Mercury News: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-11130008.html

Billboard: http://alacarte.lexisnexis.com/partners/int/google/landingpage.asp?id=13304474&mtid=1&ws=9j0hDk1UboE=&ws_pub=Billboard&ws_date=April%2022,%202006&ws_len=1439&ws_lni=4JS2-45H0-TX2X-D1RM-00000-00&ws_title=MAPPING%20PUT%20CAREERS&ws_refer=http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22hollywood+undead%22&um=1&sa=N&start=10

Thank you for any help you might be able to provide me. Feel free to contact me at my user page or [email protected] 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. They're mentioned way too often to not reconsider it here. I think there's enough to sustain an article, but that's for an AfD to decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. This is weird - the article has been deleted nine times; the list of deleting admins looks like a who's-who of Wikipedia admins. The article also has 144 edits. This band is clearly notable - those links above check out - so we should IAR and restore the article. I don't even know as it should be relisted, but whatever. But I will say why didn't you put those links in the article' and save us all this trouble. And if nobody wants to make the effort to put in the links... meh. Restore. Herostratus 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and create a new article. This article was last deleted in October. It's no longer salted, and you have plenty of sources, so just make a new one. The speedied versions were spam. --Coredesat 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What Coredesat said. Deleted version is out of date and not much use anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What Coredesat and JzG said. I've removed the article from the list of protected pages and it can be recreated now. FCYTravis 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But I will say why didn't you put those links in the article"

Block quote

Cozi Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not Notable Kcizas 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find information on who deleted the page, but I'd like to request that it be reinstated. The product has gotten press recently from a variety of notable sources including The Wall Street Journal: http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070404/synch-family-schedules/, The Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003578591_brier19.html, and USA Today: http://www.usaweekend.com/06_issues/061224/061224calendars.html.

• Speedy undelete, contested prod. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Compliance with Wiki guidelines TeachersCount 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeachersCount is a non-profit organization. The entry about TeachersCount was written in an encyclopedaic tone. Outside references are included. The format follows wikipedia formatting. Content taken from the TeachersCount website has been released under the GRFL guidelines, as per an email sent to wikimedia. I've written to Veinor asking why the entry was taken down once again. I don't see any compelling reason why. Please help!!!!

TeachersCount 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original Chitika page was created with every intent of being a balanced and unbiased representation of the company; however when the article was edited to include a small snippet of information about one of their products (that was admittedly biased), one of your administrators deleted the entire article, rather than the offending snippet. I politely ask that the original article (created on 12 April 2007), be restored Inasnap 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, doesn't actually appear to have been a spam deletion, but a woefully improper G4, which wouldn't apply to prodded articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Slap Rambling Man with a trout for saying 'General-4' in the deletion log in the most obvious situation where General-4 doesn't apply, but keep deleted as valid Articles-7 or General-11 deletion. No prejudice against creating an article that asserts notability and backs it up with reliable sources, as usual. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we undelete the history to be able to evaluate it for application of A7 or G11? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'cache' link at the top of this thread should show a representative example of what was in the article... not a G11, arguably an A7, at a glance. --W.marsh 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/afdSince the only previous deletion was a PROD, G4 isn't appropriate here. Send it to AFD where we can decide if this meets WP:CORP. --W.marsh 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Award Rambling man a trout for citing G4 on an article previously only deleted via PROD. The article was tagged for both G4 and WP:CSD#G11 (spam). The cache is representative of the final content. It sure looks like spam to me. I have no objection to giving it a run at AFD, even though I think it will need massive cleanup to avoid deletion. GRBerry 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most valuable comic books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was the thought of deleting it because "value" was not a proper thing to measure, but after I suggested that it be moved to List of most expensive comic books and be rewritten, all the comments seemed to agree with that idea, but the page was closed before any further discussion.And there are other similar article like most expensive paintings and list of most expensive photographs. Rodrigue 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, I wouldn't say the extent of the agreement implies the debate was about to turn around. However, I think this debate would not imply a restriction on creating a new article on List of most expensive comic books, which is certainly a distinct topic, but probably better to start fresh and provide sources. Mangojuice^talk 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Right now, the list is unsourced. If sourced, it will almost certainly violate copyright and therefore violate Wikipedia policy against posting other published lists. No new argument for overturning deletion has been made. It should be noted that Rodrigue has cheated, circumventing the AfD process by recreating the article under a barely different name, List of most expensive comic books, which is inappropriate. The previous AfD decided to delete, not to rename. Doczilla 07:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion Hugely overwhelming consensus. Frivolous DRV from user with history of trying to make WP:POINT in regards to this subject. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per consensus of AfD and no new arguments, or just userfy the list to Rodrigue. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfication is not necessary - if you read the AfD, you'll see he just copied a table on first appearences from another article claiming that the comics listed were the "most valuable." That table still exists in the original parent article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not endorse delition - why is this a copy vio? Why can't we make a copy vio free page if it is? - Peregrine Fisher 08:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Nobody said it was copyvio. Good grief, did you even read the AfD? Perhaps you are confusing it with the current article on AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, primary (and nominator's) complaint at AFD was original research, not bad naming. There is, obviously, no prejudice against creating a new, properly cited article (probably at the new name to address concerns that were raised), but if it's created the same way as the last one, it'll have to go too. No more guesswork, please! This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Xtifr _tälk 17:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FerrocementArmature drawing-1a.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:FerrocementArmature drawing-1a.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Upload log indicates this was a self-made image and uploader's (belated) comment at ifd [19] confirms this. If undeleted I will add an an appropriate copyright tag (probably gfdl-self) and add it to Ferrocement Nardman1 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming the picture is good and provides accurate specs and encyclopedic value, why not undelete it and add it to the article? So my vote, then, is conditional. If it's good, undelete. If it sucks (as many self-made things do), keep it deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, and also delete Image:Graphic01.gif which is the same image. This is clearly a case of a well-meaning user submitting an image they created but no longer own. See upload logs for original upload summaries. Also, even if they do own the copyright I'm not clear they aren't just giving Wikipedia permission to use the image, which is insufficient. Mangojuice^talk 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination, I'll work with the uploader on their talk page to properly tag the reuploaded image. Nardman1 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

someone sent me a message saying you're deleting this page. to all intents & purposes that's fine, I don't really mind, I just tried to increase the database slightly, if this is too much trouble I wont bother again, I'm not really that bothered anyway, Just trying to be helpful. All I would like to know is Why??? - the numpty who sent me the deletion request left the 'give reason for deletion here' text still intact, so it seemed a bit silly to me. If you want to delete it as it doesn't convene to regulations or whatever that's absolutely fine with me, I'd just like to understand why if possible, so if I decide to post anything further I wont make the same mistake - thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyB3004 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]